Oakton crash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMW apologist. You should really get your BMW buddy to clean up his social media. The sleuths of FFXU have dug up real dirt on this guy - loads of misogyny to start with.

If someone will look for sentencing leniency then they should start appearing worthy of sympathy.

I DGAF about the BMW driver. He should he held accountable for his actions.

In addition, the Toyota driver should also be held accountable for his. He shouldn’t be absolved for his shitty driving just because someone else was shittier at that moment.

Of course the FCPS police are incompetent and they will f it up.

The left turn by the 4Runner wasn't bad or wrong. - would've been fine if the BME had been driving at an understandable speed.

BMW would’ve been fine if the Toyota didn’t turn into oncoming traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BMW apologist. You should really get your BMW buddy to clean up his social media. The sleuths of FFXU have dug up real dirt on this guy - loads of misogyny to start with.

If someone will look for sentencing leniency then they should start appearing worthy of sympathy.

Is he a Trumper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. Disgusting.

+1 One can be open-minded and believe in witholding judgement, yet still be able to rule out "4runner driver shares fault" as a legitimate opinion.

That is the exact *opposite* of open-minded and withholding judgment.

No, you're just too dumb to realize it.

I guess the Oakton high schoolers are on DCUM now. Sorry you lost a friend. When you are older you will see that the Toyota also made an error.

I'm well beyond high school - I really did mean that you're being dumb. Ruling out the obvious based on known facts is fully consistent with being open-minded and not rushing to judgment. In fact, using one's mind and good taste is expected in this kind of situation.

Name calling? Definitely good taste.

Ruling out scenarios that are very likely and supported by facts is not “open minded” at all.

Nobody's name-calling you. They're just calling a duck a duck. I'm not aware of any reasonable scenarios where the speed of the BMW doesn't absolve the 4runner of fault.

Name calling is not good taste. No matter how you try to spin it.

“Absolve”. So the Toyota did do something wrong. Thank you.

“Absolve”

No. You're just not smart enough to understand the definition of the word absolve. It does not mean that the Toyota driver did anything wrong, in any way, shape or form. It means exactly the opposite.

Nobody is name calling you. Your trolling is in poor taste. Your weaseling is shameless. And you are, indeed, dumb.

More name calling. Klassy.

Maybe you should look up "irony" as well. Once again lying about name-calling while trying to blame-shift a clear-cut but sensitive case. Classy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
absolve verb
ab·​solve | \ əb-ˈzälv , -ˈsälv , -ˈzȯlv, -ˈsȯlv also without l
Definition of absolve
transitive verb
1 formal : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt
The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes.
Her youth does not absolve her of responsibility for her actions.
2 formal : to pardon or forgive (a sin) : to remit (a sin) by absolution
asked the priest to absolve his sins

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/absolve
absolve
verb [ T ] formal
US /əbˈzɑːlv/ UK /əbˈzɒlv/
(especially in religion or law) to free someone from guilt, blame, or responsibility for something:
The report absolved her from/of all blame for the accident.


Nobody is denying that the 4runner was hit in the crash, but nobody with common sense would have believed that the 4runner shared any of the blame. Only someone who's particularly dumb would have thought that the legitimate use of the word "absolve" in this situation implied that the 4runner driver was at fault.

“Absolve” means that he made an error but won’t face the consequences.

He should absolutely share blame if he was turning into the path of another car.

Just stop. If the BMW had been going the speed limit, he would have had time to stop before hitting the Toyota, or else the crash would have caused minimal damage and not hit the pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. Disgusting.

+1 One can be open-minded and believe in witholding judgement, yet still be able to rule out "4runner driver shares fault" as a legitimate opinion.

That is the exact *opposite* of open-minded and withholding judgment.

No, you're just too dumb to realize it.

I guess the Oakton high schoolers are on DCUM now. Sorry you lost a friend. When you are older you will see that the Toyota also made an error.

I'm well beyond high school - I really did mean that you're being dumb. Ruling out the obvious based on known facts is fully consistent with being open-minded and not rushing to judgment. In fact, using one's mind and good taste is expected in this kind of situation.

