NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
The speed limit on Jefferson just west of the crash is 40mph
(it is 35mph 50 east of the crash scene)
According to http://www.forensicdynamics.com/stopdistcalc
At 40mph, stopping distance is 76 feet.
The video above was shot last night at 10:30pm
In the video my top speed driving was 40mph
3 people were holding 4 standard blinky lights for this experiment
the street light above the crash location was still out
Distances are verified using this google map of the crash scene using telephone poles as markers on the road.
forgot to also mention, the camera is placed in the passenger's seat which means that the line of sight of the camera is actually not as good as a person sitting in the driver's seat would have. You can also see that the blinky lights are spread out from the parking / right turn lane inside the solid line and the number 2 lane (right lane.) Had people been in the number one lane the line of sight would have been even clearer.
Unfortunately to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Would you be up to closing this site temporarily to public (attorney/news) eyes? Make it so you have to log in first prior to having access to reading the forms or entering the site? And don't accept (for now) new accounts?
This is cool and effective but not something that would be some surprise smoking gun at time of trial as any competant insurance panel lawyer would inevitable do something simular.
Possible document weather conditions to show that they were the same on the night of the accident as when the video was done. This could be done with internet data or Jro could just sign a declaration saying so.
this is to dispel the myth that LAPD is putting out in it's preliminary investigation characterizing the bend as a "blind corner" which tilts the case for the suspect. I know there are other circumstances. weather history could be looked up fairly qucikly and accurately of course. I'll leave that to the trial lawyer only cause I'm heading out to the streetsblog fundraiser!
The focus seems to be on blood alcohol level, but was a blood test done to see if any
other substances were in her system which would raise the level of intoxication ?
Or did the ball get droped on this as well ?
C'mon man. Seriously... The driver fucked up BIG TIME no question. But making a tshirt with her face on it? Thats cruel and vengeful and it will only make bike riders seem like lynch mob mentality.
The point is that the SYSTEM AND CULTURE on our roads if fucked up. Our streets are designed to be freeways and so dangerous that people wont use them for anything but cars. My friend Joey who is not a cyclist brought up the fact that if someone wanted to be responsible and walk or ride a bike to a bar they wouldnt because they would be scared of getting hit by a car.
We need to be focusing on changing the system so that it encourages people to slow down and gives them the opportunity not to drive drunk but rather to take a bus or rail line instead or walk or bike.
The lynch mob mentality needs to go away. Everyone fucks up. We need a system that reduces the severity of those fuck ups.
Thanks for working on this. Just for clarification, the formula you are using is used to determine speed from the skid length. This is going to be different than the "stopping distance" you are looking for. There is a reaction time that needs to be accounted for, generically this is calculated as 1.5 seconds. 40mph equates to 58.67 feet per second.
1.5 x 58.67 = 88.005'
So a driver could cover 88 feet before even applying the brake and making the tires skid.
So add 88' to 76.76' = 164.76', that is the distance you should focus on.
As I see it, this does nothing to absolve the driver of blame. 40MPH is the Maximum speed limit under perfect conditions, if visibility is limited for any reason (darkness, curve in the road, rain, fog, dirty windshield, cell phone up in your grill) then speed must be reduced to a safe level. (refer to CVC 22350)
Thank you for the clarification. I'll edit the post when i get to my computer.
I probably should not have referenced speed so much in my post or video since the primary purpose was to dispell the "blind curve" theory that LAPD detectives kept perpetuating at the LAPD bike task force meeting.
The claim was that the driver was rounding a "blind corner" and could not see the group. i could se clearly from the google satellite view that it was not likely to be a factor. Pointing it out fell on deaf ears so the only way to show that line of sight is not effected by the curve was to film it.
Thanks to Magnus, Jayroe and Trickmilla for putting in work on this.
What is really frustrating is that it sounds like the LAPD was trying to use a "blind corner" as reason to absolve the driver of her responsibility. I know of no vehicle code that says a curve in the road is NOT something that a driver needs to account for in the operation of their vehicle.
Sgt. Krumer, can you shed any light on the investigator's line of reasoning here?
Great point. When its ravers at a club it seems like the cops are on top of it but when a driver mows down cyclists, condoms in the area are a big problem. Not investigating silly stuff like line of site or speed limits....
