Oakton crash

[Anonymous]

It may be hard to believe but there are people who are not the kid’s family or friends and who do question the 4Runner in this case. The BMW kid is obviously wrong, and he has to serve time for his action. But the 4Runner might also be at fault. What’s wrong with asking that question?

Also, somebody wrote that the BMW kid came from Sutton to Blake. That is a very sharp turn. Can someone here explain if it’s physically possible to accelerate to 100mph on such a short distance between that intersection and Five Oaks? This is a question, not trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the speed BMW had, the Toyota should have waited as IT DIDN'T HAVE RIGHT OF WAY!!!!

Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It may be hard to believe but there are people who are not the kid’s family or friends and who do question the 4Runner in this case. The BMW kid is obviously wrong, and he has to serve time for his action. But the 4Runner might also be at fault. What’s wrong with asking that question?

Also, somebody wrote that the BMW kid came from Sutton to Blake. That is a very sharp turn. Can someone here explain if it’s physically possible to accelerate to 100mph on such a short distance between that intersection and Five Oaks? This is a question, not trolling.

It's speculation on our part that the kid was coming from Sutton to Blake. And the intersection is not at any steeper angle than a regular one, so the turn shouldn't be particularly sharp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was under influence, he would be screwed for sure

The truck?

Obviously pp is talking about the BMW driver. The Toyota driver is the one that had the good sense to stop for pedestrians.

But then pull out in front of another car so…

...Another car driving recklessly at excessive rates of speed that perhaps couldn't even be seen when he paused in the intersection...

Why couldn't he see? Was he visually impaired?

Huh. Cute. No, because the excessive speed of the BMW once it turned onto Blake Lane from Sutton and the fact that the BMW probably wasn't even ON Blake Lane when the Toyota first paused to turn left. But you knew that's what I meant...

We are all just speculating here based on what's been released so far, but one thing we do know is that the BMW was traveling at a pretty good clip into that intersection. If the Toyota simply turned into the intersection in front of the BMW, then why wasn't the right front of the Toyota pushed in instead or why wasn't the right passenger side of it t-boned? Why wasn't the BMW crushed in from the front as a result of a high speed impact to a card passing right in front of it? You don't exactly have to be an accident reconstruction expert to draw a conclusion from that.

Because if he had just started turning close to the line then his left corner will be the first to cross the line. That matches with the damage.

See the other similar accident sketch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It may be hard to believe but there are people who are not the kid’s family or friends and who do question the 4Runner in this case. The BMW kid is obviously wrong, and he has to serve time for his action. But the 4Runner might also be at fault. What’s wrong with asking that question?

Also, somebody wrote that the BMW kid came from Sutton to Blake. That is a very sharp turn. Can someone here explain if it’s physically possible to accelerate to 100mph on such a short distance between that intersection and Five Oaks? This is a question, not trolling.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the speed BMW had, the Toyota should have waited as IT DIDN'T HAVE RIGHT OF WAY!!!!

Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.

No, PP brings up a valid point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Possibly similar accident:


https://emorywheel.com/two-students-seriously-injured-in-car-accident/

Again, here is another accident that might be eerily similar. The BMW may have hit the front left corner and both cars spun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may be hard to believe but there are people who are not the kid’s family or friends and who do question the 4Runner in this case. The BMW kid is obviously wrong, and he has to serve time for his action. But the 4Runner might also be at fault. What’s wrong with asking that question?

Also, somebody wrote that the BMW kid came from Sutton to Blake. That is a very sharp turn. Can someone here explain if it’s physically possible to accelerate to 100mph on such a short distance between that intersection and Five Oaks? This is a question, not trolling.

It's speculation on our part that the kid was coming from Sutton to Blake. And the intersection is not at any steeper angle than a regular one, so the turn shouldn't be particularly sharp.

Not my speculation. Multiple people posted earlier in the thread. At this point there are more rumors than facts, but if they’re talked about enough, they start to be perceived as facts. That’s why I asked the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Utility poles aren’t exactly light weight. Often, the car stops after a Direct hit on the utility pole and cracks the pole in half.

The BMW literally sent the utility into the air After it hit a midsize SUV and after mowing down 3 teenagers. And the BMW kept going for half a block after all that. Simply amazing!

It wasn’t a direct head-on collision with the truck though. That impact wouldn’t have decreased the energy all that much and instead sent the BMW spinning. The girls were negligible mass compared to the car. The pole took the brunt of the energy.

Actually, offset collisions are way tougher than direct hits. The Toyota performed beautifully. Those amazing Japanese engineers.

The BMW, not so much.

