Oakton crash

[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:

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:

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.

That isn’t how the law works

Right. The law is fcked up and he won’t be held accountable for his error.

He didn’t make one.

Looks like he did. Two girls are dead.

Because - see if you can follow - the BMW driver was driving recklessly.

The BMW was driving fast. The Toyota pulled in front of him.

If either driver hadn’t made a mistake those girls would be alive.

The BMW driver was criminally reckless. The Toyota driver was reasonable. You are an idiot.

Drivers make mistakes all day. Even “reasonable” ones. He miscalculated this one and unfortunately contributed to the deaths of two girls.

He gets off though because the BMW driver made a bigger one.

It took two to make an accident here and only one takes the fall.

You are very confused. Did you ever take driver’s Ed?

Do you actually drive a car? Because I would not want to be on the same road you’re driving on if your posts on this thread give any indication of your understanding of safe driving.

Right? Dude was going 81 on a road like that and the poster is still trying to blame the other driver.

No. They both made errors that led to the accident.

Speed is what caused this accident. There is a reason the law is written the way it is.

Speed + bad turn = accident.

No accident unless you have both.

Speed caused the "bad turn." There was no "bad turn" without the excessive speeding. If the BMW was traveling at a reasonable speed, one or both of these things would have happened: Either the Toyota would have had time to clear the intersection, or the BMW would have had time to brake and stop. The BMW is solely at fault, full stop. You're either the stupidest person in this forum, a friend of BMW driver, or a troll who gets off on being inflammatory.

If you pull out in front of oncoming traffic and they would need to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting you then it’s an error.

Based on published reports this is not what happened. The Toyota started to make the turn. The pedestrians impeded his way, so he stopped. The girls then had time o cross in front of him before the BMW arrived. This means he was already in the lane and did not "pull out in front of oncoming traffic".

He was at least in the intersection. Had he already crossed into the opposing lane before stopping? Yikes. That’s even worse. He should have straightened out back in his lane.

By driving recklessly at more than 45 mph over the posted limit, the BMW driver is solely responsible for the deaths of two children. He is also responsible for destroying the lives of his surviving victims and the people who were in his car at the time he killed the girls. And all the families, including his own. That’s the reality. You can refuse to face it but you cannot change it.

Legally, sure. He will likely be “absolved”.

But the fact is that he made an error that contributed to those deaths. Just less of an error than the BMW driver.

No

Facts say otherwise.

[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:

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:

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.

That isn’t how the law works

Right. The law is fcked up and he won’t be held accountable for his error.

He didn’t make one.

Looks like he did. Two girls are dead.

Because - see if you can follow - the BMW driver was driving recklessly.

The BMW was driving fast. The Toyota pulled in front of him.

If either driver hadn’t made a mistake those girls would be alive.

The BMW driver was criminally reckless. The Toyota driver was reasonable. You are an idiot.

Drivers make mistakes all day. Even “reasonable” ones. He miscalculated this one and unfortunately contributed to the deaths of two girls.

He gets off though because the BMW driver made a bigger one.

It took two to make an accident here and only one takes the fall.

You are very confused. Did you ever take driver’s Ed?

Do you actually drive a car? Because I would not want to be on the same road you’re driving on if your posts on this thread give any indication of your understanding of safe driving.

Right? Dude was going 81 on a road like that and the poster is still trying to blame the other driver.

No. They both made errors that led to the accident.

Speed is what caused this accident. There is a reason the law is written the way it is.

Speed + bad turn = accident.

No accident unless you have both.

Speed caused the "bad turn." There was no "bad turn" without the excessive speeding. If the BMW was traveling at a reasonable speed, one or both of these things would have happened: Either the Toyota would have had time to clear the intersection, or the BMW would have had time to brake and stop. The BMW is solely at fault, full stop. You're either the stupidest person in this forum, a friend of BMW driver, or a troll who gets off on being inflammatory.

If you pull out in front of oncoming traffic and they would need to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting you then it’s an error.

Based on published reports this is not what happened. The Toyota started to make the turn. The pedestrians impeded his way, so he stopped. The girls then had time o cross in front of him before the BMW arrived. This means he was already in the lane and did not "pull out in front of oncoming traffic".

He was at least in the intersection. Had he already crossed into the opposing lane before stopping? Yikes. That’s even worse. He should have straightened out back in his lane.