I'm sure your math is correct, but I also wonder if in many case these days there are no visible skid marks (even if the driver has applied the brakes) due the the fact that so many newer cars now have anti-lock brakes? I suspect it makes the job of investigating accidents tougher, since the speed can't be extrapolated as easily.
I'm not saying that any of that applies in this case, where the driver appears to have been oblivious to the group of cyclists and probably didn't apply the brakes until after the impact.
I can not...but what I can say is that the incident will be reviewed at multiple levels and any errors can be subsequently corrected. Ultimately it will be a judge, jury, or attorneys that will make the call if it was a "blind turn" as the preliminary investigator indicated.
Like Spiderman once said, "With great power comes great responsibility". That's something people need to think about when they get behind the wheel of an automobile.
There's often a focus on how "dangerous" it can be to ride a bicycle, but maybe not enough to the damage that can be done by a car due to even a moment of inattention on the part of the driver. Handled wrongly, an automobile is a lethal weapon and should be treated as such.
C'mon man. Seriously... The driver fucked up BIG TIME no question. But making a tshirt with her face on it? Thats cruel and vengeful and it will only make bike riders seem like lynch mob mentality.
+1,000. This "no mercy" thing is disturbing. I know we live in a zero tolerance, throw-away-the-key society, but please save that sort of thing for a truly depraved piece of shit like the guy in Mandeville Canyon who deliberately used his car to assault and batter cyclists.
This looks like the case of a woman who made a big dumb mistake. She has a lot of sleepless nights ahead of her. Meanwhile, the lazy, lying cops who have refused to do their job and investigate will sleep like babies, as will the likes of Elex Michaelson, because none of them think they did anything wrong.
PC responding to a comment by Roadblock
06.18.11 - 5:05 pm
I understand there are steps for this to go through, but I am questioning how the existence or nonexistence of a blind corner lessens a drivers responsibility to maintain a safe and prudent speed. If a driver can't see what is in front of them at a distance greater than that in which they can bring their vehicle to a stop, how are they being reasonable and prudent?
I agree, this woman made a dumb mistake. There was no evidence of intent to hurt or injure the bicyclists.Let the judges and the jury system decide her fate. I disagree that we should blame the cops for not doing their job. The police force is a reflection of what the community wants, it is not an occupying Army. Local politicians control the local police force. If you think the local police are not doing their job properly, than it is the local politicians who are not doing their job. Unless you cannot vote, you are not disenfranchised from the process of choosing those politicians or voicing your concern to those politicians about employees of the city. We are a community, the fire dept, the police dept., the paramedics who responded to this tragedy and the bicyclists are all part of that community. Unless we work together to find solutions, rather than bicker and degrade each other at every turn, than we will never fix our problems and only increase our the existing animosity .
@RB - Call me mean-spirited, but the system in southern California will not change overnight. An example needs to be made out of fuck up motorist before anything changes. Plaster their name and face all over the media and associate every negative adjective under the sun with their name. Make it culturally unnacceptable to hurt, insult or even honk at a cyclist.
I have done stupid shit when I was young and drove a car, but I had my moment when I realized the responsibility that comes with wielding a thousand pounds of metal. That's the Spiderman quote that Mr Rollers mentioned.
The reality here is that motorists aren't even aware that we are allowed to be in the street to begin with. We have a long way to go before we get respect. I could give a shit less what happens to Dahab. We have four or more other young people that did not deserve what was handed down to them.
Im not the person that you need to worry about labeling you as mean spirited. The court of public opinion is who you want to worry about.
For the sake of the victims we need to chill out with the mob mentality. It wont lead to sympathy or empathy. A jury is going to be chosen and if they think we are a bunch lynch mobbing assholes it wot help.
We need to be pointing criticism at the powers that be.
This woman is a human being just like all of us. We all make mistakes. God forbid any one of us does something stupid. The courts will find out if she did this with intent.
Lets be smart about this and always win hearts and minds of the people.
