One of the reports I read said it's possible Stewart didn't even see the guy out there since he was wearing all black.


It was idiotic for the guy to walk out on the track. Stewart will have to answer for why the rear end fished out the way it did. He clearly goosed the throttle.


This is the kind of incident that should end his career.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

One of the reports I read said it's possible Stewart didn't even see the guy out there since he was wearing all black.


It was idiotic for the guy to walk out on the track. Stewart will have to answer for why the rear end fished out the way it did. He clearly goosed the throttle.


This is the kind of incident that should end his career.

 

I've heard some people say that the throttle is part of the way steering is actually done in those cars/on those tracks. I don't have a single clue about this stuff though, so don't take my word for it.


Either way though, it's a sad situation that could have been avoided with some better anger management - either or Ward's part or both Ward and Stewart's parts.

---

Moreso on Wards part. Had he followed the rules and stayed in his car he'd be alive today.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

One of the reports I read said it's possible Stewart didn't even see the guy out there since he was wearing all black.


It was idiotic for the guy to walk out on the track. Stewart will have to answer for why the rear end fished out the way it did. He clearly goosed the throttle.


This is the kind of incident that should end his career.

 

Why is it that the 45 had no problem seeing him, slowing down and avoiding him?   Stewart felt the need to gun his engine, causing the back end to slide out and hit and killed Ward.   You are correct, Ward should have stayed in the car, but Stewart could have avoided him but evidently wanted to send a message.  I don't think he expected the back end to slid into the guy but he is still responsible for the outcome.   His temper just killed someone.  

---

I completely disagree.  Stewart's an idiot.  And a punk with an incredible case of short man's syndrome that apparently can't control a race car nearly as well as his inflated ego thought he could.

 

His apologists will say "that's racing."  No guys, that's manslaughter.

 

I hope Kevin Ward's family bankrupts the jerk.

 

I don't think anyone here has said "that's racing" not have I heard that in any discussion about this.

 

The reason nothing will happen to Stewart is because the idiot kid got out of his car and started approaching him.  Not only that, but the car in front of him said he didn't see him to the last minute and barely missed him. 

 

I'm guessing no charges will be pressed.

---

Why is it that the 45 had no problem seeing him, slowing down and avoiding him?   Stewart felt the need to gun his engine, causing the back end to slide out and hit and killed Ward.   You are correct, Ward should have stayed in the car, but Stewart could have avoided him but evidently wanted to send a message.  I don't think he expected the back end to slid into the guy but he is still responsible for the outcome.   His temper just killed someone.  

 

How do you prove that?  Stewart can easily say he didn't see him till the last second and gunned it to try to get away from him. 

---

How do you prove that?  Stewart can easily say he didn't see him till the last second and gunned it to try to get away from him. 

 

You are correct.  He can say that.  But if his eyesight is that bad perhaps he should find a different line of work.  

 

 When someone is approaching your car from the front right side, is your first instinct always to accelerate toward them to "get away from" them (especially on dirt)?

---

You are correct.  He can say that.  But if his eyesight is that bad perhaps he should find a different line of work.  

 

 When someone is approaching your car from the front right side, is your first instinct always to accelerate toward them to "get away from" them (especially on dirt)?

 

I didn't see him really move towards him.  I saw his back end slide out, but isnt that what those cars do?

 

Either way, the kid had enough negligence that there is no way this can be proven in court.  You don't agree?

---

Why is it that the 45 had no problem seeing him, slowing down and avoiding him?   Stewart felt the need to gun his engine, causing the back end to slide out and hit and killed Ward.   You are correct, Ward should have stayed in the car, but Stewart could have avoided him but evidently wanted to send a message.  I don't think he expected the back end to slid into the guy but he is still responsible for the outcome.   His temper just killed someone.  

