Z06 driver almost decapitated

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Kong Sheng Han

I honestly thought it was just a problem with the car itself. I saw a 30 minute compilation of sports car crashes (don't laugh), and noticed that most of the clips involved corvettes slipping out and crashing into something. I would think a Viper is more likely to do something like that because of its lack of electronic stability, but I guess not. There was only one clip of a Viper showing an idiot drive into the back of a van.

It's not that hard to correlate the large sales discrepancy between these models with the amount of idiots crashing these on a yearly basis.

From 2008-2011, the Corvette outsold the Viper 30:1.
Viper: 2,243
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...s-figures.html

Corvette: 66,693
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...s-figures.html

[HpDellNestle]

I can't believe there are so many psychics on this forum. Blame the driver of vett by looking at one picture.
There is something wrong with US semi and truck standard. Their bumpers do not line up with cars'. What is the point of have crash test and bumpers when half of vehicles on the road don't have to have the same standard applied to them?

[Dkhan23]

Originally Posted by HpDellNestle

I can't believe there are so many psychics on this forum. Blame the driver of vett by looking at one picture.
There is something wrong with US semi and truck standard. Their bumpers do not line up with cars'. What is the point of have crash test and bumpers when half of vehicles on the road don't have to have the same standard applied to them?

Their just something wrong with Vette drivers....

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by HpDellNestle

I can't believe there are so many psychics on this forum. Blame the driver of vett by looking at one picture.
There is something wrong with US semi and truck standard. Their bumpers do not line up with cars'. What is the point of have crash test and bumpers when half of vehicles on the road don't have to have the same standard applied to them?

If you crash into the back end of a vehicle, there's a 99.99999% chance that it's your fault. In fact I can't even think of a single, practical counterexample.

There's no excuse for running into another car. Vehicles don't magically appear in front of you in that configuration.

He was either driving too fast, following too close (tailgating), driving distracted (texting? talking on the phone?), driving in too cavalier a fashion, or some combination.

One situation where the vette driver wouldn't be at fault is if the the truck backed into him for some reason. I've seen insurance scams based on this idea. Vehicles are stopped in traffic, and a car in front backs into another car and then claims the other car was at fault.

But, this clearly isn't the case here.

[NemesisX]

Even if the truck driver slammed on his brakes, that isn't an excuse for the vette driver.

When you're driving, you should be prepared to safely handle a situation where the driver in front of you slams on his or her brakes. That's why driving schools preach staying at minimum 2 seconds behind the car in front of you. This is driving 101.

[Walter_Sobchak]

On another note, this result is a solid reason for not using a four/five point harness on the street.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Yikes. I actually brought this up to a friend the other day how low this car is and how I can slide underneath trucks. Ugh.

Not sure why everyone is hating on Vette drivers, I owned a BMW, Honda, Ford, Dodge, Acura, VW, and a Hyundai.... You guys need to be a bit more reasonable with the stereotypes. There's plenty for BMW drivers too

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by HpDellNestle

I can't believe there are so many psychics on this forum. Blame the driver of vett by looking at one picture.
There is something wrong with US semi and truck standard. Their bumpers do not line up with cars'. What is the point of have crash test and bumpers when half of vehicles on the road don't have to have the same standard applied to them?

I'm sorry, but it was the Vette driver's fault. He wasn't paying attention (probably texting). A Z06 can stop from 70 MPH in about 145 feet (2006 model). If you can't avoid rear-ending a tractor trailer on a clear night on a highway in a sports car that can stop from 70 MPH in 145 feet then your are stupid. Even if you were hauling ass in the Vette and the tractor trailer decided to change lanes on you as you were approaching it, it takes way longer than 145 feet for a tractor trailer to change lanes and totally block your path. Based on the angle of the crash - straight on and centered to the back of the trailer - it is obvious from just the one picture that the Vette driver was not paying ANY attention to what was in front of him and ran into either a very slow moving tractor trailer or a stopped one. There is no other conclusion you can reach from the picture or any other picture (angle) of the accident.

