Princess Di Crash

Date: 1 Sep 1997 04:50:12 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving This is dumb "slippery slope" reasoning which I'm probably sure folks in this newsgroup are already tired of. Actually, I'm most tired of people trying to be sanctimonious and tell me what I should and shouldn't do and why and how bad I am if I do it. There's such a thing as a *reasonable* speed where the benefit and risks are reasonable. But somehow I think talking about risk-benefit and reasonableness will fall on deaf eyes.... But it's not up to you to determine what's reasonable, and the government has done a pretty pathetic job thus far (witness the speed limit being dropped to 55 and finally raised back up to 70+). Thus myself and zillions of other abhorrent sinners daily break these reasonable, acceptably risky limitations (and I suspect you have, too). You're confusing moralistic-flavored candy-coated schemes to make more money for state coffers with a genuine desire to curb traffic deaths by instituting truly realistic speed parameters and laws. Personally, I find it mildly nauseating that people would try to use the untimely death of a really decent human being to put forward their own views on driving ethics and legality. Date: 1 Sep 1997 09:07:29 GMT Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving DrDriving wrote: Everyone knows about Diana's death by now. Diana's driver is primarily at fault. Being followed by photographers is no excuse for driving at 120 mph. What surprised me the most is that a driver who doesn't know the limits of the car he's driving - and more importantly the limits of his driving skills - is hired by a man like Dodi Al Fayed, to drive a car. Stupid stunt that cost three lives, incompetence kills. I believe Mercedes even offers special training courses for professional chauffeurs, which makes the rationale in this even harder to grasp. Somehow I also assume the car to be armoured, but without a trained driver that is completely silly, bordering on criminal neglect. Bye, Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 10:58:50 +0100 Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving What surprised me the most is that a driver who doesn't know the limits of the car he's driving - and more importantly the limits of his driving skills - is hired by a man like Dodi Al Fayed, to drive a car. The chauffeur was a trained security driver who had allegedly been "lent out" by Fayed to the French government on previous occasions. I rather suspect that if he had told Dodi that he couldn't drive any faster he would have lost his job. Allegedly the bodyguard was also a Fayed employee, so he would not have contradicted Dodi even if Di's life was being put at risk. Date: 1 Sep 1997 13:47:16 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving Personally, I find it mildly nauseating that people would try to use the untimely death of a really decent human being to put forward their own views on driving ethics and legality. Hmmmm, this from a person who ranted in whole post about people "trying to be sanctimonious and tell me what I should and should'nt do and why and how bad I am if I do it". It's about danger and dying, Bill. Any discussion of dangerous driving necessarily invokes the untimely deaths of decent human beings. Cheers, Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 12:19:01 -0700 Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving DrDriving wrote: Everyone knows about Diana's death by now. Diana's driver is primarily at fault. Being followed by photographers is no excuse for driving at 120 mph. However, the photographers greatly contributed by encouraging the recklessness by following behind at an equally great rate of speed. I agree. I read somewhere that Di was killed "by the Poparazzi". Diana was not killed "by the poparazzi". She was killed in a car accident that may have been the result of the chauffer driving too fast for conditions. He MAY have been doing that because he was being "chased" by a photographer. I have no allegience to those tabliod photographers, but nobody will ever convince me that they HAD to "run" from these guys and endanger lives. She opted to ride in a car with clear windows, they could have driven in a car with tinted windows that no one could have photographed them through. The camera is not a gun, had they just driven at normal speed and let them take pictures, they would probably all be alive. They were not being "chased", they opted to drive fast (according to the accounts) and paid a big price. I feel sorry for Diana, I think she was an admirable figure in the world, but she did live a public life and must have always expected photographers around. And I think that that tabliod business (and the photographers that feed them) are some of the slimiest, wastes of skin around. But she was not killed "by the poparazzi" nor, do I believe, that they were even a contributing factor. If anyone is at "fault", it is the chauffer. It was his foot onthe pedal and his hands on the wheel. Just my two cents.... Date: 1 Sep 1997 15:50:41 GMT Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving What surprised me the most is that a driver who doesn't know the limits of the car he's driving - and more importantly the limits of his driving skills - is hired by a