Isn’t that worse? He was already in the intersection so he wasn’t even turning and not seeing the speeding bmw.

The bmw is of course at fault but I still think the 4 runner is partly responsible.

It is such a huge pet peeve of mine when cars are sticking out. They aren’t going. They are stopped partly in the lane.

Was it a pedestrian crosswalk?

I admit I am not familiar with this road. I’m just trying to understand this terrible tragedy.

I'm sorry about your pet peeves but that's the proper way to pull forward when preparing to make a left turn.

[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:

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.

No. The definition is the definition.

You don’t need to be “absolved” if you did nothing wrong.

No. The definition is the definition, but it's a definition that you obviously don't understand. If you absolve someone, then you are eliminating the possibility that they can be treated as being in the wrong. Indeed that could mean that someone did something wrong, and they're getting excused... but get this - it is also used to described people who were never in the wrong, but who's guilt is no longer being considered. Example 1: if a person is under investigation, but is discovered to have never been in the location where the crime took place, it absolves them of guilt. Example 2: if a person has permission from the owner of private property to be there, it absolves them of trespassing. Example 3: if a person was hit in a car accident, but the other party was going so recklessly fast that they would not have had reasonable time to react under the law, that absolves them of any fault in the accident.

In all three of the examples, the person in question did nothing wrong, and all are perfectly conventional uses of the word "absolve." You've moved on from making up what happened in the crash to suit your fantasies, to making up the meanings of words to suit your fantasies. What's next?

The definition is the definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

The Toyota made an error. And he will be absolved.

Yes, we know that you're dumb, but no, you don't get to pick a different definition than the one that was being used to say that you were right. Words in the English language can have multiple legitimate meanings. Unless you're also dumb enough to think that we're currently in an Ancient Roman marketplace:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum
forum noun
fo·​rum | \ ˈfȯr-əm \
plural forums also fora\ ˈfȯr-​ə \
Definition of forum
1a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business


You were even given a link to the definition of the word "absolve" in the sense that it was being used, so you have no excuse.

These are exactly the two definitions from MW:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

I’m sorry you struggle with definitions. And reality.

Why? Why do you keep this up? It's not just that you're objectively wrong and that you're ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It's that you keep doubling down when you're so wrong. You're literally responding someone who's well-grounded in realty by calling them out for struggling with reality. You're calling them out for struggling with definitions and reality when you're struggling with definitions and are in perfect denial of reality. It's remarkable.

I’m not struggling with definitions. I am literally right. At least according to Merriam-Webster.

Toyota made an error. He will get off because someone else made a bigger mistake. Absolved.

Almost, except for the fact that you're literally wrong. You just chose to ignore the Cambridge definition linked upthread which even provided an example sentence which was related to this situation. You argued against someone else's conventional usage of a word, suggesting that you do struggle with definitions. And more disturbingly, you continually choose to ignore the fact that the BMW driver, and only the BMW driver, is at fault in this accident. If that's in any way in good faith, then it tells us that you're very dumb.

[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:

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:

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.

That isn’t how the law works

Right. The law is fcked up and he won’t be held accountable for his error.

He didn’t make one.

Looks like he did. Two girls are dead.

Because - see if you can follow - the BMW driver was driving recklessly.

The BMW was driving fast. The Toyota pulled in front of him.

If either driver hadn’t made a mistake those girls would be alive.

The BMW driver was criminally reckless. The Toyota driver was reasonable. You are an idiot.

Drivers make mistakes all day. Even “reasonable” ones. He miscalculated this one and unfortunately contributed to the deaths of two girls.

He gets off though because the BMW driver made a bigger one.

It took two to make an accident here and only one takes the fall.

You are very confused. Did you ever take driver’s Ed?

Do you actually drive a car? Because I would not want to be on the same road you’re driving on if your posts on this thread give any indication of your understanding of safe driving.

Right? Dude was going 81 on a road like that and the poster is still trying to blame the other driver.

No. They both made errors that led to the accident.

Speed is what caused this accident. There is a reason the law is written the way it is.

Speed + bad turn = accident.

No accident unless you have both.

Speed caused the "bad turn." There was no "bad turn" without the excessive speeding. If the BMW was traveling at a reasonable speed, one or both of these things would have happened: Either the Toyota would have had time to clear the intersection, or the BMW would have had time to brake and stop. The BMW is solely at fault, full stop. You're either the stupidest person in this forum, a friend of BMW driver, or a troll who gets off on being inflammatory.