In fact if you look closely at the picture, it is obvious the Vette was going at a very high rate of speed at the time of impact considering the amount of oil on the road and the depth of entry of the Vette underneath the trailer. The under-ride bumper of the trailer went right through the Vette's engine and broke the block; that's really hard to do my friend.

Please don't blame this on some stupid Governmental outdated under-ride guard design. Don't give Congress fodder to mandate avoidance of stupidity and poor driving habits by mandating some new under-ride guard design (that will be no better than the current design).

The only problem here is the driver's DNA is still in the gene pool.

Rant over.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm sorry, but it was the Vette driver's fault. He wasn't paying attention (probably texting). A Z06 can stop from 70 MPH in about 145 feet (2006 model). If you can't avoid rear-ending a tractor trailer on a clear night on a highway in a sports car that can stop from 70 MPH in 145 feet then your are stupid. Even if you were hauling ass in the Vette and the tractor trailer decided to change lanes on you as you were approaching it, it takes way longer than 145 feet for a tractor trailer to change lanes and totally block your path. Based on the angle of the crash - straight on and centered to the back of the trailer - it is obvious from just the one picture that the Vette driver was not paying ANY attention to what was in front of him and ran into either a very slow moving tractor trailer or a stopped one. There is no other conclusion you can reach from the picture or any other picture (angle) of the accident.

In fact if you look closely at the picture, it is obvious the Vette was going at a very high rate of speed at the time of impact considering the amount of oil on the road and the depth of entry of the Vette underneath the trailer. The under-ride bumper of the trailer went right through the Vette's engine and broke the block; that's really hard to do my friend.

Please don't blame this on some stupid Governmental outdated under-ride guard design. Don't give Congress fodder to mandate avoidance of stupidity and poor driving habits by mandating some new under-ride guard design (that will be no better than the current design).

The only problem here is the driver's DNA is still in the gene pool.

Rant over.

The driver is definitely at fault but have you seen the crash test of these tractor trailers? They are extremely dangerous for low profile cars and even regular family cars. Especially if you were to clip one with only 50% or less of your car on the side of the trailer. Instant death.

There was only 1 tractor trailer manufacturer who had a REASONABLY safe compared to others.

Checkout the videos of a Chevy Impala getting destroyed when it clipped one of those trailers with a mild overlap. I'm all for "survival of the fittest" but those tractor trailers are beyond safe.

You are right though. People dont pay attention. Texting, radio, whatever and rear end things. So I guess the question is put a family member in the shoes here, say they do something "Stupid" like texting, rear end a tractor trailer, would you want them to be safer?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

The driver is definitely at fault but have you seen the crash test of these tractor trailers? They are extremely dangerous for low profile cars and even regular family cars. Especially if you were to clip one with only 50% or less of your car on the side of the trailer. Instant death.

There was only 1 tractor trailer manufacturer who had a REASONABLY safe compared to others.

Checkout the videos of a Chevy Impala getting destroyed when it clipped one of those trailers with a mild overlap. I'm all for "survival of the fittest" but those tractor trailers are beyond safe.

You are right though. People dont pay attention. Texting, radio, whatever and rear end things. So I guess the question is put a family member in the shoes here, say they do something "Stupid" like texting, rear end a tractor trailer, would you want them to be safer?

No, I wouldn't want the trailer designed any safer. Safety in the realm of operating motorized vehicles is the responsibility of the operator, not the immanent object he runs into. Any family member of mine is of such good driving skill they wouldn't be stupid enough to run into a stopped or slow moving tractor trailer. All things are inherently dangerous depending upon the level of skill and attention a person uses when operating it.

So at what point are you willing to take the trailer under-ride bumper design to make it safe for a drunk or inattentive Corvette (or Miata - lets not stereotype here) driver crash into a trailer and not get killed or hurt? At some point in evolution of the design the trailer will be functionally inoperable to the level where it will not be able to be backed into a loading dock. To solve that problem then, alternative methods of loading and unloading it will need to be taken, which will add some incremental cost to the product you pay for that is transported by the trailer.

Following your logic, all motorcycles should be redesigned so that the rider will not be hurt in case of an accident, or airplanes, or boats; so why not just ban all of them now in the name of safety. People do stupid things; you can never design something to completely avoid stupidity.