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.

And he was apparently drunk (in excess of french criminal law, BAC level not yet released,) and as a security manager, not specially trained to operate the armored sedan.

Not road rage, not speed limit violation, but drunk driving. If he had survived, he would have wished he hadn't. And we can predict that this will be in 0.15 territory of true intoxication, not the slight 0.08 MADD level that does not rise to a causative level.

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:26:29 +1000 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 recklesness by following behind at an equally great rate of speed.

From the information I have seen:
1. The driver was DUI. 2. All those killed where NOT wearing seatbelts. 3. The only survivor was buckled up in the front passenger seat. 4. The car didn't hit the center pylons (sp?) at 200km/h.

Looks like there was some very poor judgment being used in that car on that night. Unfortunately, it cost 3 people their lives. Let's hope it can be used as an example of what not to do in a car.

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 03:49:33 GMT Newsgroups: 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.

Another commented: Oh, but doncha know. The speeders posting here all tell us that speed doesn't kill....

Oh, but didn't you know? Speeding isn't the same as having a drunk driver take high-speed evasive maneuvers around people whose possible goal was to purposefully get in the way. Do you really think that is the same as someone going 90 on a deserted deserted highway somewhere in the southwest?

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 04:42:59 GMT Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving

DrDriving wrote: 3. The only survivor was buckled up in the front passenger seat.

Just proves what the State Trooper said when he spoke in front of my driver's ed class so many years ago: 'You don't unbuckle dead bodies.' Perhaps a stretch of the truth, but right 99.99% of the time.

Date: 2 Sep 1997 07:37:56 GMT Newsgroups: 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.

Another commented: Oh, but doncha know. The speeders posting here all tell us that speed doesn't kill....

Another commented: You're right. You don't need to lose control of a vehicle and strike a massive object. All you need to do is exceed a certain speed (say, twice the posted limit) and POOF!! you're dead! It also goes without saying that you're perfectly safe as long as you don't exceed the posted limit. Well, there's a chance that some wild-eyed speedster would just happen to reach Vcritical as he pulled alongside you, and the ensuing explosion may damage your vehicle and cause you to have an accident.

Another commented: Given that the driver had a blood alcohol content of .175, which is more than triple the allowed amount in Australia or France, you would have to say that his drunkenness, in combination with the three non-surviving occupants not wearing seatbelts, led to their unfortunate demise. This simplistic "speed kills" mantra is ridiculous. The combination in this case appears to be fight-or-flight, drunkenness, not wearing restraints, and speed too fast for the conditions.

I doubt the chauffeur and bodyguard did not wear belts, but that doesn't help them much if the dead weights sitting behind them didn't wear them. Note that the bodyguard survived, probably only because he was smashed by Diana, and not by Dodi.

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 08:51:18 GMT
Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving

Despite all this, one man managed to survive in the front seat after smashing into a wall at 121 mph, while rear passengers died. How strange.

...especially seeing as he was allegedly the only one wearing a seatbelt.

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:41:15 +0100 Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving

The speedo got stuck at 196km/h. That's pretty close....;-))

Does anyone happen to know, if you remove the drive cable from a speedo, whether or not it goes round to the maximum setting?

The views expressed are my own and may not represent those of my employer. Please remove any obvious anti-spam measures from the return mail address.

Date: 2 Sep 1997 03:14:15 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

LOL! You illustrated my point! You showed the illogic of not making a requirement simply because there would have to be some arbitrary line drawn. Similarly, it'a illogical not to require a maximum speed for safety's sake because a value would have to be chosen. I think we're on different wavelengths here. I was thinking of the old "If we give them 5mph, they'll want 5 more. If we raise the limit AT ALL, the majority of people will still exceed that new limit. Therefore we shouldn't even consider any request they make, even if the benefits would outweigh the risks."

No, I don't think that statement is necessarily true (or necessarily false, for that matter). At any rate, I don't advocate on that basis.

The "slippery slope" reasoning I was responding to was the ol' "if you say 65 mph is safer than 85 mph then gee whiz why don't you make the limit 45 or even 35 'cause those would be even safer or let's just all stop" sort of (shall we call it) reasoning.

I'm not arguing that having a limit for speed in many places is a bad thing because it's not, but rather that the limits in some places is just too low. 55-65mph on a well-paved road with no traffic in the middle of the day where you can see your destination miles and miles ahead with no houses or anything in between? Come on.

With no mirage effects and no significantly slower traffic (i.e. no loaded trucks on even a slight upgrade) and *all* drivers alert and...and...

