Oakton crash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. My only point was that many on this board seem focused on the bmw and the parents giving this kid a bmw. I wonder if the tone would be different if the kid had a used Honda or ford. Same kid could have been speeding and same accident.

It's just the irony, "teen driving a BMW kills 2 pedestrians"

What is ironic about it being a bmw?

It should just be teen driver kills 2 Oakton high students.

Perhaps the type of car encouraged the behavior. Can you not see a difference in driving styles may exist behind the wheel of a BMW vs. a 15 year old Civic?

No, I don’t see the difference.

We live in an affluent neighborhood full of nice cars. I don’t think it is fair to demonize a kid just because his parents have a little more money.

I grew up poor and the boys used to race in their not fancy cars. They also did drugs and drank and drove their not fancy cars.

It's not about the cost of the car... If you don't see the difference between giving your teen a BWM vs. a Corolla or a Civic then you're also part of the problem. Just like his naïve parents.

I posted above that we will probably give our kid one of our used cars. I also said I got my parent’s old Nissan back in the 90s. I also used to drive around their Ford sedan. I think it was a ford. It wasn’t my car. It was theirs and it definitely wasn’t fancy.

I truly don’t see the difference. I will remind my kid(s) to be careful drivers.

I grew up in an area with a lot of jeeps back in the 90s. Most of the kids didn’t have their own car. They would drive their parent’s jeep, pathfinder, highlander, etc.

Would it have mattered if the kid was driving his parent’s Mercedes and it wasn’t a recent gift?

I don’t see why the car matters. Dh loves cars. We have multiple nice cars in our garage. Dh was a poor kid and worked hard for his cars.

You will "remind" your kids to be careful drivers!?!? What!?!? The word you're looking for is teach, TEACH. You should teach your kids to be careful, responsible drivers. You should teach them no matter what kind of car they're driving they are not the only ones on the road and they have to respect the laws and traffic rules. You should teach them just because the car they drive can go up to X mph within Y seconds doesn't mean they need to test it on the road or show off to friends. You should teach them a car is a transportation vehicle first and foremost and not a status symbol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there foul play besides the speeding? Why did the backseat passengers flee?

Why is everyone trying to get this kid put in jail? Is it because he was driving a bmw?

This sounds like a tragic accident.

They fled because tbey have underdeveloped frontal lobes. Same reason the dumb kid thought his actions were a good idea. If I had a teenage boy I’d buy him an old station wagon. Hard to to play cool guy in a beater station wagon. Idiot parents. Idiot kid.

They fled because they didn't want to be incriminated. They were using the driver for a ride and left him to deal with the deaths alone. Great friends!

Those boys were up to no good!

PS: everyone wants the kid in jail because he KILLED two kids. simple.

The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.

Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there foul play besides the speeding? Why did the backseat passengers flee?

Why is everyone trying to get this kid put in jail? Is it because he was driving a bmw?

This sounds like a tragic accident.

They fled because tbey have underdeveloped frontal lobes. Same reason the dumb kid thought his actions were a good idea. If I had a teenage boy I’d buy him an old station wagon. Hard to to play cool guy in a beater station wagon. Idiot parents. Idiot kid.

They fled because they didn't want to be incriminated. They were using the driver for a ride and left him to deal with the deaths alone. Great friends!

Those boys were up to no good!

PS: everyone wants the kid in jail because he KILLED two kids. simple.

The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.

OK, Boris.

Np here. What is Boris??

PP is trying to say that the Toyota driver did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. My only point was that many on this board seem focused on the bmw and the parents giving this kid a bmw. I wonder if the tone would be different if the kid had a used Honda or ford. Same kid could have been speeding and same accident.

It's just the irony, "teen driving a BMW kills 2 pedestrians"

What is ironic about it being a bmw?

It should just be teen driver kills 2 Oakton high students.

Perhaps the type of car encouraged the behavior. Can you not see a difference in driving styles may exist behind the wheel of a BMW vs. a 15 year old Civic?

No, I don’t see the difference.

We live in an affluent neighborhood full of nice cars. I don’t think it is fair to demonize a kid just because his parents have a little more money.

I grew up poor and the boys used to race in their not fancy cars. They also did drugs and drank and drove their not fancy cars.

It's not about the cost of the car... If you don't see the difference between giving your teen a BWM vs. a Corolla or a Civic then you're also part of the problem. Just like his naïve parents.

I posted above that we will probably give our kid one of our used cars. I also said I got my parent’s old Nissan back in the 90s. I also used to drive around their Ford sedan. I think it was a ford. It wasn’t my car. It was theirs and it definitely wasn’t fancy.