I have to agree with RB, this one driver isn't the problem. She probably doesn't have it out for cyclists. She just wasn't paying attention. We already made an example out of Dr. Christopher Thompson. He's in jail. The bigger problem is that there are drivers like Thompson still out there. We cannot be viewed as the angry mob with torches and a rope. This will only make people hate us more. We are the victims, over and over again. We need to make people see that. This was a horrible accident, but it was just that, an accident. Her judgement and maybe the intoxication made it a worse accident, but this person did not intend to wipe out a slew of riders. She needs to have her licensed revoked for a while, her insurance company will pay restitution, maybe community service, but making an example out of her will not help our cause. We need to win the hearts and minds. We need drivers to view bicyclists as having rights to the road. We need the City Council to pass laws to protect us from future accidents and future Christopher Thompson's.
If you think the local police are not doing their job, than it it is the local politicians who are not doing their job.
That's pretty much a textbook example of a non sequitur. If an individual police officer's duty is to investigate and gather the facts of a case impartially in order to help determine what happened and who is responsible, and if he refuses to fulfil his duty, he is to blame. The "local politicians," whoever they are, may or may not be additionally to blame for failing to hold him to a high standard of service, but that does not absolve him of responsibility--he was told what his duty was when he went through the academy, and in any case he should not need a City Councilman to tell him that he needs to treat people fairly.
To whitewash a cop's, or anybody else's, responsibility to behave with the proper regard for other people's rights by lumping literally everybody except the "local politicians" together as "a community" that can therefore somehow do no wrong is, I'm sorry to say, sentimental nonsense.
PC responding to a comment by urbanpedal
06.18.11 - 10:32 pm
I think pedal was referring to the perception that if a entire Department exhibits a bias than the politicians are to blame...not when its an individual officer. For example I have read many comments about how CCPD hates cyclists. While I can not comment on the validity of this perception, if that is in fact the case, than pedal is right!. No law enforcement organization can act without the sanction or tacid approval of the electorate and the politicians they put into office.
Sgt. Krumer, either you didn't read urbanpedal's post very carefully, or your ideas about the responsibility that comes with authority are just as loopy. I suspect it's the former...Jesus, I really hope it's the former...but just in case, can I get you to go on the record as saying that if local politicians encourage, or at least do nothing to stop, police departments from enforcing the law in a biased manner, then neither the individual officers nor the department as a whole can be blamed for refusing to do their jobs properly--only the politicians?
PC responding to a comment by Sgt. David Krumer
06.19.11 - 2:12 pm
CD was not "drunk", she had very little alcohol in her system meaning she was not impaired. The fact that she never applied her breaks and attempted to flee the scene further indicates road rage.
Unless her phone was on a call or message then she was not distracted either. Anyone can cry foul after the fact and say there were "looking at" a phone, wallet, seat, window, dashboard, whatever if there is no way to prove it then the eyewitness accounts need to be used.
ABC reported that an eye-witness saw her see them, slow down, then rev her engine and speed up.
This is road rage, she saw cyclists in the road, decided to speed up and if they got out of her way fine, if not, also fine. She simply underestimated the amount of cyclists in front of her that would compel her to stop her car while dragging two victims at high speed. Perhaps she only saw 12 or so cyclists from her vantage point and not further behind them where many more cyclists where waiting.
I've noticed that women this age and men too tend to do a variation of this, they don't hit them, they run them off the road, during the day, at night she felt she had autonomy and decided to hit them.
People shoot and kill other people in cars (freeway shootings) because of road rage, what CD did is no different that that.
And why did the police say her driving record was "pristine", why not just say it was "clean" like they always do? The have a bias that she's a sweet little pristine girl from the onset.
your gut instinct seems a little angry... is this a case of post rage? I cannot fathom that any person, having had one, two or three drinks would decide it prudent to run over 12 people, or five, or two, without applying brakes and going 50 mph.
but then again, you were joking about that, right? right??
it is times like this, that we, as Ridazz must be rational and professional in how we choose to approach this battle. throwing tantrums and being vindictive will only further the perception that we are angry, anarchistic low-lifes.
perhaps it is time to make statements to the press in response to this incident. we should pull together those who work in the legal field - Ridazz who are police, lawyers, advocates for change and demonstrate through the media that the deluge of condemnation originally reported is not indicative of the group as a whole and that we want justice.
