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:
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.

Everyone is going to gloss over this?

VA drivers don’t even know how to make a basic turn.