Oakton crash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Virginia law is not bizarre at all. Speeding is a scourge because it is so dangerous.

If you have forgotten your. driver's ed, look up what an additional 5mph does to your reaction time and braking distance. in a residential areas with a 35 mph limit you can expect to have a stalled vehicle or pet running loose and things like that. Driving at 35MPH allows you to make allowance for all of the above without a fatal outcome. If you speed, your ability to make such allowance reduces exponentially.

You might think that driving 45mph in a 35 mph zone is just going over a few but your chances of causing a fatality have gone up many times over.

That is the logic of what you call a "bizarre VA law."

Here is one safety video. Educate yourself and save lives.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-safely/stopping-distances

The law is weird, not the physics.

If someone is going 1 mph over the limit then they are responsible for every single error of any other driver they may encounter? Even potentially drunk drivers?

No, errors are errors. You shouldn’t get a free pass because someone else did something worse.

This from a 30-seconds search:

Speeding

Another situation in which a left-hand turning driver may not be at fault is when oncoming traffic is moving too fast in the area where the driver is making the turn. If the vehicle the driver collides with is driving significantly over the speed limit when the accident happens, the driver may not be considered liable. However, proving how fast the oncoming traffic was traveling at the time of the collision can be difficult.

https://florinroebig.com/fault-in-left-turn-car-accident/

[Anonymous]

The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

The maladies disinformation and the deliberate obfuscation from this poster is sickening to the extreme. The BMW did not have to speed at 80 or 100 mph - mere 55mph would kick-in the excessive speeding Virginia laws. Any four cylinder - even a 20 year old Oldsmobile could do that.

This thread is all speculation till the investigation concludes. But not too many accidents result in the amount of damage and fatalities that this one caused. If the BMW driver was not speeding then he was impaired because there is no other way he takes out 3 pedestrians and a utility pole. Calling him a victim betrays a cynical legal strategy. The charges should be filed next week and we will be spared this cynical campaign being run by the reps of the BMW driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

He’s not a lawyer but he plays one on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

I think you’ll be eating your words in about one more week.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

He’s not a lawyer but he plays one on DCUM.

Lol!

[Anonymous]

There’s a video where fcpd talks about how he was speeding
This is not disputed. They don’t know what sped, but fcpd was very clear about the factor of speeding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Virginia law is not bizarre at all. Speeding is a scourge because it is so dangerous.

If you have forgotten your. driver's ed, look up what an additional 5mph does to your reaction time and braking distance. in a residential areas with a 35 mph limit you can expect to have a stalled vehicle or pet running loose and things like that. Driving at 35MPH allows you to make allowance for all of the above without a fatal outcome. If you speed, your ability to make such allowance reduces exponentially.

You might think that driving 45mph in a 35 mph zone is just going over a few but your chances of causing a fatality have gone up many times over.

That is the logic of what you call a "bizarre VA law."

Here is one safety video. Educate yourself and save lives.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-safely/stopping-distances

The law is weird, not the physics.

If someone is going 1 mph over the limit then they are responsible for every single error of any other driver they may encounter? Even potentially drunk drivers?

No, errors are errors. You shouldn’t get a free pass because someone else did something worse.

This from a 30-seconds search:

Speeding

Another situation in which a left-hand turning driver may not be at fault is when oncoming traffic is moving too fast in the area where the driver is making the turn. If the vehicle the driver collides with is driving significantly over the speed limit when the accident happens, the driver may not be considered liable. However, proving how fast the oncoming traffic was traveling at the time of the collision can be difficult.

https://florinroebig.com/fault-in-left-turn-car-accident/

It was still an error. Regardless of how the law treats it.

Toyota got a free pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a video where fcpd talks about how he was speeding
This is not disputed. They don’t know what sped, but fcpd was very clear about the factor of speeding

It’s also on their website:


https://fcpdnews.wordpress.com/2022/06/08/two-pedestrians-succumb-to-injuries-in-crash/


an 18-year-old of Fairfax, was traveling at a high rate of speed in the right lane of southbound Blake Lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

The maladies disinformation and the deliberate obfuscation from this poster is sickening to the extreme. The BMW did not have to speed at 80 or 100 mph - mere 55mph would kick-in the excessive speeding Virginia laws. Any four cylinder - even a 20 year old Oldsmobile could do that.

