[Closed] Porsche being sued for death of Paul Walker

So nothing to do with hitting a lamppost while doing twice the speed limit then.

The makers of the lamp post will be getting twitchy.

Surely it was forseeable some idiots would smash their car into it at warp speed?

But im sure that if porsche had fitted ejecter seats or not made the car in the first place it would never have happenned. Its gross neglegence on their part and as such have left themselves wide open. Because it's a well known fact that people never die in non 'super' cars.

Sounds like they hope to cash in on the current anti-VAG feeling at the moment. The driver's cfamily lost last year against Porsche.

There was something beautifully circular about an actor who made films that immortalised people who drive like cocks then to be best known for dying in a car being driven by someone driving like a cock.

It's a great ironic twist that all along it was the car's fault.

It's a crazy country at times. My US company was sued for not changing a medical report at the patients request to their desired outcome. Needless to say we won but only the lawyers really win.

There was something beautifully circular about an actor who made films that immortalised people who drive like cocks then to be best known for dying in a car being driven by someone driving like a cock.

[sanctimonious waffle]I'm not sure you can call anything about it "beautiful" or "great", he was by all accounts a rather nice chap and very philanthropic, and whilst one suspects he may not have been urging the driver to slow down he was ultimately entirely blameless. Still, if you're stabbed to death by someone who argues on forums we can call it a great ironic twist![/sanctimonious waffle]

If you read the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)

I think they have a point. We don't need cars that can do more than the speed limit, on public roads. Perhaps a little more for overtaking. But not 150mph. Perhaps the makers should take more responsibility for the consequences of the metal death machines that they sell at such huge profits.

So the drivers widow sued, and it was found that driver error was the cause. Why (assuming she feels she has to sue [i]someone[/i]) is the daughter not suing the driver/his estate?

d the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)

In one of the links in the article, in the original suit the car was found to have been modified (doesn't say how though) it's a little harsh to blame Porsche for someone changing the car then whinge that the safety systems didn't protect them from those possible changes.

But not 150mph. Perhaps the makers should take more responsibility for the consequences of the metal death machines that they sell at such huge profits.

If you read the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)

I think they have a point. We don't need cars that can do more than the speed limit, on public roads. Perhaps a little more for overtaking. But not 150mph. Perhaps the makers should take more responsibility for the consequences of the metal death machines that they sell at such huge profits.

The car wasn't doing a particularly ridiculous and pointless speed, only ridiculous for being in a built up area. Probably could have driven a Yaris around at 94mph if he really wanted, and that would have been a lot less safe.

Probably could have driven a Yaris around at 94mph

This. Bet you'd struggle to find a new car today that can't do 100mph

This is an interesting line in the article:

The lawsuit contends that the car was travelling much slower when it went out of control, according to TMZ.

So it sped [u]up[/u] to 94mph, from a much slower speed, after control of the vehicle was lost? No wonder Porsche are being sued, there must be some sensors that detect loss of control and decide to floor the accelerator or something....

'Murca....

its a Porsche, made in Germany, where they have roads you can legally drive at 150+ mph, that also have a very high safety record...

speed doesn't cause crashes, inappropriate use of it is the problem....

Only the lawyers will win on that one.

It's sad and unfortunate for the family and I'm sure the grieving is driving this, but surely there is someone with some sense in the family that should be saying don't do it.

It might not be the family hat decided to bring the lawsuit, it could be the life insurance company looking to avoid a payout by being able to prove someone/thing responsible.

Same way "fully comprehensive" car insurance doesn't just pay out from it' own pocket all the time, it sends the bill to the other party if it thinks they're at fault.

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

Maybe this lawsuit is frivolous but I think there is a genuine point under there somewhere.

What fitnessischeating said. I was driving to a race in Germany at the weekend and was passed (whilst I was doing 100 or so mph) by a Porsche 911 GT3 as if I was standing still. Nothing about the speed given the conditions (clear, dry, smooth 3-lane road and other drivers used to the autobahn) seemed like it was dangerous but obviously it doesn't need much to cause the driver to lose control. That said, some of the driving at significantly lower speed around the roads near the circuit by boy racers seemed far less safe.

Why (assuming she feels she has to sue someone) is the daughter not suing the driver/his estate?