man like Dodi Al Fayed, to drive a car. The chauffeur was a trained security driver who had allegedly been "lent out" by Fayed to the French government on previous occasions. I rather suspect that if he had told Dodi that he couldn't drive any faster he would have lost his job. Allegedly the bodyguard was also a Fayed employee, so he would not have contradicted Dodi even if Di's life was being put at risk. The 'chauffeur' had 1.75 promille alcohol in his blood. I guess it's time to blame it *all* on the driver, as well as his employee who allowed him to drive. How silly to send that man to special Mercedes security trainings, and then let him drive drunk. I don't envy the lawyers of Mr. Lafayed Sr. for the case against the paparazzi. In my book there is no case at all. Bye, Date: 1 Sep 1997 21:17:25 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving For example, a heavily laden van, poorly maintained, and steered by a distracted idiot is considered legal at 1 mph under the limit. OTOH, a well-maintained performance car driven by an alert, capable driver is subject to legal penalty at 1 mph over the posted speed, on the same road (and conditions) as the previous vehicle. IMHO, it is clear which vehicle is safer, and equally clear that safety cannot be determined, or even approximated, by speed alone. I sure do also wish they would ticket more for conditions (and not just after an accident). But *how* are we to know who is a "good" driver or not? In my experience, sure as heck not by asking a person - it's far and away more a function of *attitude* than anything else IMO. And people are very poor judges of their own ability, especially when it comes to driving. BTW, what difference does it make if it's a "performance" vehicle or not? If you need to generally monitor the traffic, police cant' query all the drivers, etc. Speed is the most important factor, and that which most directly relates to the severity of any accidents. "Trained" or not, "distracted" or not (and I don't think they're mutually exclusive - unless you think "trained" means "perfect day in and day out"), it's worse at 65 mph than at 45 mph. You can't get around that, except to choose a reasonable value. So, the real question is, given a fairly well-maintained ordinary car and driver of ordinary ability, unimpaired, *what* should that value be? Your opinion? A more specific example, assuming good driver/car/weather, and light traffic: on many local main roads, posted for 45 mph, sight lines are often such that *any* speed below about 50 mph will allow adequate room to stop or avoid obstacles (moving or not). As speeds edge up towards 60-65 mph, the v-squared relationship between speed and stopping distance makes the existing sight lines marginal from a safety standpoint. At 70-80 mph, the driver is *committed* beyond his line of sight, and (IMHO) the risk of injury increases dramatically. Oh, horray! You talk about visibility. And like you know something about it. Hardly anyone even thinks about it - you've just gone up about 50 points on my scale :-) I posted here earlier about visibility, and no-one touched it! Folks who speed almost always (and you're the "almost" :-) talk only about control and ability and banking of curves, etc. etc., like they're the only ones on the road. Don't forget the lines of sight of *others*. Driver A might see the road ahead of him just fine on a clear day on a straight road, but Driver B looking to pass Driver C might check his mirrors and see clear road, but still be in danger if he starts his pass. Why? Because of any rise or curve, even slight ones combined with traffic behind him, or even on those long-and-straights in Montana on a summer day because of mirage effects. Driver B does the pass the best way he knows, but *bam* he's in Driver A's way and Driver A must react. IOW, from 0-50 mph crash risk is the same: nearly zero. From 50-70, risk is "significant"; above 70, risk is "high". That's for a local main road with unrestricted access and cross traffic. I'd agree with you there, depending on the terrain (but tell that to some of the confident speeders around here with "steely nerves and lightning quick reflexes"). On an interstate, the zero-risk zone may extend to 90 mph or more, and high risk may not arise until well beyond 100 mph, again, depending on the conditions (road/driver/vehicle/weather/traffic). Probably not, and for the visibility reasons that I talked about above, just for starters. Cheers, Date: 1 Sep 1997 21:29:44 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving Seeing as how nobody really knows exactly what happened, why don't you use real established examples to prove your point, rather than ride the wave of emotional turmoil her death has created and capitalize on it, just like the photographers who took her dying pictures rather than try to help..?. Oh good grief. First of all, speed was a major factor (which is what I mean by "speed kills") - that's established. Turn on the news or read other posts here, please. I mean, c'mon, the speedo was stuck on about 120 mph. I suppose the folks here saying it's dumb for the driver to been at 0.17 BAC are just ghouls in MADD's back pocket, too. ( But drinking causes people to do dumb things - like speed.) And all of us EMT's and health professionals who want to point