If you pull out in front of oncoming traffic and they would need to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting you then it’s an error.

Based on published reports this is not what happened. The Toyota started to make the turn. The pedestrians impeded his way, so he stopped. The girls then had time o cross in front of him before the BMW arrived. This means he was already in the lane and did not "pull out in front of oncoming traffic".

He was at least in the intersection. Had he already crossed into the opposing lane before stopping? Yikes. That’s even worse. He should have straightened out back in his lane.

Isn’t that worse? He was already in the intersection so he wasn’t even turning and not seeing the speeding bmw.

The bmw is of course at fault but I still think the 4 runner is partly responsible.

It is such a huge pet peeve of mine when cars are sticking out. They aren’t going. They are stopped partly in the lane.

Was it a pedestrian crosswalk?

I admit I am not familiar with this road. I’m just trying to understand this terrible tragedy.

I'm sorry about your pet peeves but that's the proper way to pull forward when preparing to make a left turn.

Omg. VA drivers are horrible.

No, you do NOT cross into the other lane until it’s safe to turn.

His initial error was not seeing the pedestrians *before* he started to make the turn. Then, his next error was not straightening out. Then, he continued his turn with oncoming traffic.

[Anonymous]

Had anyone found his TikTok?

[Anonymous]

What about the passengers that fled? Are there charges for them?

[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:

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.

No. The definition is the definition.

You don’t need to be “absolved” if you did nothing wrong.

No. The definition is the definition, but it's a definition that you obviously don't understand. If you absolve someone, then you are eliminating the possibility that they can be treated as being in the wrong. Indeed that could mean that someone did something wrong, and they're getting excused... but get this - it is also used to described people who were never in the wrong, but who's guilt is no longer being considered. Example 1: if a person is under investigation, but is discovered to have never been in the location where the crime took place, it absolves them of guilt. Example 2: if a person has permission from the owner of private property to be there, it absolves them of trespassing. Example 3: if a person was hit in a car accident, but the other party was going so recklessly fast that they would not have had reasonable time to react under the law, that absolves them of any fault in the accident.

In all three of the examples, the person in question did nothing wrong, and all are perfectly conventional uses of the word "absolve." You've moved on from making up what happened in the crash to suit your fantasies, to making up the meanings of words to suit your fantasies. What's next?

The definition is the definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

The Toyota made an error. And he will be absolved.

Yes, we know that you're dumb, but no, you don't get to pick a different definition than the one that was being used to say that you were right. Words in the English language can have multiple legitimate meanings. Unless you're also dumb enough to think that we're currently in an Ancient Roman marketplace:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum
forum noun
fo·​rum | \ ˈfȯr-əm \
plural forums also fora\ ˈfȯr-​ə \
Definition of forum
1a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business


You were even given a link to the definition of the word "absolve" in the sense that it was being used, so you have no excuse.

These are exactly the two definitions from MW:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

I’m sorry you struggle with definitions. And reality.

Why? Why do you keep this up? It's not just that you're objectively wrong and that you're ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It's that you keep doubling down when you're so wrong. You're literally responding someone who's well-grounded in realty by calling them out for struggling with reality. You're calling them out for struggling with definitions and reality when you're struggling with definitions and are in perfect denial of reality. It's remarkable.

I’m not struggling with definitions. I am literally right. At least according to Merriam-Webster.

Toyota made an error. He will get off because someone else made a bigger mistake. Absolved.

Almost, except for the fact that you're literally wrong. You just chose to ignore the Cambridge definition linked upthread which even provided an example sentence which was related to this situation. You argued against someone else's conventional usage of a word, suggesting that you do struggle with definitions. And more disturbingly, you continually choose to ignore the fact that the BMW driver, and only the BMW driver, is at fault in this accident. If that's in any way in good faith, then it tells us that you're very dumb.

M-W = American dictionary
Cambridge = British dictionary

I am literally correct for the American conventional use of the word.

The BMW and the Toyota both made errors. Facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the passengers that fled? Are there charges for them?

Why would they flee unless they were certain that the driver of their vehicle was horribly at fault?

[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:

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:

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.

That isn’t how the law works

Right. The law is fcked up and he won’t be held accountable for his error.

He didn’t make one.

Looks like he did. Two girls are dead.

Because - see if you can follow - the BMW driver was driving recklessly.

