Teenaged YouTube 'Counter-Strike' Star Dies, Kills Two In Fiery Wrong-Way Highway Crash (sandiegouniontribune.com)

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports: The 18-year-old who sped the wrong way down state Route 805 Thursday, crashing into a SUV and killing himself, a 12-year-old girl and her mother, was a YouTube star who had made a small fortune in video gaming gambling, according to authorities and hundreds of gaming fans on Twitter. The California Highway Patrol identified him Friday as Trevor Heitmann of San Diego. But the nearly 900,000 subscribers to his YouTube video channel and his Twitter followers knew him as "McSkillet"...

Kevin Hitt, editor in chief of VPesport.com online gaming news outlet, said Valve, under constraints from the state of Washington gambling commission, confiscated about $200,000 worth of McSkillet's skins and shut down his ability to acquire more.
VPEsports reports: Heitmann was one of the biggest names in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CSGO) skin trading when in late 2017, Valve, developers of CSGO, banned all of Heitmann's Steam platform accounts, shutting down his entire skin trading and collecting empire... The ban by Valve precluded Heitmann from being able to unbox, gamble, or trade skins which directly affected his ability to monetize his YouTube videos which saw viewer counts anywhere between 250,000 to 4.3 million. He hasn't posted a video since....

Before the fatal crash, Heitmann purposely drove his vehicle into the Ashley Falls Elementary School front gate that had a sign on the front that had the word "STEAM" printed on it in reference to a magnet program which supports science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics. After breaking a window, he then drove onto the soccer field, spinning his car in circles a couple of times before leaving.
A CHP office says Heitmann's speed was estimated at over 100 miles per hour before his final fiery crash -- and that Heitmann's $250,000 McLaren sports car "disintegrated", while the SUV was so badly burned investigators couldn't determine whether its two passengers -- Aileen Pizarro and her 12-year-old daughter Aryana Pizarro -- had been wearing seat belts.

Aileen's 22-year-old son has started a GoFundMe page "to help aid my family with funeral costs and any additional expenses related to Aileen and Aryana's deaths."

Comments

Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

I understand the point was to highlight the aftermath of the crash, but seat belts aren't going to save you if someone comes at you head-on at 100 MPH. Also, I know the CHP and the state in general have a vested interest in promoting the use of seat belts. Still, this is a very strange time to discuss them.

Re:Seat belts?

[iserlohn]

I think it's more the fact that the bodies we so badly burned, the investigators were not able to complete straightforwards and standard tasks, like determining if the seat belts were worn by the occupants.

Re:Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The seatbelt thing is meant to describe the level of carnage that this hormone-filled douche bag inflicted on innocent bystanders due to his inability to control his emotions. He torched a little girl and his mother so bad the police could barely figure out who he murdered. It has nothing to do with safety. Obviously everyone will be dead in a 100mph head-on collision. I hope he burns in hell.

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefighter here - in my response area we have a single lane undivided roadway with a 50mph speed limit and we routinely see survivors of head on 100-120mph collisions. Airbags play a big factor as do crumple zones, as do seatbelts. Iâ(TM)ll add that in my career, 16+ years and counting, everyone Iâ(TM)ve cut out of cars who was wearing a seat belt survived. As an aside, we sometimes have to pick up motorcyclists with a shovel, and hose away the pieces too small to pick up.

Re:Seat belts?

[jd]

F1 drivers can handle such collisions, but they use safety harnesses rather than seatbelts. Harnesses, incidentally, that seem less failure prone than seatbelts in the event of an accident.

Of course, the total destruction in this case makes that a moot point.

SUVs are not terribly safe vehicles anyway, but it's hard to see what could have been done here. Airbags on the front of the vehicle? Ejector seats? I'm not sure either would have worked.

Re:Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

F1 drivers also have safety cages. That's all great for protecting one person, but most of us have cars that can carry more than just a driver.

Re:Seat belts?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Comparison to an F1 car is useless.

F1 cars are designed for that. It's not just the harness. They also cost lots and lots of money.
If you want that level of 'safety', shell out $1,000,000 for your grocery getter, and be prepared to rebuild it after every little fender bender.

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

On any F1 circuit, there are lots of marshals around to immediately provide assistance if there's a crash. Drivers aren't allowed in an F1 car unless they prove they can escape within five seconds. Anything around the cockpit is designed to absorb energy in the event of a crash. The cars have a fire suppression system built in to put out a fire if one starts. Drivers wear fire-resistant suits and helmets. F1 cars are uncomfortable to drive because of all the safety features, but they're engineered incredibly well so drivers can survive horrific crashes and walk away from them. The same is true in other forms of motorsport like NASCAR, where a car can flip over several times, completely break apart around the driver, and yet the driver walks away. Look at Austin Dillon's crash at the end of the July Daytona race two or three years ago and you'll see what I mean. Even so, efforts are made to keep speeds within reason. F1 circuits add things like chicanes to reduce speeds. NASCAR uses restrictor plates on some tracks.

If ordinary cars were engineered in the same way, people could survive a lot more crashes. The cars would also be a lot more expensive and uncomfortable, to the extent that most people wouldn't want to drive them.

Re: Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

I've been in car crashes that didn't kill anyone. That's as much experience as most of the people around here are going to have -- or are you saying that only traffic safety engineers and automotive engineers have any right to discuss the topic?

Re:Seat belts?

[Antique Geekmeister]

That is an interesting theory. With modern air bags, and the difficulty of good forensic analysis after a vehicle fire, I suspect that the body _locations_ were not very different, and that the positions were very difficult to analyze on the scene.

Re:Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

It appears the only requirements for McLaren are that if you want their flagship car, you have to be a "loyal customer" (such as the type that buys $250,000 "production cars").

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

This Youtuber alone was going over 100mph, the mother and child in the oncoming lane were probably doing speed limit (lets say 70mph). You have to add the velocities together (like you did with your 50+50 example)... you don't walk away from a 170mph collision.

Re:Seat belts?

[markdavis]

>"This event also makes driving laws in some other countries (Australia is the first that comes to mind) look better than our own. They restrict the use of high-powered vehicles until the driver has a certain amount of driving experience -- five years, if I remember right."

Different (objective), not better (generally subjective).

In any case- ANY modern car can go 100 MPH, the estimated speed of this accident. In many places in the USA, the highest speed limit is 80 (and 85 in a few tiny spots), with people reasonably going 5 over. You don't need a "performance" [high-powered] vehicle to do that.

Now, most would admit that "performance" vehicles may further coax certain [already reckless-leaning] people to do reckless things.

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea is bad and you ahould feel bad. The huge majority of 18 year old men do not drive headlong into other cars. "Experience restricted", lol.

Do you people just intuitively try to restrict freedom?

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you, Einstein?

Re:Seat belts?

[multi io]

I understand the point was to highlight the aftermath of the crash, but seat belts aren't going to save you if someone comes at you head-on at 100 MPH.

It would obviously depend on the masses of the vehicles involved. I was wondering for a moment whether an SUV might be heavy enough relative to a sports car to give you some chance of survival, but probably not at that speed difference.

Re:Seat belts?

[drinkypoo]

F1 drivers also have safety cages. That's all great for protecting one person, but most of us have cars that can carry more than just a driver.

Other types of drivers have safety cages too, even when they race in vehicles that can hold more than one person. A WRC car can roll, tumble, and cartwheel multiple times before hitting a tree and the driver and co-driver can both get out and walk away in many cases. It's well past time to ask why race cars have to be safe in high-speed collisions, but street cars don't.

Re: Seat belts?

[KiloByte]

You have to add the velocities together (like you did with your 50+50 example).

Nope, a head-on collision of 50+50 doesn't add velocities -- it's the equivalent of going 50 into a wall or a similar solid obstacle. Here's an explanation.

Re:Seat belts?

[NormalVisual]

Or, he wouldn't have found it so easy to build up that much speed

My beat-to-hell, 5500 pound pickup truck that's coming up on 200,000 miles will still hit 100 mph faster than a lot of cars will. That speed is a pretty low bar for modern cars, and my truck is about the least flashy thing anyone could hope to drive.

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

So full of crap.

The P=mv equation plays here. Mass and relative velocity of BOTH vehicles must be considered.
If they are moving in opposite directions, then there is more energy in the collision.
Then you can't treat a CAR as a SOLID WALL. They are designed to deform during the crash. This is the difference between an elastic and in-elastic collision. During the collision, some energy will be lost in deforming of the vehicles.

A head on by two cars travelling at 50MPH is definitely worse than a single car hitting a solid immovable wall at 50MPH. But not double, because the wall is assumed to be immovable/non-deformable.

Re: Seat belts?

[Opyros]

It sounds like Galileo to me, actually.

Re: Seat belts?

[tsqr]

What is clear in the linked article, is that a collision between two cars is not similar to a collision between a car and an immovable solid object such as a wall or bridge abutment.

Re:Seat belts?

