Those two slept threw physics and kinetic energy.
Teens killed in Tesla traveling 116 MPH
- Thread starter Mr Nice
- Start date
- Status
Kestas
Staff member
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what the aunt had to say. How does she know the teens survived the initial impact? What information or qualifications does she have to make this statement?
Again, we'll have to wait for the NTSB to complete the investigation.
Again, we'll have to wait for the NTSB to complete the investigation.
NTSB ? I thought they investigated stuff like airline crashes ? Not a simple car crash ? Over reach by the feds ?
You take any car , at 116 MPH and hit a solid object . Not going to be much left that is recognisable . Certainly not any one breathing . Fire or no fire .
An Aunt ? How can she be objective ?
A big part of the blame falls on the parents for letting a teenager drive something fast . Especially with a history of speeding at 85 MPH .
If I had had something fast , as a teenager , I might not be here today .
You take any car , at 116 MPH and hit a solid object . Not going to be much left that is recognisable . Certainly not any one breathing . Fire or no fire .
An Aunt ? How can she be objective ?
A big part of the blame falls on the parents for letting a teenager drive something fast . Especially with a history of speeding at 85 MPH .
If I had had something fast , as a teenager , I might not be here today .
I think the legal age should be lowered to 16 when operating a vehicle. Once you get behind the wheel of a car, you take on a responsibility to other drivers on the road.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Danno
Read that the father asked Tesla limit top speed of the car to 85 mph after previous speeding incidents.
I don't see that in the linked report.
Read that the father asked Tesla limit top speed of the car to 85 mph after previous speeding incidents.
I don't see that in the linked report.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
I'm sure most of us have stories about doing stupid things that could/should have been fatal when we were youngsters, these kids were unlucky enough to not be able to tell their stories later in life.
It's sad that they died, but I do have to say I'm glad they didn't take any innocent victims with them.
BINGO!
I'm sure most of us have stories about doing stupid things that could/should have been fatal when we were youngsters, these kids were unlucky enough to not be able to tell their stories later in life.
It's sad that they died, but I do have to say I'm glad they didn't take any innocent victims with them.
BINGO!
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: IndyFan
Originally Posted By: Trav
Purging the gene pool. These two got what they ordered going 116 mph in a 30 zone but someone else will have to be responsible because they were good kids from good families and would never do something like this.
No one will say these two were a couple of morons out of control and paid the consequences of their own stupidity.
I wouldn't blame the kids for their parents' blame game. Dumb move on their part, but I don't think they deserve death for it.
We'll all one day get what we deserve. My prayers are up for the family, even if they are misguided. Only parents who have lost children can understand the anguish and pain they are in right now.
Who said they deserve to die? I didn't, there is a huge difference in getting what they ordered and paying the consequences of their own stupidity and deserving.
Murderers, Rapist, child molesters, terrorist, etc deserve to die, no one deserves to die in a car wreck.
I don't get the mentality in the USA. A kid 14 kills someone and they want to put him on trial as an adult but an 18 year old is just a kid. Its a moving goal post, at what point are you responsible for your own actions and have to pay the consequences or reap the rewards for them.
If they are just kids why not a restricted driving license, no night driving and loss of license for 6 months for even minor tickets.
There are many endeavors in life which have a steep learning curve; being well trained can help you survive them, but the curve remains. You must be well trained, well behaved, or at least stay within the guideline to remain among the quick.
My profession required most of the above, sometimes you are just lucky( or unlucky) fate is a cruel mistress.
Smoky
Originally Posted By: IndyFan
Originally Posted By: Trav
Purging the gene pool. These two got what they ordered going 116 mph in a 30 zone but someone else will have to be responsible because they were good kids from good families and would never do something like this.
No one will say these two were a couple of morons out of control and paid the consequences of their own stupidity.
I wouldn't blame the kids for their parents' blame game. Dumb move on their part, but I don't think they deserve death for it.