You see this is the problem. 55 -65 mph *might* be too slow, and some select highways have conditions good enough frequently enough to make the limit 75 mph tops. (Like I said, I grew up in the Texas panhandle.) But every 5 mph you tack on you make the accidents more severe, the differential between fast and necessarily slow traffic (like the tractors pulling loaded semis) greater, and the visibility and reaction requirements longer.

This was your original point that I had a problem with. Your post suggested that you think 85mph _in any condition_ is unsafe merely because a crash at 85 will do more damage than a crash at 40. Certainly 85mph in snow or hail is pretty dumb, but 85 should be no problem under the proper conditions to anyone with a decent car. Drivers are expected to use their judgment when the conditions are bad, but not expected to use their judgment when the conditions are good.

No, I think 85 is a problem, for the reasons I gave, *at best*. But the biggest problem is:

Yes, there are plenty of poor-reasoning drivers as you mentioned,...

Yup. Guys and gals who do even more harm at 85 mph. The idea is that you gotta put *some* kind of cap on the insanity.

Sorry, I know you believe in individuals making choices as to what they (think) can handle in different circumstances, but long experience and observation has told me different. And the speeders are on my tail when I'm doing 65 on a curvy, hilly, shoulderless road like the Taconic Parkway. *You*might drive different, and this guy and that gal and "Flyfish" might just inconspicuously fly as safely as can be (until a deer jumps in front of him, I guess). But what I see in my rear view mirror, and what I hear at the workplace lunch table, and then observe about that same person on the drive to the manufacturing site later that afternoon, tell me different. Not to mention what I peeled off the seats to put on backboards in my EMT days.

Most speeders have no clue about considerations like visibility. It's them, their wonderful performance car (or just plain impatience in a Honda Civic), and how straight or well-banked, etc. etc. the road is and what they *think* they can handle.

What's my position? How about *real* limits where 55 *and* 75 as appropriate mean something. Enforce dangerous habits other than speeding (like tailgating, weaving, erratic driving, and yes - going too slow). And driver training.

... but there are also plenty of sections of road where lines of cars do 15+ mph over the set limit in a smooth and orderly fashion. Everything flows because everyone is being courteous and/or traveling about the same fast speed, and you have to wonder what type of congestion might occur if everyone _was_ doing the set limit instead of driving as efficiently as they currently are.

Same congestion, just at 65 mph. And with shorter safe following distances to boot, therefore denser safe traffic. Think about it.

I'll try to dig up those speed reports for you. It's going to be a busy week, so it may take a little while.

Hey, someone who will give me some evidence. And who comes across as a sane, reasonable guy, too :-) Hava nice week.

Date: 2 Sep 1997 10:23:52 -0400
Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving

The speedo got stuck at 196km/h. That's pretty close....;-)) Does anyone happen to know, if you remove the drive cable from a speedo, whether or not it goes round to the maximum setting?

It should drop to zero. But given the forces involved in the crash, seems to me the needle could have been knocked any which way in one impact, then frozen by a later one. It's sort of like finding a smashed watch frozen at midnight -- maybe it was smashed at midnight, maybe whatever smashed it also moved the hands.

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 13:31:58 GMT
Newsgroups: uk.transport, rec.autos.driving

Despite all this, one man managed to survive in the front seat after smashing into a wall at 121 mph, while rear passagers died. How strange.

...especially seeing as he was allegedly the only one wearing a seatbelt.

And given that not wearing a seatbelt is particularly stupid in an airbag-equipped car....

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 09:59:27 -0500
Newsgroups: 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 recklesness by following behind at an equally great rate of speed.

Another commented: Oh, but doncha know. The speeders posting here all tell us that speed doesn't kill....

This falls under stupidity kills NOT speed kills.

A) Driver was drunk. (hence high speed and loss of control) B) All fatalities not wearing seat belts.

If it were speed kills the driver would have been going a reasonable speed (within his and the vehicle's limits with regard to weather and road conditions) while sober with all in the car wearing seat belts. Since none of these conditions were met, its 'stupidity kills'

Going into a tunnel on a curve at 200kph (120mph) on an urban roadway is clearly a serious error in judgment. Going 200kph through a desert on a empty stright road on a dry sunny day is not.

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:35:53 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

I doubt the chauffeur and bodyguard did not wear belts, but that doesn't help them much if the dead weights sitting behind them didn't wear them. Note that the bodyguard survived, probably only because he was smashed by Diana, and not by Dodi.

Considering the design of the S class Seat structures, this should make little difference. The difference was that the pillar intruded on the vehicle on the driver's side, thoroughly crushing the driver's side compartment, presumably makng survival by the driver hopeless regardless of seatbelt and airbag.

