Street racing idiots try to blame the woman they killed this last sunday night... **UPDATE** Map of accident location

[Horus]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Fvcking ricers.

Read the story, douche. They were not ricers. They drove american muscle. Mustangs, camaros....

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

It read like she turned into the street from a sidestreet. Yes, of course, you only turn or merge when it's safe. What I didn't see in the story were the details about distances and skid marks. Only the passenger of the racer said that she suddenly pulled out in front of them. Plus, they had slowed down, but were still doing 90km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone. If she saw them coming at that speed, she made a huge mistake thinking she could still turn. If she didn't, it might've been because of their speed. The problem is that I don't have any more details than what the article said.

IMHO, they were performing an illegal act that contributed to a death. How much of it was her fault should be irrelevant.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

Sure. She turned on to a street where the the speed limit is approximately 35 MPH in front of a bunch of fools going 55 or more MPH (and that's only as fast as they admitted going--I wouldn't be surprised if they were still going faster). Are you saying that, yes, she should have been looking out for racers?

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

:thumbsdown: FPMITA prison for all 3 just for being inconsiderate jerks

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

Sure. She turned on to a street where the the speed limit is approximately 35 MPH in front of a bunch of fools going 55 or more MPH. Are you saying that, yes, she should have been looking out for racers?

Are you saying she should have proceeded when it wasn't safe?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

#1: They shouldn't have been street racing.
#2: If they were doing 90km/h (56MPH), then they didn't wreck WHILE racing. It shouldn't take an investigator too long to figure that one out.
#3: She pulled out infront of them, seeing three cars at 56MPH shouldn't be a difficult thing.

I'm having a hard time blaming the street racing for the accident. They were two seperate incidents. The only thing street racing had to do with it was the reason for them being there.

 

[mugs]

We don't know anything about the location, so there's no way to say if she should have been able to see them or not. And the only reason we have for believing they were going 90 km/h is the account of a few guys who were just responsible for killing someone.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: mugs
We don't know anything about the location, so there's no way to say if she should have been able to see them or not. And the only reason we have for believing they were going 90 km/h is the account of a few guys who were just responsible for killing someone.

Even a local cop should be able to look at the position of the cars and such to figure that one out.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

Sure. She turned on to a street where the the speed limit is approximately 35 MPH in front of a bunch of fools going 55 or more MPH. Are you saying that, yes, she should have been looking out for racers?

Are you saying she should have proceeded when it wasn't safe?

Nope. Never. But the speed limit was 35 MPH, and 35 MPH roads are designed very differently from 55 MPH roads. 55 MPH highways tend to have longer visibility and a number of other design details that make such speeds safe. What if she didn't even see them until it was too late, due to their excessive speed? I know of very few 35 MPH roads where cross traffic is safe when someone is going 55+ MPH.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

It read like she turned into the street from a sidestreet. Yes, of course, you only turn or merge when it's safe. What I didn't see in the story were the details about distances and skid marks. Only the passenger of the racer said that she suddenly pulled out in front of them. Plus, they had slowed down, but were still doing 90km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone. If she saw them coming at that speed, she made a huge mistake thinking she could still turn. If she didn't, it might've been because of their speed. The problem is that I don't have any more details than what the article said.

IMHO, they were performing an illegal act that contributed to a death. How much of it was her fault should be irrelevant.

You are right in using the words "contributed to" rather than "caused."

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
Nope. Never. But the speed limit was 35 MPH, and 35 MPH roads are designed very differently from 55 MPH roads. 55 MPH highways tend to have longer visibility and a number of other design details that make such speeds safe. What if she didn't even see them until it was too late, due to their excessive speed? I know of very few 35 MPH roads where cross traffic is safe when someone is going 55+ MPH.

35MPH is common for roads in industrial parks. The roads around my work you can see for half a mile, they're wide enough for four lanes easily, but they're still 35MPH. If you pull out infront of someone doing 55, you're the idiot.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stefan
Now my question is, why can't the drivers of all 3 cars be harged with reckless driving causing death, as opposed to only the person driving the car that hit the woman?

Because only the guy that hit the woman caused a death, and the drivers of the two other cars didn't?

