5 ms·

It's not impossible to crash any car, the alternate reality here is that a brand new car with more safety features than a padded cell crashed by itself at 4:30a

It's not impossible to crash any car, the alternate reality here is that a brand new car with more safety features than a padded cell crashed by itself at 4:30am in the morning into a tree and exploded on impact. The point is these cars are built to try and avoid these kind of accidents at all cost, the plethora of safety features cars like these have makes it a lot more difficult than say an early 00's vehicle crashing into a tree to hurt anyone inside. Not impossible, but certainly reduces the odds a bit. This article here details the kinds of testing Mercedes put the car through: http://blogs.automotive.com/2013-mercedes-benz-c-class-and-m-class-earn-5-star-federal-safety-ratings-131883.html http://blogs.automotive.com/2013-mercedes-benz-c-class-and-m... - 200 high-speed in-house crashes sounds like a lot of testing for a car and apparently it faired well in all of them. You can see a video of the car being testing here as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvw_VLcUUwU&feature=youtu.be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvw_VLcUUwU&feature=youtu.be - while Hasting's didn't crash in a controlled environment, you see a picture painted of a car capable of withstanding a lot of impact. I know it's common for cars to slice down the middle and kill their occupants, but exploding and incinerating Hastings inside to the point they have to identify him by his dental records at least warrants a closer look. I'm not saying foul play is to blame here, but some questions need to be answered. As is common in unexplained plane crashes, the debris should be tested for explosive residue just as a precaution. Another interesting question is why was the engine found over 100 feet away from the car? When a car crashes isn't an engine pushed back into the cabin, not thrown forwards?

