7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person turning left in a 35 mph zone cannot reasonably foresee that a rocket-like-car will be coming at him at 80+ mph. There's no way the 4 Runner driver could or should have expected someone to be coming THAT fast down the road.

The 4 Runner driver looked and saw nothing coming, or whatever was coming was far enough away not to be a problem IF THEY WERE GOING anywhere near the speed limit. If a person was driving 50 mph, you could see that. But, you cannot adapt to someone going 80+ mph coming over a hill. You just can't. And the law doesn't expect you to. The roads and allowable turn lanes do not anticipate someone going 80+ on that road.

If opposing traffic going 80+mph was foreseeable, the road would not have been designed to allow turning left without giving a "protected left turn" (i.e. oncoming traffic would have a red light when left-turning traffic had a green arrow to turn left). That was not how the street was designed. Why? Because it's reasonable to expect a left-turning driver to see oncoming traffic that is moving at some speed greater than the posted limit (designers know that people speed). But they don't design for people to be going more than TWICE the speed limit.

The 4Runner driver had no way of anticipating a rocket coming at him.

But did he check for pedestrians before he started turning? He started turning before it was clear.

Check for pedestrians on the sidewalk? What?

He was waiting in the lane of oncoming traffic while the pedestrians crossed the road he was turning into. He should have looked for pedestrians before starting the turn.

I do that all the time in DC. Cars drive slow there, and there are gobs of pedestrians at all times.

The problem was not the 4Runner making a poor decision, if the speeding BMW came over the hill unforeseeably.

So you’re one of the dickhead “block the box” drivers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person turning left in a 35 mph zone cannot reasonably foresee that a rocket-like-car will be coming at him at 80+ mph. There's no way the 4 Runner driver could or should have expected someone to be coming THAT fast down the road.

The 4 Runner driver looked and saw nothing coming, or whatever was coming was far enough away not to be a problem IF THEY WERE GOING anywhere near the speed limit. If a person was driving 50 mph, you could see that. But, you cannot adapt to someone going 80+ mph coming over a hill. You just can't. And the law doesn't expect you to. The roads and allowable turn lanes do not anticipate someone going 80+ on that road.

If opposing traffic going 80+mph was foreseeable, the road would not have been designed to allow turning left without giving a "protected left turn" (i.e. oncoming traffic would have a red light when left-turning traffic had a green arrow to turn left). That was not how the street was designed. Why? Because it's reasonable to expect a left-turning driver to see oncoming traffic that is moving at some speed greater than the posted limit (designers know that people speed). But they don't design for people to be going more than TWICE the speed limit.

The 4Runner driver had no way of anticipating a rocket coming at him.

But did he check for pedestrians before he started turning? He started turning before it was clear.

Check for pedestrians on the sidewalk? What?

He was waiting in the lane of oncoming traffic while the pedestrians crossed the road he was turning into. He should have looked for pedestrians before starting the turn.

I do that all the time in DC. Cars drive slow there, and there are gobs of pedestrians at all times.

The problem was not the 4Runner making a poor decision, if the speeding BMW came over the hill unforeseeably.

So you’re one of the dickhead “block the box” drivers?

No, pulling up into the intersection while the light is green and waiting for traffic to clear and for pedestrians to cross to turn left is not blocking the box. Blocking the box is pulling up to continue straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person turning left in a 35 mph zone cannot reasonably foresee that a rocket-like-car will be coming at him at 80+ mph. There's no way the 4 Runner driver could or should have expected someone to be coming THAT fast down the road.

The 4 Runner driver looked and saw nothing coming, or whatever was coming was far enough away not to be a problem IF THEY WERE GOING anywhere near the speed limit. If a person was driving 50 mph, you could see that. But, you cannot adapt to someone going 80+ mph coming over a hill. You just can't. And the law doesn't expect you to. The roads and allowable turn lanes do not anticipate someone going 80+ on that road.

If opposing traffic going 80+mph was foreseeable, the road would not have been designed to allow turning left without giving a "protected left turn" (i.e. oncoming traffic would have a red light when left-turning traffic had a green arrow to turn left). That was not how the street was designed. Why? Because it's reasonable to expect a left-turning driver to see oncoming traffic that is moving at some speed greater than the posted limit (designers know that people speed). But they don't design for people to be going more than TWICE the speed limit.