We'll all one day get what we deserve. My prayers are up for the family, even if they are misguided. Only parents who have lost children can understand the anguish and pain they are in right now.
Who said they deserve to die? I didn't, there is a huge difference in getting what they ordered and paying the consequences of their own stupidity and deserving.
Murderers, Rapist, child molesters, terrorist, etc deserve to die, no one deserves to die in a car wreck.
I don't get the mentality in the USA. A kid 14 kills someone and they want to put him on trial as an adult but an 18 year old is just a kid. Its a moving goal post, at what point are you responsible for your own actions and have to pay the consequences or reap the rewards for them.
If they are just kids why not a restricted driving license, no night driving and loss of license for 6 months for even minor tickets.
There are many endeavors in life which have a steep learning curve; being well trained can help you survive them, but the curve remains. You must be well trained, well behaved, or at least stay within the guideline to remain among the quick.
My profession required most of the above, sometimes you are just lucky( or unlucky) fate is a cruel mistress.
Smoky
Originally Posted By: Rhymingmechanic
I just did a quick search for 100+ mph crash test videos. The two I found are head-on, so the damage is clearly more extreme. In the focus video, you can see gas spraying out of the tank. If the car was running, I wonder how likely a fire would be.
400 G's. They should be applauding Tesla for the one survivor.
I just did a quick search for 100+ mph crash test videos. The two I found are head-on, so the damage is clearly more extreme. In the focus video, you can see gas spraying out of the tank. If the car was running, I wonder how likely a fire would be.
400 G's. They should be applauding Tesla for the one survivor.
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
NTSB ? I thought they investigated stuff like airline crashes ? Not a simple car crash ? Over reach by the feds ?
I read through the NTSBs news release. They are primarily investigating the battery fire part of it and how the emergency responders handled it. There's not a lot of data on mobile Li-ion battery crashes and fires, so I imagine they want to learn what they can from this incident to add training for emergency responders.
NTSB ? I thought they investigated stuff like airline crashes ? Not a simple car crash ? Over reach by the feds ?
I read through the NTSBs news release. They are primarily investigating the battery fire part of it and how the emergency responders handled it. There's not a lot of data on mobile Li-ion battery crashes and fires, so I imagine they want to learn what they can from this incident to add training for emergency responders.
Quote:
Pat Riley, the aunt of driver Barrett Riley, released the following statement on behalf of the family:
“We appreciate the NTSB for investigating this accident and hope more information comes forth. What is really at issue here for the family is why did these tragic deaths happen? This was clearly a survivable accident. The boys should not have died in a fire after they survived the crash without much injury. The fire killed these young men… not the accident. The fire was the problem. The fire should never have happened. Why did the electric car batteries catch fire and why was the car passenger not protected inside? That is what we want to learn.”
And there is the turd of nonsense. WHY DID THE BATTERY CATCH ON FIRE AFTER IMPACTING A CONCRETE WALL AT 116MPH .. WHY TESLA ITS YOUR FAULT..
I would laugh at that asinine Aunt but its not cool to laugh when people have died.
She has obviously never watched a youtube battery video where they poke a cell phone battery and it blows up.
Pat Riley, the aunt of driver Barrett Riley, released the following statement on behalf of the family:
“We appreciate the NTSB for investigating this accident and hope more information comes forth. What is really at issue here for the family is why did these tragic deaths happen? This was clearly a survivable accident. The boys should not have died in a fire after they survived the crash without much injury. The fire killed these young men… not the accident. The fire was the problem. The fire should never have happened. Why did the electric car batteries catch fire and why was the car passenger not protected inside? That is what we want to learn.”
And there is the turd of nonsense. WHY DID THE BATTERY CATCH ON FIRE AFTER IMPACTING A CONCRETE WALL AT 116MPH .. WHY TESLA ITS YOUR FAULT..
I would laugh at that asinine Aunt but its not cool to laugh when people have died.
She has obviously never watched a youtube battery video where they poke a cell phone battery and it blows up.
