Not enough in this case, apparently...if in fact that's what they did.

 

Not sure if they could sue the father or not given that, as you state, the driver was 18. However, the drinking age in Florida is 21, and it's been all over the Ocala forums that the young men had been at an adult-supervised party where alcohol was served prior to this event.

And while ymmv, I don't think it would be a "crock" to sue someone for illegally providing alcohol to an underage driver who was subsequentially the cause of in a fatal accident. It it was my kid that was wrapped around a tree, I'd damn sure want whomever it was that served that driver alcohol to pay, and pay bigtime.

 

 

Only two questions left to answer:

1. Who's party was it?

2. Was the kid forciably held down and made to consume alcohol?

This is/was a HORRIABLE experience to say the least for all of the families. But when all is said and done, it was the ADULT DRIVERS ACTIONS that caused this event. Not the parents, the governement, the neibhors party, etc, etc. YES , ALL of them may have aided the incident in one form or another. BUT HE DID GET BEHIND THE WHEEL, atleast I beleive NOT under gun point as of yet. HE WAS TRESPASSING, HE WAS DRINKING, and HE WAS SPEEDING.
I have a son, and he will learn to respect driving/alcohol/parents/pepole/etc, etc.
EVERYBODY is responsiable for his or her OWN actions, IMHO. Sorry that we disagree so strongly.

see yeah

My heart and prayers to the families

 

This has no relevance. An illegal act is an illegal act, regardless of where it was commissioned.

So, by this logic, drug dealers should not be held accountable for illegally selling drugs to teenagers either, right? After all, the drug dealer did not force the kid to take the drugs!

...actions which may have been fueled by alcohol that was ILLEGALLY PROVIDED....

Yes, I agree: EVERYONE is responsible for HIS OWN ACTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ILLEGALLY SERVED UNDERAGE PERSONS ALCOHOL if this turns out to be the case.

Or are you arguing that only CERTAIN people should be held responsible for CERTAIN actions?

You can't have it both ways.

 

BTW, what do you guys think the top speed was? 120 mph after 3-4 seconds of braking means the car's top speed was??

150-160 mph?

 

Well, what they said was that it was traveling a minimum of 120 before it started braking, and that it braked for 2-3 seconds. If it was traveling at 120 and braked for 2-3 seconds with about 700 pounds worth of extra weight (assuming average of 180 pounds/passenger, given that these guys were athletes), then I figured they'd probably be still going anywhere from 68-85 mph.

Someone else calculated on the Ocala forum that they could have traveled that distance and dropped to about 15' above the ground (which is where they struck the final trees) with an initial velocity of 65 mph, but since they hit a fence first which probably slowed them down, I'd figure their initial velocity when they left the runway was more in the 75-85 mph range--particularly given the amount of damage to the vehicle.

But it may have been going faster than 120 before they hit the brakes....who knows how many runs they did, if brake fade was an issue, overdriven headlights/headlights off, etc....still a lot of unknowns, but at least we know more now.

Another scenario: he may have had it going substantially faster than 120, more like 150+, then braked too lightly to avoid subjecting the car/tires to an all-out stop, not realizing how long it would take to stop it from that speed (under *ideal* conditions with driver only, that car would take between 700-800 ft. to stop from 150, so tack on another 150 ft or so thanks to the extra weight). If he wasn't fully on the brakes, that portion of the braking would have left no marks; then he would have seen the end of the runway looming while still running at 120 and really gotten on them hard, by which point it would have been far too late.

Actually, this could also explain why the skid marks were so short....in any case, all of the evidence seems to point to a vast underestimation of the acceleration and braking distances involved from these speeds compared to the length of the runway.

 

I didn't mean to imply that there was sufficient light to pull this off successfully, rather there likely was enough light for these guys to at least consider it to reduce the chance of getting caught.

 

My math shows that the car was going at least 120 when it became airborne. I doubt hitting the tree head-on or sideways at that point would have made much of a difference.

 

This is the only part I agree with, but my questions were still NOT answered, you simply answered them with another question my friend

But then again your logic would dictate that a gun shop is responsible for crime with a gun right?

Anyway, I quit you are reading WAY tooo deep and do not see the brick wall in front of your face about ADULT actions. I leave you with my last thought of the day, are you a Democrat by chance?

See yeah

My heart and prayers go out to all of the loved ones that have to deal with this now.

 

No. I told you that the first one was irrelevant. How does the location of the party, or for whom it was thrown, have any relevance whatsoever to the fact that a crime may have been committed there?

If it was for Johnny, or Sally, or Marcia, it's irrelevant: if alcohol was illegally and knowingly served to underage drinkers AT the party, then the servers comitted a crime.

IF these underage drinkers then went out and committed a crime under the influence, than the servers committed a criminal act and can be held liable.