[CrimsonAvenger]

This event also makes driving laws in some other countries (Australia is the first that comes to mind) look better than our own. They restrict the use of high-powered vehicles until the driver has a certain amount of driving experience -- five years, if I remember right.

I take it that Australia also makes it illegal to travel the wrong way down a highway if you're an inexperienced driver?

Face it, going 100 the wrong way down a highway sounds more like a suicide attempt than a failure in driving laws....

Re:Seat belts?

[Highdude702]

The added weight of roll cages in passenger cars would fuck up the MPG ratings and manufacturers would have to engineer better.

Re:Seat belts?

[JDevers]

Professional football players walk away from very high energy physical assaults every game with no injury at all, I think every person should be required to wear head to toe protective gear and exercise 20-30 hours a week in order to prevent needless injury. That is what you just described. One is a sport, the other is real life. What makes perfect sense to require in a totally voluntary sport with extremely high budgets per “player” would never work in real life.

After all this car also CAUGHT FIRE, maybe if we require halon systems with drop down oxygen support in all cars we could prevent this sort of tragedy.

Re:Seat belts?

[drinkypoo]

Professional football players walk away from very high energy physical assaults every game with no injury at all

In fact, many of them walk away with brain injuries.

I think every person should be required to wear head to toe protective gear and exercise 20-30 hours a week in order to prevent needless injury. That is what you just described.

Complete falsehood. Crash safety can be improved significantly without the driver even noticing that anything has changed, except cost. But since it costs everyone money when people die in a crash, it's reasonable to expect drivers to spend more money on safety.

After all this car also CAUGHT FIRE, maybe if we require halon systems with drop down oxygen support in all cars we could prevent this sort of tragedy.

We should absolutely require fire extinguishing systems such as are commonly installed in racing cars, with automatic trigger systems such as are commonly installed in transit and school buses. The total cost of such systems would be minimal if implemented across entire product ranges.

Re:Seat belts?

[zugmeister]

Am I the only one who while reading that heard John Cleese on a castle wall saying "...and your father smelt of elderberries!" ?

Re: Seat belts?

[zugmeister]

Do you people just intuitively try to restrict freedom?

Because it's so much easier than usefully addressing the cause of the problem?

Re: Seat belts?

[Bite The Pillow]

That's not an explanation. If you replace a car with an immovable object, the impact would be the same as one car vs. immovable object. If you replace one car with a teddy bear, the impact would be the same as a car vs. a teddy bear.

Only in a direct head on collision, with two similarly weighted vehicles, where they both essentially come to an immediate halt, is that true.

Most likely the victim tried to swerve out of the way, adding rotational forces and an indirect collision, making it worse.

Re:Seat belts?

[sunking2]

I think it mentions it in an attempt to stop the barrage of questions as to whether they were wearing them or not.

Especially in CA I find it hard to believe any 12 year old wouldn't be wearing one. It's so ingrained into society at this point and at least the small glimpse into the lives of the victims shows them to be in a demographic that is probably 99% the car doesn't move without it being on.

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's equivalent to a car running into a stationary car at 100mph (same relative difference, same relative impulse, before and after), not into an immovable solid object like a wall. If both vehicles deform the same and have the same mass, then a head on collision between two vehicles going the same speed is theoretically equivalent to hitting a stationary solid object at the same speed, not the sum of the speeds. Every force on either car is countered by the other car just like it would be countered by a solid wall. In practice the situation will never be perfectly symmetric, so there will be differences, but it's certainly not like hitting a wall at twice the speed.

Re: Seat belts?

[GS1]

It is the energy that counts. Energy is not a linear function of velocity (Ek = mv^2 / 2). That's why a crash against a wall at 100 mph is 4 times as bad as a crash at 50 mph.

From the point of view of an immobile reference frame such as the road, each car has Ek joules of energy from their speed, which must be dissipated to bring the velocities down to zero.

In a head-on crash without braking, the energy dissipates purely by folding metal and subsequently crushing bone.

If you had two similar vehicles crashing into each other at equal speeds, meaning both vehicles have equal amounts of kinetic energy and fold in an equivalent way during the crash: it's as if you had crashed against a solid wall. Imagine this as crashing in a mirror copy of your vehicle.

In other words although the two vehicles double the system's total energy, each vehicle requires exactly half of the total energy to bring their velocity down to zero: just like crashing against a wall.

There is not much one can do against a rogue vehicle speeding towards them. Perhaps the best that could be done for now is preemptive braking, which could give a chance to the hittee.

Or there may come a day where such speeding is limited by some technical authoritarian means.

Re:Seat belts?

[quonset]

They restrict the use of high-powered vehicles

Why would it matter if it's high powered or not? I used to drive a 90s something Honda Civic which could go over 100 mph. I know of no one who calls a stock Civic a high powered vehicle.

Re: Seat belts?

[belthize]

I've heard this stupid mantra for 40+ years. The chances of you being in an accident where, seatbelt = burned alive and no seat belt = instant death, is very close to zero.

The other common argument is no seatbelt = instant death is better than seatbelt = vegetable. Which is fine except the set of car accidents where no seat belt = vegetable and seatbelt = perfectly fine is much much larger.

In short if you want to avoid horrible death or long term disability then wear a fucking seatbelt, or don't reproduce because you're mucking up the gene pool

Re: Seat belts?

[KiloByte]

What is clear in the linked article, is that a collision between two cars is not similar to a collision between a car and an immovable solid object such as a wall or bridge abutment.

Please show me where you see such a statement. That very article explains it clearly.

As long as the immovable object is solid enough, every force involved is exactly same as for a head-on collision between two identical cars.

Things are different if:
* the cars have different mass
* the object is not solid: a thin wall, a deformable obstacle like a sign pole -- or a parked car

Re: Seat belts?

[wwalker]

Not this crap again. Didn't they bust this myth on Mythbusters too? It doesn't matter what you hit, a wall or another object travelling at an arbitrary speed in arbitrary direction. All that matters is delta V. If you were travelling at 50 mph and then as the result of collision ended up travelling 0 mph -- it absolutely doesn't matter what was the object that you hit, a wall, or another car with similar mass head on -- the kinetic energy that you need to dissipate is exactly the same. Yeah, there are nuances about crumple zones and unlike the wall, you hardly every stop at exactly 0 mph with head on collision, but that's minor details.

It's a different story if you hit a truck with a much larger mass, and the truck continues on its path with slightly reduced speed (i.e. it plows through your car). Then yeah, it's much worse, because you get some of the truck's kinetic energy. On the other hand, if you hit a bike head on, you win hands down. But assuming both cars involved in a head-on collision are about the same mass (and ignoring crumple zones and any residual speed you might have), it will be exactly the same as hitting a wall.

Re: Seat belts?

[KiloByte]

All that matters is delta V.

Energy-wise yeah, but the damage is drastically different depending on the distance that energy has been dissipated over:
* if you hit a solid wall, the distance is 0 (plus your car's internal crumple zones)
* if you hit a similar car coming head-on with the same speed, the distance is 0 (plus your own car's (only) internal crumple zones)
* if you hit a parked car with handbrake off, you may move it several meters before coming to a halt

Same difference as falling onto hard floor vs falling onto a pillow, from the same height.

But, as you can notice, the dissipation distance for solid wall vs head-on collision is identical.

Re: Seat belts?

[Kjella]

A head on by two cars travelling at 50MPH is definitely worse than a single car hitting a solid immovable wall at 50MPH.

No. Your car will deform on your side, their car will deform on their side and the net effect is the same as hitting an immovable wall. Now between two equal cars the damage scales with the relative speed difference, regardless of distribution. Like 50+50 and 100+0 ends up the same, it's still two crumple zones meeting at 100 mph. If you have unequal weights the heavier vehicle will maintain some momentum and thus have less deceleration, which is quite obvious if you consider car vs motorcycle. Though what happens to the passengers depends on the car, there's some very complex systems to soften the impact of the deceleration. If you connected a solid steel rod from the front of the car to the car seat people would die real quick.

Re: Seat belts?

[tsqr]

Please show me where you see such a statement.

OK: "While it is true (via Galilean relativity) that a head-on crash between two vehicles traveling at 50 mph is equivalent to a moving vehicle running into a stationary one at 100 mph, it is clear from basic Newtonian Physics that if the stationary vehicle is replaced with a solid wall or other stationary near-immovable object such as a bridge abutment, then the equivalent collision is one in which the moving vehicle is only traveling at 50 mph."

Re: Seat belts?

[angel'o'sphere]

However they have a crumheling zone, and that makes a huge difference.
No idea anout what you are arguing.

Re:Seat belts?

[Desler]

Again missing the point. The statement was to point out how badly the bodies were burned up.

Re: Seat belts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you didn't watch the video. With two cars there's twice the energy spread across twice the mass.

A car is not a wall. A car, unless bolted down, will move. The car will roll, skid, flip over, or something, which changes things. A sturdy wall will soak it all up and the car will get crushed.