"noun. Road rage is an aggressive or angry behavior by a driver of an automobile or other motor vehicle. Such behavior might include rude gestures, verbal insults, deliberately driving in an unsafe or threatening manner, or making threats. Road rage can lead to altercations, assaults, and collisions which result in injuries and even deaths. It can be thought of as an extreme case of aggressive driving." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_rage
Road rage needs no reason. Stop spaming troll, this is a serious subject and you belittle me, others who seek justice and the people that were hurt with your unnecessary insults.
woah there! you're being a little too aggressive for me. words hurt. I was in no trying to belittle you or harm anyone. I was simply stating that road rage seems an extreme jump. you don't know this girl at all. it takes an evil person to run people over in hopes of killing them. this woman could be a super sweet preschool teacher who spays and neuters strays in weekends for all you know.
why would you be so mean to me for stating my opinion? we're all in this together.
Your theory just doesnt seem likely. People generally want to keep their cars in working order and dent free....
Anyway, the courts will settle it. As much as you are painting this woman in a evil light the media and lapd (even some of us) have already done their painting of the bike rides as evil and it doesnt feel good.
also, since we're now making assumptions about things we've gotten details about from 3rd party sources... slowing down then speeding up seems more like a person suddenly saw what was going on, panicked and them hit the gas rather than the brake by mistake. we've seen this in people running into buildings, farmers markets and their own garages.
it in no way excuses being too distracted in the first place to avoid the situation, or being too buzzed to properly respond once she hit the point of no return.
my guess: c was drunk, checked her phone, looked up, saw ridazz a little too late because of the phone, took her foot off the gas and slowed, meant to brake but because she was intoxicated her judgement was off, she panicked and hit the gas instead. again, because she was drunk and her reaction was slowed, in her panicked state continued to move forward.
all of this happened in probably 10 seconds time. completely feasible. I still support the fact that it is completely her fault and should bare all responsibility.
Sorry for the misunderstanding...I am saying that if there is a police department that is demonstrating a bias, it's the electorate and the politicians that can force change if the department is unwilling to. I am not suggesting this excuses the police departments bias...only that if the elected and the electors do nothing in the face of the bias it sends a message that it is acceptable behavior and change will not occur. I believe urbanpedal was not absolving police but more appropriately broadening responcibilty for the problem beyond just the police.
the concept that the police are a reflection of what society wants is sound. it boils down to the public advocating for their needs and applying that advocacy through the vote. police follow orders and protocol. they do this for their own protection because every encounter the have is potentially lethal. that's a heavy cross to bear on a day to day and protocol help them make immediate decisions at crucial times. the idea shouldn't be to vilify the individual, buy rather to change the system in which the operate.
random 2 cent tangent. I support the cops, having had an equal number of positive and negative experiences with them. police are people too. they ate members of your community. some are dumb and jerky, some are reasonable and perceptive... just like Ridazz.
I've ridden and drove on this street hundreds of times, its near my house. There is no "blind turn" its a gentle curve that you have a good view around just like the video shows. I just can't believe this happened!
"my guess: c was drunk, checked her phone, looked up, saw ridazz a little too late because of the phone, took her foot off the gas and slowed, meant to brake but because she was intoxicated her judgement was off, she panicked and hit the gas instead. again, because she was drunk and her reaction was slowed, in her panicked state continued to move forward.
all of this happened in probably 10 seconds time. completely feasible. I still support the fact that it is completely her fault and should bare all responsibility."
CBS spoke to an eyewitness, another rider, not a third party. What he described is road rage. Why do you have a problem with this. I would not assume he's unknown, my guess is he has come forward to the police by now and given a formal statement.
There is no evidence to support her being on the phone. No verification from the phone company that her phone was in use at the time of the collision. However there is an eyewitness account that has much more credibility than her statement that she was on the phone.
While her blood alcohol was technically over the legal limit she was by no means buzzed or drunk. You have to have a BA of .09 or more before you can be considered to slightly impaired, and then there is a scale of ever increasing impairment that rises with the BA level.
P.S. It's important to remember that any alcohol in the blood is considered a DUI since drinking any amount of alcohol is forbidden by law. A DUI does not mean the driver was drunk or buzzed, just that there was alcohol in their blood.