out another factor - not using seat belts, are just rubbing their hands feverishly and salivating at another chance to make their point. Bill, there are others I can discuss this with who don't stoop to such hyperbolic rhetoric. See ya. Oh, just a minute - here's your apostrophe ' Cheers, Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 21:22:14 GMT Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving What surprised me the most is that a driver who doesn't know the limits of the car he's driving - and more importantly the limits of his driving skills - is hired by a man like Dodi Al Fayed, to drive a car. What surprised me the most, is that this under-pass with a bend in the road and a row of square concrete pillars down the middle has no crash barrier to stop cars ploughing into them. Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:32:06 -1000 From: Leon James Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving that they might have gone airborne off the top of the underpass ramp, making it impossible to control the car. It's too mad they didn't land of top of the pack of photovultures, killing them too. I'm wondering about the dynamics of the chase. It seems probable that it was her companion that gave the driver the order. Both him and the driver sure made an irrational decision. What were they fleeing from that was worth this type of extreme behavior--80MPH inside a tunnel! It's hard to imagine except that it was a kind of rage that possessed them against the enraged and enraging phographer-chase-masters. Leon James (aka Dr. Driving) From leon@hawaii.edu Mon Sep 1 13:19:40 1997 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:41:21 -1000 From: Leon James Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport Referring to Dr. Driving, who wrote: Yet here, anger and outrage must have played a role. "must"? -- sort of rash just yet to say emotion was a factor at all; and if so, this ride (prior to its tragic end) may have been a "fun" challenge for its driver. It's not clear where/why some of these undocumented driver must have been "rabid and foaming-at-the-mouth" scenarios originate. We're trying to reconstruct a crash. It's appropriate to ask what made the driver race through a tunnel at 80MPH? Dr. Driving speculates: One can wonder whether Princess Di was sitting in the back screaming at the driver not to race? Or encouraging him to get away? a reader answers: no problem with wondering, but wonder lots of other stuff too and hope we aren't presented just yet with a theory based on same.... So now: Yes, we are presenting a hypothesis, and we're discussing its merit in terms of real facts and possibilities. What is your answer why the driver was doing 80MPH inside a tunnel? If you say, "The photovultures" -- that would hardly be an adequate answer. Is that what you would do? Leon James (aka Dr. Driving) Date: 1 Sep 1997 09:18:10 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving I wonder how they think to outrun bikes with such a heavy car (armoured as well I suppose....wonder whether that contributed to the severity of the crash). If they really were running at 100MPH plus, as reported, it's possible that they might have gone airborne off the top of the underpass ramp, making it impossible to control the car. It's too mad they didn't land of top of the pack of photovultures, killing them too. I thought about this airborn thing, but keep in mind you might have been fooled by the tele shots from the cameras, compressing the scene, and making the down and up ramps look much steeper. I can't imagine it being so steep as I saw on some shots....even 50km/h would make you feel sick in your stomach....and it actually should have hit the overpassing bridge deck at 100mph....8-)) Anyone in this group familiar with this particular tunnel? How fast can one drive into it, ignoring other traffic (staying in the center of the two lanes as well). Bye, Date: 1 Sep 1997 09:21:45 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving BTW, in all the news reports I've heard, not a one has said whether or not Diana et al were wearing their seat belts. I think we'll have to wait until she is buried and all the mourning and adulation that the press is currently awash with dies down. Then we'll have some better perspective on this news, and we'll get some of these answers. I saw some old footage about her in Africa, in the back of a 80-series Land Cruiser, 5 seater (no rear sliding windows, both 8 seater and 10 seater (opposing benches) has these). The camera crew was in the cargo compartment, Diana was on the rear bench. She did not wear belts (although automatic retraceable belts were present). The driver did. Bye, Date: 1 Sep 1997 09:11:21 -0500 Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport Leon James (leon@hawaii.edu) wrote: On 1 Sep 1997, a reader wrote: Referring to Dr. Driving, who wrote: We're trying to reconstruct a crash. It's appropriate to ask what made the driver race through a tunnel at 80MPH? I think so, looking at your sentence, you don't. You're a doctor, eh? So now: Yes, we are presenting a hypothesis, and we're discussing its merit in terms of real facts and possibilities. What is your answer why the driver was doing 80MPH inside a tunnel? If you say, "The photovultures" -- that would hardly be an adequate