Re: Seat belts?

[ChatHuant]

Two cars colliding frontal with 50 mph each, is equivalent to one car hitting a standing car (wall) with 100mph.

It seems intuitive, but it's not true, because kinetic energy is not proportional to the speed, but to the speed squared. For simplification let's assume the vast majority of the cars' kinetic energy before the collision ends up in the deformation of the crumple zones, and compare the energies in the two cases. In both cases, the kinetic energy after the collision is 0, so by computing the kinetic energy before the collision we can find out how much the crumple zones have absorbed.

In the car-car scenario, the total energy of the system before the collision is the sum of the kinetic energy of the two cars (each at 50 mph). Because they're identical, each car absorbs half of this, so each car has to absorb m * (50mph)^2 /2.

In the car-wall scenario the total energy in the system is m* (100mph)^2/2; that's four times the energy of the single car at 50 mph - because the factor of two in the speed gets squared. Moreover, all this energy is absorbed by a single car (because the wall is immovable), not split between both cars. In the end, the car-wall collision pumps four times more energy in the car's crumple zones than the car-car scenario, which makes it much worse.

Re: Seat belts?

[demonlapin]

Momentum determines which way the objects end up moving, but you still have to dissipate kinetic energy. Two equal-mass objects at 50 have a total of 2500*m units of energy (0.5*m*50^2 for each vehicle, double it because you have two) to get rid of. Two equal-mass objects, one standing still and one at 100 have about 5000*m units of energy (0.5*m*100^2 for one and zero for the other) to dissipate. This is a rough calculation ignoring the stuff that goes flying and that the final speed probably won’t be zero, but it’s good enough to tell you that they’re not the same situation.

Re:Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

Acceleration. Getting the Civic up to 100 isn't a case of "floor it and wait five seconds".

Re: Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

I remember when I was new to driving. I ended up using a 1967 Mustang for a day, with a 302, that belonged to a friend. Well that was OK until it started raining and I managed to spin out while trying to make a left turn. Luckily I didn't hit anything, but I found myself facing directly into traffic, which had already stopped to watch my foolishness.

Having some more experience would have helped.

Re:Seat belts?

[sarren1901]

Please, I drive a stock civic and it can get to 100 in plenty of time to do what this idiot decided to do. The car used in this did not matter. I will agree that maybe if he had a boring car he would of choose some other way to kill himself.

Sad he was so selfish that he had to take other people out with him. Could just drop off the cliffs into the Pacific and killed himself without hurting anyone else.

Re:Seat belts?

[Darinbob]

Some people don't know how to control high powered vehicles. Of course, it only takes a short bit of training to get used to them, which I'm sure this dork had. It basically sounds like he was drunk, rich, or drunk and rich, either way not suitable for being on the road.

Re: Seat belts?

[Man On Pink Corner]

First, imagine a car shaped like a rectangular prism -- i.e., a shoebox -- hitting a brick wall at 100 MPH.

Imagine that the brick wall is paper-thin and absolutely indestructible. You can't push it or crumble it or penetrate it or bulldoze it. If you hit it, you WILL stop in a distance equal to however far you are sitting from the front of your car.

Then, separately, imagine two such cars hitting each other head-on at 100 MPH each. A 200 MPH collision, right?

Now, imagine both of those cars hitting opposite sides of the same wall at the same time.

How are the dynamics any different if the wall isn't there at all?

Re:Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

Many trucks fall into experience-restricted categories. Yours might if it was in Mad Max territory.

Re: Seat belts?

[Sabriel]

Your conclusion is correct but you're off with the kinetic energy formula. The formula presumes an inertial frame of reference; simply put, the "oncoming" object - whether a car or a wall - will have the same relative speed so the KE transfer will be the same (mass differences and inelasticity aside) in both scenarios.

However, as you point out, the "car vs car" scenario involves twice as much crumple zone - which means for any given relative speed, twice as much energy can be absorbed rather than going into the occupants.

Re: Seat belts?

[ChatHuant]

Can you please explain why you think I'm mistaken?

The calculation in my post was done in the frame of reference of the Earth (or wall, if you prefer), because it's easier (since the final speed is 0). You can instead use another frame of reference (for example, of the car), but keep in mind that in any other frame the speed of the car post-collision won't be zero, so you'll need to compute the kinetic energy at the end as well, and use the difference.

Re: Seat belts?

[angel'o'sphere]

Ah, next time I write the formulas out.

Because they're identical, each car absorbs half of this, so each car has to absorb m * (50mph)^2 /2.
That is irrelevant.
Each car will "feel" a crash of E = m * (50mph)^2 * 2, in other words the passengers will be decelerated accordingly. You are right that the Energy is consumed up to a half by each car.

Then again: the energy is not what is relevant. Momentum is. And again: two cars crashing into each other with 50mph transfer the same amount of momentum like a car crashing into a wall with 100mph :P
For the passengers both crashes feel exactly the same, even for the crumble zones included.

Re: Seat belts?

[angel'o'sphere]

You are wrong because you mix up energy with impulse, and because you fail to add 50 plus 50 to 100 ...
Comparing the energies is only interesting if you want to know how much the crumble zone is warming up ...

Re:Seat belts?

[HornWumpus]

He bought it used and 3 (or so) years old. It had about 2 more years before it was worth _zero_ as maintenance costs are so insane.

Re:Seat belts?

[HornWumpus]

Short bit of training my eye. Jumping more than a couple of hundred horsepower at a time is just dangerous.

Granting that car has chicken shit traction control.

This was a German style antisocial suicide, they call them 'ghost drivers' over there.

Re:Seat belts?

[HornWumpus]

I've long believed the punishment for reckless driving should be a required steel spike sticking out of your steering wheel. No removing the airbag.

Re: Seat belts?

[HornWumpus]

The car only collision will most likely be more elastic, the cars will carry more energy (spinning away) from the car only wreck.

Re:Seat belts?

[HornWumpus]

Have you seen them touch tires? One often launches into the air.

Re: Seat belts?

[ChatHuant]

Each car will "feel" a crash of E = m * (50mph)^2 * 2, in other words the passengers will be decelerated accordingly.

I'm not familiar with the physical formula for "feel". But I can also explain in terms of deceleration, if you prefer it.

Consider an imaginary vertical line drawn exactly at the point of the car-car collision. Assuming identical cars running into each other at identical speeds (and ignoring random flying bits and pieces or possible right-to-left asymmetries in the build of the crumple zones), both cars will stop exactly at this imaginary line, on their side of it. Neither of the cars will make it even a millimeter to the other side of this imaginary line, because if one does then the two cars aren't identical. Either car decelerates from its speed before the collision to 0, over a distance equivalent to the deformation of the crumple zone.

Now, since the car stops exactly at the imaginary line, it's not relevant what stopped it there. Behind the line there may be the other identical car, there may be a wall, there may be Superman holding it in place. From the car's point of view, the deceleration is the same in all those cases.

This shows that the effect on a car running at 50 mph is the same whether it collides frontally with another travelling at 50 mph in the other direction, or whether it collides with a wall. Since car-car at 50 mph each has the same effect as car-wall at 50 mph, it's obvious car-wall at 100 mph is a different and more damaging scenario.

Re: Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

This was about restricting relatively new drivers to less powerful cars, not about the age of eligibility to drive.

Re: Seat belts?

[Mal-2]

That's 25 more seconds to think about what you're doing.

Re: Seat belts?

[Sabriel]

The catch is that kinetic energy (I'll use the term Ek) is a relative quantity, which means that the Ek of any given object will be different in reference frames in which its velocity is different, and you changed between such frames in the scenarios.

* In the "car vs wall" scenario you used frame B: the wall, to which only one of the objects is in relative motion (car A at 100 MPH, wall B at 0 MPH).
* In the "car vs car" scenario you used frame C: the Earth, to which both of the objects are in relative motion (car A at 50 MPH, car B at -50 MPH, earth C at 0 MPH).

For both scenarios to be compared in terms of Ek, you either have to stay with the same frame (e.g. "car A" at 0 MPH relative to itself in both scenarios) or apply an appropriate frame-conversion transformation.

Now someone might say, "but what if we calculated the Ek using the Earth as our reference frame in both scenarios?"

Sure, we can do that. However, remember, Ek is a _relative quantity_. Choosing "car A" as our frame is arguably more useful as it gives us the Ek relative to that car (and any hypothetical occupant); after all, it's not the Earth that's going to be at risk if the car collides with something. For example: relative to the centre of the Sun, the 1kg keyboard on my desk can be said to have an Ek of roughly 450 megajoules - about a third of the energy in a typical lightning bolt - yet my fingers still manage to safely type on ("collide" with) that keyboard every day.

"You can instead use another frame of reference (for example, of the car), but keep in mind that in any other frame the speed of the car post-collision won't be zero"

If we choose the car as the reference frame then its velocity relative to itself (and thus also its kinetic energy relative to itself) will be zero - before, during and after the collision. If it changes from zero, you've changed reference frames.