I truly don’t see the difference. I will remind my kid(s) to be careful drivers.

I grew up in an area with a lot of jeeps back in the 90s. Most of the kids didn’t have their own car. They would drive their parent’s jeep, pathfinder, highlander, etc.

Would it have mattered if the kid was driving his parent’s Mercedes and it wasn’t a recent gift?

I don’t see why the car matters. Dh loves cars. We have multiple nice cars in our garage. Dh was a poor kid and worked hard for his cars.

You will "remind" your kids to be careful drivers!?!? What!?!? The word you're looking for is teach, TEACH. You should teach your kids to be careful, responsible drivers. You should teach them no matter what kind of car they're driving they are not the only ones on the road and they have to respect the laws and traffic rules. You should teach them just because the car they drive can go up to X mph within Y seconds doesn't mean they need to test it on the road or show off to friends. You should teach them a car is a transportation vehicle first and foremost and not a status symbol.

Kids are TAUGHT how to be careful, responsible drivers in DRIVERS EDUCATION class, and behind-the-wheel instruction. I think it’s a good thing that this parent is reminding their kids,…..and I would guess they’re doing it quite often, as additional reinforcement to what they learned. Sounds like good parenting to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. My only point was that many on this board seem focused on the bmw and the parents giving this kid a bmw. I wonder if the tone would be different if the kid had a used Honda or ford. Same kid could have been speeding and same accident.

This crash reminds me of the death of the high schooler racing his friend on Vale Road in 2004. He was driving a Mazda (I had to just look up the articles from the time but I remember it wasn’t that special of a car, I don’t think.) it was a new car and they were recklessly street racing and he hit a tree. I think the tone today would be pretty similar. He was a very well known kid around town; I was in jr high school at the time and my teacher knew of it and was telling our class about it. I’ll never forget either, she said, “his mother said he was doing what he loved” and I remember thinking at age 13 that was a really ignorant thing for our teacher to repeat to 7th-8th graders. I know that’s a sidetrack from the point, but this story/death always stuck with me. My point is, yes I think the tone would be similar no matter what type of car because the BMW driver made a series of poor choices. The fact that it was a brand new BMW is a factor, but the car itself is not at fault. Based off what we can tell of his character and intelligence, maturity etc, he likely would’ve done the same thing in a Honda or Ford.

The entitlement of the BMW driver. I would be saying the same thing as well about him if he was a Volkswagen or Nissan or Toyota or Honda driver. Entitled, reckless, selfish, immature.

[Anonymous]

The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.


Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

The repeated attempts here to deflect blame away from the teen driver and onto the Toyota driver are disgusting. And yammering that "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" means less than nothing unless you are an accident investigator who has had access to ALL the images and data and the scene itself. Are you? Nope. Wait for the real investigators to do their jobs.

And you both want to ignore the fact, brought up repeatedly earlier in the thread with the specific law cited, that excessive speed negates certain rights of way. The teen driver's excessive speed (exact speed still be be proven but witnesses clearly said it was extreme) is very possibly going to negate any right of way violation the Toyota driver might have committed. But the investigation, not your speculation or mine, will determine that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. My only point was that many on this board seem focused on the bmw and the parents giving this kid a bmw. I wonder if the tone would be different if the kid had a used Honda or ford. Same kid could have been speeding and same accident.

This crash reminds me of the death of the high schooler racing his friend on Vale Road in 2004. He was driving a Mazda (I had to just look up the articles from the time but I remember it wasn’t that special of a car, I don’t think.) it was a new car and they were recklessly street racing and he hit a tree. I think the tone today would be pretty similar. He was a very well known kid around town; I was in jr high school at the time and my teacher knew of it and was telling our class about it. I’ll never forget either, she said, “his mother said he was doing what he loved” and I remember thinking at age 13 that was a really ignorant thing for our teacher to repeat to 7th-8th graders. I know that’s a sidetrack from the point, but this story/death always stuck with me. My point is, yes I think the tone would be similar no matter what type of car because the BMW driver made a series of poor choices. The fact that it was a brand new BMW is a factor, but the car itself is not at fault. Based off what we can tell of his character and intelligence, maturity etc, he likely would’ve done the same thing in a Honda or Ford.

The entitlement of the BMW driver. I would be saying the same thing as well about him if he was a Volkswagen or Nissan or Toyota or Honda driver. Entitled, reckless, selfish, immature.

I was an entitled, immature, selfish teenager once. I don’t think I was reckless.

I don’t know any details about the driver or the other driver.

Can you share some details on why the bmw was entitled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. My only point was that many on this board seem focused on the bmw and the parents giving this kid a bmw. I wonder if the tone would be different if the kid had a used Honda or ford. Same kid could have been speeding and same accident.

