The easiest solution is to close the median so no one has to cross. You can enter and exit with the flow of traffic or go the main entrance to the school.

Lights cause more crashes for those who ignore them. That's all.

Let's go back to the new traffic light - which I'm really happy about as this is a commonly used dangerous intersection.

Someone posted that lights cause more accidents - tell me why?

I understand that the ppl that don't obey the rules will continue doing so, but for people like the dad, who's trying to figure out the right time to turn, don't traffic lights improve their safety by giving clear consistent directions on when it's safe to go in any particular direction?

Anonymous wrote:Then lots of "speculation" threads should be likewise addressed, no?

No.

Then lots of "speculation" threads should be likewise addressed, no?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff can you post your "guidelines for posting on this thread" in Web feedback?

I can't go through all 26 pages of this stuff to find them and you've deleted something by me already, so clearly I need to know what the guidelines are...

thanks.

I'll just post them here. Essentially, leave the investigation to the investigators. None of those involved deserve to have their reputations smeared by posters speculating about what might have happened.

Thank you, Jeff.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff can you post your "guidelines for posting on this thread" in Web feedback?

I can't go through all 26 pages of this stuff to find them and you've deleted something by me already, so clearly I need to know what the guidelines are...

thanks.

I'll just post them here. Essentially, leave the investigation to the investigators. None of those involved deserve to have their reputations smeared by posters speculating about what might have happened.

Ok. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff can you post your "guidelines for posting on this thread" in Web feedback?

I can't go through all 26 pages of this stuff to find them and you've deleted something by me already, so clearly I need to know what the guidelines are...

thanks.

I'll just post them here. Essentially, leave the investigation to the investigators. None of those involved deserve to have their reputations smeared by posters speculating about what might have happened.

Jeff can you post your "guidelines for posting on this thread" in Web feedback?

I can't go through all 26 pages of this stuff to find them and you've deleted something by me already, so clearly I need to know what the guidelines are...

thanks.

And another thing: here in the United States of America, we ALL enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't think there's a difference, in terms of whether or not it's any of your business, between

a. the lawyer representing the driver of one of the vehicles
b. some anonymous person on an Internet message board?

I don't understand your point about whether or not it is any of my business. I live in that community and have a child that attends the HS.

I think it is disrespectful for the attorney to come out and say his client did nothing wrong without having all the information: police report, toxicology, etc. What if his client was high as a kite, driving 80 mph and had his lights off? Would he still not be at fault?

A couple of things:

1) The driver's attorney, to my knowledge, has not posted on DCUM. Therefore, he is not subject to the guidelines I established for posting on this topic.

2) You posted the quote from the attorney. Therefore, you are responsible for that speculation existing on DCUM. If you don't think such speculation should be allowed, why are you posting it?

3) When someone's attorney says, "My client is innocent", the normal reaction is to say, "we'll you are his attorney, what else would you say?" and ignore it completely.

4) Having introduced the attorney's speculation to DCUM, you seem to be hoping to use that as justification for your own speculation. My suggestion is to stop and stop now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of speculation on here by people who don't know what they are talking about-- and I can't understand why.

The attorney for the BMW driver has already concluded that his client did nothing wrong and was not speeding. If he can speculate in the media then surely people on this Board should be allowed to do the same. He was not there so surely he doesn't know what he is talking about either.

“We’re quite confident that Mr. Atakoglu didn’t do anything incorrect in this circumstance. It is a tragedy, but Mr. Atakoglu was travelling straight, within the speed limit and the other car made a left in front of him,” Felsen says.

Nobody on DCUM knows if the guy was speeding or not. Even if he was speeding, it may not be relevant.

The gentleman's lawyer knows a lot more about the details of the case than we do. If he has heard it confirmed by the authorities that his client wasn't speeding - then I guess it is clear that his client was not speeding. If he is simply saying that his client is saying that he was not speeding...o.k.

Anonymous wrote:You don't think there's a difference, in terms of whether or not it's any of your business, between

a. the lawyer representing the driver of one of the vehicles
b. some anonymous person on an Internet message board?

I don't understand your point about whether or not it is any of my business. I live in that community and have a child that attends the HS.

I think it is disrespectful for the attorney to come out and say his client did nothing wrong without having all the information: police report, toxicology, etc. What if his client was high as a kite, driving 80 mph and had his lights off? Would he still not be at fault?

You don't think there's a difference, in terms of whether or not it's any of your business, between

a. the lawyer representing the driver of one of the vehicles
b. some anonymous person on an Internet message board?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of speculation on here by people who don't know what they are talking about-- and I can't understand why.

The attorney for the BMW driver has already concluded that his client did nothing wrong and was not speeding. If he can speculate in the media then surely people on this Board should be allowed to do the same. He was not there so surely he doesn't know what he is talking about either.

“We’re quite confident that Mr. Atakoglu didn’t do anything incorrect in this circumstance. It is a tragedy, but Mr. Atakoglu was travelling straight, within the speed limit and the other car made a left in front of him,” Felsen says.

When somebody's lawyer says something like that, that's not speculation, that's representing the client.

Or spouting off without having all the facts like everyone else on here is doing.