That fact that she was not drunk or buzzed and that an eyewitness described her in a act tantamount to road rage indicates it was road rage. Plain and simple. If it barks like a dog then it's a dog, regardless of weather or not said dog looks like a cheerleader.
"Tensions among cyclists and motorists were highlighted after a 2008 crash on Mandeville Canyon Road in Brentwood, when an enraged driver slammed on his brakes, causing serious injuries to two riders. He was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and other charges and was sentenced to five years behind bars."
Excerpt from your link; that is a much better article. I would have not called CD "drunk", her BA established that she had trace amounts of alcohol in her system, not enough for her to be "impaired".
I would have liked them to also mention that one of the injured was put into a medically induced coma.
The media is trying to make this a drivers vs. cyclists issue and I just don't think that's the case.
Early reports (specifically from ABC) indicated that the driver told officers she was looking down at her phone at the time of the crash.
To me, this is the biggest issue.
I doubt this was intentional, and she wasn't very drunk. She was just driving while distracted. It doesn't matter if cyclists, a stopped car, a jaywalker, etc. were in the road. It sounds like her eyes were elsewhere, and that's the tragedy.
We've read your points. The issue we should be concerned about here is fair treatment from authorities and not pigeonholing bike riders as irresponsible troublemakers and whose rights should be put as less important than others.
There's nothing else to focus on but this and wishing for the well being of our fallen ridazz.
I doubt this was intentional, and she wasn't very drunk. She was just driving while distracted. It doesn't matter if cyclists, a stopped car, a jaywalker, etc. were in the road. It sounds like her eyes were elsewhere, and that's the tragedy."
No witnesses said she was looking at a phone, that my entire post, CD said that she was, not any witnesses. Her phone company has not verfied she was on the phone.
The initial report by CBS said that the police told them (NOT witnesses) that Cristine had told the cycles after they stopped her that she did no see them because she was on the phone. This does not seem to be the case and there is no eyewitness or other tangible evidence to support it.
Rather, there is evidence to support her being fully cognizant while engaging in road rage.
Two other riders, on the Fox 11 video, state that they saw her see the riders (*opposite* of being distracted), slow down, rev up her engine, speed up and mow over the victims.
This indicates road rage, not distracted driving. Two totally different things.
.07 is more than a beer. Don't forget the breath test tells you the amount of alcohol actually sloshing around in the person's system at the time and doesn't take into account alcohol that has already been eliminated by the person's system over of the course of a night of drinking.
Use this calculator to estimate your BAC:
In most civilized countries, the legal limit is .05. This is the limit recommended by the American Medical Association, but for some reason legislatures have been slow to act.
If one cyclist standing in the roadway was hit, we can second-guess and wonder whether they were visible enough.
When a crowd of 60 cyclists on the side of the road with flashing lights is visible from 800-1200 feet away and the driver hits them without slowing down, how can that possibly be anything but the driver's fault?
P.S. "Authorities said the female driver, 27-year-old Christine Dahab, told police she was looking down at her phone when she crashed into the bike riders on the 5900 block of West Jefferson Place just before 2 a.m" ABC news.
What else is she going to tell the police after deliberately hitting eleven people? That she had road rage? Of course she said she was looking at, notice how she did not say she was *on* the phone would would have been proved by her phone bill. She educated and well traveled, she's smart and I think she knew she had to cover her tracks by saying she "looked" at her phone.
Sounds like a lie based on the eyewitnesses whom described her as seeing them, slowing down, revving her engine, speeding up then mowing down the victims.
As this story is retold by other news outlets further discrepancies start to develop because the new news agencies are writing their story based on a quick review of ABC news first story.
For instance: No witnesses claimed to have seen her on the phone or looking down at anything, rather they claim that she was looking right at the cyclists prior to and while she hit them.
"It does seem unlikely that any driver would so readily admit that they were looking at their phone"
Exactly. She had to come up with something to say to the cyclists who compelled her to stop her car, however, she choose her words carefully, she did not say she was texting or talking on her phone which can be easily verified, but that she was looking *at* her phone. Who does that? I have the same car as her, It has a clock. And you have to turn your service on to see texts, vm and talk...