Name calling? Definitely good taste.

Ruling out scenarios that are very likely and supported by facts is not “open minded” at all.

Nobody's name-calling you. They're just calling a duck a duck. I'm not aware of any reasonable scenarios where the speed of the BMW doesn't absolve the 4runner of fault.

Name calling is not good taste. No matter how you try to spin it.

“Absolve”. So the Toyota did do something wrong. Thank you.

“Absolve”

No. You're just not smart enough to understand the definition of the word absolve. It does not mean that the Toyota driver did anything wrong, in any way, shape or form. It means exactly the opposite.

Nobody is name calling you. Your trolling is in poor taste. Your weaseling is shameless. And you are, indeed, dumb.

More name calling. Klassy.

Maybe you should look up "irony" as well. Once again lying about name-calling while trying to blame-shift a clear-cut but sensitive case. Classy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
absolve verb
ab·​solve | \ əb-ˈzälv , -ˈsälv , -ˈzȯlv, -ˈsȯlv also without l
Definition of absolve
transitive verb
1 formal : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt
The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes.
Her youth does not absolve her of responsibility for her actions.
2 formal : to pardon or forgive (a sin) : to remit (a sin) by absolution
asked the priest to absolve his sins

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/absolve
absolve
verb [ T ] formal
US /əbˈzɑːlv/ UK /əbˈzɒlv/
(especially in religion or law) to free someone from guilt, blame, or responsibility for something:
The report absolved her from/of all blame for the accident.


Nobody is denying that the 4runner was hit in the crash, but nobody with common sense would have believed that the 4runner shared any of the blame. Only someone who's particularly dumb would have thought that the legitimate use of the word "absolve" in this situation implied that the 4runner driver was at fault.

“Absolve” means that he made an error but won’t face the consequences.

He should absolutely share blame if he was turning into the path of another car.

Just stop. If the BMW had been going the speed limit, he would have had time to stop before hitting the Toyota, or else the crash would have caused minimal damage and not hit the pedestrians.

You stop. If the Toyota hadn’t turned in front of a moving car there would be no accident.

They both contributed to the accident and should both be held accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMW apologist. You should really get your BMW buddy to clean up his social media. The sleuths of FFXU have dug up real dirt on this guy - loads of misogyny to start with.

If someone will look for sentencing leniency then they should start appearing worthy of sympathy.

I DGAF about the BMW driver. He should he held accountable for his actions.

In addition, the Toyota driver should also be held accountable for his. He shouldn’t be absolved for his shitty driving just because someone else was shittier at that moment.

Of course the FCPS police are incompetent and they will f it up.

The left turn by the 4Runner wasn't bad or wrong. - would've been fine if the BME had been driving at an understandable speed.

BMW would’ve been fine if the Toyota didn’t turn into oncoming traffic.

He would've killed someone else then.

Driving 80+ in a 35? A danger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMW apologist. You should really get your BMW buddy to clean up his social media. The sleuths of FFXU have dug up real dirt on this guy - loads of misogyny to start with.

If someone will look for sentencing leniency then they should start appearing worthy of sympathy.

I DGAF about the BMW driver. He should he held accountable for his actions.

In addition, the Toyota driver should also be held accountable for his. He shouldn’t be absolved for his shitty driving just because someone else was shittier at that moment.

Of course the FCPS police are incompetent and they will f it up.

The left turn by the 4Runner wasn't bad or wrong. - would've been fine if the BME had been driving at an understandable speed.

BMW would’ve been fine if the Toyota didn’t turn into oncoming traffic.

He would've killed someone else then.

Driving 80+ in a 35? A danger.

It *was* a danger. It became an accident when the Toyota pulled out in front of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. Disgusting.

+1 One can be open-minded and believe in witholding judgement, yet still be able to rule out "4runner driver shares fault" as a legitimate opinion.

That is the exact *opposite* of open-minded and withholding judgment.

No, you're just too dumb to realize it.

I guess the Oakton high schoolers are on DCUM now. Sorry you lost a friend. When you are older you will see that the Toyota also made an error.