Re: Seat belts?

[Sabriel]

I am not mixing up energy with impulse, nor did I "fail to add 50 plus 50 to 100". GP's error was that they compared the two situations using different reference frames, when the kinetic energy formula returns different values depending on the reference frame used.

Re: Seat belts?

[ChatHuant]

GP's error was that they compared the two situations using different reference frames, when the kinetic energy formula returns different values depending on the reference frame used.

No, there was no error, because the value calculated was the difference between energy before the collision, and energy after the collision. This difference is the same in all frames of reference.

Here: car-wall scenario, frame of reference of the wall: before the collision: car is moving at 100 mph, wall is stationary; energy in system m*(100 mph)^2/2. After the collision, the car is stationary, energy in the system is 0, and the delta (absorbed by car) is m*(100 mph)^2/2

Same scenario, frame of reference of the car (the frame of reference is therefore moving at 100 mph relative to earth). Before the collision: car appears stationary, wall approaches at 100 mph. Energy in the system: 0. After the collision: (the frame of reference is still moving at 100 mph relative to earth): car and wall are moving at 100 mph (from this frame of reference it looks like the wall whacked the car and is dragging it along). Energy in the system: mass of car times speed of car squared/2, that is, m*(100 mph)^2/2. The delta between the energies before and after collision is still the same: m* (100mph)^2)/2. This energy was used to accelerate the car, by deforming its crumple zones.

Re: Seat belts?

[ChatHuant]

If we choose the car as the reference frame then its velocity relative to itself (and thus also its kinetic energy relative to itself) will be zero - before, during and after the collision

Nope, that's where your misunderstanding is. It's an INERTIAL frame of reference, so the speed (of the frame of reference) doesn't change. If the frame of reference is on the car before the collision, after the collision the frame keeps moving at the same speed, but the car is left behind. From the frame of reference the car appears now to be moving at a constant negative speed of -50 mph.

Re: Seat belts?

[Sabriel]

Could you please now show me through the same steps but with the car-car scenario, with the frame of reference of one of the cars prior to the collision?

Re: Seat belts?

[Sabriel]

Sorry, my bad. Per my reply to your other post, I'd still like to see your step-through of the car-car scenario from the reference frame of one of the cars (pre-collision, since as you point out it's an inertial frame) so that I can understand the process.

Re: Seat belts?

[ChatHuant]

Sure, here it is:

Let's use a frame of the reference set on the car on the left (before the collision). From this frame of reference, before the collision, the car on the left is stationary, and the car on the right is coming straight at it, at a speed of 100 mph. The total energy of the system before the collision is 0 (car on the left) + m * (100mph)^2/2 (car on the right).

After the collision, both cars get entangled and, from the point of view of the frame of reference, start moving left at 50 mph. The kinetic energy in the system is now m * (50mph)^2/2 (car on the left) + m * (50mph)^2/2 (car on the right), that is m* (50mph)^2.

The difference between the energies before and after the collision is m * (100mph)^2/2 - m* (50mph)^2, that is m*(50mph)^2. This difference has been absorbed by the crumple zones on both cars. Since the cars are identical, they both absorb half of it, so each car gets m*(50mph)^2/2 Joules.

This is exactly the same energy as a single car traveling at 50 mph has to absorb when hitting an immovable wall, so the two scenarios are equivalent. The car hitting a wall at 100 mph has to absorb four times more energy, so it comes out much worse.

Re: Seat belts?

[Sabriel]

Thankyou. I can see where I've been messing up now. I regret I can't edit my original reply to go "strike that, I totally dun goofed, mod parent up (more)."

Re: Seat belts?

[angel'o'sphere]

Interesting thought experiment.

Unfortunately wrong. The laws of conversation of momentum don't work that way.

Suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Committing suicide is one thing, but in do it in such a manner that you take other innocent lives with you, is fucking horribly twisted. Almost makes me wish that a Hell really does exist.

Re:Suicide

[Solandri]

Committing suicide is one thing, but in do it in such a manner that you take other innocent lives with you, is fucking horribly twisted.

It sounds like typical psychological projection. He felt he was wrongly punished. So he lashed out, using the justification that if an "innocent" such as himself could be made to suffer, then it was OK for him to make another innocent suffer.

I've had to caution a couple of my friends who "struck it rich" from a single income source like he did. Don't blow your money on toys and transient things like fast cars and hot women. Save it, invest it, use it to diversify your income stream. That way if that original income source disappears, you're not left high and dry like he was. Worst case you just have to reintegrate into society like a regular person, except you have a huge nest egg saved up to help you.

Re:Suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Losing your life's work and your means of making a living must take a huge toll on your sanity. But while insulting the mentally ill feels good, it won't help them get the treatment they need to avoid harming others.

Re:Suicide

[aliquis]

Whatever.

Supposedly he had run into the front-gate of a school where it said "Steam" and done some donuts before leaving.

Guess he may just have felt "fuck it" and drove on the wrong side just risking it not necessarily planning a collision though the odds is pretty high.

His accounts was banned from trading and all his items held (=stolen if the EULA accepted you actually owned them) due to idiotic gambling laws not allowing style of work he did / type of company he ran?

Re:Suicide

[aliquis]

Or he was just depressed having lost his successful creation and by impulse started to risk his own life and this happened and it may not have been planned or rationalized at all.

Re:Suicide

[tlhIngan]

Committing suicide is one thing, but in do it in such a manner that you take other innocent lives with you, is fucking horribly twisted. Almost makes me wish that a Hell really does exist.

Yet it happens - pilots crashing planes deliberately is another one that routinely shocks people. The recent Horizon Air "hijack" was notable in that it was only the guy on board - usually there are other innocent passengers just expecting to begin a nice vacation or looking forward to coming home to family and not be a part of a pilot's murder-suicide.

Germanwings and Silk Air among a few others. I can't imagine how much more damage happens - imagine being the accident investigator and coming to the conclusion that it happened not because of mechanical failure or pilot error, but a deliberate action.

Re: Suicide

[tsqr]

If you believe that a mother wouldn't be upset about her daughter being murdered by a narcissistic asshole because it sparked "valuable discussions and debate", then you're either a sociopath or an utter moron.

Re:Suicide

[zugmeister]

Are you implying that an upset 18 year old with a friggin' McLaren may have failed to think through the repercussions of his actions?
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

Re: Suicide

[that this is not und]

I wouldn't call an 18 year old 'youtube gamer star' who was identified as a cheater and ejected somebody who has 'lost his livelihood.' Now, if they fired the shitbag from his new job at the car-wash, that would be a legit loss-of-career, but he'd have to work a real job like that first.

Re:Suicide

[UnknownSoldier]

Knowledge comes in two forms - intellectual and experiential.

Your fallacy is that you are looking for intellectual knowledge or intellectual proof - which you will NEVER find. E.g. 1+1=2.

You will have you experiential proof when you die and realize your consciousness is 100% independent of your dead physical body; that is, your physical body will be nothing more then an empty shell but your thoughts will continue. E.g. I know what red is and how it differs from green because I can SEE both of them. How would you know what colors even are if you were unable to experience them???

EVERY action causes Karma -- positive or negative. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. You WILL be self-judged in the afterlife. Hell is not a place, but a state of mind - a timeout "penalty" box where you reflect upon EVERYTHING negative you did while alive. Compassion and Forgiveness to others, and yourself, will minimize this time until you learn the lessons you failed to learn while alive.

But keep whining about how you have no proof of an afterlife -- it won't make a damn difference in the end (puns intended.)

Re:Suicide

[Desler]

Where's the medical diagnosis to show he was mentally ill?

Re: Suicide

[that this is not und]

I was about 22 when I got my first job that paid $4 an hour. I felt like I had finally arrived from the minimum wage ($2.65/hr) jobs that my friends were still stuck in.

However, my first room after High School when I moved out was $42 a month. (I soon moved to a better rooming house that had a club kitchen. It was $65/month.)

Re: Suicide

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Don't respond to the guy. He's a practicing to be a Russian troll.

Re:Suicide

[aliquis]

Yeah I don't understand why people use logic and think there's a rational reason for it.

18 year old.
Male.
Depressed.
Had just crashed a gate at a school.
Being human.

Plenty of reasons to not be rational.
I raised a large Swedish flag this Friday on a square. 45-60 minutes later I was surrounded by 30-40 youths of slightly different ethnicity.
That's not really rational. Back when I started doing it it was of desperation and for liberty and honesty in Sweden kinda but now it's somewhat easier to talk about and I may not need to do it but haven't done it the last year but figure I should so it's mostly an OCD thing by now. From a rational perspective the risk is of course being struck in the head or knifed down or such, maybe losing job opportunities too. The "goal" I guess would had been an ethno-state but that's not going to happen so I will not really achieve anything, absolutely nothing for personal gain and just risk my own health, well-being and possibly life. It's not rational. It's just a compulsive impulsive idea. And I'm 39!
If we had similar laws to the US and if I felt confident in my capability and it was used in a provocative way to get an excuse then maybe it could had been rationalized but that's not the case whatsoever.