cloverich 13y ago
So I know almost nothing of the circumstances of the crash, but I think there is more to consider. For instance, how fast was he going? My 2006 accord is much safer than some car from the 1950's. But also, I get 260-hp out of a 3 liter engine, and its faster than a Mustang GT from the 90's. If you hit a tree going 90mph, there's little a bunch of airbags will do for you. People dying, things exploding, parts flying - how strange that is really depends on the circumstances of the crash I'd argue.
- bicknergseng 13y ago
  > its faster than a Mustang GT from the 90's What?
  - milesokeefe 13y ago
    I have that car and I can attest to it not being incredibly fast. Unfortunately horsepower != speed.
    - cloverich 13y ago
      lol. Source: http://www.zeroto60times.com/ http://www.zeroto60times.com/ 1996 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.7 Quarter mile 15.1 1999 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter mile 13.9 2006 Honda Accord EX (V6) 0-60 mph 5.8 Quarter mile 14.3 Only when they re-designed the GT in the late 90's did it get faster - which isn't really relevant, I was making the general point that modern cars have gotten a ridiculous amount of power, often in a lighter vehicle (e.g. the 2006 honda accord I drive). > Unfortunately horsepower != speed Horsepower doesn't give a direct comparison across vehicles, but generally speaking, yes horsepower = speed. > I have that car and I can attest to it not being incredibly fast. Perhaps you dont have the v6 manual? Any car that gets to 60mph in under 6 seconds is fast. And again - my comparison with the mustang GT was to paint a picture - we all recognize that as a fast car, and are perhaps surprised that modern sedan's are as fast - and often faster, while typically having a smaller (i.e. lighter) engine. Hell, look at the list of Mercede's on the same site (http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercedes-Benz-0-60-mph-Times.html http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercedes-Benz-0-60-mph-Times.ht...). There's cars on there coming in the 4 second range. So - just wanted to point out that without more details, the story isn't complete, and perhaps not as surprising as first-pass suggests.
dchuk 13y ago
How can you possibly assert that the car "crashed by itself" and not because the driver did any number of things to yank the steering wheel and throw the car out of control?
- DigitalSea 13y ago
  I own a 2006 525i BMW Sedan and I was recently in a situation about 2 months ago where a car pulled out of a side-street as I was passing on a main road, I had no choice but to yank my steering wheel and hard-brake (fortunately no other cars where behind me at the time). The car is 7 years old, but has steering assist which works with the brake assist technology the car has in which the computer takes over both the steering and braking to prevent a spin out and it worked well. The computer actually corrected the steering for me the best it could and stopped the vehicle. I could have easily gone into a power or light pole, but the car prevented it. I was doing 80km/hr which is essentially 50mph. Hastings was going 16km/hr at 60mph faster than what I was so it's not the same, but if a 7 year old BMW can do that, then I'd imagine a 2013 Mercedes would be better (that's just an assumption however). I am not fuelling conspiracies, I am just trying to say that we should always dig deeper into an unexplained situation like this. Especially one surrounded by controversy. I would actually be interested in hearing what Mercedes has to say about the accident and perhaps even seeing Mercedes trying to replicate the crash using the same car and known data. Because controversy aside, this doesn't bode well for Mercedes' image especially considering Princess Diana suffered a similar fate in a Mercedes at similar speeds, only her Mercedes didn't explode that I am aware of. This is a potential PR disaster for Mercedes, regardless of speeds or safety features of the car perception is what sells car and if a modern Mercedes is perceived as being a moving exploding bomb which isn't a good image for any company to have regardless of what the real facts are.
  - mzs 13y ago
    Those gizmos trade having the car slide instead of spin or flip, they don't break the laws of physics, so be safe out there you don't want to under steer into the oncoming lane someday. Regarding this accident, it's happened that people black-out/pass-out/fall-asleep/have-a-heart-attack/and-so-forth and the weight of their foot on the accelerator - well guess what - accelerates the car.
ScottBurson 13y ago
> When a car crashes isn't an engine pushed back into the cabin, not thrown forwards? It certainly can be, but considering that he hit a tree -- a narrow object, not like a wall -- I could imagine that if the impact point was not in the center of the car, the tree might not have been directly in front of the engine, and thus it could come out. Obviously he had to have been going petty fast, though.
- anthuswilliams 13y ago
  More to the point, is the engine being thrown 100 feet somehow more consistent with an assassination plot than with a general high-speed collision? I can't see how it could be.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    It could be the result of an explosion near the engine.
brown9-2 13y ago
I believe recent car models, or at least luxury ones, are designed to eject the engine as a safety feature. An engine projected into the cabin sound quite lethal.
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  Of course, flying car engines don't sound too good for passers-by... oO;
JshWright 13y ago
I've yet to see any witness accounts that are consistent with an explosion (and trust me, I've spent a fair amount of time looking). The post crash video looks like an 'ordinary' post crash vehicle fire to me. I don't see any signs of an explosion. What happens to the engine depends very much on how the impact occurred, and the energies involved. I've seen a handful of wrecks where some substantial piece of the vehicle (engine, transmission, etc) was tossed a long distance. Incidentally, all of those were very high speed collisions, and they all involved at least one fatality. There were all slightly off-axis impacts trees or very solid posts, where the point of impact was about halfway between the midline of the vehicle and one of the front corners.

cloverich 13y ago

So I know almost nothing of the circumstances of the crash, but I think there is more to consider. For instance, how fast was he going? My 2006 accord is much safer than some car from the 1950's. But also, I get 260-hp out of a 3 liter engine, and its faster than a Mustang GT from the 90's. If you hit a tree going 90mph, there's little a bunch of airbags will do for you. People dying, things exploding, parts flying - how strange that is really depends on the circumstances of the crash I'd argue.

bicknergseng 13y ago
> its faster than a Mustang GT from the 90's What?
- milesokeefe 13y ago
  I have that car and I can attest to it not being incredibly fast. Unfortunately horsepower != speed.
  - cloverich 13y ago
    lol. Source: http://www.zeroto60times.com/ http://www.zeroto60times.com/ 1996 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.7 Quarter mile 15.1 1999 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter mile 13.9 2006 Honda Accord EX (V6) 0-60 mph 5.8 Quarter mile 14.3 Only when they re-designed the GT in the late 90's did it get faster - which isn't really relevant, I was making the general point that modern cars have gotten a ridiculous amount of power, often in a lighter vehicle (e.g. the 2006 honda accord I drive). > Unfortunately horsepower != speed Horsepower doesn't give a direct comparison across vehicles, but generally speaking, yes horsepower = speed. > I have that car and I can attest to it not being incredibly fast. Perhaps you dont have the v6 manual? Any car that gets to 60mph in under 6 seconds is fast. And again - my comparison with the mustang GT was to paint a picture - we all recognize that as a fast car, and are perhaps surprised that modern sedan's are as fast - and often faster, while typically having a smaller (i.e. lighter) engine. Hell, look at the list of Mercede's on the same site (http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercedes-Benz-0-60-mph-Times.html http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercedes-Benz-0-60-mph-Times.ht...). There's cars on there coming in the 4 second range. So - just wanted to point out that without more details, the story isn't complete, and perhaps not as surprising as first-pass suggests.

dchuk 13y ago

How can you possibly assert that the car "crashed by itself" and not because the driver did any number of things to yank the steering wheel and throw the car out of control?

DigitalSea 13y ago
I own a 2006 525i BMW Sedan and I was recently in a situation about 2 months ago where a car pulled out of a side-street as I was passing on a main road, I had no choice but to yank my steering wheel and hard-brake (fortunately no other cars where behind me at the time). The car is 7 years old, but has steering assist which works with the brake assist technology the car has in which the computer takes over both the steering and braking to prevent a spin out and it worked well. The computer actually corrected the steering for me the best it could and stopped the vehicle. I could have easily gone into a power or light pole, but the car prevented it. I was doing 80km/hr which is essentially 50mph. Hastings was going 16km/hr at 60mph faster than what I was so it's not the same, but if a 7 year old BMW can do that, then I'd imagine a 2013 Mercedes would be better (that's just an assumption however). I am not fuelling conspiracies, I am just trying to say that we should always dig deeper into an unexplained situation like this. Especially one surrounded by controversy. I would actually be interested in hearing what Mercedes has to say about the accident and perhaps even seeing Mercedes trying to replicate the crash using the same car and known data. Because controversy aside, this doesn't bode well for Mercedes' image especially considering Princess Diana suffered a similar fate in a Mercedes at similar speeds, only her Mercedes didn't explode that I am aware of. This is a potential PR disaster for Mercedes, regardless of speeds or safety features of the car perception is what sells car and if a modern Mercedes is perceived as being a moving exploding bomb which isn't a good image for any company to have regardless of what the real facts are.
- mzs 13y ago
  Those gizmos trade having the car slide instead of spin or flip, they don't break the laws of physics, so be safe out there you don't want to under steer into the oncoming lane someday. Regarding this accident, it's happened that people black-out/pass-out/fall-asleep/have-a-heart-attack/and-so-forth and the weight of their foot on the accelerator - well guess what - accelerates the car.

ScottBurson 13y ago

> When a car crashes isn't an engine pushed back into the cabin, not thrown forwards? It certainly can be, but considering that he hit a tree -- a narrow object, not like a wall -- I could imagine that if the impact point was not in the center of the car, the tree might not have been directly in front of the engine, and thus it could come out. Obviously he had to have been going petty fast, though.

anthuswilliams 13y ago
More to the point, is the engine being thrown 100 feet somehow more consistent with an assassination plot than with a general high-speed collision? I can't see how it could be.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  It could be the result of an explosion near the engine.

brown9-2 13y ago

I believe recent car models, or at least luxury ones, are designed to eject the engine as a safety feature. An engine projected into the cabin sound quite lethal.

snogglethorpe 13y ago
Of course, flying car engines don't sound too good for passers-by... oO;

JshWright 13y ago

I've yet to see any witness accounts that are consistent with an explosion (and trust me, I've spent a fair amount of time looking). The post crash video looks like an 'ordinary' post crash vehicle fire to me. I don't see any signs of an explosion. What happens to the engine depends very much on how the impact occurred, and the energies involved. I've seen a handful of wrecks where some substantial piece of the vehicle (engine, transmission, etc) was tossed a long distance. Incidentally, all of those were very high speed collisions, and they all involved at least one fatality. There were all slightly off-axis impacts trees or very solid posts, where the point of impact was about halfway between the midline of the vehicle and one of the front corners.