I'm well beyond high school - I really did mean that you're being dumb. Ruling out the obvious based on known facts is fully consistent with being open-minded and not rushing to judgment. In fact, using one's mind and good taste is expected in this kind of situation.

Name calling? Definitely good taste.

Ruling out scenarios that are very likely and supported by facts is not “open minded” at all.

Nobody's name-calling you. They're just calling a duck a duck. I'm not aware of any reasonable scenarios where the speed of the BMW doesn't absolve the 4runner of fault.

Name calling is not good taste. No matter how you try to spin it.

“Absolve”. So the Toyota did do something wrong. Thank you.

“Absolve”

No. You're just not smart enough to understand the definition of the word absolve. It does not mean that the Toyota driver did anything wrong, in any way, shape or form. It means exactly the opposite.

Nobody is name calling you. Your trolling is in poor taste. Your weaseling is shameless. And you are, indeed, dumb.

More name calling. Klassy.

Maybe you should look up "irony" as well. Once again lying about name-calling while trying to blame-shift a clear-cut but sensitive case. Classy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
absolve verb
ab·​solve | \ əb-ˈzälv , -ˈsälv , -ˈzȯlv, -ˈsȯlv also without l
Definition of absolve
transitive verb
1 formal : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt
The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes.
Her youth does not absolve her of responsibility for her actions.
2 formal : to pardon or forgive (a sin) : to remit (a sin) by absolution
asked the priest to absolve his sins

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/absolve
absolve
verb [ T ] formal
US /əbˈzɑːlv/ UK /əbˈzɒlv/
(especially in religion or law) to free someone from guilt, blame, or responsibility for something:
The report absolved her from/of all blame for the accident.


Nobody is denying that the 4runner was hit in the crash, but nobody with common sense would have believed that the 4runner shared any of the blame. Only someone who's particularly dumb would have thought that the legitimate use of the word "absolve" in this situation implied that the 4runner driver was at fault.

“Absolve” means that he made an error but won’t face the consequences.

He should absolutely share blame if he was turning into the path of another car.

Just stop. If the BMW had been going the speed limit, he would have had time to stop before hitting the Toyota, or else the crash would have caused minimal damage and not hit the pedestrians.

You stop. If the Toyota hadn’t turned in front of a moving car there would be no accident.

They both contributed to the accident and should both be held accountable.

The Toyota had plenty of time to make the turn if the BMW had been doing 35 or even 45 mph. No one expects a car in the distance to be coming at you at 81 mph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people who are piling on the young drivers have a lot of nerve unless you drive at or under the speed limit 100% of the time. Who amoung you will cast the first stone?

I will. I’ve had a license 30 years longer than the BMW driver and my driving has never killed, maimed or injured anyone. Let alone killed two 14 year old girls and seriously injured another.

My aunt was killed walking home from school as a child by an impaired driver and I saw the damage it had done and was still doing to my mothers family even 25 years later.

So me. Stone cast.

You have NEVER gone over the speed limit?

So full of crap.

what the ever-loving crap are YOU talking about.

NO, we have not driven 46 mph over the limit IN A SCHOOL ZONE.

I'm 47 and I can assure you I've never done that. Neither has any adult I know.

You must be a family member and I'm sorry but your POS son/cousin/brother is going to go away for a long time.

You have gone over the speed limit you have no ground to stand on.

You’re a POS just like him.

Just stop. You’re either a huge moron, or you’re trolling a sensitive topic. There is a huge difference between speeding just a little and going more than 40 mph over the speed limit. It’s not comparable. Speeding a little is bad, but you still generally have time to react to road hazards, and others have time to react to you. Going 81 in a school zone means no one has reasonable reaction time, and you’re putting many lives at risk for no reason. Even a preschooler would grasp that there’s a huge difference between speeding a little and speeding a lot.

Just go away, you POS moron troll.

Liar. It wasn’t a school zone.

I like how you try to rationalize YOUR speeding as ok.

