Subaru STi deadly accident, driven by teens - CLOSED

[fj1200]

That's what you said:

 

I thought you would have picked up on my references to likelihood and probability. My bad.

 

Your logic indicates that you don't think that accident would have happened, or think it would have been less likely to have happened, had he been driving a WRX instead of an STi.

 

WRX and STi?

 

...

Statistics prove smaller, sportier cars are driven at higher rates of speed by younger, riskier drivers. Because they're involved in more accidents, they're more expensive to insure.

...

Horsepower can directly impact the cost of your insurance. The more horsepower your vehicle has, the likelier you are to drive at faster speeds and as such, the higher the risk of an accident.

...

Thinking of buying a sports car? Be prepared to pay higher insurance premiums. Insurance companies know owners of sports cars go faster than the general driving population and as such, they're at risk of having accidents more frequently -- and more seriously -- than drivers of minivans, for example.

...

First, insurance for younger drivers is almost always more expensive than it is for older drivers. In the eyes of insurers, driving experience means a lot.

...

http://www.kbb.com/car-advice/articles/the-most-expensive-and-least-expensive-cars-to-insure/?r=641800473676994400

 

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

Some of the reasons young people are susceptible to a high percentage of vehicular accidents make logical sense; other reasons might surprise you. Following are a few significant factors contributing to traffic accidents among young people. Many of them overlap.

• LACK OF EXPERIENCE
  
• THE PROPENSITY TO TAKE RISKS
  
• DRIVING WITH TEENAGE PASSENGERS
  
• DISTRACTIONS
  
• DRIVING AT NIGHT
  
• DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
  
• USE OF SEATBELTS
  

http://drive2.subaru.com/Win09/Win09_ParentTeen.htm

 

Unfortunately, those kids ticked off most of the risk factors.

[BAC5.2]

I thought you would have picked up on my references to likelihood and probability. My bad.

 

Yes, you were very clear when you said "This won't happen" in response to Robin's comment about false solace in an low power car.

 

WRX and STi?

 

What?

 

http://www.kbb.com/car-advice/articles/the-most-expensive-and-least-expensive-cars-to-insure/?r=641800473676994400

 

That's a great article to support my point. It's the drivers at fault, not the vehicle.

 

http://drive2.subaru.com/Win09/Win09_ParentTeen.htm

 

Unfortunately, those kids ticked off most of the risk factors.

 

Also a fantastic article which indicates nothing about the vehicle causing the accident.

[SCASEYS]

this thread isn't locked yet?

if it goes there, we have 2-3 others on the exact same accident

blame game goes this way driver>parents>vehicle

[fj1200]

Yes, you were very clear when you said "This won't happen" in response to Robin's comment about false solace in an low power car.

 

What?

 

Yes, I was unclear. I had a higher opinion of the reader than was justified. I also notice you keep referencing WRX vs. STi and M3 vs. M5 as opposed to higher performance vs. "slow-ass 4 banger."

 

That's a great article to support my point. It's the drivers at fault, not the vehicle.

 

Also a fantastic article which indicates nothing about the vehicle causing the accident.

 

Then you misread the first link and of course the second has nothing to do with the car.

[BAC5.2]

Yes, I was unclear. I had a higher opinion of the reader than was justified.

 

No, you were perfectly clear. You said that those kinds of accidents "won't happen" in low-power cars. That's just plain wrong. Nice that you attempt to deflect blame for your error, too.

 

I also notice you keep referencing WRX vs. STi and M3 vs. M5 as opposed to higher performance vs. "slow-ass 4 banger."

 

I do, because it easily defines the point. By your logic, a WRX or M3 is much safer because they have less power than their higher power counterparts despite having the same rated top-speeds.

 

But you are right, rated top speed is irrelevant. Neither this STi accident, nor the one involving that M5, occurred at speeds any higher than nearly any vehicle on the road could muster. Even "slow-ass 4 banger" powered cars can all cleanly break 100mph. Fast enough to be deadly in nearly all circumstances.

 

Is flying off the road at 100mph any different in a Ferrari vs. a Camry? Or is the Camry incapable of flying off the road at 100mph, because it's not as powerful?