The BMW was driving fast. The Toyota pulled in front of him.

If either driver hadn’t made a mistake those girls would be alive.

The BMW driver was criminally reckless. The Toyota driver was reasonable. You are an idiot.

Drivers make mistakes all day. Even “reasonable” ones. He miscalculated this one and unfortunately contributed to the deaths of two girls.

He gets off though because the BMW driver made a bigger one.

It took two to make an accident here and only one takes the fall.

You are very confused. Did you ever take driver’s Ed?

Do you actually drive a car? Because I would not want to be on the same road you’re driving on if your posts on this thread give any indication of your understanding of safe driving.

Right? Dude was going 81 on a road like that and the poster is still trying to blame the other driver.

No. They both made errors that led to the accident.

Speed is what caused this accident. There is a reason the law is written the way it is.

Speed + bad turn = accident.

No accident unless you have both.

Speed caused the "bad turn." There was no "bad turn" without the excessive speeding. If the BMW was traveling at a reasonable speed, one or both of these things would have happened: Either the Toyota would have had time to clear the intersection, or the BMW would have had time to brake and stop. The BMW is solely at fault, full stop. You're either the stupidest person in this forum, a friend of BMW driver, or a troll who gets off on being inflammatory.

If you pull out in front of oncoming traffic and they would need to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting you then it’s an error.

Based on published reports this is not what happened. The Toyota started to make the turn. The pedestrians impeded his way, so he stopped. The girls then had time o cross in front of him before the BMW arrived. This means he was already in the lane and did not "pull out in front of oncoming traffic".

He was at least in the intersection. Had he already crossed into the opposing lane before stopping? Yikes. That’s even worse. He should have straightened out back in his lane.

By driving recklessly at more than 45 mph over the posted limit, the BMW driver is solely responsible for the deaths of two children. He is also responsible for destroying the lives of his surviving victims and the people who were in his car at the time he killed the girls. And all the families, including his own. That’s the reality. You can refuse to face it but you cannot change it.

Legally, sure. He will likely be “absolved”.

But the fact is that he made an error that contributed to those deaths. Just less of an error than the BMW driver.

You keep using that word "absolved." I do not think it means what you think it means.

[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:

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.

No. The definition is the definition.

You don’t need to be “absolved” if you did nothing wrong.

No. The definition is the definition, but it's a definition that you obviously don't understand. If you absolve someone, then you are eliminating the possibility that they can be treated as being in the wrong. Indeed that could mean that someone did something wrong, and they're getting excused... but get this - it is also used to described people who were never in the wrong, but who's guilt is no longer being considered. Example 1: if a person is under investigation, but is discovered to have never been in the location where the crime took place, it absolves them of guilt. Example 2: if a person has permission from the owner of private property to be there, it absolves them of trespassing. Example 3: if a person was hit in a car accident, but the other party was going so recklessly fast that they would not have had reasonable time to react under the law, that absolves them of any fault in the accident.

In all three of the examples, the person in question did nothing wrong, and all are perfectly conventional uses of the word "absolve." You've moved on from making up what happened in the crash to suit your fantasies, to making up the meanings of words to suit your fantasies. What's next?

The definition is the definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

The Toyota made an error. And he will be absolved.

Yes, we know that you're dumb, but no, you don't get to pick a different definition than the one that was being used to say that you were right. Words in the English language can have multiple legitimate meanings. Unless you're also dumb enough to think that we're currently in an Ancient Roman marketplace:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum
forum noun
fo·​rum | \ ˈfȯr-əm \
plural forums also fora\ ˈfȯr-​ə \
Definition of forum
1a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business


You were even given a link to the definition of the word "absolve" in the sense that it was being used, so you have no excuse.

These are exactly the two definitions from MW:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

I’m sorry you struggle with definitions. And reality.

Why? Why do you keep this up? It's not just that you're objectively wrong and that you're ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It's that you keep doubling down when you're so wrong. You're literally responding someone who's well-grounded in realty by calling them out for struggling with reality. You're calling them out for struggling with definitions and reality when you're struggling with definitions and are in perfect denial of reality. It's remarkable.

I’m not struggling with definitions. I am literally right. At least according to Merriam-Webster.

Toyota made an error. He will get off because someone else made a bigger mistake. Absolved.