I don't really understand why you (or another PP) keeps saying that the BMW did not perform well in a crash. I'm not a car expert, but looking at the shape of the BMW after the crash (which looks pretty dang good), and knowing how much impact it sustained in the crash and knocking out the utility pole, and knowing that four teens literally walked out of that car (or ran, in the case of two passengers).... I mean, that seems like it did a really good job of protecting the occupants and holding itself together under a LOT of impact. Yes, I understand that the front of cars are designed to be "crumple zones" to absorb force.

But, if the BMW didn't take a fontal hit, or even if it did -- the bottom line is that the occupants of the BMW walked away after going through two + significant impacts. That seems like pretty good results/engineering to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may be hard to believe but there are people who are not the kid’s family or friends and who do question the 4Runner in this case. The BMW kid is obviously wrong, and he has to serve time for his action. But the 4Runner might also be at fault. What’s wrong with asking that question?

Also, somebody wrote that the BMW kid came from Sutton to Blake. That is a very sharp turn. Can someone here explain if it’s physically possible to accelerate to 100mph on such a short distance between that intersection and Five Oaks? This is a question, not trolling.

It's speculation on our part that the kid was coming from Sutton to Blake. And the intersection is not at any steeper angle than a regular one, so the turn shouldn't be particularly sharp.

Not my speculation. Multiple people posted earlier in the thread. At this point there are more rumors than facts, but if they’re talked about enough, they start to be perceived as facts. That’s why I asked the question.

Quite a large number of things in this case are squarely not rumors, including:

1. Virginia's traffic laws
2. The police reporting that the BMW was travelling at a high rate of speed
3. The distance the BMW went after flattening the telephone pole
4. The shape of the road leading up to the intersection
5. Ordinary, conventional behavior when making a left turn at a light

I agree with the earlier poster who said FOAD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was under influence, he would be screwed for sure

The truck?

Obviously pp is talking about the BMW driver. The Toyota driver is the one that had the good sense to stop for pedestrians.

But then pull out in front of another car so…

Or did the Toyota driver pull out to make the turn when it was clear (no BMW or other southbound cars), then had to wait for pedestrians... then while he was waiting or beginning to turn, a car driven really fast came upon the intersection. See? If the Toyota was already in the intersection when it was clear, then the BMW or any other southbound cars would be required to wait for the intersection to clear (even if they had the green light).

It seems that from the get-go, there was NO talk of the Toyota driver being in the wrong. That surprised me. But, it also lead me to conclude that ALL of the witnesses must be saying the same thing --> that the Toyota driver was not at fault. The fact that the police have continued to focus squarely on the BMW driver, and not even say something more equivocal like "we're sorting it out" or "we're looking at all possibilities" -- suggests that the situation was not the Toyota driver's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was under influence, he would be screwed for sure

The truck?

Obviously pp is talking about the BMW driver. The Toyota driver is the one that had the good sense to stop for pedestrians.

But then pull out in front of another car so…

Or did the Toyota driver pull out to make the turn when it was clear (no BMW or other southbound cars), then had to wait for pedestrians... then while he was waiting or beginning to turn, a car driven really fast came upon the intersection. See? If the Toyota was already in the intersection when it was clear, then the BMW or any other southbound cars would be required to wait for the intersection to clear (even if they had the green light).

It seems that from the get-go, there was NO talk of the Toyota driver being in the wrong. That surprised me. But, it also lead me to conclude that ALL of the witnesses must be saying the same thing --> that the Toyota driver was not at fault. The fact that the police have continued to focus squarely on the BMW driver, and not even say something more equivocal like "we're sorting it out" or "we're looking at all possibilities" -- suggests that the situation was not the Toyota driver's fault.

Unless the girls came running up at 90mph+, the Toyota would have seen the girls before pulling into the intersection and should have known not to pull into the lane of opposing traffic. The Toyota should have entered the intersection, but waited with straight wheels in his own lane to turn. Driver's Ed 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police were out again yesterday taking measurements to calculate the BMW’s speed. I was talking about this case with a friend who is a criminal defense attorney, and he suspects they found the driver was under the influence of some sort of drugs and are examining whether they have enough evidence of speed to charge him with aggravated involuntary manslaughter.

What makes your lawyer friend suspect that the driver was to be under the influence of drugs?

The police said that alcohol did not appear to be a factor but did not comment on whether drugs were a factor.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is blaming BMW...please look into Toyota angle too....I see this several times on Blake lane, where a car trying to make left or right has come too far on the road, and could have easily clipped my car....the fault is with the car that came too far ahead...my speed, while wrong, is not to be blamed here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is blaming BMW...please look into Toyota angle too....I see this several times on Blake lane, where a car trying to make left or right has come too far on the road, and could have easily clipped my car....the fault is with the car that came too far ahead...my speed, while wrong, is not to be blamed here

This is pathetic.