Tow truck caused a collision but driver wouldn't give info. How to proceed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I still can't believe Caitlin Jenner got off for killing that lady by rear-ending her.

In Alexandria a few years ago a dump truck ran over a pedestrian so violently it literally cut her body in half. The driver kept going, dumped her load of gravel and drove all the way back to PG County to her job headquarters. She left a trail of blood for several blocks (I saw it) and a woman’s dismembered body in the street (the police couldn’t even identity her for a few days and because she lived alone there were all these announcements by the police to please report anyone missing, it was awful). BUT because there were no other cars or witnesses at the intersection, no traffic cams or other cameras, and the body was literally so badly damaged the investigators couldn’t tell whether the victim had been on the sidewalk, crossing at the crosswalk or running/walking for exercise in the street, the only testimony the police could count was the dump truck driver who claimed she didn’t know she had hit anything and stuck to that story, no charges were ever filed.

point: if the tow truck driver denies everything, you didn’t call the police at the time of the accident, and there is no damage to the truck, I think you’re SOL.

That was Deborah Ann Bogart, aged 60, who was killed on September 3, 2015, around 9:20 am, at in the intersection of Braddock Road and Commonwealth Avenue.

It's not true that the police couldn't identify her for a few days. They identified her, notified family, and released her name that day.




It is true that the driver was never charged with anything, but that's not unusual. It's rare for drivers who kill pedestrians to be charged.

Because pedestrians are usually at-fault when it comes to vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

That's why most drivers aren't charged.


Do you think drivers should be charged when they're not at fault? Of course you do. Silly question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because pedestrians are usually at-fault when it comes to vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

That's why most drivers aren't charged.

Do you think drivers should be charged when they're not at fault? Of course you do. Silly question.

Citation needed.

Also, since we don't have self-driving cars yet, they're driver-pedestrian crashes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because pedestrians are usually at-fault when it comes to vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

That's why most drivers aren't charged.

Do you think drivers should be charged when they're not at fault? Of course you do. Silly question.

Citation needed.

Also, since we don't have self-driving cars yet, they're driver-pedestrian crashes.

Hey lawyer - the *driver* didn't physically collide with the pedestrian. The *vehicle* they were driving did. They were inside the vehicle. The vehicle they were operating did the actual contact. So yes, it is in fact a collision between a person and a car. Not two people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because pedestrians are usually at-fault when it comes to vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

That's why most drivers aren't charged.

Do you think drivers should be charged when they're not at fault? Of course you do. Silly question.

Citation needed.

Also, since we don't have self-driving cars yet, they're driver-pedestrian crashes.

Hey lawyer - the *driver* didn't physically collide with the pedestrian. The *vehicle* they were driving did. They were inside the vehicle. The vehicle they were operating did the actual contact. So yes, it is in fact a collision between a person and a car. Not two people.

Sure, and a stabbing is contact between a person and a knife, not two people.

Wait, what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry OP but were you following the two second rule? You must always give yourself room to stop the car in front of your stops.

Soooo Back to the topic... I agree with this. By definition, you were following too close OP. But this is a good reminder to not do it in the future, when higher speeds can be at play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because pedestrians are usually at-fault when it comes to vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

That's why most drivers aren't charged.

Do you think drivers should be charged when they're not at fault? Of course you do. Silly question.

Citation needed.

Also, since we don't have self-driving cars yet, they're driver-pedestrian crashes.

Hey lawyer - the *driver* didn't physically collide with the pedestrian. The *vehicle* they were driving did. They were inside the vehicle. The vehicle they were operating did the actual contact. So yes, it is in fact a collision between a person and a car. Not two people.

This might honestly be one of the top 10 stupidest posts I’ve ever seen on this incredibly stupid website

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because pedestrians are usually at-fault when it comes to vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

That's why most drivers aren't charged.

Do you think drivers should be charged when they're not at fault? Of course you do. Silly question.

Citation needed.

Also, since we don't have self-driving cars yet, they're driver-pedestrian crashes.

Hey lawyer - the *driver* didn't physically collide with the pedestrian. The *vehicle* they were driving did. They were inside the vehicle. The vehicle they were operating did the actual contact. So yes, it is in fact a collision between a person and a car. Not two people.

Sure, and a stabbing is contact between a person and a knife, not two people.

Wait, what?

Did the person stab them with their bare hand?

No? Then they were stabbed WITH a knife.

A pedestrian isn't hit by a driver. They are hit by a CAR, being driven by a driver.


Is English your second language?