Almost, except for the fact that you're literally wrong. You just chose to ignore the Cambridge definition linked upthread which even provided an example sentence which was related to this situation. You argued against someone else's conventional usage of a word, suggesting that you do struggle with definitions. And more disturbingly, you continually choose to ignore the fact that the BMW driver, and only the BMW driver, is at fault in this accident. If that's in any way in good faith, then it tells us that you're very dumb.

M-W = American dictionary
Cambridge = British dictionary

I am literally correct for the American conventional use of the word.

The BMW and the Toyota both made errors. Facts.

The Toyota followed both convention and the law. No error

The BMW driver was recklessly speeding. Massive error.

Next.

[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:

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.

No. The definition is the definition.

You don’t need to be “absolved” if you did nothing wrong.

No. The definition is the definition, but it's a definition that you obviously don't understand. If you absolve someone, then you are eliminating the possibility that they can be treated as being in the wrong. Indeed that could mean that someone did something wrong, and they're getting excused... but get this - it is also used to described people who were never in the wrong, but who's guilt is no longer being considered. Example 1: if a person is under investigation, but is discovered to have never been in the location where the crime took place, it absolves them of guilt. Example 2: if a person has permission from the owner of private property to be there, it absolves them of trespassing. Example 3: if a person was hit in a car accident, but the other party was going so recklessly fast that they would not have had reasonable time to react under the law, that absolves them of any fault in the accident.

In all three of the examples, the person in question did nothing wrong, and all are perfectly conventional uses of the word "absolve." You've moved on from making up what happened in the crash to suit your fantasies, to making up the meanings of words to suit your fantasies. What's next?

The definition is the definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

The Toyota made an error. And he will be absolved.

Yes, we know that you're dumb, but no, you don't get to pick a different definition than the one that was being used to say that you were right. Words in the English language can have multiple legitimate meanings. Unless you're also dumb enough to think that we're currently in an Ancient Roman marketplace:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum
forum noun
fo·​rum | \ ˈfȯr-əm \
plural forums also fora\ ˈfȯr-​ə \
Definition of forum
1a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business


You were even given a link to the definition of the word "absolve" in the sense that it was being used, so you have no excuse.

These are exactly the two definitions from MW:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

I’m sorry you struggle with definitions. And reality.

Why? Why do you keep this up? It's not just that you're objectively wrong and that you're ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It's that you keep doubling down when you're so wrong. You're literally responding someone who's well-grounded in realty by calling them out for struggling with reality. You're calling them out for struggling with definitions and reality when you're struggling with definitions and are in perfect denial of reality. It's remarkable.

I’m not struggling with definitions. I am literally right. At least according to Merriam-Webster.

Toyota made an error. He will get off because someone else made a bigger mistake. Absolved.

Almost, except for the fact that you're literally wrong. You just chose to ignore the Cambridge definition linked upthread which even provided an example sentence which was related to this situation. You argued against someone else's conventional usage of a word, suggesting that you do struggle with definitions. And more disturbingly, you continually choose to ignore the fact that the BMW driver, and only the BMW driver, is at fault in this accident. If that's in any way in good faith, then it tells us that you're very dumb.

M-W = American dictionary
Cambridge = British dictionary

I am literally correct for the American conventional use of the word.

The BMW and the Toyota both made errors. Facts.

Sigh. Why don't you brush up on your middle school grammar before giving vocabulary lessons?

[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:

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:

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.

That isn’t how the law works

Right. The law is fcked up and he won’t be held accountable for his error.

He didn’t make one.

Looks like he did. Two girls are dead.

Because - see if you can follow - the BMW driver was driving recklessly.

The BMW was driving fast. The Toyota pulled in front of him.

If either driver hadn’t made a mistake those girls would be alive.

The BMW driver was criminally reckless. The Toyota driver was reasonable. You are an idiot.

Drivers make mistakes all day. Even “reasonable” ones. He miscalculated this one and unfortunately contributed to the deaths of two girls.

He gets off though because the BMW driver made a bigger one.

It took two to make an accident here and only one takes the fall.

You are very confused. Did you ever take driver’s Ed?

Do you actually drive a car? Because I would not want to be on the same road you’re driving on if your posts on this thread give any indication of your understanding of safe driving.

Right? Dude was going 81 on a road like that and the poster is still trying to blame the other driver.

No. They both made errors that led to the accident.

Speed is what caused this accident. There is a reason the law is written the way it is.

Speed + bad turn = accident.