Re:Suicide

[Maritz]

EVERY action causes Karma -- positive or negative. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant.

Hahahaha. What a pile of bollocks. Not merely arrogant, but a fucking idiot too. Well done.

I guess I'll never have a McLaren

[Galactic Dominator]

For the life of me, I cannot wrap my head around the vanity needed to be buying skins for a shooter game.

Re:I guess I'll never have a McLaren

[SqueakyMouse]

I find it difficult to empathise with this one too. In the real world I get that people sometimes want to demonstrate excess wealth by wearing needlessly expensive clothes and trinkets in order to get laid, in much the same way peacocks grow feathers unneeded for survival. They demonstrate not only can they survive but also have enough resources left over to look more flamboyant. Similar again to birds that sing for long periods of time with the females watching to see how much energy they have left over to keep singing before the females choose their mate. This is a computer game however. Who gets laid this way? You can only impress your like-minded competitors in a game that is blatantly taking advantage of irrational vanity and turning it into a revenue stream. The more rational players presumably stay quiet and think, "Thanks for subsidising my game", removing some of the peer pressure for them to keep their wallets shut.

Re:I guess I'll never have a McLaren

[jd]

Money and glory are feishized. Sometimes, fetishes are lethal.

Re:I guess I'll never have a McLaren

[thegarbz]

Why not? You too could have a super expensive sports car if you just blew your money on shit like that without any care as to savings or your future livelihood.

Re:Why is trading skins gambling?

[Cederic]

You set up an online casino in which people use real money to play but get paid out in digital artwork.

Glory to YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

So glad we have a place like YouTube to give persons like this a platform to speak out, and make money. So they can feel entitled, and purchase the tools of their own destruction.
All hail YouTube.

Re:Glory to YouTube

[The Original CDR]

If you read the article, he made a small fortune outside of YouTube through an external business. With the business shut down and the outside income gone, he probably became distraught that the ad revenue from YouTube wouldn't support his lifestyle and he would have to get a job. YouTube is a great place to build an audience but not for making money from ad revenues.

Re:Glory to YouTube

[Maritz]

the tools of their own destruction.

And the tools of a 12 year old's and her mothers destruction. But I wouldn't expect you to give a fuck about that, this is slashdot after all, it's about the same level as /b/ in its sociopathy.

Re:Testosterone

[quantaman]

I have been wondering why driving licenses are given to persons with high testosterone level?
Why not ban driving if your testosterone level is above certain safe threshold?

This has nothing to do with unsafe driving, it was a guy committing suicide in a way that killed two other people in the process.

Re:Testosterone

[Anonymous Coward]

Age limit to alcohol, driving etc. should be 25. Because at the age of 25 human brain has likely matured enough to know the difference between fun and danger.

Some might say that we limit the freedom of individuals if we do this, but we limit the freedom of individuals already. We don't let babies handle guns and go running into busy streets, because we know they are not old enough to take care of themselves. Well the science knows that people under 25 are still not mature enough to take care of themselves, so why don't we protect them?

There is also another reason why we should do it. Getting a person into the age of 18 costs a lot of money (education, healthcare, food, etc) and usually a little after that the person starts paying back to the society, until at the age of 40-50 they have paid their share back and start to earn the retirement part. So the more we let young people kill themselves, the worse it will be for the society in economical sense.

What was it?

[AndyKron]

I guess he taught us a lesson. What was it?

Re:What was it?

[aliquis]

That liberty is good and restrictions are bad.

As long as you don't rob people of their skins with the gambling sites just let people gamble with their (actual terms may not say it's "their" skins) skins if they want to.

Re:What was it?

[AmiMoJo]

Seems like he had mental health issues, probably relating to the ban and loss of income. Given his wealth it seems unlikely that he couldn't afford metal healthcare.

So why didn't he seek out help? We can only speculate but it's often the stigma attached to mental health issues, especially for men.

We could also ask if maybe YouTube and Twitch could offer more support. At the very least require 18 year olds making that kind of money on their services to have a proper manager and maybe offer them a mentor.

Re:What was it?

[cascadingstylesheet]

I guess he taught us a lesson. What was it?

Get your depression (whether freestanding or part of bipolar) treated.

Everyone has setbacks, often severe ones. But healthy people do not respond to them by harming themselves and others.

Re:What was it?

[Mal-2]

Sure. Because Google assigning managers that take a 10% cut couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest.

Re:What was it?

[azcoyote]

Sure, it's easy to think that evil is a mere matter of mental health--and I agree that plenty of bad things are the result of people either not seeking or not having the means to acquire proper treatment. But the fact is that healthy people are still able to make decisions, and many of our decisions selfishly build up ourselves at the expense of others. Being healthy does not cause us to choose morally good or helpful activities all of the time.

No one of us can say for sure whether this particular case was a matter of mental illness or not, but we shouldn't assume from the start that simply because he did something harmful that he was not free in doing so. If we are not free to do evil, then how can we pretend to be free to do anything good? If we don't hold ourselves responsible for our bad decisions, how can we claim any merit for our good ones? Or to put it in another manner: how can we be sure that our good actions are not also the byproduct of mental health issues?

Re:What was it?

[gtall]

It wouldn't necessarily be depression. Teenage brains are not fully developed. Take one drowning in testosterone, add too much money, and presto: instant dangerous person.

Re:What was it?

[AmiMoJo]

They wouldn't assign one, merely require such users to get one.

Re:What was it?

[AmiMoJo]

What's really sad is that we used to be able to at least talk about this stuff on Slashdot. Now it gets modded down.

Re:What was it?

[geekymachoman]

That cars kill, and should be banned.

Re:What was it?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Sure, it's easy to think that evil is a mere matter of mental health--and I agree that plenty of bad things are the result of people either not seeking or not having the means to acquire proper treatment. But the fact is that healthy people are still able to make decisions, and many of our decisions selfishly build up ourselves at the expense of others. Being healthy does not cause us to choose morally good or helpful activities all of the time.

No one of us can say for sure whether this particular case was a matter of mental illness or not, but we shouldn't assume from the start that simply because he did something harmful that he was not free in doing so. If we are not free to do evil, then how can we pretend to be free to do anything good? If we don't hold ourselves responsible for our bad decisions, how can we claim any merit for our good ones? Or to put it in another manner: how can we be sure that our good actions are not also the byproduct of mental health issues?

Well, I'm not his doctor, so of course I can't be sure. I'm just spouting off on /.

Had he responded to his setbacks by becoming, say, a bank robber, I'd more more inclined towards your take on it though.

Re:What was it?

[dcollins117]

this should be held up as an example of success where a large company finally mostly protects their/your data and honestly reports details quickly.

That there are better ways to train for Grand Theft Auto.

Re:What was it?

[Maritz]

I guess he taught us a lesson. What was it?

I guess mainly that he's a cunt and it's a shame there's no hell for him to burn in. That's about all I can see.

Headline

[Rei]

"Kills"? Try the word "murders". Killing people in a car crash can be accidental. This guy murdered two innocent people.

Re:Headline

[jd]

I, personally, agree but in American law there has to be an intent to kill. Merely killing with a full knowledge that that's the outcome but with no actual intent tends to be considered manslaughter or accidental.

Re:Headline

[alvinrod]

That requires proving intent and a certain amount of premeditation on his part. If he left some kind of angry online screed outlining that this was his intent all along, sure call him a murderer. Otherwise he may have just been out of his mind and not intending to kill himself or anyone else. The summary indicates that he's still a teenager, so I would be more likely to believe that he just lacked the ability to control his emotions and got swept up in it.

If he somehow managed to live and had to face trial for this, it would almost certainly be on manslaughter charges. Let's call it murder on if it is in fact murder, not because calling it murder makes us feel better or allows us to cast further moral judgement on this man's actions through the weight of the words alone. You can still despise him perfectly well without labeling him a murderer.

Re:Headline

[Antique Geekmeister]

The legal idea that committing a felony that risks others and thus constitutes murder is called "felony murder". As best I can tell, every state acknowledges felony murder as equivalent to the most deliberate and most punishable forms of deliberate murder.

Re:Headline

[Etcetera]

The legal idea that committing a felony that risks others and thus constitutes murder is called "felony murder". As best I can tell, every state acknowledges felony murder as equivalent to the most deliberate and most punishable forms of deliberate murder.

Correct. However neither going over 100 nor reckless driving are felonies in California, so "felony murder" doesn't count here. In California, vehicular manslaughter is its own thing, and it in and of itself can be either charged as a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on if the defendant was negligent or "grossly negligent". Vehicular manslaughter can separately be upgraded to murder (usually in the second degree) if there was what CA calls "implied malice". This is a bit vague, but:

“Implied malice contemplates a subjective awareness of a higher degree of risk than does gross negligence, and involves an element of wantonness which is absent in gross negligence.” (Cal. Penal Code 187; People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290 (1981).)