Your second question was rhetorical in nature, and I answered it with a simple analogy, which you obviously didn't quite grasp. But I did answer it.

If he illegally sold the gun to a minor? You bet. If he sold it to an adult? No. The law is different when it comes to minors and/or underage drinking, friend, and while these guys were not minors, they were underage drinkers, and the law is clear: it's against the law to serve them alcohol.

Which is why the FHP got the other bureau involved: they are obviously examining the evidence and considering filing charges against the adults who threw that party, which is the only possible reason for obtaining toxicology data from the passengers; they want to establish whether or not the young men had alcohol in their systems, which would be irrelevant to the crash itself, but very relevant to illegally purchasing/serving them booze.

I read it just fine, and tore it to shreds by demonstrating the hypocrisy of your idelogically (but, unfortunately, not logically) motivated argument: that on one hand you argue for "personal responsibility" for the guys in the car, while on the other hand arguing against personal responsibility of the adults who may have illegally served them alcohol, which seems to stem from some idelogically-motivated hatred of lawyers.

As I said: you cannot have it both ways. If the guys in the car are responsible for their actions, then so to are the adults who (if true) served them alcohol responsible for their actions.

No, I am a proud independent, who left the republican party because of its hijacking by black/white right/wrong with us/against us idealogues like you. Are you a right winger who is blinded by ideology and hypocrisy, perchance? Are you a political neophyte who grossly oversimplifies the entire 3d political spectrum into a two dimensional bipolar graph?

And, while we're asking questions, do you support adults serving alcohol to underage drinkers at parties, even without the knowledge and/or consent of said drinkers' parents?

If parents were to serve your child alcohol without your knowledge and consent, would you think that they had done anything wrong?

 

Improviz,

As usual you make some good points but are we certain that the parents knowingly served these 18-20yo men alcohol? Yes, I understand that if they did the law was broken and they will suffer........ but, maybe these young men had fake IDs....... or had older friends that purchased the alcohol. Millions of other under-aged people get there alcohol that way and I'm sure most on this forum had a drink or two before they were 21.

I think the point that MRAMG1 was making is that these individuals were adults.... not kids and looking to blame someone else for their poor judgement is wrong (IMO).

By the time you are 18yo, our legal system expects you to know right from wrong. So if these men knowingly drank illegally and then drove an M5 150mph+, shouldn't they accept the responsibility and consequences of their behavior?

Listen, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not looking to argue but I have a hard time with this case if we're looking to blame others.

 

That's exactly how my outside lights work. When the high beams are on, the inside lights are also illuminated with what looks like airplane landing lights. There is not as much of a distinct cutoff like as when the low beams are on. The will illuminate road reflectors over a mile away. I haven't tested the theory, but they appear to light up enough road to not overdrive them even at some fairly high rates of speed, maybe 70, maybe 80.

As far as the breaking distance goes, I do remember that the end of the runway that we raced on last year seemed very close when we got to the brake point. I had not trouble stopping, but I had to use so much pressure that the brakes got very hot. I think you know what I'm talking about, as yours probably did the same thing. My speed was about 135 at that time. The M5s that were there were going even faster and they stopped without going off the end of the runway.

Not trying to win any arguments, just throwing out more topics for discussion. BTW, good research, as usual.

 

Trying to emulate Top Gear( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfUCJwYORUE) on a puny 1.5 mile strip.
Have any of you brought your cars to 155?
You need more room than that (especially with 5 people in the car).


Tragic but stupid.

 

They were at a friend's house celebrating one of the victim's 19th birthday. It would seem that the hosts would have known they were under-age.

 

Were the parents home at the time of this celebration? Also, was it at the home of one of the deceased?

 

Hi, Rock

Certain? No. But that is a pretty small community, and there are a number of posters who have posted about this party, who claim to have first-hand knowledge, etc., and they've been pretty unequivocal. One in particular claims to have been in law enforcement in the area, and either he's a brilliant bull****ter, or he's got some pretty good knowledge of this, and he's been pretty emphatic about claiming that they were served alcohol, with full knowledge of the parents, at this party.

And again, if you read between the lines in that last article, it's kind of obvious that in changing their minds to investigate whether the passengers had alcohol in their systems, the only possible reason for this would be to proceed along this front.

Yes, *but* as we all know, alcohol impairs judgement, and given that the legal drinking age is 21, it would seem that the law thinks they're not responsible enough to drink at that age (which to me is hypocritical and stupid given that they're old enough to get drafted and killed in a war, but I don't write the laws), then if they were illegally provided with alcohol, and if a case could be made that alcohol was a contributor to this accident, then aside from the obvious criminal charges, civil charges can, and should be, an option.