The 4Runner driver had no way of anticipating a rocket coming at him.

But did he check for pedestrians before he started turning? He started turning before it was clear.

Doesn’t matter. Would be like blaming the 4 Runner driver if he had an expired license and shouldn’t have been on the road. Yes, technically he shouldn’t have camped in the oncoming lane waiting for pedestrians to cross, but the overwhelming cause of the crash is Shahid’s dangerous driving. If he hadn’t been going 81 he would have stopped in time or collided at a speed that wouldn’t have resulted in the deaths of two pedestrians.

“Technically”? Found another bad driver.

No, you do not put yourself into the lane of oncoming traffic before it’s clear.

Yes, the overwhelming cause was Shahid, but the 4Runner was also a factor.

It’s only a technical violation because in reality the police are never going to ticket someone for doing it. Drivers do it all the time. As a pedestrian I hate it but that’s how many people drive.

Odds are half the jurors do it themselves.

DP. Is it a technical violation? That was how I was taught when I was learning to drive.

You were taught to starting turning into the lane of oncoming traffic and wait there for pedestrians? What state was that?

I was taught to pull up into the intersection and turn after it’s clear.

I was taught to pull up into the intersection to wait for traffic to clear rather than wait behind the crosswalk, when turning left.

Starting to turn left while the pedestrians are on the crosswalk is dangerous for several reasons but I don't know that it is a violation. Just unwise - as seen here.

[Anonymous]

Think there is some confusion here. Moving forward into the intersection while waiting to turn left is fine. But starting the left turn and then pausing in the oncoming lane while pedestrians cross can create problems. Sometimes it's necessary to do so to turn left in rush hour traffic, when everyone is going 2 MPH, but there's no reason to do it otherwise, and you risk being hit by an oncoming driver who isn't paying attention (and in this case, who was going 81).

[Anonymous]

So what was the outcome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what was the outcome

This won’t be over until next week at the earliest. (That’s assuming it has started at all—I don’t believe there has been confirmation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK -- -does anyone know if the case has been continued AGAIN?

Let's get the facts. Anyone know if the trial is happening or if it has been continued?

Is there anyway to search for this info?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what was the outcome

More tomorrow is already scheduled:

4/18 (Th) - Usman’s attorney’s plead (10am - 5pm)

[Anonymous]

The mom of the injured girl who survived works 7 days/week full time IN addition to the girl also working part time to help to pay the medical bills. And he's just been living his life like nothing happened. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mom of the injured girl who survived works 7 days/week full time IN addition to the girl also working part time to help to pay the medical bills. And he's just been living his life like nothing happened. Disgusting.

My hope is that the court punishes him for fighting this and refusing to acknowledge his guilt. Seems like the max sentence would be 20 years if the sentences run consecutively, but I’m guessing he’ll get around 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mom of the injured girl who survived works 7 days/week full time IN addition to the girl also working part time to help to pay the medical bills. And he's just been living his life like nothing happened. Disgusting.

My hope is that the court punishes him for fighting this and refusing to acknowledge his guilt. Seems like the max sentence would be 20 years if the sentences run consecutively, but I’m guessing he’ll get around 8.

I wish you were right. I would expect him to get closer to 3 yrs... maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mom of the injured girl who survived works 7 days/week full time IN addition to the girl also working part time to help to pay the medical bills. And he's just been living his life like nothing happened. Disgusting.

My hope is that the court punishes him for fighting this and refusing to acknowledge his guilt. Seems like the max sentence would be 20 years if the sentences run consecutively, but I’m guessing he’ll get around 8.

I wish you were right. I would expect him to get closer to 3 yrs... maybe.

He maybe could have pleaded to 3-4 years but that seems very low for a trial sentence for this crime.

[Anonymous]

Yes the trial has started. That how we knew what the defense was arguing.

[Anonymous]

Im clueless here, but could there also be a civil suit where the victims families could receive monetary damages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im clueless here, but could there also be a civil suit where the victims families could receive monetary damages?

Yes. But this is the criminal trial. Civil can come later potentially.