I'm suspect that temper had a single thing to do with this.  45 had to make a maneuver to avoid hitting Ward, and Stewart came in behind him.  I doubt seriously that Stewart intentionally hit Ward.  As far as him accelerating, I think that's questionable as well.  From that video there's no way of telling if that was what he was doing there.  I think this is a tragic accident that was the end result of a stupid move by Ward to get out of his car and run on to the track.  Nothing more.  With as many witnesses as they had at the track, you don't hear anyone who was there saying this was the end result of Stewart's legendary anger issues.   

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I didn't see him really move towards him.  I saw his back end slide out, but isnt that what those cars do?

 

Either way, the kid had enough negligence that there is no way this can be proven in court.  You don't agree?

Exactly.  It's just as likely Stewart tried to make a move to avoid the guy and the rear end broke loose at the worst possible moment. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I didn't see him really move towards him.  I saw his back end slide out, but isnt that what those cars do?

 

Either way, the kid had enough negligence that there is no way this can be proven in court.  You don't agree?

 

That is what those cars do when you punch the accelerator.   Why did Stewart do that?    I'm sure a case can (and probably will) be made in court, most certainly the civil court if not criminal.  Ward should not have gotten out of his car, that is true.  But did that mistake alone cause his death?  No.   Again, the 45 was able to miss him.  Why couldn't Stewart?

---

That is what those cars do when you punch the accelerator.   Why did Stewart do that?    I'm sure a case can (and probably will) be made in court, most certainly the civil court if not criminal.  Ward should not have gotten out of his car, that is true.  But did that mistake alone cause his death?  No.   Again, the 45 was able to miss him.  Why couldn't Stewart?

It's not just accelerating that causes the rear end to fish out on these cars. 

 

45 and Stewart could have been on completely different lines where one had better ability to maneuver than the other did on the track.  Not possible, right?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

That is what those cars do when you punch the accelerator.   Why did Stewart do that?    I'm sure a case can (and probably will) be made in court, most certainly the civil court if not criminal.  Ward should not have gotten out of his car, that is true.  But did that mistake alone cause his death?  No.   Again, the 45 was able to miss him.  Why couldn't Stewart?

 

When the 45 car driver said he didnt see him until the last moment, and Stewart wasn't far behind him....isn't that pretty much a pretty good explanation?

 

I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, but the only person that knows if it was or not really is Tony Stewart.  It's entirely possible he got mad earlier in the race for something and unfortunately this is how it ended up, but trying to prove that is pretty tough.

---

It's not just accelerating that causes the rear end to fish out on these cars. 

 

45 and Stewart could have been on completely different lines where one had better ability to maneuver than the other did on the track.  Not possible, right?

 

 

A driver who was there made a statement that supports my opinion:

 

 "A witness to Saturday night’s crash, the sprint car driver Tyler Graves, told Sporting News that Stewart would have been able to see Ward from his car and that Stewart hit the throttle as he got close to Ward. “When you hit a throttle on a sprint car, the car sets sideways,” Graves said. “It set sideways, the right rear tire hit Kevin, Kevin was sucked underneath and was stuck under it for a second or two.”

 

(The bolding was mine for emphasis, it was not in the original article)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/sports...track.html

 

Did I say "Not possible"?  I said a case could be made.    You can hear Stewart hit the accelerator under yellow when you should be maintaining a safe speed and watching for safety teams etc on track (you have to EXPECT people to be on track after an incident) so claiming he didn't see him is still negligent.  Again, I think a case can be made and argued.   

 

I gave my opinion.  It differs from yours. Deal with it, or not, its up to you.

 

Let me guess, you're a Tony Stewart fan?

---

When the 45 car driver said he didnt see him until the last moment, and Stewart wasn't far behind him....isn't that pretty much a pretty good explanation?

 

I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, but the only person that knows if it was or not really is Tony Stewart.  It's entirely possible he got mad earlier in the race for something and unfortunately this is how it ended up, but trying to prove that is pretty tough.