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I think the legal age should be lowered to 16 when operating a vehicle. Once you get behind the wheel of a car, you take on a responsibility to other drivers on the road.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
You can't change laws to discriminate against people who are 16-18 who drive. If your parents provide you a Tesla to drive, you are obviously rich. There was a court case in the US where some kid killed someone driving drunk, and the court ruled that he did not know the difference between right and wrong because he was rich. That's the problem, they are not driving the family minivan, they are driving their or their Dad's single year lease sports car that can be replaced without any real drama.
I think the legal age should be lowered to 16 when operating a vehicle. Once you get behind the wheel of a car, you take on a responsibility to other drivers on the road.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
You can't change laws to discriminate against people who are 16-18 who drive. If your parents provide you a Tesla to drive, you are obviously rich. There was a court case in the US where some kid killed someone driving drunk, and the court ruled that he did not know the difference between right and wrong because he was rich. That's the problem, they are not driving the family minivan, they are driving their or their Dad's single year lease sports car that can be replaced without any real drama.
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
I'm sure most of us have stories about doing stupid things that could/should have been fatal when we were youngsters, these kids were unlucky enough to not be able to tell their stories later in life.
It's sad that they died, but I do have to say I'm glad they didn't take any innocent victims with them.
Completely true. As a youngster I remember a few incidents that could have easily turned out bad, but I was lucky. Most of us will admit to the same, those that won't either led incredibly boring lives or just won't say so!
I would think that as heavy as a Tesla is it would tear down most walls! Kind of like an armor piercing shell...
I'm sure most of us have stories about doing stupid things that could/should have been fatal when we were youngsters, these kids were unlucky enough to not be able to tell their stories later in life.
It's sad that they died, but I do have to say I'm glad they didn't take any innocent victims with them.
Completely true. As a youngster I remember a few incidents that could have easily turned out bad, but I was lucky. Most of us will admit to the same, those that won't either led incredibly boring lives or just won't say so!
I would think that as heavy as a Tesla is it would tear down most walls! Kind of like an armor piercing shell...
I can do a hundred miles an hour, long as I got my plastic power, sitting on the dashboard of my car,.......
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I think the legal age should be lowered to 16 when operating a vehicle. Once you get behind the wheel of a car, you take on a responsibility to other drivers on the road.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
You can't change laws to discriminate against people who are 16-18 who drive. If your parents provide you a Tesla to drive, you are obviously rich. There was a court case in the US where some kid killed someone driving drunk, and the court ruled that he did not know the difference between right and wrong because he was rich. That's the problem, they are not driving the family minivan, they are driving their or their Dad's single year lease sports car that can be replaced without any real drama.
The vehicle really doesn't matter, although sports cars and young drivers certainly don't help. A kid I went to high school with killed himself and his girlfriend after their car lost control and hit a stone wall at 95 mph. The car they were driving was a 2004 Honda Civic and they were both high as a kite. Had there been a car in the oncoming lane when they lost control, that person probably would've been dead also.
I'm not discriminating against 16-18 year olds, I'm including them. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you don't have any less responsibility at 16 than you do at 35. If it's discrimination, raise the driving age to 18. Maybe I'm just in a unique position because I've seen so many deaths caused by 16-18 year old drivers and the parents simply claimed they didn't know because they were a kid. If they don't know, they shouldn't be driving then.
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I think the legal age should be lowered to 16 when operating a vehicle. Once you get behind the wheel of a car, you take on a responsibility to other drivers on the road.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
You can't change laws to discriminate against people who are 16-18 who drive. If your parents provide you a Tesla to drive, you are obviously rich. There was a court case in the US where some kid killed someone driving drunk, and the court ruled that he did not know the difference between right and wrong because he was rich. That's the problem, they are not driving the family minivan, they are driving their or their Dad's single year lease sports car that can be replaced without any real drama.