This thread is all speculation till the investigation concludes. But not too many accidents result in the amount of damage and fatalities that this one caused. If the BMW driver was not speeding then he was impaired because there is no other way he takes out 3 pedestrians and a utility pole. Calling him a victim betrays a cynical legal strategy. The charges should be filed next week and we will be spared this cynical campaign being run by the reps of the BMW driver.

When I was younger, I was going probably 40-45mph and spun out. No one was around and I missed a tree by inches. If there were pedestrians, I probably could have killed then. I recently thought about how lucky I have been in my life.

I have no details or any more information than the next person. I was just commenting that you don’t have to be speeding at 80-100 or even 55 for this accident to have happened.

I’m not proud of it but I am guilty of speeding regularly. I drive a very safe SUV though and I’m middle aged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

The maladies disinformation and the deliberate obfuscation from this poster is sickening to the extreme. The BMW did not have to speed at 80 or 100 mph - mere 55mph would kick-in the excessive speeding Virginia laws. Any four cylinder - even a 20 year old Oldsmobile could do that.

This thread is all speculation till the investigation concludes. But not too many accidents result in the amount of damage and fatalities that this one caused. If the BMW driver was not speeding then he was impaired because there is no other way he takes out 3 pedestrians and a utility pole. Calling him a victim betrays a cynical legal strategy. The charges should be filed next week and we will be spared this cynical campaign being run by the reps of the BMW driver.

When I was younger, I was going probably 40-45mph and spun out. No one was around and I missed a tree by inches. If there were pedestrians, I probably could have killed then. I recently thought about how lucky I have been in my life.

I have no details or any more information than the next person. I was just commenting that you don’t have to be speeding at 80-100 or even 55 for this accident to have happened.

I’m not proud of it but I am guilty of speeding regularly. I drive a very safe SUV though and I’m middle aged.

Very safe for you and your passengers, but not the people you may hit when speeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biased misinformation and distorted speculation that runs rampant in this thread is unconscionable in the extreme. There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest that the driver of the BMW was engaged in excessive speeding. Subjective and politically motivated opinions from an inexperienced law enforcement officer hardly qualify as expert and scientifically substantiated facts. The probability that a used, full-size, four-cylinder sedan was driving in excess of 80 to 100 MPH in the southbound direction of Blake Lane at Five Oaks is close to zero. The laws of physics and centrifugal force don’t support this unsubstantiated nonsense. Therefore, the incessant references to obscure Virginia laws of speeding-based nullification are immaterial and irrelevant. The only irrefutable evidence is that the driver of the Toyota 4Runner knowingly initiated a left turn in violation of pedestrian rights and, as a result, created an unexpected and unavoidable obstacle to all southbound traffic on Blake Lane.

It is quite possible, to the contrary of the uneducated opinions in this thread, that a car possessing the mass of a fully occupied BMW 530i has the necessary momentum to strike and fully dislodge a lighting structure even after being stricken by an aggressive and illegally turning sport utility vehicle. It is clear that driver of the 4Runner is the criminal aggressor and that the greatest victim in this scenario after the pedestrians is, in fact, the driver of the BMW.

I love when people peddling biased misinformation and distorted speculation try to point out biased misinformation and distorted speculation by others.

Pot meet kettle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a post on this in Vienna Foodies - weird place to discuss a car crash/deaths - and everyone just HAD to say they live close by or drive by there every day and just “SO SAD”. This has to have a term - whats it called when people have to obsess over tragedy and throw in their two cents/claim to knowing the exact intersection or connection to the death? Like congrats your daughter goes to Oakton, we absolutely needed that input.

Yes, there is a term for it. It's called empathy.

No. It's called "using someone else's tragedy to attention-seek for yourself."

You're pathetic.

Right back at you, sweetheart.

[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.

Nope. This will not become true no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Stop sock puppeting, you liar.