- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Horrible dash cam footage shows drunk douche bag ram into a car at 100+ MPH
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:05 am to BuckyCheese
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:05 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
Tuned up Duramax.
Was going way over 100 if traffic was running 70 or so.
Yea that’s an interstate so traffic was likely going closer to 80. That truck was going 120-130
1
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:05 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
Not that I needed to read a study to know a 6000 pound SUV is inherently safer than a 3000 pound car.
I think my 2 year old could tell you a truck or SUV is the safer vehicle to be in during a crash
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:08 am to Bedhog
Nice, I have front and rear, I don't have speed.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:10 am to Hurricane Mike
Had their not been a drunk in a truck, the only thing I would have taken from the video is the filmed is example A of a left lane camper.
Totally taking the wreck out. Because of the seriousness of the wreck, nothing else really matters.
Totally taking the wreck out. Because of the seriousness of the wreck, nothing else really matters.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:11 am to deltaland
quote:
quote:
Tuned up Duramax.
Was going way over 100 if traffic was running 70 or so.
Yea that’s an interstate so traffic was likely going closer to 80. That truck was going 120-130
Watch the video again. The traffic in front was braking. The car the got hit had it brake lights on for a good 3 sec prior to being rammed. I calculated the truck going 122 MPH I figure the car was going around 50 when it was hit. 70 MPH difference is not survivable for the car. Honestly the only reason it probably wasn't worse is because a lot of the kinetic energy was transferred into physical energy that caused that truck to fly and leave the highway and hit a building. If that hadn't happened there would have been at least one other fatality, possibly more.
This guy has a rap sheet that was a mile ling including a previous high speed chase just 6 months earlier. He has been arrested for armed robbery and felon in possession of a firearm. How much responsibility do these municipalities have for letting this guy out of jail to kill this woman?? If I was her family I would sue the hell out of the counties that put him back on the street.
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 11:17 am
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:19 am to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
How much responsibility do these municipalities have for letting this guy out of jail to kill this woman??
But muh prison reform!!! It’s too crowded!!!
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:31 am to TH03
Seeing buildup of the amount of automotive carnage toward the end sure was horrifying.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 11:40 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I’m sorry, but you’re dead wrong.
Well, yeah...if you get in an accident and sustain high velocity impacts, you're of course going to be safer in a larger vehicle.
The IIHS can't account for the efficacy of smaller cars' ability to avoid contact due to agility, which is what Obtuse's point has consistently been.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:00 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
The IIHS can't account for the efficacy of smaller cars' ability to avoid contact due to agility, which is what Obtuse's point has consistently been.
Obtuse said smaller cars have a lower incidence of fatalities in accidents which is patently false.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 12:16 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
The IIHS can't account for the efficacy of smaller cars' ability to avoid contact due to agility, which is what Obtuse's point has consistently been.
That's a horrible argument to even try to make. No matter how safe of a car you're in or how safe of a driver you are, you're still by in large at the mercy of the other drivers around you, especially on the interstate. Bottom line, odds are at some point you will find yourself in an auto accident no matter what. That being the case, the most intelligent choice one could make is to drive the type of automobile that gives them the best chance at surviving an accident seeing how in many, if not most instances, you do not cause nor can prevent the accident.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 2:41 pm to Darth_Vader
Concur
If this is fact then the surviving relatives should sue that municipality for every damn dime they can. Our court system is out of control and IMHO we need a move back towards Death Row for menaces to society such as this. And not 5-10 years down the road costing the taxpayer s money. In a clear cut case such as this take the SOB straight from the courtroom out back and either hang or fry them. I would bet a lifetime supply of cold beer that incidents of serious crime would take a nosedive if we returned to more of an "eye for an eye" situation
Getting back to the survivability deal in pick-ups, I would imagine it depends vastly on the two vehicles involved and kinetic energy (speed, angle of collision, etc) that is transferred into the hit vehicle.
However when it comes to day to day driving, I will definitely take a full-size pick up any day of the week, if for nothing else, the amount of rear protection given by the length of the bed as well as the improved visibility a pick-up truck offers to the driver.
Tis far better to have that couple of extra seconds of visibility to see things about to happen vs. being lower in a car in traffic and not seeing stuff occur in time to react more quickly to the situation.
quote:
How much responsibility do these municipalities have for letting this guy out of jail to kill this woman?? If I was her family I would sue the hell out of the counties that put him back on the street.
If this is fact then the surviving relatives should sue that municipality for every damn dime they can. Our court system is out of control and IMHO we need a move back towards Death Row for menaces to society such as this. And not 5-10 years down the road costing the taxpayer s money. In a clear cut case such as this take the SOB straight from the courtroom out back and either hang or fry them. I would bet a lifetime supply of cold beer that incidents of serious crime would take a nosedive if we returned to more of an "eye for an eye" situation
Getting back to the survivability deal in pick-ups, I would imagine it depends vastly on the two vehicles involved and kinetic energy (speed, angle of collision, etc) that is transferred into the hit vehicle.
However when it comes to day to day driving, I will definitely take a full-size pick up any day of the week, if for nothing else, the amount of rear protection given by the length of the bed as well as the improved visibility a pick-up truck offers to the driver.
Tis far better to have that couple of extra seconds of visibility to see things about to happen vs. being lower in a car in traffic and not seeing stuff occur in time to react more quickly to the situation.
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 6/5/19 at 3:55 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
Cars are safer my arse.
They are safer.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 4:22 pm to Pectus
quote:
I'll take your word for it.
Not watching that.
My thoughts exactly. I had a client show me a video of someone getting stuck in a huge belt at work. He was eventually decapitated. I still can't get that image out of my head.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 8:38 pm to Reservoir dawg
quote:
Cars are safer my arse.
They are safer.
A car wont survive against a 3/4 ton pick up.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 9:11 pm to TH03
Why do cars need the ability to go this fast? Car manufacturers should governor vehicles to only go a max of 80. Absolutely no reason to go faster than that.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 9:18 pm to CHiPs25
That truck had been tuned. A stock Duramax won't go 120+ as they have speed limiters on them. Stock is around 98 I believe.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 9:26 pm to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
This guy has a rap sheet that was a mile ling including a previous high speed chase just 6 months earlier. He has been arrested for armed robbery and felon in possession of a firearm.
How could this guy possibly still have possession of a very expensive new body style diesel truck with expensive modifications?
Posted on 6/5/19 at 9:43 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
I always wonder how lifelong criminals are able to afford things
Life is too expensive to pay multiple balls.
Life is too expensive to pay multiple balls.
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 6/5/19 at 10:02 pm to BuckyCheese
Even at 98, there’s no reason for it. Nobody knows what would have happened had this guy been going 80, but it’s a lot better than 98 (or 120).
There is no reason people should be worried about driving their family on the interstates. Just like kids should not have to be worried about going to school and getting shot at.
With as many great things that we have in this world, civilization is causing massive decays in human life.
There is no reason people should be worried about driving their family on the interstates. Just like kids should not have to be worried about going to school and getting shot at.
With as many great things that we have in this world, civilization is causing massive decays in human life.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 10:45 pm to CHiPs25
quote:
Why do cars need the ability to go this fast? Car manufacturers should governor vehicles to only go a max of 80. Absolutely no reason to go faster than that
This is not the worst Idea I’ve heard. I can count on one hand the times I have gone 80 in a year.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News