The vehicle really doesn't matter, although sports cars and young drivers certainly don't help. A kid I went to high school with killed himself and his girlfriend after their car lost control and hit a stone wall at 95 mph. The car they were driving was a 2004 Honda Civic and they were both high as a kite. Had there been a car in the oncoming lane when they lost control, that person probably would've been dead also.
I'm not discriminating against 16-18 year olds, I'm including them. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you don't have any less responsibility at 16 than you do at 35. If it's discrimination, raise the driving age to 18. Maybe I'm just in a unique position because I've seen so many deaths caused by 16-18 year old drivers and the parents simply claimed they didn't know because they were a kid. If they don't know, they shouldn't be driving then.
People die all the time from driving at high speeds. This one was just in the news because it's a Tesla and that generates views.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I think the legal age should be lowered to 16 when operating a vehicle. Once you get behind the wheel of a car, you take on a responsibility to other drivers on the road.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
You can't change laws to discriminate against people who are 16-18 who drive. If your parents provide you a Tesla to drive, you are obviously rich. There was a court case in the US where some kid killed someone driving drunk, and the court ruled that he did not know the difference between right and wrong because he was rich. That's the problem, they are not driving the family minivan, they are driving their or their Dad's single year lease sports car that can be replaced without any real drama.
Washington state has some strict laws for people who have what is called an Intermediate license, you passed your driving test but for the first six months you have to adhere to the following rules. I do not know how strictly they are enforced.
(1) An intermediate license authorizes the holder to drive a motor vehicle under the conditions specified in this section. An applicant for an intermediate license must be at least sixteen years of age and:
(a) Have possessed a valid instruction permit for a period of not less than six months;
(b) Have passed a driver licensing examination administered by the department;
(c) Have passed a course of driver's education in accordance with the standards established in RCW 46.20.100;
(d) Present certification by his or her parent, guardian, or employer to the department stating (i) that the applicant has had at least fifty hours of driving experience, ten of which were at night, during which the driver was supervised by a person at least twenty-one years of age who has had a valid driver's license for at least three years, and (ii) that the applicant has not been issued a notice of traffic infraction or cited for a traffic violation that is pending at the time of the application for the intermediate license;
(e) Not have been convicted of or found to have committed a traffic violation within the last six months before the application for the intermediate license; and
(f) Not have been adjudicated for an offense involving the use of alcohol or drugs during the period the applicant held an instruction permit.
(2) For the first six months after the issuance of an intermediate license or until the holder reaches eighteen years of age, whichever occurs first, the holder of the license may not operate a motor vehicle that is carrying any passengers under the age of twenty who are not members of the holder's immediate family as defined in RCW 42.17A.005. For the remaining period of the intermediate license, the holder may not operate a motor vehicle that is carrying more than three passengers who are under the age of twenty who are not members of the holder's immediate family.
(3) The holder of an intermediate license may not operate a motor vehicle between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. except when the holder is accompanied by a parent, guardian, or a licensed driver who is at least twenty-five years of age.
(4) The holder of an intermediate license may not operate a moving motor vehicle while using a wireless communications device unless the holder is using the device to report illegal activity, summon medical or other emergency help, or prevent injury to a person or property.
(5) It is a traffic infraction for the holder of an intermediate license to operate a motor vehicle in violation of the restrictions imposed under this section.
(6) Except for a violation of subsection (4) of this section, enforcement of this section by law enforcement officers may be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of this title or an equivalent local ordinance or some other offense.
(7) An intermediate licensee may drive at any hour without restrictions on the number of passengers in the vehicle if necessary for agricultural purposes.
(8) An intermediate licensee may drive at any hour without restrictions on the number of passengers in the vehicle if, for the twelve-month period following the issuance of the intermediate license, he or she:
(a) Has not been involved in an accident involving only one motor vehicle;
(b) Has not been involved in an accident where he or she was cited in connection with the accident or was found to have caused the accident;
(c) Has not been involved in an accident where no one was cited or was found to have caused the accident; and
(d) Has not been convicted of or found to have committed a traffic offense described in chapter 46.61 RCW or violated restrictions placed on an intermediate licensee under this section.
