Paul Walker’s Driver Was Speeding Before Fatal Crash

Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 10:42 pm
True

paul-w

The car Paul Walker was riding in on Saturday before it crashed was speeding, RumorFix has confirmed.

According to a statement sent to RumorFix by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, "Speed was a factor in the solo vehicle collision."

The Fast And Furious star was a passenger in a red 2005 Porsche Carrera GT when it hit a post or a tree as it erupted in flames.

Both Paul and his buddy were pronounced dead at the scene.

Earlier in the day, he had attended a charity event for his organization Reach Out Worldwide.

  • 46 Responses

    1. chucky says:

      Get your facts straight. The statement “Speed was a factor . . .” does NOT necessarily mean the vehicle was travelling at a speed above the posted limit.

      • meds says:

        And if it turns out they were speeding? Are you willing to come back here and roundly apologies to everyone about your stupid comment and accept Paul Walker got EXACTLY what was coming to him?

        • chucky says:

          I’m not the one jumping to ignorant conclusions. Oh, and Paul Walker wasn’t even driving. Moron.

          • bobdobbs says:

            so? okay, he was letting a buddy drive his car too fast. whether “speed was a factor” is ever uttered by anyone in any official capacity, they were speeding. they were clearly driving too fast and like so many celebrities over here thought the rules didn’t apply to them – both the legal and the laws of physics, apparently. imagine the discussion we’d be having if instead of a tree they’d hit a car with a family in it. meds is right, they got what they deserve. this is like the Ryan Dunn crash all over again. the absolute best that can be said about this is at least their shitty behavior didn’t hurt anyone else..

            • chucky says:

              Oh, so you were actually there and you saw them, right? That’s how you know for 100% certain they were exceeding the posted speed limit, right?

              What’s that? You were NOT there? You did NOT see the crash and what caused it? So all you’re doing is jumping to ignorant conclusions based on conjecture and hearsay? Yep, that sounds more like it.

              Oh, and if you actually had a clue, you’d already be aware that the statement “Speed was a factor . . .” when “uttered by anyone in any official capacity” has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not the “speed” in question was above or below the posted limit. Far more often than not, it indicates that the speed at which the vehicle was travelling was NOT the cause of the accident. Moron.

            • Track Only says:

              Chucky……find another venue to pop off on. You know what it takes speed wise to wrap a Carrera GT around a post like that….and cut they car in half? The color of the smoke would indicate engine oil…..its a mid engine and the car split at the engine…..certainly fracturing the block and spewing oil all over hot headers. Stick with your knowledge of your Corolla when commenting on things out of your league.

            • chucky says:

              If you were even half as intelligent as you delusionally think you are, you’d realise that load of sanctimonious drivel has no bearing whatsoever on what I was saying. Pathetic fool.

            • bobdobbs says:

              boy, i hope Chucky is still around now that the reports are starting to drop that the car was going over 100mph when it crashed. seriously, you twit, look at those pictures. what kind of calisthenics do you do to prepare for the mental gymnastics required to suggest they were driving the speed limit when that happened? luckily, there are people out there far more intelligent than you that can investigate this kind of thing. so, when idiots (who obviously have a hard on for paul walker) lose their minds on the internet, shouting “were you there? were you there??” we can shut them and their misplaced fanboy nonsense up with empirical evidence.

            • chucky says:

              If you weren’t so pathetically illiterate and retarded, you’d be aware that I never said “they were driving the speed limit when that happened”. All I said was that the statement “Speed was a factor . . .” does NOT necessarily mean the vehicle was travelling at a speed above the posted limit – which is 100% correct. Moron.

            • meds says:

              You’re an imbecile, there’s no way the car would have crashed like that if they were driving at the posted speed limit, the police agree with me here.

            • chucky says:

              *sigh*

              Here we go, another pathetically illiterate retard.

              Duh. I never said they were driving at or under the posted speed limit when the accident happened. All I said was that the statement “Speed was a factor . . .” does NOT necessarily mean the vehicle was travelling at a speed above the posted limit – which is 100% correct. DUH.

            • meds says:

              Yes, in the same way saying grass is green does NOT necessarily mean grass is always green, just that you’re an idiot grasping at straws trying to absolve someone for his misdeeds because he’s famous.

              “That’s how you know for 100% certain they were exceeding the posted speed limit, right?”

              Maybe you should eat some humble pie, admit you were wrong and apologies like I suggested.

              Feel free to downvote my comment, I’m sure it makes you feel good not that anyone cares 😉

            • chucky says:

              You piteous, deluded cretin. How truly sad it must be for someone like you to struggle through life with such embarrassingly limited intellect.

              I wrote my initial statement when the article above was first released. I wrote my initial statement directly in response to the article and its headline. I wrote my initial statement in response to the FACT that at the time the article was released, there were NO official findings whatsoever that specifically stated what speed (approximate or otherwise) the vehicle was travelling at the time of the accident. The ONLY official statement the writer of the article had to go by was the statement that “Speed was a factor . . .”.

