Im going to have to disagree with that. If the cars were only going 45-50, it would have been MUCH more likely that the car could have been more recoverable. Not to mention there is median all along that road. To be able to make it across that median and still have enough momentum to destroy a car takes more then the speed limit..... even slightly over the speed limit. Either way, to be killed in a accident in a modern day car takes serious force. If the kid was wearing his seatbelt, then to have a fatal amount of face takes a lot, even not wearing a seatbelt with all of todays airbags,crumple zones etc..., it still takes a hard hit.
I also see it as, if the cars were not racing and that if the 6 was far enough behind to see the accident and swerve to avoid, they would have had ample time to stand on the brakes and have a small impact if not none at all. If the 6 was not that far behind, it would have been likely to get tagged by the Accord....... assuming they were going +/- the speed limit. But the case is the 6 went over a median (more then likely).
As for the 96 Accord being at fault, bullsh!t. If one factor of the whole equation was missing, nothing would have happened. But because the 6 and the new accord somehow got into a contest of speed (one had to have instigated the other), they were where they should not have been if they had been driving at normal speeds. Now, if it was proven that the 6 and the new Accord were just minding their own business and going the speed limit when the 96 Accord pulled out in front of the newer Accord, then things would have been totally different and the carnage/massive about of debris would NOT have been there.
Here are the pics...
http://www.wsbtv.com/slideshow/14510...l.html?taf=atl