I don't know you girl power but you seriously gotta dial it back a notch. the anger and frustration in your dialogue is severely misplaced. You're targeting the driver as if she woke up with a full notched plan to take out a group of Cyclist. Your anger may be better directed towards the LAPD and the Media for it is those entities that have given the court of public opinion the "it's the bikers fault" not the Drivers.
Yell at the media and the police but don't crucify the driver for what will become her lifelong "bad decision". I truly hope you don't think she's at home sipping Mai tai's and sitting around the table telling her friends she didn't run over as many as she wished. I mean seriously, Lapd/Media. Let's stay focused on the bigger picture here.
.05 and under is not considered under the influence. .08 and over is the start of the threshold of being considered legally drunk. The *start* of the threshold. So from there you can go to
If she is a female who weighs 127 lbs then she would have drunk just under three 12 oz beers over a time period of two hours. That is about two in a half 12 oz beers in two hours. (http://dui.drivinglaws.org/calc.php)
But, she is a heavy drinker as indicated by the photos of her guzzling down gin with friends on her photo-share account. Meaning that she could hold her liquor and was not at all buzzed. She could not have been. Her BA was approaching the start of the impairment threshold, not the middle or top of the impairment threshold. For someone who never drinks that would be far from impaired, let alone a drinker.
How are you going to convict someone if you can't get a proper police report and/or a properly reported news report.
Your theories and scenarios are just that. First off you weren't even there. It's people like you that get other's all ginned up with torches and pitch forks. This girl is not the salem witch and you are not her judge and thank god for that. And for the record, I mean no disrespect, I just wish you would center your attention on the bigger picture. DC is but one driver in a world of many. The Lapd and the media is the bigger picture. Please stay focused.
You don't have to read my posts. I'm not going to "give it a rest".
My aunt who shares a duplex with me was a paralegal for almost forty friends she has many attorney friends and I'm not saying anything they would not say regarding the facts at hand. This is more likely road rage, not distracted driving. If you don't agree that is fine, but I want justice for the victims. I'm not going to sit here and wax philosophical about a *tragedy* that was in fact very likely a criminally deliberate act.
gp: you are responding with anger. no, you're not stating facts, nor is what you're saying rational.
- there are a million reasons to look at your phone with out creating a record: text alerts, emails, check the name of the song that played, ga
cebook comments, clock, an incoming call (even if you don't answer), etc.
- any alcohol in the system is impairment, as YOU stated and can slow reaction time.
- it's been said that a heavy drinker shows effects and impairment quicker, even if they don't feel the buzz or can 'hold' it and continue drinking without barfing or passing out.
- no one can say that she wasn't distracted before realizing what was happening, considering they were looking at headlights in the distance.
- that some made eye contact as she slowed does not prove that she intentionally sped up, the possibility remains that due to panick and impairment, she took her foot off the gas when she saw them and instead of breaking, she hit the gas on accident. these are POSSIBILITIES not fact.
- the unrelated road rage incident you are speaking of is another form of media sensationalism which happened 3 YEARS ago.
- that you are speaking on this matter (or I) is further than 3rd party, as we're taking our 'facts' from friends and media who have spoken to victims or quoted and required parts of the story to serve their need.
- and yes, as an honest person I would totally tell people that I was distracted by my phone if I was indeed distracted by the phone. a dishonest person would would say, seriously! I didn't see you!' if they were on the phone to avoid an additional complication.
again, I thought we we're angry about the media, the negative perception and bias shown and the injuries suffered. why would we want to spin this as road rage when the fact is, some dumb broad did some dumb thing and hurt people we love. isn't that enough? no more bloodshed!
I hope you are reading, and understanding, my posts in their entirety.
What I am saying directly applies to what you are talking about. The LAPD misspoke when they said she was driving on a blind curve when she hit the cyclists, she was not. Roadblock's video proves this to be a fact.
No eyewitnesses saw her talking on the phone. Christine Dehab told the cyclists whom compelled her to stop her car that she was "looking at her phone." This can't be proved so I would throw it out.
Two eyewitness's (Magnus and another) accounts are very similar to one another and totally contradict Christine's story that she was looking at a phone.
Christine was not impaired. ( Read what I wrote in earlier post.) The MEDIA emphases that she was, as if to imply distracted driving as opposed to road rage.