Wasn't the model of Porsche in question known to have stability problems?

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

There's almost no car sold today that can't exceed the speed limit in the UK. Manufacturers would have to have speed limiters installed that couldn't be bypassed. It'd be costly and expensive as it would be specific to each country. Also, perhaps it'd need to be GPS and live data enabled to ensure you did the speed limit on each road. It would also cause issues with overtaking which, in turn would lead to more accidents as people pull out to overtake a lorry doing 50mph on a single lane a-road but get limited at 60mph or perhaps the car gets a "push to pass" button where they get a speed boost?

And all that is after about 30 seconds thinking. Totally unworkable.

His daughter is quite young I belive, talked into it?
Only one winner as other have typed

There's more details here:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/29/daughter-of-actor-paul-walker-sues-porsche-for-fathers-wrongful-death

I don't think they are saying that anyone other than the driver caused the crash, but they are arguing that Paul Walker would have survived if the design did not have significant flaws.

There's some (grim) details in the guardian link

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

The Nissan Skyline does something similar to this IIRC - it won't let you engage race mode without the GPS detecting it's on a track.

Won't be long before we're all being auto-driven at the speed limit anyway.

Unworkable - nonsense. There are existing rules limiting the size of motorbikes that can be ridden under a restricted licence.

Different countries drive on different sides of the road - that seems to be manageable for car manufacturers.

Legislation could be drafted with a 10/15/20 year implementation phase. No more cars bigger than x engine size, capacity, whatever it takes to help prevent pointless deaths from speeding on public roads.

And if you can't pass another vehicle without breaking the speed limit perhaps you should wait for some dual carriageway or until you have a safe passing distance ? Just an idea. But yes, another 10mph more than the limit would be sensible. I am not currently drafting the legislation myself, you understand.

they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire

I read it a little differently to others.

They are not complaining about the speeds the car can do.
They are not complaining about the safety aids on the car being appropriate to the speeds it can do. That would take F1 style cockpit.
They are not saying the driver didn't drive like a dick.

What they are saying is that the cars seatbelt pre-tensioner system which is fitted to 99% of new cars worked in such a way that it cracked his ribs & pelvis (Understandable in an accident situation and that it is an explosive device which pulls the occupant back into the seat in crash situation). However they also argue that in doing so it meant that Walker couldn't escape the car when it subsequently set on fire.

So do we know the answers to

1) Did the seatbelt pre tensioner cause the injuries or did the 96mph crash cause the injuries
2) Did the seat belt pretensioner restrict walker from exiting the car to escape
3) Was walker injured by the accident and therefore would have been unable to escape anyhow.

If you know the answers to all of those then you probably have a right to say if this is a waste of time. Otherwise, tbh your just giving snide comments on a guys tragic death

A car doesn't "do" 94mph, it gets driven to 94mph. It's like blaming a kitchen knife used in a stabbing. Brainless stupid shit.

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

The point being that...

was travelling at 94mph (151kph) in a 45mph zone when it hit a lamp post.

ANY car can exceed 45mph, super or otherwise, and most cars could be doing 90+.

It was entirely possible to be driving that car within the speed limit, and safely, the fact the car was [i]capable[/i] of exceeding the speed limit is entirely irrelevant as that's no different to any other car.

Even if we followed your suggestion of not selling or limiting cars to the (maximum?) speed limit of the country in which they are sold then it still would have been possible to be doing ~70mph in that 45 zone.

You could even crash into a lampost under the speed limit and kill someone!

If you're arguing for something more integrated like GPS limitation of speed based on location/zoning then that's a different discussion entirely and one for government and local legislation.

To some degree I do agree with you about the absurdity of the way we trudle around in cars that can massively exceed the speed limit, and have acceleration capabilities that would have been only found on the race track 30-40 years ago, and then use them for pootling around cities at a 12mph average, but I think that's a discussion for another thread and trying to sue Porsche for making a car that is capable of doing that is just bonkers.

If we want to start making changes to the capabilities of cars ont he road that will start at the legislation level and requires government, you can't put that on the car makers (at this stage), and you still need a hefty dose of personal responsibility regardless of the capability of the vehicle.

