were they really racing? I know around here we frequently speed with each other on the highways...not racing, just speeding. Same thing on canyon roads...groups have been known to be doing 3 times the speed limit without being in competition. They just know the capabilities of each other and know where the limits are. I'm not saying it's necessarily smart or safe, just that more than one car going twice the speed limit does not imply competition.

 

I've just read this thread from beginning to end. I don't think that I agree with much of what has been said, or many of the arguments that have been made.

It's Christmas Day, I feel for the families involved.

 

I was actually out in the NSX a couple years ago on a straight deserted road and blew the right rear tire at about 125mph and I didn't even know it was blown until I thought I heard a weird faint thumping sound and pulled over only to see that the tire was almost off the wheel. The car was so stable that the blown tire did not hinder my straight line driving at all. WOW! WHAT A CAR! I was lucky.

 

the is some luck man!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ralper
[B]I've just read this thread from beginning to end.

 

Fork? Knife? Spoon? Huh?

 

I will try. Let me begin by saying that I had the advantage of reading the thread after most of the discussion was finished. I was able to step back and look at the "big" picture without being involved in each argument and debate.

What I am going to say is my opinion and should be taken as such. I intend no flames nor should any of my comments be taken personally. This is a long thread and I read it a few days ago so if I've forgotten something or missed something please correct me.

First, there was an on going argument equating the dangers of speeding to the dangers of street racing. I found this argument hard to believe. Racing, any form of racing, is inherently dangerous. Street racing which is unregulated, unsupervised and generally a spur of the moment event is potentially the most dangerous form of the sport. To suggest that street racing is no more dangerous then speeding seems a bit absurd to me.
Yes, I agree that speeding can be dangerous and it is illegal but the degree of risk simply is no where near that of street racing. Also, we must always consider the degee. Going 55 in a residential 35 is probably more dangerous then going 85 on a freeway marked at 65. None of the gray was considered, everything was black and white during the discussion. The counter argument was very much if you speed you are taking as much risk as if you street race. Someone made the comment to the effect that "you mean that you've never gone even 1 mph over the speed limit." (Not an exact quote) Again, everything is relative. What exactly was the point or the relevance of it?
At one point someone even suggested that it isn't the speed that kills, rather it's the sudden stopping. That may very well be true, but I fail to see how you can separate one from the other. Especially when the speeding and sudden stopping is on city streets. If you do one you should reasonably expect to have to do the other. To me this was a case of splittling hairs.

Secondly, someone suggested something to the effect that none of us would have bought the car if it didn't have the ability to go as fast as it does. There was a lot of discussion following this yet everyone seemed to agree. I may be the only one, but I take exception to this. I didn't buy the car because it has a top speed of 146 mph. I've never even had it above 100. I bought the car because it is fun to drive. I don't need to do speeds of 146 to enjoy the handling and the thrill of driving. I suspect many others feel as I do. And I suspect that most of the enjoyment that we derive from our cars happens at speeds well below 150 mph and even below 100 mph. Still everyone seemed to agree.

Third, there was an on going discussion/argument concerning whether or not this thread should be made a sticky note in the Street Encounters forum. Both sides argued strongly yet I'm not sure that it matters one way or the other. Those who street race will continue to do so whether or not this thread is turned into a sticky on the Street Encounters Forum.
I too am not convinced that it should be made into a sticky yet based upon some of the threads that are sticky notes in the various forums, why not? If those threads qualify for sticky status, maybe this one does too. Either way, I don't think it matters. Either way, I couldn't understand why the argument was so strong.

Finally, somewhere along the way we lost sight of what this thread was originally about. Everyone took positions, everyone postured, everyone had a case to argue and something to prove, but the thread really was about that one person died, two were injured, two S2000s crashed. Everything else was speculation.

I've gone on longer then I meant to, and I've forgotten some of the things that I felt when I read the thread, but these are some of the reasons that I said what I did. I haven't said everything that I wanted to say, but I probably said more than enough. Feel free to flame me if you choose. This is how I felt.

Happy, healthy and safe New Year to all.

 

YES!!!!

According to the news article, BOTH the Silver and the yellow S2k were going at about 80mph when both(?) hit a pole. The occupants in the yellow wore their seatbelts and survived with minor injuries, while the occupants in the silver did not fare as well.

 

There's no way that yellow S was doing 80mph when it hit that pole, the damage is far too slight! More likely he'd got most of his braking done before he made contact. At 80mph the seat belts would do pretty well as much damage to your body as being flung out.

All that said ...anyone who doesn't wear a belt is nuts!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cedric Tomkinson
[B]There's no way that yellow S was doing 80mph when it hit that pole, the damage is far too slight! More likely he'd got most of his braking done before he made contact.