Tony Stewart involved in fatal sprint car incident

[siskue2005]

These pic shows how tony was almost the same level as the no 45 car in front...and also car no 12 in front of 45 and tony was much much higher than those two
Rubbishing the claims that tony was higher

[DaveKillens]

Return to an earlier post:

Was he trying to scare Ward?
Was he trying to throw dirt at Ward?
Was he trying to harm Ward?
Was he trying to take evasive action?

You appear to have assumed that Stewart saw enough of Ward to contemplate action.

Let's try to break this down. There are cars ahead of Stewart. This is a tight left-hand oval, and Ward was standing in the middle of the track in the middle of the corner. The cars ahead of Stewart are also turning left, there is no clear sight line from Stewart to Ward, he was definitely not expected to be there (so why would Stewart glance to the far left before entering the corner?), and the car ahead of Stewart had to take evasive action from an aggressive Ward continuing down the track.

Is it not possible that Stewart was not aware of Ward, and did not sight him until the moment the car ahead swerved?

[marcush.]

guys ,i have campaigned a car with a locked diff in competition [...] All it wanted to do was go straight ahead

And how much stagger did you have on the rear tires? Zero?

no oval racing
stagger will just send the car into one specific turn radius it still does not want to deviate from this path as long as you are not introducing considerable slip angle .

[Tim.Wright]

This doesn't really look like the trajectory of someone who was trying to avoid something to his right...

[Moxie]

Return to an earlier post:

Was he trying to scare Ward?
Was he trying to throw dirt at Ward?
Was he trying to harm Ward?
Was he trying to take evasive action?

You appear to have assumed that Stewart saw enough of Ward to contemplate action.

Is it not possible that Stewart was not aware of Ward, and did not sight him until the moment the car ahead swerved?

Exactly!

For Stewart to claim that he never saw Ward is a fools defense. It is clear that the car swerved just prior to hitting Ward. If Stewart claimed to have not seen Ward at all, then he would be stuck trying to explain why he chose that moment to put the car into a throttle induced yaw during a yellow flag. Whatever the answer, the prosecutors eyes would roll, and the jury would real bull$h1t all over it. The prosecutor might even call other sprint car drivers to the stand to refute such claims.


By acknowledging that he saw Ward, the question gets framed in terms that are fora more difficult for a jury to answer. The defense can sho that Stewart only had x seconds to see Ward after the preceding car passed Ward. The defense can also present, as has been presented in this forum, that inducing yaw was a reasonable, yet ultimately unsuccessful, knee jerk reaction to avoid Ward.

The prosecution on the other hand would point to the other public bad behavior committed by Stewart, and attempt to suggest intent through a pattern of behavior, but this as a far more difficult proposition in this case as the evasive action defense really is plausible. The prosecutor would really need twelve jurors all of whom are really ignorant of sprint car racing.

[theblackangus]

I think another thing that some people are forgetting is that when you participate in an event like this you sign a form that pretty much says: If you die, that's your fault. Even if someone else hits you.

I'm sure if there was intent proven somehow, this may not stand up strongly. But with no intent.... that's jut racing.

don't need intent for criminally negligent

Highly doubtful in an on track situation where you have another individual putting themselves at intentional risk. IMHO there would have to be intent.. not negligence. Negligence is on the part of the person breaking the rules allowing for the issue to happen in the 1st place. However IMHO, as I am not a lawyer.

[theblackangus]

some people are forgetting is that when you participate in an event like this you sign a form that pretty much says: If you die, that's your fault. Even if someone else hits you.

That's true. However, in the US, anyone can sue anyone else at any time about anything. (And frequently do... ) Perhaps the best example of this happened after the death of Mark Donahue. His executor filed suit against Goodyear and won, even though Donahue was on record as saying "If I ever die in a race car, blame me, not the car." The jury awarded his estate a fairly sizable sum of money anyway.

Some insurance company somewhere will pay a nice chunk of change to the deceased's heirs to make this go away because they are terrified of what "12 jurors tried and true" might do. Also, in most jurisdictions, civil jury decisions can be by majority vote. All the jurors do not have to agree. That's double trouble for defendants.

You missed the part where I said:
I'm sure if there was intent proven somehow, this may not stand up strongly. But with no intent.... that's jut racing.

Which is agreeing with everything you posted.

[theblackangus]

This doesn't really look like the trajectory of someone who was trying to avoid something to his right...