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I think the legal age should be lowered to 16 when operating a vehicle. Once you get behind the wheel of a car, you take on a responsibility to other drivers on the road.
I remember having claims where a 16 year old was drunk and killed a family or pedestrian. The family would always claim the offender was "just a kid" and not of legal adulthood. Well, they somehow obtained alcohol without being a legal adult also...
The key word is negligence. Big difference between something that was done accidentally and something that was done as a result of being negligent. Driving at 116 mph in a 30 mph zone is negligent. To those who are saying "kids will be kids" I'm sure if they killed your kid/spouse/family member you would be singing a different tune.
You can't change laws to discriminate against people who are 16-18 who drive. If your parents provide you a Tesla to drive, you are obviously rich. There was a court case in the US where some kid killed someone driving drunk, and the court ruled that he did not know the difference between right and wrong because he was rich. That's the problem, they are not driving the family minivan, they are driving their or their Dad's single year lease sports car that can be replaced without any real drama.
Washington state has some strict laws for people who have what is called an Intermediate license, you passed your driving test but for the first six months you have to adhere to the following rules. I do not know how strictly they are enforced.
(1) An intermediate license authorizes the holder to drive a motor vehicle under the conditions specified in this section. An applicant for an intermediate license must be at least sixteen years of age and:
(a) Have possessed a valid instruction permit for a period of not less than six months;
(b) Have passed a driver licensing examination administered by the department;
(c) Have passed a course of driver's education in accordance with the standards established in RCW 46.20.100;
(d) Present certification by his or her parent, guardian, or employer to the department stating (i) that the applicant has had at least fifty hours of driving experience, ten of which were at night, during which the driver was supervised by a person at least twenty-one years of age who has had a valid driver's license for at least three years, and (ii) that the applicant has not been issued a notice of traffic infraction or cited for a traffic violation that is pending at the time of the application for the intermediate license;
(e) Not have been convicted of or found to have committed a traffic violation within the last six months before the application for the intermediate license; and
(f) Not have been adjudicated for an offense involving the use of alcohol or drugs during the period the applicant held an instruction permit.
(2) For the first six months after the issuance of an intermediate license or until the holder reaches eighteen years of age, whichever occurs first, the holder of the license may not operate a motor vehicle that is carrying any passengers under the age of twenty who are not members of the holder's immediate family as defined in RCW 42.17A.005. For the remaining period of the intermediate license, the holder may not operate a motor vehicle that is carrying more than three passengers who are under the age of twenty who are not members of the holder's immediate family.
(3) The holder of an intermediate license may not operate a motor vehicle between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. except when the holder is accompanied by a parent, guardian, or a licensed driver who is at least twenty-five years of age.
(4) The holder of an intermediate license may not operate a moving motor vehicle while using a wireless communications device unless the holder is using the device to report illegal activity, summon medical or other emergency help, or prevent injury to a person or property.
(5) It is a traffic infraction for the holder of an intermediate license to operate a motor vehicle in violation of the restrictions imposed under this section.
(6) Except for a violation of subsection (4) of this section, enforcement of this section by law enforcement officers may be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of this title or an equivalent local ordinance or some other offense.
(7) An intermediate licensee may drive at any hour without restrictions on the number of passengers in the vehicle if necessary for agricultural purposes.
(8) An intermediate licensee may drive at any hour without restrictions on the number of passengers in the vehicle if, for the twelve-month period following the issuance of the intermediate license, he or she:
(a) Has not been involved in an accident involving only one motor vehicle;
(b) Has not been involved in an accident where he or she was cited in connection with the accident or was found to have caused the accident;
(c) Has not been involved in an accident where no one was cited or was found to have caused the accident; and
(d) Has not been convicted of or found to have committed a traffic offense described in chapter 46.61 RCW or violated restrictions placed on an intermediate licensee under this section.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what the aunt had to say. How does she know the teens survived the initial impact? What information or qualifications does she have to make this statement?