No accident unless you have both.

Speed caused the "bad turn." There was no "bad turn" without the excessive speeding. If the BMW was traveling at a reasonable speed, one or both of these things would have happened: Either the Toyota would have had time to clear the intersection, or the BMW would have had time to brake and stop. The BMW is solely at fault, full stop. You're either the stupidest person in this forum, a friend of BMW driver, or a troll who gets off on being inflammatory.

If you pull out in front of oncoming traffic and they would need to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting you then it’s an error.

Based on published reports this is not what happened. The Toyota started to make the turn. The pedestrians impeded his way, so he stopped. The girls then had time o cross in front of him before the BMW arrived. This means he was already in the lane and did not "pull out in front of oncoming traffic".

He was at least in the intersection. Had he already crossed into the opposing lane before stopping? Yikes. That’s even worse. He should have straightened out back in his lane.

By driving recklessly at more than 45 mph over the posted limit, the BMW driver is solely responsible for the deaths of two children. He is also responsible for destroying the lives of his surviving victims and the people who were in his car at the time he killed the girls. And all the families, including his own. That’s the reality. You can refuse to face it but you cannot change it.

Legally, sure. He will likely be “absolved”.

But the fact is that he made an error that contributed to those deaths. Just less of an error than the BMW driver.

You keep using that word "absolved." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Here is what I (and MW) think it means.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve

[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:I’m not familiar with the area—how far is the next closest stop sign or traffic light in the direction the bmw was driving? I guess he thought he had a wide open road, or just showing off his cars acceleration.

I just don’t get it. If he wanted to drag race, there are places in Prince George’s and Charles county he could have gone.

So I just looked it up and I see the accident did happen at an intersection with traffic light. And instead of slowing down, this maniac was going 80 mph? What if the light had been red?

There is no defense possible since this occurred at an intersection.

He had “the expectation” that if the light was green no one would pull in front of him.

Did he have an expectation that he could stop in time if the light was red? Because, you know, he was doing 81.

He was likely accelerating and wasn’t going 81 the whole stretch of road.

So you are saying he was accelerating toward a light he knew was there? With his buddies in the car?

Towards a light he could see was green.

.. toward a vehicle that was already in the intersection and a car driving at or near the speed limit would have had plenty of time to stop before crashing into it.

But not in his lane. No one “expects” another car to pull in front of them.

Yes, they do.

That is part of driving an automobile.

Just like not going over twice the speed limit.

Part of your job as the operator of a motor vehicle is to react to the conditions around you, and to drive in a safe manner. The Toyota entered a clear lane. Any reasonable car that came after that would have been able to easily, safely stop. Instead a maniac driving 81mph came up the road, and, presumably, was accelerating the whole way.

The Toyota entered a lane with oncoming traffic. Maybe he wasn’t paying attention. Or maybe he was taking the turn very slowly. Or both.

He was not driving for the conditions around him.

Error.

I really hope you are the troll you seem to be. If not, you are a miserable human being. (Well, I suppose that really doesn't change if you are trolling)

It’s just reality. Not sure why you are fighting facts. The Toyota guy is safe from prosecution if that’s your big concern.

Far from facing prosecution, the Toyota driver is actually a victim in this accident.

Right. I’m just going to go stop my car in front of opposing traffic tomorrow. Just need one speeding sucker to make me a victim.

Yup, the speeding is the problem. If the BMW driver hadn’t killed the girls with his arrogance, he would be charged with reckless disregard just for hitting the Toyota while going at that rate of speed. The Toyota driver is the victim.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

[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:

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.

No. The definition is the definition.

You don’t need to be “absolved” if you did nothing wrong.

No. The definition is the definition, but it's a definition that you obviously don't understand. If you absolve someone, then you are eliminating the possibility that they can be treated as being in the wrong. Indeed that could mean that someone did something wrong, and they're getting excused... but get this - it is also used to described people who were never in the wrong, but who's guilt is no longer being considered. Example 1: if a person is under investigation, but is discovered to have never been in the location where the crime took place, it absolves them of guilt. Example 2: if a person has permission from the owner of private property to be there, it absolves them of trespassing. Example 3: if a person was hit in a car accident, but the other party was going so recklessly fast that they would not have had reasonable time to react under the law, that absolves them of any fault in the accident.