If hypothetically he had survived, it would probably be on the State to prove that he was acting with malice. A possible defense might be a witness testimony that he had tried to swerve out of the away or avoid hitting a car before the accident, or that he had somehow intended to (grossly negligently) "safely" make it through rather than take someone out. A defense lawyer might also try to plea deal down by arguing his mental state and age tips it back into manslaughter ("violent passion") rather than murderous intent.

IANAL - but this happened about a mile from where I work Thursday.

Re:Headline

[fafalone]

California allows for extreme aggressive driving to be charged as felony assault with a deadly weapon. It's hard to see how driving 100 the wrong way and killing two people wouldn't qualify.

Re:Headline

[drinkypoo]

"Kills"? Try the word "murders". Killing people in a car crash can be accidental. This guy murdered two innocent people.

So it's your opinion that he intended to kill those two specific people? Because if he did, it's murder, and if he didn't, it isn't.

Re:Headline

[damicatz]

American law requires malice, not intent to kill.

Malice can be generally satisfied in one of four ways (with variations between states) :

1.Intent to kill.
2.Intent to inflict serious bodily injury.
3.Felony murder rule (which states that deaths that occur as the result of the commission of some or all felonies such as arson are counted as murder).
4.Depraved heart murder (e.g. engaging in an action, the natural tendency of which is to produce serious injury or death and doing such in a manner evincing a wanton and willful disregard for the consequences).

Re:Headline

[epine]

You can still despise him perfectly well without labeling him a murderer.

At the VERY least, he was guilty of owning with undue care and attention. (I know that's not a terribly American crime category at this point in time, but history will one day judge differently.)

If he's a hair-trigger rage monkey (and what teenager doesn't know this about himself or herself?) he never should have bought that car—a car whose very premise for existing begs you to break the law.

Re:Headline

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Not necessarily. In the state in which I practice law (Oklahoma), murder 2 has no intent requirement:

21 O.S. 701.8:

Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:

1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual [emphasis mine]; or

2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act.

Re:Testosterone

[jd]

Yet alcohol abuse is lower in countries where the drinking age is between 0-5.

Re:Why is trading skins gambling?

[alvinrod]

It was theoretically legal, so Valve just let it happen since they're typically pretty hands off and since they get a cut of sales, they don't have much financial incentive to care either. However, a few states got sick of companies like Valve being able to engage in (or a least facilitate) what is for all intents and purposes online gambling despite laws that prohibit this in its most typical forms. So Valve had no choice but to clamp down on their users in turn. If Valve weren't putting a stop to it, they would be the ones in legal trouble.

So, a young man ...

[Rip!ey]

... who crafted an online identity for himself, had it cut off by the State and the company Valve. And he didn't handle it well. And now people are dead.

Go ahead and blame the guy by all means, but this is a mental health issue. In particular, this is a mental health issue that all of society is to blame for. In particular the state, and the company that profits from the skin gambling, Valve.

Sure. Nobody should be a dick like that. But neither should Valve, nor the State, nor the rest of society. Society created this monster. Society and the profit greed of companies and politicians.

Re:So, a young man ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you do realize that the trigger event from Valve was demonetizing skin gambling. They prohibited the gambling due to bad actors, and some guy that makes his living from gambling runs his car into some innocent people. Valve taking away someone's illegitimate revenue stream does not make them complicit in his desire to murder people on the highway. He is responsible for his own actions.

Re:So, a young man ...

[Fly Swatter]

Give. Me. A. Break. At some point people have to be responsible for their own shit. Absolving people due to mental state is mostly ridiculous. Some people are 'just not right in the head' compared to a 'normal' person, doesn't make them blameless.

He could not handle life, this was solely his problem. He also ended it like a video game, now perhaps that is a comment on societies' faults.

Re:So, a young man ...

[Rip!ey]

Yes. Including Valve,social Media, the State, and Society at large. As well as the youngster concerned.

You must be one of those "guns aren't the problem" people.

Re:So, a young man ...

[Fly Swatter]

He used a car instead, make any 'gun' argument irrelevant to this story. It is more telling that you went right to guns and labels though.

Re:What an asshole

[voss]

I won't judge someone who takes their own life but to deliberately kill innocent people in the process is just pure malignant narcissism. Why reward this fool in death by giving him a slashdot article and profile? The only upside to this article is that more people might contribute money to the victims funeral expenses.

Excessive cars.

[jd]

If mass transit was commonplace, convenient and cheap and if there wasn't so much hostility to talking, then you could seriously restrict driving and pedestrianise large areas without inconveniencing anyone.

That might have meant the girl was on a bus, tram or train rather than vulnerable car.

That might also have meant the lunatic wasn't able to buy a car or didn't want one as it wasn't a status symbol.

Re: Excessive cars.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cut off everyone's legs at birth and gave them all wheel chairs, no one would ever twist their ankle. Bonus their would be less bullying for kids that would have been slow runners.

Re:Excessive cars.

[elrous0]

That might also have meant the lunatic wasn't able to buy a car or didn't want one as it wasn't a status symbol.

Agreed. Car crime has clearly gotten out of control. We must ban cars! The Constitution only said cars were to be allowed "as part of a well-regulated militia fleet" NOT for regular civilians. SOMEONE WRITE AN OP-ED FOR THE HUFFINGTON POST, NOW!

Re:Excessive cars.

[JaredOfEuropa]

You can have my car when you pry my cold dead fingers out of the wreckage.

Re: Excessive cars.

[tepples]

Among people with no legs, ankle twisting would be replaced with wrist twisting. (Case in point: Swedish vrist means ankle.)

Re: Excessive cars.

[c6gunner]

That's easy; cut off their arms, too. Problem solved.

Re: Excessive cars.

[jd]

Legs are natural. Cars.... you have to show me a gene for them before I'll be convinced they get equal status.

Besides, you still haven't offered a single reason why mass transit isn't equally good to get you to the general place and why walking isn't equally good to get you the rest of the way. I walk 20 miles a day for fun, which is why I'm not a gelatinous blob like some of these millionaires.

Re:Excessive cars.

[Powercntrl]

That might also have meant the lunatic wasn't able to buy a car or didn't want one as it wasn't a status symbol.

You do realize this happened in the United States, where being a lunatic doesn't necessarily preclude you from owning a gun?

Re: Excessive cars.

[HornWumpus]

5 hours/day walking...liar.

Get a job.

Re: Excessive cars.

[HornWumpus]

_Every_ car is legal to own, just not to drive on the open road.

There are no 'open roads' for guns, regulations are more than matched.

Re: Excessive cars.

[darth.hunterix]

Let's see:

1. With public transport you have to plan your schedule around timetables. The car is always there when you need it, it never leaves without you and you never have to wait for it.

2. With public transport you are limited to you bag/backpack/purse/pockets. With car you can easily haul around a lot of stuff. That includes both your immediate needs (like bringing your groceries from shop to home, taking your training equipment from home to place of training, taking whole collection of board games for board game night to your friend's house, etc.) and just-in-case stuff you may want to carry around (I have in my trunk first aid kit, much bigger and more robust than the one required by law, change of clothes, set of basic tools, toothbrush and a couple of other things).

3. With public transport you can have no expectation of privacy or personal space, it's hard to hold a conversation and very often you have someone's smelly elbow in your face. In a car you have a guaranteed seat and you only ride with friends.

4. For many people main advantage of public transport is entertainment - you can read a book, play with you smartphone, listen to music. As someone who get motion sickness easily I'm limited only to music and that actually is much superior with decent car stereo compared to crappy earbuds in a crowded bus or train.

5. In public transport it's often too hot or too cold for my tastes. Obviously, other people are fine or have opposite opinion. That's because it's hard to set temperature to something that would please several dozen people. No such issue with a car - it's much easier to find compromise between 5 people, and in case that's too hard, the driver decides.

Now, I am not making a case here for abolishing public transport in favour of cars. Not everyone can or want to have one. In my opinion having various options to choose from is the best scenario. But you asked for "single reason why mass transit isn't equally good to get you to the general place" and I gave you five to choose from.

Re: Testosterone

[Anonymous Coward]

How's it sexist? Women also have testosterone, just as men also have oestrogen.

People with less melanin commit fewer crimes, therefore people with high melanin should be placed in jail by default. Totally not racist tho.

--This guy

That's enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Ban computers. Shut down the internet. If it saves one life it's worth it. No debate. Make me safe. #stopthemadness #nocomputers

Re:That's enough

[Fly Swatter]

The actual crime happened in an automobile, we should ban them first. And cats.

Money, Mental healthcare, community policing

[jd]

Money is a status symbol. It's a surrogate for having any kind of sense. If he wasn't capable of earning millions - if total earnings are capped per unit time, along with total wealth, as per Plato's suggestion, he wouldn't have become addicted.