Again, we'll have to wait for the NTSB to complete the investigation.
I didn't read the linked article nor do I know when this accident happened but it can almost always be determined if the deaths were caused by blunt force impact vs smoke inhalation or burns. For instance, if smoke residue or burning particles are found in the lungs, that indicates the person was alive and breathing during a fire.
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what the aunt had to say. How does she know the teens survived the initial impact? What information or qualifications does she have to make this statement?
Again, we'll have to wait for the NTSB to complete the investigation.
I didn't read the linked article nor do I know when this accident happened but it can almost always be determined if the deaths were caused by blunt force impact vs smoke inhalation or burns. For instance, if smoke residue or burning particles are found in the lungs, that indicates the person was alive and breathing during a fire.
Originally Posted By: Rand
Quote:
Pat Riley, the aunt of driver Barrett Riley, released the following statement on behalf of the family:
“We appreciate the NTSB for investigating this accident and hope more information comes forth. What is really at issue here for the family is why did these tragic deaths happen? This was clearly a survivable accident. The boys should not have died in a fire after they survived the crash without much injury. The fire killed these young men… not the accident. The fire was the problem. The fire should never have happened. Why did the electric car batteries catch fire and why was the car passenger not protected inside? That is what we want to learn.”
And there is the turd of nonsense. WHY DID THE BATTERY CATCH ON FIRE AFTER IMPACTING A CONCRETE WALL AT 116MPH .. WHY TESLA ITS YOUR FAULT..
I would laugh at that asinine Aunt but its not cool to laugh when people have died.
She has obviously never watched a youtube battery video where they poke a cell phone battery and it blows up.
Unfortunately these idiot parents will try and sue Tesla for their ‘out of control’ sons.... (Pun intended).
Quote:
Pat Riley, the aunt of driver Barrett Riley, released the following statement on behalf of the family:
“We appreciate the NTSB for investigating this accident and hope more information comes forth. What is really at issue here for the family is why did these tragic deaths happen? This was clearly a survivable accident. The boys should not have died in a fire after they survived the crash without much injury. The fire killed these young men… not the accident. The fire was the problem. The fire should never have happened. Why did the electric car batteries catch fire and why was the car passenger not protected inside? That is what we want to learn.”
And there is the turd of nonsense. WHY DID THE BATTERY CATCH ON FIRE AFTER IMPACTING A CONCRETE WALL AT 116MPH .. WHY TESLA ITS YOUR FAULT..
I would laugh at that asinine Aunt but its not cool to laugh when people have died.
She has obviously never watched a youtube battery video where they poke a cell phone battery and it blows up.
Unfortunately these idiot parents will try and sue Tesla for their ‘out of control’ sons.... (Pun intended).
I recall one of my best friends that died in a similar manner, shortly after his 16th birthday where his parents gave him a '69 Camaro. An old used car at the time, but it still had some power that he chose to use too much of and lost control one night. His parents were good parents, and he was a good kid. He just did something stupid, and he didn't survive the consequences of his actions.
RIP, Kent.
RIP, Kent.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Purging the gene pool. These two got what they ordered going 116 mph in a 30 zone but someone else will have to be responsible because they were good kids from good families and would never do something like this.
No one will say these two were a couple of morons out of control and paid the consequences of their own stupidity.
I will.
I've certainly made my share of stupid mistakes, but so far I've lucked out, and I try to make less of them as I get older..
Purging the gene pool. These two got what they ordered going 116 mph in a 30 zone but someone else will have to be responsible because they were good kids from good families and would never do something like this.
No one will say these two were a couple of morons out of control and paid the consequences of their own stupidity.
I will.
I've certainly made my share of stupid mistakes, but so far I've lucked out, and I try to make less of them as I get older..
- Status
Similar threads