              It is 100% FACT that official use of the phrase “Speed was a factor . . .” does NOT require that the vehicle involved in the accident being referred to had to have been travelling at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit. Speed enforcement is a multi-billion dollar industry, and as such, those responsible for raising these billions in revenue do whatever they can to disseminate their “speed kills” propaganda in order to justify (in the eyes of the gullible public) their extortionate tactics. One weapon in their arsenal is to use the “Speed was a factor . . .” line when ‘officially’ commenting on high profile vehicular accidents that gain a lot of media exposure.

              Good journalism is supposed to rely on FACTS, not conjecture and hearsay. At the time of writing, the author of this article did NOT rely on available FACTS, only conjecture and hearsay. At the time of writing there had been NO official investigation to determine the speed at which the vehicle Paul Walker was travelling in was moving, so there was NO way to definitively determine that “Paul Walker’s Driver Was Speeding Before Fatal Crash” as the headline stated. Therefore, my “Get your facts straight . . .” comment was perfectly justified.

              That, however, didn’t stop mentally challenged losers like you from jumping to ignorant conclusions.

              Sad, just plain sad.

            • meds says:

              lmao no way I’m wasting time reading that wall of text.

          • Track Only says:

            Chucky…….but you are ignorant. The Honda Civic forum is elsewhere

            • chuckysmom says:

              Track Only just schooled you like I never could, chuck. I’m sorry for letting you down.

            • chucky says:

              Actually, genius, ‘Track Only’ FAILED miserably. You simply lack the intelligence to realise it.

            • chuckysmom says:

              Your only comebacks to everything are “you lack intelligence” or “pathetic”, or “you are a moron”, or “you are (insert synonym for ‘childish’ to seem like you have a strong vocabulary). None of them actually offer any substance. I guess you don’t have to have substance to get up on a high horse and feel better than the rest. Except, you’re riding in India and everybody else is on elephants laughing at you.

            • chuckysmom says:

              Hahaha, notice how chucky’s been down voting everybody he disagrees with. Cheap shot after cheap shot. Did you see a picture of the Porsche chuck? Or what was left of it? Somebody mentioned that they must have been going at least 80 mph. If you look at the picture, I think it’s clear they must have been going over 100mph.

            • chucky says:

              Maybe they were doing 80? Maybe they were doing 100? Maybe they were doing 200? It doesn’t make my initial statement any less factual, or YOU any less retarded.

            • chucky says:

              Ummmmmm, clearly that’s because you’re a retarded, illiterate moron who perpetually acts like a petulant infant. Truth hurts.

            • athousandmonkeys says:

              Word.

          • Ur_all_clueless says:

            You’re the idiot who thinks a car going 45mph could have produced that wreck.

            • chucky says:

              Ummmmmmm, no, you illiterate moron. I never said I thought the car was only doing 45Mph. Duh.

            • chuckysmom says:

              You said “Speed was a factor…” doesn’t mean the vehicle was traveling above the posted speed limit. Clearly chucky, that’s what it meant. It would not have been a factor if they are driving under the speed limit. It only becomes a factor when they are not driving the safe limit on the road. Had they been traveling under the speed limit, then speed would not have been a factor; other things would have been mentioned as factoring into the crash. It’s very simple chucky. Just admit you were wrong. That initial statement did mean that they were traveling above the posted limit, clearly.

            • chucky says:

              Ummmmmmm, no I did NOT, you pathetic, illiterate, inbred moron. I said, “The statement ‘Speed was a factor . . .’ does NOT necessarily mean the vehicle was travelling at a speed above the posted limit.” Perhaps if you looked up the meaning of the word “necessarily”, you wouldn’t constantly look like such an ignorant fool.

            • chuckysmom says:

              One of us certainly looks like an ignorant fool who cannot accept defeat. You claim that your statement that it was not “necessarily” a factor saves you from being wrong. It’s true, this turned out to be a double-edged statement so that you could avoid claiming wrongdoing. Why are you so vehemently arguing against everyone here? The point you were trying to make should speak for itself, should it not? You wouldn’t be so defensive chucky, if you had actually meant what you are claiming to have meant. No, I think it’s clear what you meant by that statement: that ‘speed was a factor’ doesn’t mean they were going above the posted speed limit. It does. Now, you are trying to backtrack and play the semantic argument – the lowest form of defense. It’s been a pleasure watching you crumble, chucky.

            • chucky says:

              How truly sad it must be for someone like you to struggle through life with such embarrassingly limited intellect. FINALLY you inadvertently managed to make a seemingly accurate statement, but even that backfired on you. Yes indeed, “One of us certainly looks like an ignorant fool who cannot accept defeat” – however that ignorant fool is very clearly YOU.

              I wrote my initial statement when the article above was first released. I wrote my initial statement directly in response to the article and its headline. I wrote my initial statement in response to the FACT that at the time the article was released, there were NO official findings whatsoever that specifically stated what speed (approximate or otherwise) the vehicle was travelling at the time of the accident. The ONLY official statement the writer of the article had to go by was the statement that “Speed was a factor . . .”.