Why should it matter that one car missed the womans car by and inch and the other hit her? They all were racing, they should all be charged with the womans death.

They all were RACING. They have all been charged with racing.

Only one car collided with the woman, therefore, only one driver has been charged with killing her.

How fvcking hard is that to understand?

If people are charged with muder when thier cars DON'T HIT other cars while racing, rthen I guess you think every street racer in the world should be charged with murder every time someone, anywhere in the world dies due to street racing?

I mean, if you can be charged with murder when your car doesn't hit the deceased person's car, what difference does it make if you missed by a foot, or a mile, or a continent, or a timespan of a month or two? They all missed, just the same, right?

He never said every street racer should be charged for this woman's murder. He said the 3 racers should be. That woman would be alive if those 3 idiots had not been racing.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

If a car is going way over the speed limit, it's hard to see them coming. Plus it's at night. I think it's reasonable to expect people to drive near the speed limit.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
Nope. Never. But the speed limit was 35 MPH, and 35 MPH roads are designed very differently from 55 MPH roads. 55 MPH highways tend to have longer visibility and a number of other design details that make such speeds safe. What if she didn't even see them until it was too late, due to their excessive speed? I know of very few 35 MPH roads where cross traffic is safe when someone is going 55+ MPH.

35MPH is common for roads in industrial parks. The roads around my work you can see for half a mile, they're wide enough for four lanes easily, but they're still 35MPH. If you pull out infront of someone doing 55, you're the idiot.

Oh I didn't realize the accident happend where you live. Because obviously all roads are alike :roll: moron.

 

[MikeMAN]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

Sure. She turned on to a street where the the speed limit is approximately 35 MPH in front of a bunch of fools going 55 or more MPH. Are you saying that, yes, she should have been looking out for racers?

Are you saying she should have proceeded when it wasn't safe?

Nope. Never. But the speed limit was 35 MPH, and 35 MPH roads are designed very differently from 55 MPH roads. 55 MPH highways tend to have longer visibility and a number of other design details that make such speeds safe. What if she didn't even see them until it was too late, due to their excessive speed? I know of very few 35 MPH roads where cross traffic is safe when someone is going 55+ MPH.

There were also 3 cars racing at one time so i would assume this road had pretty high visibility...

mike

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

Sure. She turned on to a street where the the speed limit is approximately 35 MPH in front of a bunch of fools going 55 or more MPH. Are you saying that, yes, she should have been looking out for racers?

Are you saying she should have proceeded when it wasn't safe?

Nope. Never. But the speed limit was 35 MPH, and 35 MPH roads are designed very differently from 55 MPH roads. 55 MPH highways tend to have longer visibility and a number of other design details that make such speeds safe. What if she didn't even see them until it was too late, due to their excessive speed? I know of very few 35 MPH roads where cross traffic is safe when someone is going 55+ MPH.

Didn't see them?

The difference in time between a car travelling half a city block at 55 vs. 35 isn't much. And if she was looking left the whole time, she had to have seen them....unless they were travelling faster than the speed of light

If she had sustained no injuries, these kids would have a speeding/racing ticket, she'd have the pointage on her record for an at-fault accident, and she or her insurance company would already be paying to repair their cars, and we would have never heard of any of this...

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

If a car is going way over the speed limit, it's hard to see them coming. Plus it's at night. I think it's reasonable to expect people to drive near the speed limit.

If it was close enough that the Camaro swerved but still hit her, then it's easy to say they were already pretty close when she turned out.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Oh I didn't realize the accident happend where you live. Because obviously all roads are alike :roll: moron.

You were making an assumption, I am just explaining why that assumption could very easily be wrong.

Around here, most street racing is done in industrial parks, at night. Wide roads and lack of traffic offer the best venue for it. So the chances that they were in a similar place are far from being slim.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

If a car is going way over the speed limit, it's hard to see them coming. Plus it's at night. I think it's reasonable to expect people to drive near the speed limit.

Yes, she probably assumed as much. That's why I look both ways before crossing an intersection.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
Nope. Never. But the speed limit was 35 MPH, and 35 MPH roads are designed very differently from 55 MPH roads. 55 MPH highways tend to have longer visibility and a number of other design details that make such speeds safe. What if she didn't even see them until it was too late, due to their excessive speed? I know of very few 35 MPH roads where cross traffic is safe when someone is going 55+ MPH.

