Putting on sunglasses...really?
#21
Just because someone dies does not mean the person who struct them should automatically get prison time.
Last edited by babalu; 02-09-2012 at 08:08 PM.
#22
It was a traffic accident, how about this, if you're involved in a traffic accident and someone dies you should volunteer for 7 years in prison. There are literally 30,000+ MV accidents every year, if we put every single person in prison because there was an accident our prisons would be overflowing.
Just because someone dies does not mean the person who struct them should automatically get prison time.
Just because someone dies does not mean the person who struct them should automatically get prison time.
#24
snip.....
The article plainly states she WAS texting, as late as 8:23am.
Yes, she WAS texting....but was she texting WHILE she was driving? Nowhere does it say she WAS. That is my point.
The wreck happened around 8:25am,
Around could be anywhere from 8:24 to 8:26
thats within a reasonable amount of time, given differences in peoples watches, dispatch calls, etc, etc, to assume she probably was texting within seconds of the crash,
It was assumed, and you know what that means. It means they are making an *** (of) u (&) me.
It is also a reasonable amount of time to end the call, put the vehicle in gear and drive 1/2 a mile to where she rear-ended the stopped vehicle. I could do that within 45 seconds at 60 MPH. No??
plus she plainly admitted reaching for sunglasses(distracted driving). high or not, doesnt matter, her actions killed that couple
"Bernard testified that sun reflecting off the passing motorcycles created a “strobe light” effect, she reached for sunglasses and rear-ended the Civic."
suppose a hunter shot a high powered rifle through a small wooded area but towards a school playground during recess, theyd be calling for a ban on hunting and guns, but its ok if some **** kills another biker, it was all that chrome reflecting in the sun that blinded her, hell the bikers pretty much asked for it right, damn scooter trash!!!
I thought it was illegal to hunt within a mile of an inhabited building...or something like that.
The article plainly states she WAS texting, as late as 8:23am.
Yes, she WAS texting....but was she texting WHILE she was driving? Nowhere does it say she WAS. That is my point.
The wreck happened around 8:25am,
Around could be anywhere from 8:24 to 8:26
thats within a reasonable amount of time, given differences in peoples watches, dispatch calls, etc, etc, to assume she probably was texting within seconds of the crash,
It was assumed, and you know what that means. It means they are making an *** (of) u (&) me.
It is also a reasonable amount of time to end the call, put the vehicle in gear and drive 1/2 a mile to where she rear-ended the stopped vehicle. I could do that within 45 seconds at 60 MPH. No??
plus she plainly admitted reaching for sunglasses(distracted driving). high or not, doesnt matter, her actions killed that couple
"Bernard testified that sun reflecting off the passing motorcycles created a “strobe light” effect, she reached for sunglasses and rear-ended the Civic."
suppose a hunter shot a high powered rifle through a small wooded area but towards a school playground during recess, theyd be calling for a ban on hunting and guns, but its ok if some **** kills another biker, it was all that chrome reflecting in the sun that blinded her, hell the bikers pretty much asked for it right, damn scooter trash!!!
I thought it was illegal to hunt within a mile of an inhabited building...or something like that.
#26
We need higher standards for drivers in the US. The chances of "accidents" increase quite a bit for people who smoke pot, text while driving and are otherwise distracted and impaired. It is way to common to see zombie drivers rolling along texting - oblivious to the rest of the world.
Last edited by TLWiz; 02-10-2012 at 03:01 PM.
#27
Bernard said she got high two days earlier
As for texting while she was driving? I never read anywhere...other than the speculations of some posters here...that she was driving while texting. As for not feeling well enough to drive, that is an unknown. Maybe she was experiencing morning sickness. If so, then maybe the legislators will have to consider pregnancy as a debilitating disease. I don't know...does anyone else in this thread know?
I'm not in any way trying to say she wasn't at fault, but I wasn't there and haven't read anything in the reporter's article as to why she rear-ended the car...other than putting on her sunglasses. In that respect, I agree that she should have realized that the sun was going to shine in her eyes and had the sunglasses on before it actually was shining in her eyes....unless she was in a tunnel or something.
I'm not in any way trying to say she wasn't at fault, but I wasn't there and haven't read anything in the reporter's article as to why she rear-ended the car...other than putting on her sunglasses. In that respect, I agree that she should have realized that the sun was going to shine in her eyes and had the sunglasses on before it actually was shining in her eyes....unless she was in a tunnel or something.
The points I made before were not meant to say they are CAUSES of the accident but rather they speak about the decisions this person is making.
Content of the text message shouldn't matter, what if she had said "oh my gosh someone just scared me with a surprise, I think I'm too excited to drive!" please, I say I'm too tired to go to work everyday but I still go,
She states she's too sick to drive. To me, it could mean a lot of things but if she is the type of person who can be too sick to drive and it impares their ability to drive for whatever reason then it becomes a contributing factor. If she says anything happened that makes her "too ____ to drive" then she should consider waiting until she is no longer "too ____ to drive". Period. You can plug tired, sick, surprised, angry, upset, excited, scared, happy, sad, depressed, or whatever into that blank.