Nobody becomes suicidal overnight. If instead of holding to some outmoded macho image that was out of style in the 60s and an insurance system that makes mental healthcare highly profitable by doing little and charging a lot, there was a system in place that corrected issues early, quickly, cheaply and effectively, he might never have become addicted to power, glamour and money in the first place, or treated when depression set in.

If there had been more police on the beat, in the community, working with people rather than shooting them, he could have been stopped by the time he attacked the school.

Lots of places to stop the perfect storm.

Re:Money, Mental healthcare, community policing

[Mal-2]

There is no system that "corrects issues early, quickly, cheaply and effectively". Even if mental health services were socialized (which they should be, really, because untreated mental illness affects us all), it would still be neither quick nor necessarily effective.

Re:Money, Mental healthcare, community policing

[jd]

Probability of success and effort required will be some function of time f(t) such that the longer a crisis/stressor has been ongoing, the greater the effort and the lower the probability of success.

Ergo, as t approaches zero (fixing the problem essentially as it happens or shortly after), probability is high and effort is low.

The problem is what effort is required. The brain is just a machine, there is no soul. Nothing is committed to long-term memory for about 30 minutes. We know how to turn the brain off and then back on again, so as long as this takes place inside 30 minutes, there is no psychological impact.

After that time? Well, there can be no psychological change without neurological change. The brain is just a machine. We don't actually know the relationship terribly well, or how to reverse all of those changes, but you know that there IS a relationship and that there IS an input that will roll back any given change. The fact that you don't know it doesn't matter. We can apply early Greek medical philosophy here, which isn't really any different from the strategy of genetic algorithms - we can inspect beforehand, we can try things out, we can inspect the results, we can then use the things that worked as a starting point for the next attempts, dropping the things that failed. Repeat until you've got something that works reliably. It should converge fairly quickly.

We have some good starting points - R. D. Laing showed how a lot of problems stem from incorrect mappings between inputs from the senses and the processing from the internal models in the brain to the cognitive functions. More recent research has shown that overdevelopment and underdevelopment of key parts of the brain is critical to how the brain interprets stimuli. We know a fair amount about how to stimulate development of underdeveloped parts of the brain, and as it's crises that cause overdevelopment, shutting down the problems quickly should prevent that happening.

Ergo, we've a decent starting point.

So some things can be cured completely within half an hour and other things should be manageable within days and curable inside 4 years. Given many people see pdocs and psychiatrists for decades or even the rest of their lives, 4 years is negligible time and effort.

Re:But on equestion remains unanswered.

[Daralantan]

To make old slashdotters hate "them kids these days"

Re:Testosterone

[Antique Geekmeister]

> This has nothing to do with unsafe driving,

Such a combined murder and suicide by driving would seem to be the epitome of unsafe driving.

> I have been wondering why driving licenses are given to persons with high testosterone level? There are many good studies that show male suicide tends to be more successful, but it's hardly unique to men, or even to men with high testosterone. _Depression_ has led many to self-destructive actions, and to self-destruction that imperils other people.

Re:But on equestion remains unanswered.

[cascadingstylesheet]

Why is this on ./ ?

The "moody gamer" angle.

Any reason/motive?

[Qbertino]

This looks like an extended suicide "I I'll go out with a flash and a bang" type thing.
Any reasons for that? Was his star dwindling? Did he have other troubles?

Re:Why is trading skins gambling?

[TheSunborn]

Because you can sell the artwork to get money, so the artwork may in some way be though of as a proxy for cash.

 

Re: Testosterone

[Nidi62]

From what I understand, men tend to use active or destructive methods of suicide such as shooting themselves while women tend to use more passive methods such as overdosing on pills or less externally damaging such as hanging or wrist cutting

The lesson here is...

[PmanAce]

He clearly was suffering from some sort of mental illness that made him strive for being a "god" in that particular video game and not care about anything else. Once that status was taken away from him, his life was basically over, not worth living and boom, he ended it with such rage and fury. He should have had the decency of avoiding taking innocent lives with him but again, he didn't care about that, only that his life mattered.


Mental health is no joke, stop pretending it is.

Re:The lesson here is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being accountable and responsible for your actions is a requirement to participating in society. mental health doesn't negate that requirement. THATS not a joke.

Re:Testosterone

[John Marter]

Such a combined murder and suicide by driving would seem to be the epitome of unsafe driving.

I agree, but the original comment about not giving out a driving license to this person would do nothing to stop this.

and the draft age needs to go the 25 as well.

[Joe_Dragon]

and the draft age needs to go the 25 as well.

Re:Testosterone

[Krakadoom]

Yeah, he pretty much took time out of his busy schedule ripping people off to commit a heinous crime. Good riddance.

Let Me Help You With That, Editors....

[moehoward]

Middle-aged Video Poker Star Dies, Kills 58 In Bullet-ridden Gun-misfiring Hotel Incident

WTF, Slashdot? Murder-suicide is now just some sort of gaming side-effect that needs to be listed on the label?

Weebles wobble but they don't fall down

[tepples]

If you cut off everyone's legs at birth [...] no one would ever twist their ankle.

Nobody would get tired legs while waiting in line either. So many positives I can't believe we're not doing it yet.

Turns out there's an animated series about a community of people with no legs. It's called Weebles .

Re:Weebles wobble but they don't fall down

[jd]

I see your weebles and raise you a wheelie. It's still a community without legs, even if it has been invaded by a witch and a dragon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Trolley problem

[tepples]

Banning computers would be a trolley problem, as it would cost more lives than it saves.

18 Is Too Young

[PPH]

They should restrict the sale and licensing of full sized automobiles* to those 21 and over. Bring in Kei cars for the teenagers.

*And no full auto either.

Re:18 Is Too Young

[drinkypoo]

They should restrict the sale and licensing of full sized automobiles* to those 21 and over. Bring in Kei cars for the teenagers.

Putting Kei cars on the same road as full-size SUVs and untrained bus drivers (RVers with massive, heavy rigs) is a safety non-starter. The so-called Smart car is probably about as small as you can reasonably make a vehicle for sale in the USA. But it does seem reasonable to limit horsepower and top speed of vehicles for new drivers. There's really no need to even have vehicles that will go 100 MPH. What you actually need is a shitload of gears.

Re:Testosterone

[hey!]

People have been taught by supplement marketers to regard testosterone as some kind of magic potion that makes you more of a man. If that were true and you think that's good, then testosterone would make you better; if you think that's bad then testosterone would make you worse..

But even if testosterone worked the way the snake-oil hawkers want you to think it does, knowing an individual's testosterone levels wouldn't tell you anything about them because you don't know how sensitive that person's brain is to testosterone. What is elevated enough to produced behavioral changes in one person might have no effect in another person or even contrary effects.

What you really need to test for is sociopathy. And that's where the testosterone story gets really interesting, which is to say complicated. Recent research has correlated testosterone to sociopathy both positively AND negatively depending on other hormones. That's just correlation, and it's early days yet. We can't tell anything about an individual's personality from a blood test yet, and we may never be able to.

Oh bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Brains still growing isn't an excuse for immaturity. Society did just fine when most people got married between 14-16. This extra decade of acting like a child is probably the problem, and extending the immaturity will make it worse.

Re:GoFundMe

[DigressivePoser]

I'm glad this brat is out of the gene pool too. But I don't want to be liable, as a 70 year old, for the actions of my brother or my 50 year old kid. That's a hell of a thing to have hanging over your head for which you have zero control. I'd rather have myself declared an orphan.

Re:Testosterone

[MightyMartian]

I thought sociopathy was linked to neurological defects/abnormalities. Now maybe in utero hormone levels might be responsible, at least in part, but the research I've seen is that most cases of antisocial disorder are really a matter of how the brain works.

And his assets?

[sunking2]

Every penny of what he had should be given/sold to the family so they don't need a gofundme to pay for the funeral/reparations.

Re:Testosterone

[pots]

I'm reminded of the woman who likewise killed herself and tried to kill others, when she was likewise effectively fired from her job making Youtube videos without appeal or recourse. She didn't even get an explanation, I don't know if that's the case for this guy.

The "gig economy" involves monopolistic control for the gatekeepers, and zero rights for employees. We can probably expect more of this, barring some regulatory effort.

Re:Testosterone

[hey!]

Well, like I said it's early days yet, but I doubt, when we finally get to a good understanding, it'll be anything like "high testosterone + high cortisol = sociopathy". Even talking about cause and effect is someone misleading in a complex system.

Re: Testosterone

[cheesybagel]

Tell that to Goebel's wife.

STEAM?

[TheRealMindChild]

Why would STEAM on the front of his car be "in reference to a magnet program which supports science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics" and not to Valve's Steam platform that banned him?

Re:STEAM?

[TheRealMindChild]

My mistake. Thanks

Re: That is any job.

[that this is not und]

If he had had a job you would be right. Huckstering game items obtained from game chests is just a hustle, not a job.