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-JbqO ... tewart.JPG

That was post incident... I'm not sure that really proves anything.
Was he trying to get to the side of the track after the incident?

[siskue2005]

This doesn't really look like the trajectory of someone who was trying to avoid something to his right...

That is after he hit ward
We can't control a car when something is stuck beneath ur tyre
See this picture again

[strad]

So whats your point? you copy and paste some BS from their from their PR dept and use that as referance. Anyway what is your point on the turning the car during a non racing period? there is noting on it.

Does not matter about the wing end plate, you can still see what is in front of you, there is no blind spot in front of the car.

Wrong Wrong Wrong It's not from anybodys PR dept.
I am done' with this..It's clear many don't have a clue and or just want to fry Tony.
Go on with your diatribes have fun rolling in it.

[turbof1]

Just throwing this in as a commenter, but are we really suspecting Stewart of deliberately hit or scare Ward?

Yes of course he's a hothead and had that reputation. However, he came out of a corner behind someone else at reduced pace, probably still pissed off. A driver's focus is bound to drop at that point. On top of that it was a night race and Ward has a black overall, so barely visible unless right in your lights.

Given all of that, I think Stewart didn't notice him until Ward was right in the middle of the corner. At such moments you can only react anymore on reflexes. Deliberately trying to scare or even hit an other driver isn't a reflex; it needs thought processing. The time frame just isn't there for that.

It's a shame that Ward died, but imo you really need to be completely out of your mind to go to the middle of the track in the dark with a black overall, with cars that are very difficult to drive. It might sound very sinical, but that is Darwinism there for you. Since it's apperently a standard custom to go challenge an other driver by standing on the track, I'm surprised that this didn't happen earlier.

If any other driver would have hit Ward, then this discussion would have never taken place. The chances of getting by Stewart were of course a lot higher, since he choose to stand in front of that car.

[Moxie]

Just throwing this in as a commenter, but are we really suspecting Stewart of deliberately hit or scare Ward?


If any other driver would have hit Ward, then this discussion would have never taken place. The chances of getting by Stewart were of course a lot higher, since he choose to stand in front of that car.

I, for one, do not think that Stewart intended to scare Ward, or harm him. I think he saw Ward approaching him at the last second, and attempted to avoid him. We tend to get very detailed and nit picky in F1Technical forums and we like to consider all of the possibilities which are sometimes extreme. This is no different.

Within this forum, there are knowledegeable race fans that know very little about dirt track sprint cars. It seems that they are not convinced about the concept of the cars yawing to the left because of throttle steer. If these seasoned race fans are difficult to convince, then it is worth considering the perceptions of twelve jurors. As criminal charges for Stewart have not been ruled out, I do think it is reasonable to discuss the possible legal strategies.

[turbof1]

Within this forum, there are knowledegeable race fans that know very little about dirt track sprint cars. It seems that they are not convinced about the concept of the cars yawing to the left because of throttle steer. If these seasoned race fans are difficult to convince, then it is worth considering the perceptions of twelve jurors. As criminal charges for Stewart have not been ruled out, I do think it is reasonable to discuss the possible legal strategies.

Exactly, this is a F1 forum after all. I think that only a few members here follow dirt track (no offense to either who follows it or doesn't follow it). I myself have never watched it, but it doesn't take a whole lot of sence that when you see this:

to understand that this isn't a vehicle that let itself drive like a city car.

But the most worrying thought is that people really believe a racer will try to jeopardize a driver outside his car. You could have a Montoya or a Maldonado agressively and deliberately bouncing against someone else his car, but they wouldn't even think of going near someone's phsyical body with whatever they drive.

This isn't Dead Race.

[Moxie]

People do crazy stuff during hit headed moment, as demonstrated by Ward himself. Stewart has his own history of stupid behaviors during the heat of anger. I believe people are wondering if this was one of those moments.

[garygph]

I have campaigned on an oval track with stagger but not as powerful a vehicle as these and that car was horrible at anything other than full speed. Something to maybe consider as well is the power of these cars with no clutch and most certainly not tuned for gentle progressive throttle response from an rpm which is out of its normal operating range. For any sort of conjecture about anything that happened is ,in my opinion, impossible. We have nothing near the amount of information required for that.

I feel this article is a must read now after all the discussions that have taken place here. http://racer.com/latest-stories/item/10 ... a-s-advice. Just please read it properly before shooting it down if you feel so inclined. Thanks