Simple yes or no question: the speed limit is 35 mph. Car A is going 36 mph. Car B is going 80 mph. Are both cars equally wrong?

No 80 in a 35 is reckless driving.

However if the 4 runner turned into the path of the speeding car they are also partially at fault.

I think 20 years in prison is a bit excessive.

For killing 2 kids?

[Anonymous]

These comments about the Toyota driver are so ridiculous. To get to my house. I firm left in front of oncoming traffic in a 35 mph speed zone everts my single day. I could wait an hour if I had to wait for the road to be clear. I wait until incoming traffic is far enough away that I can safely turn. Are people honestly saying they left turn in that situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. Disgusting.

+1 One can be open-minded and believe in witholding judgement, yet still be able to rule out "4runner driver shares fault" as a legitimate opinion.

That is the exact *opposite* of open-minded and withholding judgment.

No, you're just too dumb to realize it.

I guess the Oakton high schoolers are on DCUM now. Sorry you lost a friend. When you are older you will see that the Toyota also made an error.

I'm well beyond high school - I really did mean that you're being dumb. Ruling out the obvious based on known facts is fully consistent with being open-minded and not rushing to judgment. In fact, using one's mind and good taste is expected in this kind of situation.

Name calling? Definitely good taste.

Ruling out scenarios that are very likely and supported by facts is not “open minded” at all.

Nobody's name-calling you. They're just calling a duck a duck. I'm not aware of any reasonable scenarios where the speed of the BMW doesn't absolve the 4runner of fault.

Name calling is not good taste. No matter how you try to spin it.

“Absolve”. So the Toyota did do something wrong. Thank you.

“Absolve”

No. You're just not smart enough to understand the definition of the word absolve. It does not mean that the Toyota driver did anything wrong, in any way, shape or form. It means exactly the opposite.

Nobody is name calling you. Your trolling is in poor taste. Your weaseling is shameless. And you are, indeed, dumb.

More name calling. Klassy.

Maybe you should look up "irony" as well. Once again lying about name-calling while trying to blame-shift a clear-cut but sensitive case. Classy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
absolve verb
ab·​solve | \ əb-ˈzälv , -ˈsälv , -ˈzȯlv, -ˈsȯlv also without l
Definition of absolve
transitive verb
1 formal : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt
The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes.
Her youth does not absolve her of responsibility for her actions.
2 formal : to pardon or forgive (a sin) : to remit (a sin) by absolution
asked the priest to absolve his sins

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/absolve
absolve
verb [ T ] formal
US /əbˈzɑːlv/ UK /əbˈzɒlv/
(especially in religion or law) to free someone from guilt, blame, or responsibility for something:
The report absolved her from/of all blame for the accident.


Nobody is denying that the 4runner was hit in the crash, but nobody with common sense would have believed that the 4runner shared any of the blame. Only someone who's particularly dumb would have thought that the legitimate use of the word "absolve" in this situation implied that the 4runner driver was at fault.

“Absolve” means that he made an error but won’t face the consequences.

He should absolutely share blame if he was turning into the path of another car.

Just stop. If the BMW had been going the speed limit, he would have had time to stop before hitting the Toyota, or else the crash would have caused minimal damage and not hit the pedestrians.

You stop. If the Toyota hadn’t turned in front of a moving car there would be no accident.

They both contributed to the accident and should both be held accountable.

What? You are ridiculous. The Toyota should be able to rely on a car going at or near the speed limit. BMW driver is the one at fault. I hope he gets the full 20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the people above who said the 4Runner May partly be at fault. 81mph in a school zone is reckless.

Me too. Based on the initial data and eyewitness testimony available, it was clear that the Toyota 4Runner's improper left turn was the cause of this accident. However, now that we have additional data from the accident reconstruction projecting a speed at impact of 80 MPH or more, it exonerates the wrongdoing by the driver of the 4Runner and places all blame on the recklessness of the BMW driver. Involuntary manslaughter isn't the correct charge here; we should be looking at premediated murder.

We need to repeal HB2263 and put some motions in effect that will hold Usman Shahid to the fullest accountability possible.