No more cars bigger than x engine size, capacity, whatever it takes to help prevent pointless deaths from speeding on public roads.

I sincerely hope you don't work in road safety research.

It seems very frivolous to me, the car hit a large immobile object at 90+ MPH, they died because they were driving far too quickly on a road not suitable - I.E. not a highway/motorway where traffic flow is separated and 'road furniture' not behind crash barriers.

The Car itself is both very safe it's got a carbon fibre monocoque like a Le Man style racer or F1 car so it can sustain huge impacts, far more than most cars and has tonnes of grip, far more than 99% of the cars on the road today, you can drive around corners faster and in more control than most cars, but it's also unsafe at the same time, the engine it hugely powerful, the clutch like an on/off switch and it's doesn't have stability control because that's what buyers wanted - a barely contained racer, but that means it can overcome it's huge grip levels easily.

Did you even read my post?

It seems very frivolous to me, the car hit a large immobile object at 90+ MPH, [b]they died because they were driving far too quickly[/b] on a road not suitable - I.E. not a highway/motorway where traffic flow is separated and 'road furniture' not behind crash barriers

How do you know this is why he died

The Porsche Carrera GT has a reputation as a tricky car for on the limits driving. Anyone remember [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2077344/Lewis-Hamiltons-father-crashes-Porsche.html ]Lewis Hamiton's father crashing[/url] one? However as often it is the person at the wheel that was at fault. If Paul Walker's driver wasn't driving in the manner that they were they would both probably be alive now. It's wasn't a car issue but people often need "someone to blame" in these circumstances.

If you know the answers to all of those then you probably have a right to say if this is a waste of time. Otherwise, tbh your just giving snide comments on a guys tragic death

Is this your first time on [s]the internet[/s] Earth?

If you read the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)
I think they have a point.

Shall we mention the nine year old tyres before we get too far into this thread?

If you know the answers to all of those then you probably have a right to say if this is a waste of time. Otherwise, tbh your just giving snide comments on a guys tragic death

I think you've accurately surmised what this legal action is about, but regardless of what the pre-tensioner did or didn't do, the whole issue is a still a massively depressing reflection on the litigious US of A. Who's to say or indeed know how serious his injuries could have been had the seatbelt not pre-tensioned? Will that be the counter-claim by Porsche?

I said "helps prevent" not eliminates entirely. Loads of things contribute to road deaths. Speed is just one of them, and one that to be could be limited with more success if there was the will.

But in a world that allows the sale of guns to private individuals and cigarettes to anybody I appreciate I am dreaming.

Maybe I should post some graphic picture of dead children killed by speeding cars on Facebook, and the world might start caring ?

TheLittlestHobo - Member

[b]Did you even read my post?[/b]

It seems very frivolous to me, the car hit a large immobile object at 90+ MPH, they died because they were driving far too quickly on a road not suitable - I.E. not a highway/motorway where traffic flow is separated and 'road furniture' not behind crash barriers

How do you know this is why he died

Not in great detail, but then I wasn't responding to you directly either - how do I know that how he died? I watched the news reports which gave the official report to the cause of the accident and death.

The driver lost control and hit a lamppost at a little over 90mph - the balance of probability is that he didn't aim at it and accelerate but slid into it after losing control, so I can safely assume that the speed that he was traveling at when he lost control was higher.

Call it death my misadventure or accident, but I believe they're dead because of the actions of the driver, not because Porsche built an unsafe car, because it's not, it's a very hard car to drive at it's limits which you would have to be very stupid to do on a public road.

Fast & Furious 7 wasn't the same without him.

Fast & Furious 7 wasn't the same without him.

Stay strong bro.

[img] [/img]

But is isn't against the law, or un-needed for a plane to go at that speed. Private cars on public roads don't need to go as fast as they are capable of going.

I own a car, a small motorbike, and several bicycles. I don't break the speed limit in any of them.

The Carrera GT is well known for being a car which will bite you in the ass if you try and push it too far.
None of this is really relevant when you consider that the car was doing double the speed limit (not necessarily dangerous in itself) and lost control hitting a lamppost.
The outcome would have likely been the same as if they were driving a London Taxi.

Fast & Furious 7 wasn't the same without him.

Yep, was a bit lack lustre. Nice sentimental montage at the end though....