This crash reminds me of the death of the high schooler racing his friend on Vale Road in 2004. He was driving a Mazda (I had to just look up the articles from the time but I remember it wasn’t that special of a car, I don’t think.) it was a new car and they were recklessly street racing and he hit a tree. I think the tone today would be pretty similar. He was a very well known kid around town; I was in jr high school at the time and my teacher knew of it and was telling our class about it. I’ll never forget either, she said, “his mother said he was doing what he loved” and I remember thinking at age 13 that was a really ignorant thing for our teacher to repeat to 7th-8th graders. I know that’s a sidetrack from the point, but this story/death always stuck with me. My point is, yes I think the tone would be similar no matter what type of car because the BMW driver made a series of poor choices. The fact that it was a brand new BMW is a factor, but the car itself is not at fault. Based off what we can tell of his character and intelligence, maturity etc, he likely would’ve done the same thing in a Honda or Ford.

The entitlement of the BMW driver. I would be saying the same thing as well about him if he was a Volkswagen or Nissan or Toyota or Honda driver. Entitled, reckless, selfish, immature.

I was an entitled, immature, selfish teenager once. I don’t think I was reckless.

I don’t know any details about the driver or the other driver.

Can you share some details on why the bmw was entitled?

I honestly am flabbergasted by how people on this post don't get it... wake up call! 90% of Americans who hear "18-year-old who got a BMW for his graduation" (or who infer that) think... "Wow! Rich spoiled brat! Certainly entitled!" And then, combined with the fact that it appears this kid had multiple passengers and was going well above the speed limit in a residential area... that doesn't' help. I'm truly sorry if you are so out of touch with middle-class America that you think most of us look at "18-year-old with a a BMW" as "Normal".... we don't. We see it as an immediate symbol of a spoiled brat. That may be unfair. Maybe YOUR child, with a BMW/Tesla/Mercedes/Whatever is an amazing, kind, wonderful student. But I am here to tell you, no matter how much it seems rude, that most Americans, when they hear this, think that kid was a spoiled, rich, out-of-touch brat whom they can't connect with at all. Sorry if that's unfair, cry me a river.

The kids walking home from school, however, are people they can recognize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.


Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

The repeated attempts here to deflect blame away from the teen driver and onto the Toyota driver are disgusting. And yammering that "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" means less than nothing unless you are an accident investigator who has had access to ALL the images and data and the scene itself. Are you? Nope. Wait for the real investigators to do their jobs.

And you both want to ignore the fact, brought up repeatedly earlier in the thread with the specific law cited, that excessive speed negates certain rights of way. The teen driver's excessive speed (exact speed still be be proven but witnesses clearly said it was extreme) is very possibly going to negate any right of way violation the Toyota driver might have committed. But the investigation, not your speculation or mine, will determine that.

It’s not deflecting. It’s acknowledging that *two* mistakes were made.

Why fight so vigorously to deny that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.


Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

The repeated attempts here to deflect blame away from the teen driver and onto the Toyota driver are disgusting. And yammering that "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" means less than nothing unless you are an accident investigator who has had access to ALL the images and data and the scene itself. Are you? Nope. Wait for the real investigators to do their jobs.

And you both want to ignore the fact, brought up repeatedly earlier in the thread with the specific law cited, that excessive speed negates certain rights of way. The teen driver's excessive speed (exact speed still be be proven but witnesses clearly said it was extreme) is very possibly going to negate any right of way violation the Toyota driver might have committed. But the investigation, not your speculation or mine, will determine that.

It’s not deflecting. It’s acknowledging that *two* mistakes were made.

Why fight so vigorously to deny that?

I pointed out there is a law that negates certain rights of way when excessive speed is involved. That law may come into play here, as several other PPs have noted earlier.

Why do you opine with such certainty when you do not yet have any information from the official investigation being done by professional investigators? The "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" nonsense is the real problem with this thread. No, nothing is obvious except that people on this site love to play armchair expert.

[Anonymous]

It's one thing to make an error, like nosing into the lane while you are waiting to turn.

it's another thing to speed so recklessly that you can't control your vehicle, you are no longer prepared for the errors of others, and two people get killed.

I'm team Toyota. Fry the other guy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.


Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

The repeated attempts here to deflect blame away from the teen driver and onto the Toyota driver are disgusting. And yammering that "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" means less than nothing unless you are an accident investigator who has had access to ALL the images and data and the scene itself. Are you? Nope. Wait for the real investigators to do their jobs.

