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.
Interesting to see how the facts become misconstrued the more times the story is retold by news agencies.
Fox 11 did a better job of compassionate and unbiased overall reporting, however, the reporter misspoke when she said that "eyewitness said they saw the driver on a phone". No eyewitnesses saw that, even Christine Dehab did not say that she was on the phone, she told the cyclists whom compelled her to stop that she "was looking at her phone". Of course this can't be verified so I would throw it out.
Christine is the only person who mentioned her looking at a phone, none of the other riders/wittness ever said that she did.
But, Magnus and one other (Fox 11 link) rider both gave similar eye witness accounts on video. Both of which support road rage, not distracted driving.
She only had a BA of .07, meaning that she was not drunk. She was at the start of the threshold for being considered impaired, not the middle or top of the threshold. For a woman who weighs 127 lbs she would have to have consumed two-in-a-half 12 oz beers over a time period of two hours.
However, she was a heavy drinker as indicated by photos of her on her own photo share account of her drinking out of hard liquor bottles on various occasions and dates.
Even a non drinker would not be impaired with just two-in-a-half 12 oz beers consumed over a two hours period of time.
Roadblock's video also indicate discrepancies with that the LAPD told ABC. The only blind curve is over 1,200 feet from the place of impact. The riders are visible from 800 feet onward. No curved road.
Roadblock's tape also collaborates the two eyewitnesses accounts that the driver seemed to go for the cyclists deliberately. The car travels in two lanes and then seems to veer towards the cyclists. I would be curios to know if the right hand turn lane is part of her route home or not.
None of us have the complete story.
But it is pretty clear that this is most likely NOT a case of "Road Rage"
There is nothing to indicate that the driver "wanted" to crash into the group of ridazz. And plenty of other facts pointing to what may actually have happened:
- Keep in mind, that from Magnus' view from across the street he could see the Ridazz & The Driver before either group could see one another, due to the curve.
- According to Magnus' the driver slowed and yielded when she saw PNUT who was riding west of the collision site. (not consistent with the actions of somebody who intentionally wanted to hurt cyclists).
- witnesses say that she was traveling well above the speed limit after that. I heard more that one person say she was probably going 60+.
- What Roadblock's video demonstrates is that if she was traveling the speed limit AND paying attention she would have had about 8-12 seconds (plenty of time) to respond to the blinking lights. If she was going 60+ mph that reaction time may have been cut down to as little as 6 seconds. if she was looking at her phone for a few seconds as she came around the curve she may have only had 1 or 2 seconds if that.
- The driver was on the verge of the legal limit of BAC (.08 a the scene / .07 at the station) which may have affected her control of the car going around a curve at 60+ MPH and possibly driving with one hand.
- Witnesses say she emerged from the car with he phone in hand. Nobody reports seeing her rummaging around for her phone after the crash. She just had it.
While this woman absolutely has to be held responsible for the permanent harm she has caused to innocent people, because of her dangerous and irresponsible behavior, it just doesn't match up with the facts to suggest that she intentionally tried to kill a bunch of people.
Her actions are consistent with somebody who was impaired, sleepy, and distracted.
The investigation will likely prove wether on not she was indeed using her phone at the time of the crash as her cell records will certainly be subpoenaed.
What trickmilla said makes the most sense. That blind turn out of Hetzler is always sketchy, even during the day (both coming down Hetzler and coming around Jefferson). The speed limit is 40mph but cars probably go slightly faster than that, and visibility really is not that great. The demonstration video from Roadblock et al. is good but keep in mind we knew what to look for in that video whereas in typical everyday driving one might not be so aware coming around that turn. Also, I know from personal experience that looking down to check the cell phone for even a split second could result in impaired awareness that can lead to an accident. You don't have to be typing on the keypad or talking on the phone for you to be impaired. Finally, although the driver blew a .07, that was at the PD and not at the scene of the incident. Anyone with experience in the legal/justice system knows that the time it takes from incident, to arrest, to booking can vary greatly. Also, .07 is still pretty drunk, in my opinion. Maybe I'm a lightweight or because I'm Asian, but I'd be feeling pretty effin' drunk before I ever hit .08. All these things can be contributing factors to the incident. In fact, it seems like this incident was the result of a trifecta combination of these factors. I hope the affected KTown riders heal up and get their justice, but we can also use this incident as fuel to raise awareness for and promote safer driving in general.
Don. Name-calling is inappropriate and childish. You're acting like you're twelve, not forty-something... And it ain't attractive.
IF the people on this thread would read and understand, including the links I provided, they would not be harassing me.
I'm not hijacking the thread. For a person who can hold thier alcohol a .07 is not impaired. She had pics of her drinking heavily on her photo share.
Anyone can grab a phone sitting next to her after being stopped by an angry mob, to come up with an excuse.
It seems to me that you are the ones who are "insane", it's like you don't want to deal with the possibility of road-rage and would rather make the case for the driver's attorney that it was simple case of distracted driving.
Considering you want safer roads for cyclists this seems counter-productive to me.
At the very least I'm glad that I got the facts out there for the attorney's of the victims to mull over.
I just had an insight. Roadblock and others invested in the site don't want to scare people off from riding, maybe that it why they would rather interpert the facts to be an innocent accident, a simple case of distracted driving rather than frighten cyclists away with the notion that there are drivers who target cyclists out of road rage.
I understand, but it's counter productive to making the streets safer for us.
Someone who can hold their liquor may not report feeling impaired with a 0.07 BAC, but they certainly are impaired if you measure them on perception tasks, decision making, and movement control. I do accept that there are individual differences in how people react to alcohol, but along a continuum I think 0.07 is closer to "drunk" than to "unimpaired".
Girl power you truly live in your own world. You remind me of the lead Character in Misery. But more to the point you are stating incorrect information which is a disservice to everyone. It is fine to have your theories and play detective behind your keyboard but to hijack a site is wrong. I don't think RB cares what people think about this site and certainly I don't think people will be frightened by your theories except the people that truly care about facts.
Once again the photo share account posted in the other thread is NOT HERS.