Roadblock's video further collaborates the two eyewitness account indicating that the drive when out of her way to hit the cyclists.
The police and media have so severely manipulated the accounts that we were all, initially, under the impression that an impaired (alcohol) woman who was talking on the phone accidentally hit cyclists. None of that is true! How can we get justice if the LAPD and news starts off with the answer to the question based on false reports (LAPD and CD) and a biased *picture* of what happened before this has even gone to court to prove any of what the LAPD and CD said was true?
MY report would have gone as follows: "Cyclists where hit in an apparent road rage incident. (add in eyewitness video accounts) The driver alleges she was looking at her phone, however, her statement contradicts the two eyewitness accounts.
Based on the location of impact and the road the driver had plenty of time to stop or veer away and she did not.
Her BA tested at .07 the very beginning of the threshold for being impaired. This threshold goes on to higher levels of impairment as the BA level climbs. Blah, blah, bla."
Girl power you are high. Blowing a .07 I s clearly an indication the driver was impaired. Over 72% of the countries around the world have a limit of .05 or less. The reason is that people loose judgment past that stage. I don't have enough time to googlefu you into submit ion with links and facts, because quite frankly you wont listen to reason because you are always right.
But let's just get this straight. If you blow anything north or a .05 you are impaired. The problem with California and other states is that we will never be able to lower the limit because there is too much interest in selling you alcohol.
Our culture of happy hours and driving needs to change.
"I hold no anger or animosity for anyone, I'm simply putting two-and-two together based on the facts at hand."
...and doing it very poorly. The facts at hand are far more consistent with a scenario in which she accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brakes. She didn't honk. She didn't jump out of the car yelling at the cyclists. She didn't make any overt expressions of anger. Why you think that this just has to be road rage is anybody's guess
Clearly, she was at fault in the accident. Everyone here agrees on that much. She should have her license revoked. She should spend time in jail. She should pay for the pain and suffering and medical expenses that her actions have caused. And if the justice system works, she will. But you're not doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good by continuing to obsess over this totally unsupportable road rage theory.
And though it's mostly irrelevant to the stupid arguments you are making here, I would like to point out once again that the photo album posted in the other thread does not belong to the driver. Quit it with the amateur cyber-stalking already. It's creepy enough to begin with, but when you can't even do that competently, it just erases what little credibility you might have had.
Your futile attempt at trying to change the dialogue to fit your narrative is failing miserably and your childish "I need to be right" antics are beyond annoying. I've seen 4 or 5 well typed attempts to get you to let it go and focus on something else but the kid in you won't stop.
Thanks for hijacking the thread and turning it into your own personal "Look at me i'm sherlock holmes" vendetta. Good job!!!
This was not in any means road rage. Completely different. She did not taunt, follow, purposely try to hurt anyone.
This all took place in a matter of seconds, she did not have enough time or consciousness(seems like) to think, "oh, now I am going to run them over", she was most likely thinking, "I'll check my facebook on my phone to see whats going on at 2 AM". Next thing she knows, shes giving a statement to an officer.
Im really sorry for the people this happen 2...also sad to hear on the news the illegal intoxicated cyclist " marijuana and beer on the scene " this site as decent as it once was really does give cyclist a bad rap..seen as toking / partying distraction..and girl power honestly your prob .the oldest of us all ..can you stop spaming the site with childish behavior gina...'' in ex is stalking me online " this website is sadly funny i get a kick out of reading these post..but what do non cyclist see in this forum after watching the news on cyclist hit ??
C came out of the coma this morning, she's got her family with her, so she has plenty of support.
Dora is doing well, considering she has a broken leg and the other is sprained. Still has headaches due to the concussion. UCLA Medical is suggesting weight bearing exercises already, but she's in too much pain for that just yet.
Noah, Jessica and Aktive are trying to figure out a way to get her impounded car back to her. Dora (Guerro) wants visitors, she's at UCLA Medical, 757 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA. Go by and say hi.
I used to ride over in that area fairly often, and while that curve isn't exactly "blind", it definitely offers less-than-ideal visibility. It's easy to miss seeing something if you aren't looking for it, even if it's right in front of your face. Like this, for example.