answer. Is that what you would do? Why the hell are you "presenting a hypothesis" now? You've already presented your conclusion, of which you included _no_ facts in your substantiation whatsoever. You are pathetic, Leon. I shudder when I think you actually present testimony to the US congress on this subject. Of course, they're the most gullible bunch o'focks if they actually take you seriously. I suppose if they find someone that is telling them what they want to hear...... Date: 1 Sep 1997 11:52:27 -0400 Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport In article , Leon James wrote: On 1 Sep 1997, a reader wrote: Referring to Dr. Driving, who wrote: Yet here, anger and outrage must have played a role. A reader says: "must"? -- sort of rash just yet to say emotion was a factor at all; and if so, this ride (prior to its tragic end) may have been a "fun" challenge for its driver. It's not clear where/why some of these undocumented driver must have been "rabid and foaming-at-the-mouth" scenarios originate. We're trying to reconstruct a crash. It's appropriate to ask what made the driver race through a tunnel at 80MPH? In any sort of investigation, it is best if you don't _start_ with the _conclusion_, as you do. Date: 1 Sep 1997 16:51:55 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving I think it should be noted that the driver of the S600 in which Princess Diana and two others were killed was a Fayhed-employed security guard from the Ritz Hotel (which Fayhed's father owns). It has been speculated that the driver was unaccustomed to being chased by the paparazzi that constantly surrounded the Princess, and thus was caught off-guard by such a high-stress, high-speed pursuit. I've been thinking about that. Is it possible that this security detail, unfamiliar with the ways of the european press, believed that they were NOT in fact press, but were perhaps intent on doing the princess harm? Think about it: You're driving the most recognized woman in the world around town, with no police escort. Suddenly, a phalanx of motorcyclists descend upon your car from both sides. It's dark, all you see are the bright headlights. "Mon Dieu! Nous sommes attaqués!" you utter, and mash the pedal, bringing up the gobs of torque from your V12. "L'idiot!" exclaims your security partner, "Ils sont seulement photographes!" At the same time, HRH leans forward and asks, politely, "Would you please slow down?" You turn to address both passengers, suddenly realize you're entering a tunnell way too fast, hit the brakes... Look guys, we don't really have a clue what happened yet. Let's see what the French police come up with. Then we can look for a second gunman on the grassy knoll for the next 30 years or so, ok? Date: 1 Sep 1997 17:18:38 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving Well, well, well. Those of us who said the driver was in over his head have been proven correct and the "road rage theory" crap is exactly that, crap. The driver had twice the legal level of alcohol. Poor judgement (alcohol induced), poor driving skills (alcohol induced) are the blame for the accident. It also appears that neither she nor Dodi were belted in. The body guard in the right front seat WAS and he survived. Date: 1 Sep 1997 17:57:32 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving I've been thinking about that. Is it possible that this security detail, unfamiliar with the ways of the european press, believed that they were NOT in fact press, but were perhaps intent on doing the princess harm? Think about it: You're driving the most recognized woman in the world around town, with no police escort. Suddenly, a phalanx of motorcyclists descend upon your car from both sides.>> It doesn't appear that way. He was a security man employed by the hotel and trained in Germany by MB. Dodi's regular driver took off in another MB to try and lure the paparazzi away. They knew the paparazzi was out there waiting for them. It was foolish to try and outrun someone on a motorcycle. The CNN news just reported that the driver had twice the legal blood alcohol. This would prove what many of us have said -- the driver was in over his head. The alcohol was probably the cause for poor judgement (trying to get away from motorcycles, exceedingly high speed for the conditions) and probably the cause for his poor driving. Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 21:47:48 +0100 Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving Anyone in this group familiar with this particular tunnel? How fast can one drive into it, ignoring other traffic (staying in the center of the two lanes as well). I read today in the British press that a professional driver, who knew that stretch of road well, stated that it was *possible* to take the curve at 100+ mph, but there would be zero margin for error at this sort of speed. Certainly with 3 times the legal blood/alcohol ratio (as reported on the UK radio this evening), this would not be a manoeuvre even the best of drivers should attempt. I just cannot understand why Dodi Al Fayed and his most trusted bodyguard would have allowed themselves to be driven by a man in this condition, particularly in view of who the third passenger was. A tragic loss.

Back to Topical Index of Issues 

	Enter your search terms
	Web DrDriving.org