I certainly wouldn't claim that the parents in question were fully responsible, but to absolve them entirely of any responsibility for (again, if these reports are true) engaging in an illegal action which impaired the driver's judgement and thus would doubtlessly contributed to the accident.

Yes, and I believe that they did, in the ultimate fashion. But shouldn't the parents in question also accept responsibility for (again, if this turns out to be true) providing the alcohol which impaired the judgement of these young men?

But why, if it is determined that the driver was impaired or drunk and that they were illegally served alcohol by parents, should the parents not pay a penalty? If these guys had been sober, they might have exercised better judgement and not gone out there in the first place.

In other words, while this wouldn't be the primary cause of the accident (obviously, not everyone who went to the party went out and got themselves killed), it could certainly be a contributor.

Even if the others did something illegal and wrong? Should there then be no punishment at all? Not even a fine?

I'm just trying to understand why you think the parents should get a pass if it turns out that they illegally served these guys alcohol.

 

Yeah. It would take the M5 roughly a mile to hit its top speed, and then if one *immediately* nailed the brakes (i.e., panic stop), it could get stopped in probably 700 ft. or thereabouts (using C&D's shootout, sedan winner, assuming the M5 stops as well as that), figure another 150-200 ft for reaction time and braking to begin...

That's a grand total of about 1.18 miles to get from 0-150-0--under ideal conditions, with only the driver on board.

Now add 700 pounds in passengers. You've just turned it into an E39 M5 power-wise, with corresponding length increase in acceleration times, and dramatically increased braking distances as well.

And this was a 1.4 mile long runway.

If you got that vehicle to or near its maximum speed, you'd have well short of enough runway remaining to get it to a stop.

Unintentional suicide.

 

I guess this is the question that really needs to be answered................

Well, being the parent of 20yo twin males, I guess I can understand how something that starts out as well intentioned (a party) can go horribly wrong. I think I have always attempted to instill a sense of responsibility and moderation in my children but I do realize that sometimes the actions of your grown children can be out of your control.

Should parents that serve alcohol to 18-20yo be responsible for a tragic event directly related to intoxication? Yes, I have no argument or defense on that topic. I guess in this case I'm assuming............ and hoping that the parents were not aware of these students alcohol consumption before they decided to attempt the fateful high-speed runs in dad's M5.

 

Yeah, at least....based upon what I saw w/the wifey's bi-xenons, I'd think that you could illuminate out to 0.1 mi or better with them, but you'd need more like 0.2, which I'm not sure they could hit, to have a shot at reacting and getting it stopped in time from 150+....

Yup, they did get hot towards the end....

Yeah. Do you remember how far they set aside for braking? I know that from start-braking zone was 0.4 mi., but not sure how much remained. I'm assuming it was about 0.25 mi., but don't remember.

Anyway, braking distances definitely increase in a nonlinear fashion. I am basing my estimates of braking distances for that car on the 150-0 braking by the competitors in that, most of which were in the 700-800 ft. range, with stopping times around 7-8 seconds . And those distances were with driver only, so I'd tack on another 150 ft or so due to the four passengers....

I'll tell you, those stopping distances and times are a real eye-opener. Definitely gives one a much-needed sense of perspective...you can see them for the different cars via the pulldown menu on this page:

Thanks!!

 

Agreed....I certainly was at times! :Y

Ah, now I see where you're coming from....but these people seemed pretty emphatic that the parents were aware that underage kids (including the deceased) were drinking; I recall seeing mention of their furnishing a keg (kegs?)...

Now, obviously we don't know this, and I'm not prepared to pronounce them guilty as charged when all of the evidence isn't in, which is why I've taken great pains to say, repeatedly, "IF" they did this, etc....they are certainly innocent until proven guilty, and I, like you, hope that they weren't dumb enough to do what it is they're being accused of doing.

Time will tell....

 

That's a big admission from an E55 owner

Seriously, Improviz is bringing up some interesting facts. So if the weight if the four passengers brought the power to weight ratio down from the E60s 280bhp/ton to the E39s 236bhp/ton (Evo magazine's figures with driver, luggage and fuel) then trying to hit top speed in such a short space *and* stop again was, as you put it, "unintentional suicide" of the most tragic kind.

 

Darwin award?

 

I agree with you, but even if the parents were NOT aware of the minor's alcohol consumption in their (parent's) home, would they not still be responsible (in the eyes of the law) for not PREVENTING the minor's access to the alcohol?

 

WOW, Get a life Francis. You'r right you got me, I am wounded for life,

FACT
1. 19 year old adult, consumed alcohol
2. 19 year old drove car impaired
3. 19 year old was trespassing
4. 19 year old was speeding in excess of 100 mph

The rest well, you win, YOU'R way tooooo interested in other parties/facts/issues for me to waste any more time on my friend. Oh yeah, don't forget to vote!

See yeah

PS: And I thought this website was for information about cars