| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
High-Ranking Microsoft Employee Among 2 Killed In Fiery Crash | |
|
||
| Time: 12:45 EST/17:45 GMT | News Source: Komo TV | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
KOMO 4 News has learned that a high-ranking Microsoft employee was one of the people killed Wednesday in a fiery crash on Highway 522 near Monroe. State troopers say Heikki Kanerva was trying to pass another car in his Porsche when he sped into the opposite lane and hit a motorhome head on. Both vehicles erupted into flames and were burned practically beyond recognition. The crash killed both the driver of the motorhome, 34-year-old Stacy Yager, and Kanerva. Kanerva was director of Microsoft's Office software division. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:47:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 8/23/2002 1:03:22 PM |
| Yes, They have our condolences... |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/23/2002 1:29:36 PM |
| People do some really dumbass things on the road because they are impatient. |
| #3 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/23/2002 3:17:28 PM |
|
kevn: Oh, so I get it, blame the traffic on the people who are FOLLOWING the law.
The fact is, if you are going 70 on a 55, you are WAY over the speed limit, and thus should recieve a ticket, unfortunately, there just aren't enough traffic cops. Just because someone is going the speed limit and you don't want to doesn't give you the right to endanger the lives of others by tailing them, it's wrong, and actually against the law. Tailing someone isn't going to get you somewhere any faster than being 2 seconds behind the person.... but I guess that requires some common sense, something that, unfortunately, most people in this great nation have none of. This post was edited by CPUGuy on Friday, August 23, 2002 at 15:17. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/23/2002 3:42:13 PM |
|
CPUGuy - kevn is correct. This is called the "Dead Right" problem, where someone will willfully create a dangerous situation because they are damned certain they are right.
It doesn't matter whether the cars are in compliance with the speeding laws, technically they are creating a hazard by impeding the reasonable flow of traffic. It would not be unreasonable or unlikely for a state trooper to give the person in the left lane a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic. You don't have the right to endanger other people just to prove a point. ThunderRiver - Agreed, but... you still shouldn't pass unless you know it is safe. On a two lane road this is vitally important. That was my point. |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 8/23/2002 4:03:35 PM |
|
If it is a limited-access expressway in good condition and the flow of traffic is going 75mph, then the on going the 55-mph speed limit is a danger to everyone.
Fortunately, in my state, many cops acknowledge this and wouldn't dare pull someone over in a herd of traffic going 75 in a 65 or 55. Everyone is moving safely and getting to their destination. Anything else is just local jurisdictions trying to make a quick buck and endangering everyone's lives in the process. |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/23/2002 6:14:19 PM |
|
Sounds like another case of situational ethics to me kevn. If the speed limit sign isn't something that limits how fast you can go, why do we have them? Secondly, why do cops give speeding tickets? If they only give tickets to people who are speeding unsafely, then the charge should be reckless endangerment or something along those lines rather than speeding.
We have laws for a reason. People that break the law as a general rule are those who endanger others. Nobody should be above the law, no matter how little the law might be. If you have issues with the speed limit laws, then, as a citizen it is your responsibility to voice your concern - legally - in an effort to change the law. It is also your responsibility to obey the law whether it is changed or not. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/23/2002 7:28:12 PM |
|
BobSmith - "If the speed limit sign isn't something that limits how fast you can go, why do we have them?"