              It is 100% FACT that official use of the phrase “Speed was a factor . . .” does NOT require that the vehicle involved in the accident being referred to had to have been travelling at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit. Speed enforcement is a multi-billion dollar industry, and as such, those responsible for raising these billions in revenue do whatever they can to disseminate their “speed kills” propaganda in order to justify (in the eyes of the gullible public) their extortionate tactics. One weapon in their arsenal is to use the “Speed was a factor . . .” line when ‘officially’ commenting on high profile vehicular accidents that gain a lot of media exposure.

              Good journalism is supposed to rely on FACTS, not conjecture and hearsay. At the time of writing, the author of this article did NOT rely on available FACTS, only conjecture and hearsay. At the time of writing there had been NO official investigation to determine the speed at which the vehicle Paul Walker was travelling in was moving, so there was NO way to definitively determine that “Paul Walker’s Driver Was Speeding Before Fatal Crash” as the headline stated. Therefore, my “Get your facts straight . . .” comment was perfectly justified.

              Oh, and I’m not “defensive” at all, I’m simply pointing out how embarrassingly wrong you are. The fact that I have to point this out so alarmingly often is simply testament to your monumental ignorance. Nor am I “backtracking” and/or “playing the semantic argument”. I have used the word “necessarily” in exactly the same manner the whole way through, and my argument has remained consistent the entire time. Only a deluded moron would believe otherwise.

            • athousandmonkeys says:

              Kudos to you, chucky, you OWNED those dumbass douchebags.

          • bobdobbs says:

            well, the results are in, and it should come as no surprise to anyone (least of not which, fanboy chucky) that the car in which Paul Walker died was travelling at speed in excess of 100mph. how does it feel to be so wrong, chuck?

            • chucky says:

              Duh, I was NOT “wrong”, you pathetic, inbred, illiterate moron. My initial statement that “’Speed was a factor . . .’ does NOT necessarily mean the vehicle was travelling at a speed above the posted limit” is STILL 100% correct.

              Need me to explain it to you? S L O W L Y ?

              DUH.

            • bobdobbs says:

              your prolific usage (or possibly tourettes-like typed ejaculation) of the word “duh” is in direct proportion with how big of a retarded duck’s queef you look like every time you respond to all this painfully obvious troll bait.

            • DD says:

              It appears to me that bobdobbs is more than a little bitter at being made to look like a fool.

      • Track Only says:

        Chunky……is that a description of you your brain? “Chunky”

      • Ur_all_clueless says:

        Physically impossible for a car going the speed limit to wrap itself around a stationary object on THE PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK and shatter into 10,000 pieces.

        He was obviously going far above the speed limit, likely twice the limit, and you are simply a defensive moron trying to deny reality.

        • chucky says:

          Way to completely miss my point. Illiterate moron.

          Whatever the actual, yet to be determined, speed happens to be – the speed at which the vehicle Paul Walker was travelling in does NOT negate the FACT that the statement “Speed was a factor . . .” does NOT necessarily mean the vehicle was travelling at a speed above the posted limit.

          • chuckysmom says:

            You travel AT a speed, not IN a speed. You idiot.

            • chucky says:

              Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Classic! Could you possibly be any more of a pitiful, illiterate loser??? I actually DID make a mistake in that statement, and you couldn’t even correctly identify it! Too funny!!!

              Duh. It’s abundantly apparent that in what I wrote, the word “at” goes with “speed” and the word “in” goes with “travelling”. Even though I clearly wrote “speed at” and “travelling in”, you STILL managed to make a complete fool of yourself! DUH!

              The ACTUAL mistake was that I had initially written “the speed at which the vehicle was moving”, but then went to add to it for specificity to read “the speed at which the vehicle Paul Walker was travelling in was moving”, and inadvertently deleted the words “was moving” in the process. It doesn’t matter to me, because even though I made that mistake, you are STILL embarrassingly wrong with yours.

              I now see that I’m able to edit my previous statement, but I’m not going to. It’s far better this way, because it amply shows you up for the piteous cretin you are.

            • athousandmonkeys says:

              Schooled. Nice.

      • HF74 says:

        No, vehicles just happen to sheer through metal poles and trees and explode into a thousand pieces and burn from hitting the curb at 35MPH.

      • McCainISAdolf says:

        Turns out he was going well over 100 in a 45.

        Although anyone who is not a ***** already knew that from the fact the car was cut in half.

        • chucky says:

          Duh. Although anyone who is not an illiterate moron already knows that the speed at which they were actually travelling has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my initial statement. Duh.

    2. AD says:

      At least these two morons killed themselves and not innocent pedestrians or kids
      Their selfish and reckless behaviour led to their deaths.
      For heaven sakes if you wanT to drive at those speeds use a track,its the responsible thing to do.
      No sympathy from me, they got what they deserve.

    Leave a Reply