 

Then you misread the first link and of course the second has nothing to do with the car.

 

I mis-read the first link? Let's go over your quote:

 

...

Statistics prove smaller, sportier cars are driven at higher rates of speed by younger, riskier drivers. Because they're involved in more accidents, they're more expensive to insure.

...

Horsepower can directly impact the cost of your insurance. The more horsepower your vehicle has, the likelier you are to drive at faster speeds and as such, the higher the risk of an accident.

...

Thinking of buying a sports car? Be prepared to pay higher insurance premiums. Insurance companies know owners of sports cars go faster than the general driving population and as such, they're at risk of having accidents more frequently -- and more seriously -- than drivers of minivans, for example.

...

First, insurance for younger drivers is almost always more expensive than it is for older drivers. In the eyes of insurers, driving experience means a lot.

...

 

Perhaps you didn't read that article as well as you thought you did...

[fj1200]

No, you were perfectly clear. You said that those kinds of accidents "won't happen" in low-power cars. That's just plain wrong. Nice that you attempt to deflect blame for your error, too.

 

Considering robin brought up a four cylinder Forester that would have a tough time getting to 150 in 1.5 miles I was pretty safe in making the statement. Feel free to ignore all my other references to likelihood though.

 

I do, because it easily defines the point.

 

No, it easily obfuscates the point of what people will attempt in what kinds of cars.

 

I mis-read the first link? Let's go over your quote:

 

Perhaps you didn't read that article as well as you thought you did...

 

Yes, let's.

 

The more horsepower your vehicle has, the likelier you are to drive at faster speeds and as such, the higher the risk of an accident.

...

Insurance companies know owners of sports cars go faster than the general driving population and as such, they're at risk of having accidents more frequently -- and more seriously -- than drivers of minivans, for example.

 

Nobody said it was the cars fault. You disagree with the article?

 

IBfatguywithaspoonargument

[Buzzman]

Fairly easy deduction here. It was the kid's fault, not the parents'. I have driven several fast cars since I was young and so have my friends. None of us have been in any accident. No one needs to attribute guilt anywhere, but to the kid himself.

[BAC5.2]

Considering robin brought up a four cylinder Forester that would have a tough time getting to 150 in 1.5 miles I was pretty safe in making the statement. Feel free to ignore all my other references to likelihood though.

 

That M5 was only going 120 when it hit the tree, not 150. And 119 vs 120 is not a life saving breaking point. Hitting a tree at any speed over 100 will kill you, and there are few cars that can't clear 100mph in far less than a mile.

 

Your comments regarding lower power cars being safer are simply ill conceived. Educated and responsible drivers are safer. The choice of car is immaterial when driver limits are exceeded.

 

What other references to likelihood? You were quite absolute when you said that accident wouldn't of happened in the Forester. No implication or even hint at likelihood.

 

Please, continue to deflect blame.

 

 

 

No, it easily obfuscates the point of what people will attempt in what kinds of cars.

 

Not in the least. But what you just said grossly generalizes and stereotypes people based on the type of car they drive.

 

 

 

Nobody said it was the cars fault.

 

Except for you, when you have repeatedly stated that high power cars are responsible for deadly accidents. Like your M5 example. And when you flat wrongly suggested that no one would joyride in a fiesta.

 

You disagree with the article?

 

I agree that the articles you have posted support my claims that the vehicle is not to blame in accidents involving reckless driving.

 

Why is an N/A Forester any safer than an M5?

 

Am I at greater risk for dying if I drive a Veyron at 65mph down the highway, versus driving a Civic at 65mph on the same highway?

 

Had the kid in the STI been driving a WRX instead, would this accident have been avoided? Would the accident have been avoided if he were driving a Corolla?

 

If you say yes, you are assuming that the stoned minor driving at 4am with a learners permit and a car full of stoned friends would have had some moment of clarity where he would have said "maybe I shouldn't be going XXmph on this unfamiliar road". The USS Responsibility sailed for that kid the moment he sat behind the wheel. I'd wager this accident would likely have occurred regardless of the vehicle he was driving. I think the track record of decision making by the driver supports my wager.