Uhh, that's simple... Traffic laws are for the most part revenue generators. There was a good one a few years ago, A city wanted to install cameras in their stop lights to catch people running red lights. Well they weren't catching enough people, so they lessoned the time the yellow transition light was on. Then there was the city who signed a contract with the company that made the stop light cameras promising to give them royalties off each ticket served using them. It took quite a bit of fighting to finally get the 55 mph speed limit abolished and the main opposition wasn't safety it was city revenue. I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as excessive speed, but it is pretty easy to determine what is a safe speed on a road and most drivers will naturally adapt to it. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/23/2002 9:13:37 PM |
| sunglasses - Agreed, to a point. Unfortunately it requires some cooperation, as I tend to leave space in front of me and it seems only to encourage people to cut right in front of me. :( |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/23/2002 11:38:13 PM |
| Whatever the justification for the law, it is a law nonetheless. I don't see how one can bash people who justify breaking one law (like p2p piracy apps) and yet agree with those who justify breaking another law (like the speed limit). |
| #10 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/24/2002 1:56:05 AM |
|
kevn:
And it is against the law to speed up and pass somebody like that, it's called reckless driving. You don't seem to understand what a speed limit is. The speed limit is the FASTEST that you should be driving in IDEAL conditions. You have it exactly the wrong way... the people that are driving slower (ie, the ones driving the actual speed limit) are more concerned about their surroundings, making sure that they are ok, and everyone around them are ok. The people who are speeding are the ones who are trying to do their own little thing, not caring about a single other person on the road... as long as they get to their destination in the quickest time possible, they are happy. By the way, if you start tailing me, I slow down BELOW the speed limit, simply because you are putting us both in danger, as well as other people on the road... and it's not like it's going to get you somewhere faster by tailing someone. It all comes down to, you don't understand the meaning of the speed limit. |
| #11 By 2332 (165.247.1.82) at 8/25/2002 1:34:01 AM |
|
Sigh... there are two major reasons why people crash:
1.) Impaired. (Drunk, high, etc.) 2.) Speeding. While the first one accounts for 60% to 70% of ALL fatal crashes, the second accounts for close to 30%. And no, that 30% number does NOT include people who were speeding while drunk. (Most drunks don't speed, they just follow tail lights and swerve a lot.) At any rate, Kanerva didn't have a prayer in a Porsche. A 30mph crash would probably have been fatal, much less a 60 or 70mph crash. Porsches are death traps. In fact, there are very few cars that would allow you to survive a head on collision with a combined speed of over 80mph, (two cars traveling at 40mph) much less 120 or 140mph. Some Mercedes would do it... Volvos would do it, and some BMWs. In other words, you need to spend major $$$ to be safe. Cars are FAR safer today than they were even 20 years ago, but they are still a lot more unsafe than they need to be. Personally, I don't care if certain manufacturers make unsafe cars. I think people should be left to pick the car they want to drive, whether it's a Yugo or a Volvo. I drive a Volvo, and I'm damn glad I can afford to do so. (Although you can get a good used Volvo with less than 100,000 miles on it for under $20,000, and a good old school Volvo with around 250,000 miles for well under $10,000. These bad boys last for a long time.) I know three people who are alive today, at least in large part, because they were in Volvos. One had a head on collision on a notorious Massachusetts road (on the way to the Cape) at 70 mph. The other car was going at least 50mph. She walked away from the accident (after her door was removed by the jaws of life), but the other guy, who was driving a Ford Explorer, died instantly. (She was in a Volvo 740.) I know another girl who was a passenger in the back seat of a 1989 240 Sedan. Her door was impacted by a Cadillac at around 50mph. Not side swiped - a *direct* impact. (T-boned at an intersection.) Her ribs were broken, but she was able to limp away from the accident. The driver of the Caddy died on impact, but they weren't wearing their safety belt, so that isn't really a measure of Caddy saftey. The point is that even though the government crash tests show that most cars meet a certain "standard" of safety, when it comes down to it, only people with $$$ stand a chance in these crashes... and even then, only when they make educated decisions while buying their car. I'll never buy anything other than a Volvo. Unlike most ploys used to sell cars, it's more than marketing. (No, I'm not just relying on small samples sizes and anecdotal information... Volvos have consistently the highest crash test ratings of any car on the planet, and the Volvo S80 is considered the safest car in the world.) |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/25/2002 10:17:02 PM |
| #34 It seems that the death penalty would be more appropriate, since his crime is premeditated. |
| #13 By 2332 (165.247.4.160) at 8/27/2002 12:04:29 AM |
|
#32 - I was talking about crashes that kill. The Honda Civic tested "better" in the respect that the crash dummy's feet were not as damanged in the Civic at 40mph as they were in the S40.
If you examine the photos, however, you will see that the saftey cage on the Volvo was almost completely unaffected by the crash, whereas the Civic's took considerable damage. European crash tests show that the S40 (and all the other Volovs) survive *much* better than even far heavier cars at very high speeds - speeds greater than 70mph. These are the crashes I'm most concerned about, as they are the most likely to kill me. In addition, the American Insurance Institute tests have a very limited rating system, and really don't show the relative performance of each car. They expose glaring differences, but tend to ingore ones that are more subtle, but often as important. "The 2002 S80 had results similar to vehicles of comparable price/mass such as the Lexus ES 300 or the Mercedes C Class." Yes, at 40mph. If you compare these cars at 60mph, at 80mph, or at over 100mph, the Lexus would be about as safe as a Yugo. The Mercedes fairs better, but still not nearly as good as the Volvo, which gives you a good chance to survive. "In either case, if you get t-boned by a cement mixer, it's not going to matter much." Perhaps, but I've seen a semi-truck land directly on top of a Volvo, and the guy walked away. |
| #14 By 2332 (165.247.4.160) at 8/27/2002 12:05:08 AM |
| Oh, and: http://www.fastlane.com.au/Safety/Volvo_S80_worldsafest.htm |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:47:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