Re:Testosterone

[quantaman]

I'm reminded of the woman who likewise killed herself and tried to kill others, when she was likewise effectively fired from her job making Youtube videos without appeal or recourse. She didn't even get an explanation, I don't know if that's the case for this guy.

The "gig economy" involves monopolistic control for the gatekeepers, and zero rights for employees. We can probably expect more of this, barring some regulatory effort.

My first instinct on this story was to make some comment on how crazy was one way to make popular Youtube videos, and combining crazy with an income stream that might be taken away at any moment is a recipe for trouble.

However, I didn't make the comment since this was only a single incident... until you reminded me that this is the second such incident of a mentally unstable Youtuber going on a murder suicide when they lost their income stream.

I fear this isn't going to be the last incident, Youtube is going to get more and more unstable people pushing the boundaries of what's allowed, and when they (or in this case Valve) start enforcing those boundaries you're going to keep getting unstable people with a very big grievance against you.

We made our own...

[Grog6]

We still wear Q2 and Q3 skins we made; we just play on real computers now, like the Raspberry PI. :)

Once you play old shooters on a non-laggy platform, you'll know why we hated Win7, lol.

Re:Testosterone

[omnichad]

Age limit?

You sure you got that right? Why can't a 90-year old have a beer?

Cars + Jerks

[Tablizer]

A week ago a crazy driver skipped a side stop-sign and made a left turn right in front of me. They sped up to outrun me instead of stop. If I hadn't slammed the breaks as hard as I did, it would have been a nasty accident for both of us.

Jerks! Fuck You both to Hell.

Re:Testosterone

[jd]

France. Britain used to, before raising the minimum age to 5.

Re:Excessive solutions.

[jd]

There are excessive planes. They cause a lot of noise and air pollution. We'd be far better off replacing many of the midsized planes with A380s, A400s and other aircraft of similar size.

This would reduce the number of accidents (since ATC would be less stressed and a stressed ATC is responsible for many air crashes of significance).

Microlights aren't an issue. They're not exactly 1.1 tonne vehicles travelling at 240 MPH (the McLaren F1 is a fast car) and the sky is just a little bit bigger than a road, with this added benefit of an added dimension.

Sorry, I will have to call bogus comparison, but even if you reject that, you can't reject the fact that the sky is stupidly busy given that we can halve the congestion with next to no effort, thus halving the risk of a major accident. By accepting that there are too many aircraft.

I don't see the problem.

Re:Testosterone

[mrclevesque]

"the science knows that people under 25 are still not mature enough to take care of themselves"

Humans are a social species, they never outgrow it.

Would a self-driving car helped?

[larryjoe]

I don't know the answer to this question, but would a self-driving car helped the mom and daughter? If the 100mph murder car is trying to hit a self-driving car, would the self-driving car be able to react quickly enough to avoid the murder car in all cases, by swerving and hitting the brakes? If the victim car could swerve enough to turn the head-on crash into an offset crash, would the victims have survived? Or, would the offset crash have been even worse?

Re:Would a self-driving car helped?

[JustNiz]

> but would a self-driving car helped the mom and daughter?

As a Brit now living in the US I'm amazed at how bad the average American driver seems to be about maintaining situational awareness and totally clueless about even basic car handling, (no you really don't need to hit your brakes just to go round a slight bend).

Perhaps its because the US driving test hardly tests your suitability and ability to actually be able to drive and handle a car, at all, let alone in an emergency. It pretty much only focuses on testing that you know and can follow the road rules/laws.

> would the self-driving car be able to react quickly enough to avoid the murder car in all cases

No. Nothing would be always able to avoid everything, but it probably would have done a better job than a typical American female driver.

Re:Would a self-driving car helped?

[Sabriel]

The only realistic answers you can get is "maybe" to your first and third questions and "no" to your second. A well-designed AI-driven car can react faster than any human (and never get bored or sleepy or distracted either) but whether "faster" equals "fast enough" still depends on a lot of factors.

Huh?

[jythie]

Ahm.. since I have never gotten into this whole skin thing, can someone explain how this gambling worked? How in the world was so much money flowing to this jerk, and why was he shut down?

Re:Testosterone

[Powercntrl]

However, I didn't make the comment since this was only a single incident... until you reminded me that this is the second such incident of a mentally unstable Youtuber going on a murder suicide when they lost their income stream.

Seems to happen with some regularity in Hollywood that someone famous ODs when faced with the prospect of diminishing opportunities to earn the revenue stream they've become accustomed to.

It's probably really difficult for these types of people to accept working a "regular" job for a pittance, in much the same way I'd imagine most of us would lose our shit if we were faced with the possibility of swapping lives with a Chinese factory worker.

Realistically speaking, this guy was never likely to find something else which paid the amount of money he was making. That said, it still doesn't excuse the murderous part of his suicide.

Re:Testosterone

[Powercntrl]

So the more we let young people kill themselves, the worse it will be for the society in economical sense.

In earlier times, youngsters with low regard for their own lives were sent off to war (ostensibly because they weren't good for much else).

Re:Testosterone

[quantaman]

However, I didn't make the comment since this was only a single incident... until you reminded me that this is the second such incident of a mentally unstable Youtuber going on a murder suicide when they lost their income stream.

Seems to happen with some regularity in Hollywood that someone famous ODs when faced with the prospect of diminishing opportunities to earn the revenue stream they've become accustomed to.

It's probably really difficult for these types of people to accept working a "regular" job for a pittance, in much the same way I'd imagine most of us would lose our shit if we were faced with the possibility of swapping lives with a Chinese factory worker.

Realistically speaking, this guy was never likely to find something else which paid the amount of money he was making. That said, it still doesn't excuse the murderous part of his suicide.

I'd agree Hollywood has partially the same issue though I don't think the problem is quite as extreme, in Hollywood the talent tends to be a bit more stable and the downfall tends to be a bit slower and softer.

Re:Why is trading skins gambling?

[Sabriel]

The difference is that Counter-Strike is (supposedly) a game whose outcome is predominantly determined by skill rather than chance.

Your analogy would make it illegal to pay people to play sports.

Re:Why is trading skins gambling?

[Cederic]

Play counter-strike, get random 'loot'. Use it as a stake in an online casino, trying to win a specific digital item.

Your game playing skill has fuck all to do with the subsequent gambling.

Re:Excessive solutions.

[HornWumpus]

If only airlines used computers to plan/optimize their routes. You should tell them how badly they are fucking up.

Re:This is how much money matters to Americans

[HornWumpus]

Cheer up. Judy Garland died a scabby junkie.

Re:Testosterone

[HornWumpus]

In hollywood, a public image is an asset. Once someone is a 'star', they will be protected from consequences of their actions as the owners of the image have something to lose.

Put bluntly, the owners of the 'Michael Jackson' image are now much richer. No more baby rapeing, cutting into their PR budgets.

Think how much money was spent keeping Kevin Spacey employable.

The 'talent' is, if anything, less stable (just being winners of a lottery of sorts), but their handlers are in force and the press is owned.

Re:Testosterone

[quantaman]

In hollywood, a public image is an asset. Once someone is a 'star', they will be protected from consequences of their actions as the owners of the image have something to lose.

Put bluntly, the owners of the 'Michael Jackson' image are now much richer. No more baby rapeing, cutting into their PR budgets.

Think how much money was spent keeping Kevin Spacey employable.

The 'talent' is, if anything, less stable (just being winners of a lottery of sorts), but their handlers are in force and the press is owned.

That's certainly a factor, but I think Hollywood does have filtering to keep to the truly crazy people out, if for no other reason than there is a bit more organization, a few more relationships you need to maintain, and the really unstable people can't handle that.

Re:Testosterone

[HornWumpus]

What?

They are all crazy. It just comes from never being told no.

A _few_ start relatively sane, but 'cocaine IS a hell of a drug'.

Actors (and musicians) emote for a living. It's not a surprise they are bad at reason.

Just for example, when Sean Young was 'so fine you could boil her panties and make soup', nobody cared she was batshit. It's a definite problem for the old bat though.

Re:Testosterone

[andymadigan]

I've been continuously employed as a Software Engineer since two weeks before my 19th birthday (I'm 30 now). That entire time I've lived alone and taken care of myself. I've paid my bills, moved several times, etc. I certainly didn't need any protection. At the age of 23 I managed my own move across the country to the Bay Area.

Your rule would have prevented me from driving to work. At the time I lived in the Rochester, NY area. I got a cheap-ish apartment in Brighton. Today, that would be 63 minutes by bus (including a transfer) or 15 minutes by car for the commute. To get to the grocery store would be 8 minutes by car or 30 minutes by bus (including a transfer).

Nobody has an hour-long commute in Rochester, it's 20 minutes to anywhere in the area. It's 90 minutes to get to another country. Banning under-25s from driving is banning them from living.

This doesn't even sound like the guy was having "fun", it sounds like he was trying to kill himself. I should have put my life on hold FOR SIX YEARS because of a 1 out of a million case?