 

You are correct, proving it may be tough, especially in a criminal court.   I think in a Civil court it would not be as difficult given the different burden of proof requirements.     Again, I think a case can (and will) be made in one or both courts.   From there it is up to the jury and (as we are well aware of in Florida) at that point anything is possible.

---

Stewart will have to answer for why the rear end fished out the way it did. He clearly goosed the throttle.


This is the kind of incident that should end his career.


 

 As far as him accelerating, I think that's questionable as well. 

 

Interesting.

---

A driver who was there made a statement that supports my opinion:

 

 "A witness to Saturday night’s crash, the sprint car driver Tyler Graves, told Sporting News that Stewart would have been able to see Ward from his car and that Stewart hit the throttle as he got close to Ward. “When you hit a throttle on a sprint car, the car sets sideways,” Graves said. “It set sideways, the right rear tire hit Kevin, Kevin was sucked underneath and was stuck under it for a second or two.”

 

(The bolding was mine for emphasis, it was not in the original article)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/sports...track.html

 

Did I say "Not possible"?  I said a case could be made.    You can hear Stewart hit the accelerator under yellow when you should be maintaining a safe speed and watching for safety teams etc on track (you have to EXPECT people to be on track after an incident) so claiming he didn't see him is still negligent.  Again, I think a case can be made and argued.   

 

I gave my opinion.  It differs from yours. Deal with it, or not, its up to you.

 

Let me guess, you're a Tony Stewart fan?

 

He was stuck under it for a second or two?  Is that what you saw?

 

I saw him get hit and fall back pretty quickly.  I didn't think he got stuck under anything.

---

He was stuck under it for a second or two?  Is that what you saw?

 

I saw him get hit and fall back pretty quickly.  I didn't think he got stuck under anything.

That quote was from the article I linked to.    

 

It did appear (IMO) that he was under the tire for maybe a second as the car went over him, two might be a stretch.

---

He may have been under there for a fraction of a second, but its really hard to tell.

 

The problem as I see it here are there are so many people giving their two cents.  People that were there have conflicting stories.  Drivers have conflicting stories that were in the race on what they saw.  The only one nobody has really heard is Tony Stewart's.  I'm not a Tony Stewart huge fan or anything like that, I'm just saying from an unbiased view, its hard to say who is at fault.

---

A driver who was there made a statement that supports my opinion:

 

 "A witness to Saturday night’s crash, the sprint car driver Tyler Graves, told Sporting News that Stewart would have been able to see Ward from his car and that Stewart hit the throttle as he got close to Ward. “When you hit a throttle on a sprint car, the car sets sideways,” Graves said. “It set sideways, the right rear tire hit Kevin, Kevin was sucked underneath and was stuck under it for a second or two.”

 

(The bolding was mine for emphasis, it was not in the original article)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/sports...track.html

 

Did I say "Not possible"?  I said a case could be made.    You can hear Stewart hit the accelerator under yellow when you should be maintaining a safe speed and watching for safety teams etc on track (you have to EXPECT people to be on track after an incident) so claiming he didn't see him is still negligent.  Again, I think a case can be made and argued.   

 

I gave my opinion.  It differs from yours. Deal with it, or not, its up to you.

 

Let me guess, you're a Tony Stewart fan?

Keep trying.  I'm not even a NASCAR fan.  It's clear you don't like Stewart, so it makes sense you're taking the position you have. 

 

The audio from that video that's made the rounds doesn't provide enough clarity to know who it was accelerating.  For all you or I know, the sound you were hearing came from a car that was closer to the person recording the incident.  Maybe he was accelerating.  Maybe he was just maintaining speed and lost the rear end when he tried to adjust to avoid hitting Ward.  Unless you were in the car, you have no more insight than I do as to what really happened.  Even using your article, there's more than one account of the incident that have differing views. 

 

I said there was a report indicating he may not have seen Ward.  The track wasn't well lit, and he was wearing a black fire suit and helmet.  You talk about safety.  45 was right there and almost hit the guy as well, but you're not ripping him for being unsafe. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.