In all three of the examples, the person in question did nothing wrong, and all are perfectly conventional uses of the word "absolve." You've moved on from making up what happened in the crash to suit your fantasies, to making up the meanings of words to suit your fantasies. What's next?

The definition is the definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

The Toyota made an error. And he will be absolved.

Yes, we know that you're dumb, but no, you don't get to pick a different definition than the one that was being used to say that you were right. Words in the English language can have multiple legitimate meanings. Unless you're also dumb enough to think that we're currently in an Ancient Roman marketplace:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum
forum noun
fo·​rum | \ ˈfȯr-əm \
plural forums also fora\ ˈfȯr-​ə \
Definition of forum
1a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business


You were even given a link to the definition of the word "absolve" in the sense that it was being used, so you have no excuse.

These are exactly the two definitions from MW:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolve
“to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt ”
“to pardon or forgive (a sin)”

I’m sorry you struggle with definitions. And reality.

Why? Why do you keep this up? It's not just that you're objectively wrong and that you're ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It's that you keep doubling down when you're so wrong. You're literally responding someone who's well-grounded in realty by calling them out for struggling with reality. You're calling them out for struggling with definitions and reality when you're struggling with definitions and are in perfect denial of reality. It's remarkable.

I’m not struggling with definitions. I am literally right. At least according to Merriam-Webster.

Toyota made an error. He will get off because someone else made a bigger mistake. Absolved.

Almost, except for the fact that you're literally wrong. You just chose to ignore the Cambridge definition linked upthread which even provided an example sentence which was related to this situation. You argued against someone else's conventional usage of a word, suggesting that you do struggle with definitions. And more disturbingly, you continually choose to ignore the fact that the BMW driver, and only the BMW driver, is at fault in this accident. If that's in any way in good faith, then it tells us that you're very dumb.

M-W = American dictionary
Cambridge = British dictionary

I am literally correct for the American conventional use of the word.

The BMW and the Toyota both made errors. Facts.

The Toyota followed both convention and the law. No error

The BMW driver was recklessly speeding. Massive error.

Next.

Stopping in the opposing lane of traffic is not conventional. Probably not legal either.

The only reason the Toyota didn’t get into trouble was because the BMW was speeding.

[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:I’m not familiar with the area—how far is the next closest stop sign or traffic light in the direction the bmw was driving? I guess he thought he had a wide open road, or just showing off his cars acceleration.

I just don’t get it. If he wanted to drag race, there are places in Prince George’s and Charles county he could have gone.

So I just looked it up and I see the accident did happen at an intersection with traffic light. And instead of slowing down, this maniac was going 80 mph? What if the light had been red?

There is no defense possible since this occurred at an intersection.

He had “the expectation” that if the light was green no one would pull in front of him.

Did he have an expectation that he could stop in time if the light was red? Because, you know, he was doing 81.

He was likely accelerating and wasn’t going 81 the whole stretch of road.

So you are saying he was accelerating toward a light he knew was there? With his buddies in the car?

Towards a light he could see was green.

.. toward a vehicle that was already in the intersection and a car driving at or near the speed limit would have had plenty of time to stop before crashing into it.

But not in his lane. No one “expects” another car to pull in front of them.

Yes, they do.

That is part of driving an automobile.

Just like not going over twice the speed limit.

Part of your job as the operator of a motor vehicle is to react to the conditions around you, and to drive in a safe manner. The Toyota entered a clear lane. Any reasonable car that came after that would have been able to easily, safely stop. Instead a maniac driving 81mph came up the road, and, presumably, was accelerating the whole way.

The Toyota entered a lane with oncoming traffic. Maybe he wasn’t paying attention. Or maybe he was taking the turn very slowly. Or both.

He was not driving for the conditions around him.

Error.

I really hope you are the troll you seem to be. If not, you are a miserable human being. (Well, I suppose that really doesn't change if you are trolling)

It’s just reality. Not sure why you are fighting facts. The Toyota guy is safe from prosecution if that’s your big concern.

Far from facing prosecution, the Toyota driver is actually a victim in this accident.

Right. I’m just going to go stop my car in front of opposing traffic tomorrow. Just need one speeding sucker to make me a victim.

Yup, the speeding is the problem. If the BMW driver hadn’t killed the girls with his arrogance, he would be charged with reckless disregard just for hitting the Toyota while going at that rate of speed. The Toyota driver is the victim.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

I’m going to go test it out tomorrow. Just stop in front of anyone who is speeding.