Why shouldn't we charge the 4runner driver too?

VA laws are fcked up.

Does the BMW insurance have to pay for the damage to the 4runner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. Disgusting.

+1 One can be open-minded and believe in witholding judgement, yet still be able to rule out "4runner driver shares fault" as a legitimate opinion.

That is the exact *opposite* of open-minded and withholding judgment.

No, you're just too dumb to realize it.

I guess the Oakton high schoolers are on DCUM now. Sorry you lost a friend. When you are older you will see that the Toyota also made an error.

I'm well beyond high school - I really did mean that you're being dumb. Ruling out the obvious based on known facts is fully consistent with being open-minded and not rushing to judgment. In fact, using one's mind and good taste is expected in this kind of situation.

Name calling? Definitely good taste.

Ruling out scenarios that are very likely and supported by facts is not “open minded” at all.

Nobody's name-calling you. They're just calling a duck a duck. I'm not aware of any reasonable scenarios where the speed of the BMW doesn't absolve the 4runner of fault.

Name calling is not good taste. No matter how you try to spin it.

“Absolve”. So the Toyota did do something wrong. Thank you.

“Absolve”

No. You're just not smart enough to understand the definition of the word absolve. It does not mean that the Toyota driver did anything wrong, in any way, shape or form. It means exactly the opposite.

Nobody is name calling you. Your trolling is in poor taste. Your weaseling is shameless. And you are, indeed, dumb.

More name calling. Klassy.

Maybe you should look up "irony" as well. Once again lying about name-calling while trying to blame-shift a clear-cut but sensitive case. Classy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
absolve verb
ab·​solve | \ əb-ˈzälv , -ˈsälv , -ˈzȯlv, -ˈsȯlv also without l
Definition of absolve
transitive verb
1 formal : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt
The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes.
Her youth does not absolve her of responsibility for her actions.
2 formal : to pardon or forgive (a sin) : to remit (a sin) by absolution
asked the priest to absolve his sins

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/absolve
absolve
verb [ T ] formal
US /əbˈzɑːlv/ UK /əbˈzɒlv/
(especially in religion or law) to free someone from guilt, blame, or responsibility for something:
The report absolved her from/of all blame for the accident.


Nobody is denying that the 4runner was hit in the crash, but nobody with common sense would have believed that the 4runner shared any of the blame. Only someone who's particularly dumb would have thought that the legitimate use of the word "absolve" in this situation implied that the 4runner driver was at fault.

“Absolve” means that he made an error but won’t face the consequences.

He should absolutely share blame if he was turning into the path of another car.

Now you're no longer satisfied telling us that the law is wrong and dictating what happened in the crash. Now you also want to tell us that the dictionary is wrong and dictate the meanings of words. Sorry, it isn't up to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the Toyota driver gets off. Totally absolved from this accident he caused and the deaths.

That is so fcked up.

It is pretty fcked up, but the law is the law! Driving in excess of 80 MPH is reckless in VA, irrespective of the posted speed limit. Moreover, driving 2.3X the posted speed limit cuts the Toyota 4Runner's available reaction time by a factor of 43%. The driver of the 4Runner expected oncoming traffic to be moving no faster than 51 ft/sec but now here comes a driver moving at 118 ft/sec. At a distance of 300 feet, the 4Runner has a solid 5.8 seconds to start and complete a left turn. Quite doable. In this scenario, though, an oncoming vehicle 300 feet away but moving at an unexpected 118 ft/sec affords a measly 2.5 seconds to start and complete a left turn. Very difficult, especially when factoring in a second or so for typical cognitive reaction time.

So, sorry, the BMW driver needs to be held fully accountable here. Again, charges need to be escalated to premeditated murder, HB2263 needs to be removed from the books, and this kid needs to dance with the devil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. Disgusting.

+1 One can be open-minded and believe in witholding judgement, yet still be able to rule out "4runner driver shares fault" as a legitimate opinion.

That is the exact *opposite* of open-minded and withholding judgment.

No, you're just too dumb to realize it.