[fj1200]

That M5 was only going 120 when it hit the tree, not 150. And 119 vs 120 is not a life saving breaking point. Hitting a tree at any speed over 100 will kill you, and there are few cars that can't clear 100mph in far less than a mile.

 

Your comments regarding lower power cars being safer are simply ill conceived. Educated and responsible drivers are safer. The choice of car is immaterial when driver limits are exceeded.

 

You got me on hyperbole. Congratulations. And the car was going "much faster."

 

But considering I said this:

 

Hmm, higher horsepower = higher speed potential = higher potential for catastrophic accident. Yeah, crazy.

 

And the article said this:

 

The more horsepower your vehicle has, the likelier you are to drive at faster speeds and as such, the higher the risk of an accident.

 

Please continue to infer my insistence that cars magically drive themselves.

[BarManBean]

this is dumb. dead kids and it's turned into an argument over semantics.

[famaya26]

This needs to close.

[BAC5.2]

You got me on hyperbole. Congratulations. And the car was going "much faster."

 

The car was going much faster before slowed down to tree ramming speed. The car hit the tree at 120. Whether it was going 125 or 200 before that matters little. 120 was how fast the car was going when it hit the tree.

 

Please continue to infer my insistence that cars magically drive themselves.

 

If you don't want that inferred, stop saying it.

 

It is the driver, not the car. And it has been well said so far, that high HP does not equal higher speed. 100mph in a Ferrari is the same as 100mph in a Camry. The car makes no difference.

 

Having a lot of horsepower does not make a vehicle inherently more dangerous. What makes a vehicle dangerous is the driver.

 

It's a shame this accident occurred, for sure. That kid is going to have to carry the burden of killing his friends for the rest of his life, and that is not something to be taken lightly. I'm sorry FJ1200 had to turn this into an argument.

[specialB]

This needs to close.

 

Agreed. God forbid someone involved sees this. Just a week earlier my friend was killed by a drunk hit and run driver trying to be smart and walk home from the bar. Fate just works in a way that screws the innocent and leaves the ones to blame around to suffer the consequences of their actions. I'm no god believer but this happens way too frequently.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[BAC5.2]

This needs to close.

 

Agreed.

[BarManBean]

I'm sorry FJ1200 had to turn this into an argument.

 

Lol.

[octain11]

+1

[laff79]

I'm still trolling Nasioc for the part-out thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too soon?

[fj1200]

Having a lot of horsepower does not make a vehicle inherently more dangerous. What makes a vehicle dangerous is the driver.

 

I'm sorry FJ1200 had to turn this into an argument.

 

 

But of course, you are correct, a vehicle is not dangerous until it's driven. But please justify how the following is incorrect:

 

The more horsepower your vehicle has, the likelier you are to drive at faster speeds and as such, the higher the risk of an accident.

 

nvm, apparently contributing factors is too deep a subject.

[TheOneDoubleN]

Un'subbed because this has gotten dumb...

 

 

 

 

[famaya26]

Is someone seriously not going to close this? The point has already been made and that was prob 3 pages ago. Cars don't kill people, it's the idiots driving them. It doesnt matter is they're driving a Lambo or shitty Honda civic, if they're reckless and don't know what their doing an accident is inevitable.

 

Now let these poor kids that died RIP and close this thread!

[SCASEYS]

sandwich bomb it!

[octain11]

+1 someone please close this haha

[BAC5.2]

 

But of course, you are correct, a vehicle is not dangerous until it's driven. But please justify how the following is incorrect:

 

 

 

nvm, apparently contributing factors is too deep a subject.

 

You are frustratingly ignorant. There is no point in continuing to try and change your mind or help you understand your failure to see the bottom line.

 

I award you no points, and hope this thread is closed soon.

[twisty]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UIXOn06Pz70/TAmP6aZNwGI/AAAAAAAAKV0/R4q75OILUPE/s800/Asparagus+Grilled+Cheese+Sandwich+500.jpg

 

 

nummmy

[TheOneDoubleN]

Ew that sandwich probably smells horrible coming out the other side