If Di had taken responsibility and said "slow down" or "that's enough" or "excuse me while I buckle up," perhaps she'd still be alive.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Ct. Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1950

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:19:36 -0400 Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

I have heard all the arguments ( drunk driver, too fast, no seat belts) but a few questions come to mind:

- As good as Mercedes are built, does anyone have any idea if a mechanical failure might have been a contributing factor in the accident? E.g. because of the armor, high speed etc. a suspension component failed or perhaps a braking problem?

- Anyone know if there were any secondary impacts like hittin another car (or being hit by another car) after the initial impact?

- Did that particular car have an anti-skid control device? Was it active? If it was active, had it been modified to account for the heavier armored vehicle dynamics?

- One could tell from the video during the removal of the wreckage that both driver and passenger airbags had deployed. One wonders if the front pair would have sustained as many injuries as they did (death included) if the back passengers mass wasn't added to the mass the airbags had to decelerate. (The back passengers are assumed to be unbelted)

Just a few things that come to mind, that could contribute extra factors to the accident. The science behind it seems to indicate that for every additional factor present (speed, drunk driver, improperly handling vehicle, weather condition, road condition, failure to use safety devices) the index of fatality goes up by a factor of at least 2. One wonders what the outcome might have been if only all the occupants were wearing their 3-point harnesses/belts. They seem to be able to counter an accident where even 4 or 5 other factors are present.

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:47:20 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport

No, it was the V12 S600. It lives up to its reputation "even after a bomb-blast, or a severe accident, a Mercedes is always recognizable."

Which is more than can be said for the occupants....

From what I heard, the two rear seat occupants, Diana and her boyfriend, were not wearing seatbelts. I don't know if the bodyguard in the front seat was wearing a belt, but you have to be amazed at the design of a car which would allow a front seat occupant to survive several rolls and a head-on impact with an immovable object at over 100 mph.

Date: 2 Sep 1997 02:22:36 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

Should you ever be in my neck of the woods, cross the roads with great caution. "It looked like a deer, right before I hit him."

Ooh! Ooh! Road Rage! See, it's EVERYWHERE!

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 04:17:00 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport

On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 17:34:56 -1000, Leon James wrote:
What would make the driver go 80 mph around a curb in/near a tunnel, etc.?

They were all drunk and having a wild time.

Date: 2 Sep 1997 10:05:17 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

To the rest of the crew: Vote time: Who looks dumber? Dr. Driving trying to pin this on his crusade, or our Deutchphile friend demonstrating how superior German cars are, since only three of four occupants were killed in a Mercedes accident -- and the trunk of the car remained recognizeable!

Oh please. Mercedes S-class is the King of Cars. They were unbelted for goodness sakes, of course they're going to die in a high speed collision. The belted body-guard survived despite being pummelled from behind by an unbelted Di/Dodi (force=ma is very substantial since 'a' is huge). There are very few cars that could perform as well in as severe an impact, certainly none from Japan. Die S-Klasse ist KONIG, and don't you dare dispute it.

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 09:47:04 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport, dc.driving, phl.transportation, soc.culture.malaysia, misc.transport.road

A news report today report mentions that Diana was not wearing a seatbelt. The report did not mention if any of the other passengers were wearing belts or not; the telivised footage does appear to show an airbag that had inflated.

The car was armored, had front and side airbags, as well as computer aided steering and a strengthened roof. I believe the security man who survived was wearing his seatbelt in the front seat. I'm not surprised Diana (sitting in the back) was not.

I wonder how much the severity of this crash was amplified by the design of the Place d'Alma underpass center divider: of upright posts with no continious gardrail.

Absolutely. The speed of about 90mph was way too fast, but even a 35mph impact into one of those piers would be catastrophic. It seemed like the tunnel was on a horizontal curve, increasing the danger of those piers.

Yes, a Jersey barrier shielding those piers would have greatly reduced the impact.

Yes, highway design seems to be a considerable factor in this tragic accident.

I agree. Given the confining dimensions of the tunnel, had French authorities placed Jersey barrier or at least a connecting wall between the columns the chance for a crash as terrible as this one would have been greatly reduced. No vehicle can withstand a head on impact with a rigid structure at 120 mph. Deflecting it away from those columns would have kept the car on the road, giving the driver more time to get his vehicle under control (and perhaps running over some of the paparazzi...).

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:00:36 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, uk.transport, dc.driving, phl.transportation, soc.culture.malaysia

Vote time: Who looks dumber? Dr. Driving trying to pin this on his crusade, or our Deutchphile friend demonstrating how superior German cars are, since only three of four occupants were killed in a Mercedes accident -- and the trunk of the car remained recognizeable! E-mail me the votes, and I'll post a summary.

One of the *unbelted* occupants survived for several hours after the crash. The car rolled several times and then struck an immovable object at high speed. I have difficulty believing that any other make of car would have provided the occupants with better protection.