And you both want to ignore the fact, brought up repeatedly earlier in the thread with the specific law cited, that excessive speed negates certain rights of way. The teen driver's excessive speed (exact speed still be be proven but witnesses clearly said it was extreme) is very possibly going to negate any right of way violation the Toyota driver might have committed. But the investigation, not your speculation or mine, will determine that.

It is entirely plausible that the Toyota had a clear lane, and started to make the turn, before a speeding car was visible. That is what the above line of thought is intentionally ignoring.
It’s not deflecting. It’s acknowledging that *two* mistakes were made.

Why fight so vigorously to deny that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.


Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

The repeated attempts here to deflect blame away from the teen driver and onto the Toyota driver are disgusting. And yammering that "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" means less than nothing unless you are an accident investigator who has had access to ALL the images and data and the scene itself. Are you? Nope. Wait for the real investigators to do their jobs.

And you both want to ignore the fact, brought up repeatedly earlier in the thread with the specific law cited, that excessive speed negates certain rights of way. The teen driver's excessive speed (exact speed still be be proven but witnesses clearly said it was extreme) is very possibly going to negate any right of way violation the Toyota driver might have committed. But the investigation, not your speculation or mine, will determine that.

It’s not deflecting. It’s acknowledging that *two* mistakes were made.

Why fight so vigorously to deny that?

I pointed out there is a law that negates certain rights of way when excessive speed is involved. That law may come into play here, as several other PPs have noted earlier.

Why do you opine with such certainty when you do not yet have any information from the official investigation being done by professional investigators? The "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" nonsense is the real problem with this thread. No, nothing is obvious except that people on this site love to play armchair expert.

It is entirely plausible that the Toyota had a clear lane, and started to make the turn, before a speeding car was visible. That is what the above line of thought is intentionally ignoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.


Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

The repeated attempts here to deflect blame away from the teen driver and onto the Toyota driver are disgusting. And yammering that "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" means less than nothing unless you are an accident investigator who has had access to ALL the images and data and the scene itself. Are you? Nope. Wait for the real investigators to do their jobs.

And you both want to ignore the fact, brought up repeatedly earlier in the thread with the specific law cited, that excessive speed negates certain rights of way. The teen driver's excessive speed (exact speed still be be proven but witnesses clearly said it was extreme) is very possibly going to negate any right of way violation the Toyota driver might have committed. But the investigation, not your speculation or mine, will determine that.

It’s not deflecting. It’s acknowledging that *two* mistakes were made.


Why fight so vigorously to deny that?

Maybe 2 mistakes were made. If the BMW driver was speeding, the Toyota driver's mistake does not count. Can you stop pushing that line to save your friend?
If your friend was not unlawfully speeding (and that is for the accident investigators to determine) then your buddy may share responsibility with the Toyota driver. Otherwise he is out of luck.


§ 46.2-823. Unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way.
The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article.

Code 1950, § 46-238; 1952, c. 666; 1956, c. 533; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-221; 1985, c. 218; 1989, c. 727.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title46.2/chapter8/article2/#:~:text=%C2%A7%2046.2%2D823.&text=The%20driver%20of%20any%20vehicle%20traveling%20at%20an%20unlawful%20speed,otherwise%20have%20under%20this%20article.

§

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The kid but not the Toyota driver? Both were at fault.


Exactly right. It's obvious from the accident description and pictures.

The repeated attempts here to deflect blame away from the teen driver and onto the Toyota driver are disgusting. And yammering that "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" means less than nothing unless you are an accident investigator who has had access to ALL the images and data and the scene itself. Are you? Nope. Wait for the real investigators to do their jobs.

And you both want to ignore the fact, brought up repeatedly earlier in the thread with the specific law cited, that excessive speed negates certain rights of way. The teen driver's excessive speed (exact speed still be be proven but witnesses clearly said it was extreme) is very possibly going to negate any right of way violation the Toyota driver might have committed. But the investigation, not your speculation or mine, will determine that.

It’s not deflecting. It’s acknowledging that *two* mistakes were made.

Why fight so vigorously to deny that?

I pointed out there is a law that negates certain rights of way when excessive speed is involved. That law may come into play here, as several other PPs have noted earlier.

Why do you opine with such certainty when you do not yet have any information from the official investigation being done by professional investigators? The "it's obvious from the accident description and pictures" nonsense is the real problem with this thread. No, nothing is obvious except that people on this site love to play armchair expert.

We don’t have all details, but based on the location of the damage and cars it’s clear he was in the southbound lane. The police even said he had started turning after the pedestrians cleared.

Yes, the kid was speeding and should be held accountable for that. And, yes, the Toyota entered the lane prematurely.

Two errors resulting in the accident. Maybe he won’t be legally charged because of this bizarre VA law, but he was also at fault.