35MPH is common for roads in industrial parks. The roads around my work you can see for half a mile, they're wide enough for four lanes easily, but they're still 35MPH. If you pull out infront of someone doing 55, you're the idiot.

The fact that they creamed some poor woman driving to the store "to get some milk" hints that they were not in one one of those suburban industrial zones you're refering to. Go 55 MPH in a residential area, and you're an idiot, too.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Oh I didn't realize the accident happend where you live. Because obviously all roads are alike :roll: moron.

You were making an assumption, I am just explaining why that assumption could very easily be wrong.

Around here, most street racing is done in industrial parks, at night. Wide roads and lack of traffic offer the best venue for it. So the chances that they were in a similar place are far from being slim.

Ahh so street racing is legal in your area? I didn't know that

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: jalaram
Ahh, the old adage. When in doubt, blame the victim. She obviously should've been looking out for racers when merging onto the street.

Did she turn from a sidestreet in front of them?

The rule about turning is to proceed when safe, no?

If a car is going way over the speed limit, it's hard to see them coming. Plus it's at night. I think it's reasonable to expect people to drive near the speed limit.

Yes, she probably assumed as much. That's why I look both ways before crossing an intersection.

Not all intersections are located in flat open spaces.

 

[MaxDSP]

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stefan
Now my question is, why can't the drivers of all 3 cars be harged with reckless driving causing death, as opposed to only the person driving the car that hit the woman?

Because only the guy that hit the woman caused a death, and the drivers of the two other cars didn't?

Why should it matter that one car missed the womans car by and inch and the other hit her? They all were racing, they should all be charged with the womans death.

They all were RACING. They have all been charged with racing.

Only one car collided with the woman, therefore, only one driver has been charged with killing her.

How fvcking hard is that to understand?

If people are charged with muder when thier cars DON'T HIT other cars while racing, rthen I guess you think every street racer in the world should be charged with murder every time someone, anywhere in the world dies due to street racing?

I mean, if you can be charged with murder when your car doesn't hit the deceased person's car, what difference does it make if you missed by a foot, or a mile, or a continent, or a timespan of a month or two? They all missed, just the same, right?

So if me and a friend take a loaded gun out on the street and shoot at a bunch of times and one person one person comes around the corner, and the only bullet that hits is my friends, he's the only one who should be charged with murder?

That frame of thought is beyond retarded.

First of all, speak English.
Second, did you think before you posted that ridiculous argument? You are an imbecile

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Ahh so street racing is legal in your area? I didn't know that

No, they tow the cars that do it and fine the spectators $500. (in many states, spectators aren't commiting a crime, and the drivers get fined $500)

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be issued the punishments for street racing, but that there's not enough information to call it manslaughter.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: MaxDSP

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stefan
Now my question is, why can't the drivers of all 3 cars be harged with reckless driving causing death, as opposed to only the person driving the car that hit the woman?

Because only the guy that hit the woman caused a death, and the drivers of the two other cars didn't?

Why should it matter that one car missed the womans car by and inch and the other hit her? They all were racing, they should all be charged with the womans death.

They all were RACING. They have all been charged with racing.

Only one car collided with the woman, therefore, only one driver has been charged with killing her.

How fvcking hard is that to understand?

If people are charged with muder when thier cars DON'T HIT other cars while racing, rthen I guess you think every street racer in the world should be charged with murder every time someone, anywhere in the world dies due to street racing?

I mean, if you can be charged with murder when your car doesn't hit the deceased person's car, what difference does it make if you missed by a foot, or a mile, or a continent, or a timespan of a month or two? They all missed, just the same, right?

So if me and a friend take a loaded gun out on the street and shoot at a bunch of times and one person one person comes around the corner, and the only bullet that hits is my friends, he's the only one who should be charged with murder?

That frame of thought is beyond retarded.

First of all, speak English.
Second, did you think before you posted that ridiculous argument? You are an imbecile

Wow, you sure proved your point :roll: