How fast do you have to be driving to tear a car in half?

[dscabra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...c=U531#image=2

Came across this news article this morning and as tragic as it is that four people died, how can a journalist even make a statement like this?

"It is unclear if speed was a factor in the accident but authorities say that the investigation into what caused the crash is ongoing."

[GuidoK]

Happens more often than you think.

Here's a tesla model X broken in half by a Nissan GTR (also in a suburban area, so speeds were way over the limit)

Luckily no deaths but the part that broke off contains the 2 back seats ment for children....
Maybe don't put your children there. To me it looks like those 2 back seats are not within the safety cage...

I think these are crashes where ~100mph speeds are involved.
Even at 70mph highway speeds you rarely see this kind of carnage (at least not when semitrucks aren't involved)

[DETRoadster]

Originally Posted by dscabra

Came across this news article this morning and as tragic as it is that four people died, how can a journalist even make a statement like this?

"It is unclear if speed was a factor in the accident but authorities say that the investigation into what caused the crash is ongoing."

Because that's what a proper journalist does. They state fact and not opinion. The journalist does not work for NHTSA. The journalist is not a highway patrol officer. The journalist has no experience in determining the cause of the accident and even if he did, it's not his job to let that experience enter into his story. His singular job is to report the facts that are known at that point and at the time of reporting the cause of the accident had not yet been determined. The one interviewee account of the accident theorized that speed was a factor and the journalist did the right thing by cautioning that had yet to be established. Because it has not. the interviewee expressed an opinion, a theory, and the reported stated the fact.

You may look at the photos and think you know beyond a doubt that speed was a a factor (Hell, I do too!) but until its proved to be a factor by those investigating, it's just an opinion and opinions dont have a place in proper journalism.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Because that's what a proper journalist does. They state fact and not opinion. The journalist does not work for NHTSA. The journalist is not a highway patrol officer. The journalist has no experience in determining the cause of the accident and even if he did, it's not his job to let that experience enter into his story. His singular job is to report the facts that are known at that point and at the time of reporting the cause of the accident had not yet been determined. You may look at the photos and think you know beyond a doubt that speed was a a factor but until its proved to be a factor but those investigating, it's just an opinion and opinions dont have a place in proper journalism.

I have to agree, I think where the problem lies is that too many "journalists" feel the need to offer opinion or conjecture rather than just reporting known facts. Western democracies would be so much better off if we could separate news/journalism from entertainment and commentary.

My other pet peeve along these lines is the need to make every news story better than the previous one rather than just reporting facts. A tornado touched down in Barrie Ontario a few days ago, 20 houses damaged, 8 to hospital with most now released and no loss of life. The descriptor used was "catastrophic", so what adjective do we now use to describe something that is actually catastrophic?

[M5Rick]

Looks like a TRAIN hit it.

[TiMSport]

Originally Posted by Murf993

My other pet peeve along these lines is the need to make every news story better than the previous one rather than just reporting facts. A tornado touched down in Barrie Ontario a few days ago, 20 houses damaged, 8 to hospital with most now released and no loss of life. The descriptor used was "catastrophic", so what adjective do we now use to describe something that is actually catastrophic?

Yeah, they should've used the word "cataclysmic".

[dscabra]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

Because that's what a proper journalist does. They state fact and not opinion. The journalist does not work for NHTSA. The journalist is not a highway patrol officer. The journalist has no experience in determining the cause of the accident and even if he did, it's not his job to let that experience enter into his story. His singular job is to report the facts that are known at that point and at the time of reporting the cause of the accident had not yet been determined. The one interviewee account of the accident theorized that speed was a factor and the journalist did the right thing by cautioning that had yet to be established. Because it has not. the interviewee expressed an opinion, a theory, and the reported stated the fact.

You may look at the photos and think you know beyond a doubt that speed was a a factor (Hell, I do too!) but until its proved to be a factor by those investigating, it's just an opinion and opinions dont have a place in proper journalism.

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree. What value does the comment, "It is unclear if speed was a factor in the accident but ..." add to their story?

[DETRoadster]

Originally Posted by dscabra

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree. What value does the comment, "It is unclear if speed was a factor in the accident but ..." add to their story?

The value is that it puts into perspective the interviewee's comment about speed being a factor. It reminds us that the interviewee expressed their opinion and the facts are not yet known. Without that comment from the interviewee, the comment from the reporter would have no place.

[dscabra]

Originally Posted by DETRoadster

The value is that it puts into perspective the interviewee's comment about speed being a factor. It reminds us that the interviewee expressed their opinion and the facts are not yet known. Without that comment from the interviewee, the comment from the reporter would have no place.

So it's a way to state the obvious in the absence of facts. Perhaps they could cover more possibilities? It's unknown if speed, a mechanical failure, a medical condition, sun glare, weather, road conditions, or any other possible causes contributed to the accident.

Again, I get the technical aspect, but find it a bit silly; probably about as silly as most people probably feel about this debate.

Have a great rest of your weekend.

[Cyn-BMW]

Romain Grosjean says about 140 mph!