Iowa Snowmobile Tragedy Claims Fourth Victim (Girls ages 10-13)

Des Moines Register ^ | 12/14/2003 | Juli Probasco-Sowers

[hawkeye101]

Pierson, Ia. - A snowmobile accident that claimed the lives of four young girls - ages 10, 10, 11 and 13 - is among the deadliest in state history.

"This is probably the most tragic and devastating snowmobile accident I've ever heard of," said Rod Slings, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' head of recreational safety.

[ChemistCat]

Wrong! :-)

It has nothing to do with the speed of the other car, which has the same mass (MOL.) It has everything to do with the change in momentum--which was the same either way.

So it really comes down to how many are going to die...just you, or you AND the idiot driver in your lane.

This question got EVERYBODY in my physics class, and it took real effort for the prof to convince us he was right.

[ChemistCat]

Yes, you're correct--I responded before I saw yours.

[ChemistCat]

I have trouble visualizing snowmobiling across a road with deep ditches on other side--that is still passable by truck. If there's enough snow to fill the ditches, how could the truck be going fast enough to kill these kids on two different snowmobiles?

A truck on a road like that would need chains, and you sure don't go fast with chains.

[GATOR NAVY]

This question got EVERYBODY in my physics class, and it took real effort for the prof to convince us he was right.

I don't feel bad then ;-)

[rabidralph]

Patiently waiting for a newbie to say he/she 1.) knows all of these girls 2.) went to school with one or all of them 3.) is the father/mother of one or all of them (we need your prayers) 4.) sold the families the snowmobiles.

[Pappy Smear]

Assuming you are not going to be impaled on something, if some idiot is in your lane, would it be better to gun it, instead of braking? You could put the hurt on him, and get him moving the other way. You would decelerate, instead of coming to a dead (no pun intended) stop, if your speed was above his.

[cricket]

"Most of the snowmobiles built these days are way too powerful for a child to safely operate. "

I don't understand it; save that people just no longer 'see' the threat; just think it is more fun than the bike they rode on as a kid, perhaps.

A horrible tragedy and horrible suffering for everyone who shares the pain of this. I am sorry for all of them. .

Children are not safe 'driving' golf carts either; yet, have seen the most unbelievable 'drivers' entertaining themselves on a golf cart. Adults can be killed/maimed on these things; and yet, not unusual to see kids enjoying their 'freedom' with parental approval.

'NO' is not a bad word; but some parents have a hard time with it.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

It has nothing to do with the speed of the other car,

Actually, it has everything to do with the speed of the other car. Given it has the same mass as your car, then if it's speed is faster than yours you are better off hitting the wall. If it's speed is slower than your speed you are better off hitting the car.

[ChemistCat]

Of course--

mea culpa.

[ChemistCat]

I realize it's insensitive to get off on a physics, er, tangent.

I am not letting my 10 year old drive a car, or motorcycle, or snowmobile for good reason, however, and if Dr. Laura is a bitter shrew, she is probably right with respect to 16 year olds, too.

People need to realize that letting preteens wear thongs, watch R rated movies, and drive like adults doesn't somehow give them adult judgment.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

No, you would want to be going as slow as possible at the point of impact, there is no gain from moving faster than the other person. By speeding up you increase the severity of the crash and 50% of this increase hurts you and the other 50% hurts the other driver.

But if you breaked until just before impact, but then accelerated hard in the last 0.2 seconds to make your car "follow thru" like in a golf swing maybe that would lesson your impact at the expense of the other driver.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Getting back to the topic, I hate to speculate about the 16 year old driver but I suspect he might have been going a little fast for a hilly gravel road. If he was speeding a little he will feel even more guilt I am sure. If he was speeding a lot then he would be partly responsible. On second thought the roads must have been snow covered so he was probably not speeding but had a huge stopping distance due to snow.

Snowmobiles don't belong on the roads, especially by people under the age to drive a car. It would be safer to let your 12 year old drive the Camry down the road than a snowmobile.

[winker]

Driving a snowmobile should carry the same requirements as a car,truck skido watercraft or a mororcyle (A Drivers Licence) and the proven ability to control the vehicle on a public venue. Even on private property it is not good common sense to let a inexperienced operator loose risking life and limb. Somebody must take responsibility for things such as this even though it seems harmless enough. Some people NEVER LEARN and are always the first ones to blame society for all their problems and stupidity! Operating a motorized vehicle is not a "RIGHT OF PASSAGE" sometime it ends up in death and destruction and a lifetime of regrets!

[FlyVet]

Authorities said that the truck had come over a hill and that the driver couldn't stop in time on the gravel road. A preliminary investigation found that the accident couldn't have been avoided,

If that isn't the most contradictory statement I've read lately...how 'bout not whipping down the middle of the road on a snowmobile, with a hill up ahead, not knowing what's coming?

I had my snowobile years when I was young and dumb, loaded with adrenaline and testosterone. I was lucky I didn't get seriously hurt or killed, but a car wouldn't have done it, an unknown curve or dip in the trail would have. If you don't know what's ahead, get off the throttle, epecially on a road. Kids on low-powered sleds, with a good helmet strapped on tight, should be ok for buzzing around in open fields, if they have any sense at all. Unless there are high-powered sleds around. Some of them can do 120+ mph, and can't stop very fast.

[ChemistCat]

That the accident "couldn't be avoided" is actually more of a legal concept...that the driver of the **truck**, given what the other parties did, had no reasonable way to avoid collision. All that means is that it has been determined for legal purposes that no reasonable person driving that truck coming over that hill could have avoided the accident; there's no reasonable way to hold him culpable.

That won't change the fact that he probably feels beyond awful and if the law has no "what ifs" he surely does. FOUR little girls, dead. But they shouldn't have been in the durn road. They shouldn't have been on the snowmobiles with no adult supervision. I don't hire 13 year old babysitters because they have poor judgement at that age. They're like toddlers in practically grownup bodies in some ways. My 9 year old has more sense now than she'll have when adolescence begins in earnest.

[ontos-on]

Thanks for your response, that was very helpful.

[ontos-on]

BTW, could let us [me] know what "THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: ONE LONG ELECTION-EVE STUNT" means; and in what tone it is stated?

[ontos-on]

Are the "high-powered sleds" that go as fast as 120 mph also called snowmobiles! or is that something else?

[WackyKat]

Children who grow up on farms in that area learn to operate equipment at younger ages than that. It's not the kids fault they were playing on the road, it's the parents.

I live in a rural area;you don't have to "educate" me on the stupidity that goes on with children and power equipment.

It is a classical logical fallacy to argue that just because something is done, that it ought to be done

I'll say it again; children that young have no business operating power equipment

[skraeling]

I have trouble visualizing snowmobiling across a road with deep ditches on other side--that is still passable by truck. If there's enough snow to fill the ditches, how could the truck be going fast enough to kill these kids on two different snowmobiles?

The purpose of the deep ditches, typically 4 to 6 feet deep, with the road surface elevated maybe a foot above the average terrain (said dirt coming from the ditches as part of the construction process) is to collect the snow when the wind blows it off (or across) the road. The ditches can contain or even be full of snow while the road surface is quite dry. I think maybe you have to see it to believe it. -grins-

We really don't know what that particular road looked like, but the typical well designed gravel road is a full 2 lanes wide, but not 3. If the pickup came over a small hill it may not have had time to stop or take the ditch.

A truck on a road like that would need chains, and you sure don't go fast with chains.

No chains would be required if the elevated surface was essentially clear. Chains may be required in Iowa only for a few days after a heavy snow, and not many days during a typical winter. (Grew up there, done that.)