I guess the Oakton high schoolers are on DCUM now. Sorry you lost a friend. When you are older you will see that the Toyota also made an error.

I'm well beyond high school - I really did mean that you're being dumb. Ruling out the obvious based on known facts is fully consistent with being open-minded and not rushing to judgment. In fact, using one's mind and good taste is expected in this kind of situation.

Name calling? Definitely good taste.

Ruling out scenarios that are very likely and supported by facts is not “open minded” at all.

Nobody's name-calling you. They're just calling a duck a duck. I'm not aware of any reasonable scenarios where the speed of the BMW doesn't absolve the 4runner of fault.

Name calling is not good taste. No matter how you try to spin it.

“Absolve”. So the Toyota did do something wrong. Thank you.

“Absolve”

No. You're just not smart enough to understand the definition of the word absolve. It does not mean that the Toyota driver did anything wrong, in any way, shape or form. It means exactly the opposite.

Nobody is name calling you. Your trolling is in poor taste. Your weaseling is shameless. And you are, indeed, dumb.

More name calling. Klassy.

Maybe you should look up "irony" as well. Once again lying about name-calling while trying to blame-shift a clear-cut but sensitive case. Classy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
absolve verb
ab·​solve | \ əb-ˈzälv , -ˈsälv , -ˈzȯlv, -ˈsȯlv also without l
Definition of absolve
transitive verb
1 formal : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt
The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes.
Her youth does not absolve her of responsibility for her actions.
2 formal : to pardon or forgive (a sin) : to remit (a sin) by absolution
asked the priest to absolve his sins

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/absolve
absolve
verb [ T ] formal
US /əbˈzɑːlv/ UK /əbˈzɒlv/
(especially in religion or law) to free someone from guilt, blame, or responsibility for something:
The report absolved her from/of all blame for the accident.


Nobody is denying that the 4runner was hit in the crash, but nobody with common sense would have believed that the 4runner shared any of the blame. Only someone who's particularly dumb would have thought that the legitimate use of the word "absolve" in this situation implied that the 4runner driver was at fault.

“Absolve” means that he made an error but won’t face the consequences.

He should absolutely share blame if he was turning into the path of another car.

Just stop. If the BMW had been going the speed limit, he would have had time to stop before hitting the Toyota, or else the crash would have caused minimal damage and not hit the pedestrians.

You stop. If the Toyota hadn’t turned in front of a moving car there would be no accident.

They both contributed to the accident and should both be held accountable.

What? You are ridiculous. The Toyota should be able to rely on a car going at or near the speed limit. BMW driver is the one at fault. I hope he gets the full 20.

No, you turn based on the conditions. Toyota wasn’t paying attention or went slow AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Toyota driver gets off. Totally absolved from this accident he caused and the deaths.

That is so fcked up.

It is pretty fcked up, but the law is the law! Driving in excess of 80 MPH is reckless in VA, irrespective of the posted speed limit. Moreover, driving 2.3X the posted speed limit cuts the Toyota 4Runner's available reaction time by a factor of 43%. The driver of the 4Runner expected oncoming traffic to be moving no faster than 51 ft/sec but now here comes a driver moving at 118 ft/sec. At a distance of 300 feet, the 4Runner has a solid 5.8 seconds to start and complete a left turn. Quite doable. In this scenario, though, an oncoming vehicle 300 feet away but moving at an unexpected 118 ft/sec affords a measly 2.5 seconds to start and complete a left turn. Very difficult, especially when factoring in a second or so for typical cognitive reaction time.

So, sorry, the BMW driver needs to be held fully accountable here. Again, charges need to be escalated to premeditated murder, HB2263 needs to be removed from the books, and this kid needs to dance with the devil.

You don’t drive based on expectations, you drive based on current conditions.

And even then you don’t “expect” oncoming traffic to be driving SLOWER than that the posted speed limit (<35 mph).

The Toyota was stopped in the middle of the intersection so his starting speed was zero. If he started the turn normally (not stopping for girls) he would have been moving faster. Given that he was starting from zero **in** the intersection he’d had to accelerate much more than a regular turn. He miscalculated big time.