Before I even opened it I knew it was TEXAS.

Home of the world's most moronic drivers!

I'm scared one of those moronic drivers might kill me when I'm out riding on my motorcycle :shakes head:

So drivers shouldn't carry on a conversation with their passenger(s)?:ugh2:
It's the same as hands free imho.

It kinda looks like there was another car in front of the 370Z driving in the middle lane. The Z veered to the left to pass the car on it's left side. That's when the van crossed in front of oncoming traffic. The van looks like it was going kinda fast crossing the street from a dead stop or the van driver didn't completely stop at the stop sign and misjudged crossing the three lanes into oncoming traffic.

Please read my post again.

My question using the speeding numbers were not meant do depict the actual case. The question was used as an example to ask a question of two fellow forum members if someone is speeding, do they have liability in an accident.

Also I never said that use of a cellphone was illegal in Texas. But it will make the prosecutions case stronger showing that the driver was not 100% focused on driving.

Some drivers, yes. There are plenty of people who are not capable of driving safely even while having a conversation with their passenger. Eating food while driving is just as unsafe but rarely is that subject ever mentioned.

My point was there are studies that show that talking on your phone hands-free is no less distracting than holding the physical phone while talking. Pay attention to driving - not your phone, food, music, or even your passenger.

This is very true and I see it daily. Women and men so wrapped up in their conversation while driving that they are oblivious to the other cars on the road. These same people will drive 20 on a 40 mph zone, blocking an entire lane of traffic behind them. Or they abruptly switch lanes in front of you without even checking out the traffic. I almost got side swipes a couple times by these MF!

JC, I appreciate the fact that you agree with me that someone who is speeding has liability in an accident.

Here's what you and 37zero may have overlooked. While the dash cam video itself cannot determine the speed of the Z, the data that it recorded can be analyzed to determine the speed of the Z with very good accuracy. Here's how.

Authorities will pick a landmark starting point for the Z from the video. From that landmark point, they will then measure the distance to the point of impact for the 2 cars. Review the video again to determine the amount of time it took the Z to travel the distance between these 2 points. Input these factors in a time and distance calculator and your mph will be calculated.

Let's use 1087's link of this video (1st video for accident) for me to explain. Right at the 3 second mark in the video (bottom time on screen) the Z overtakes the video cam car on the left. It passes a small street and a white sign on the left of it, lets use that sign as the landmark starting point. At right around the 9 second mark, we see the collision then hear the driver say "boom".

So 6 seconds from landmark starting point to collision point. Now if this distance was 220 yards (1/8 mile), her speed was 75 mph. If 250 yards, speed is 85 mph. Obviously, the shorter the distance, the slower her speed.

I think this should explain it pretty clearly and in the other video where the police said she was over 30 mph above the speed limit, indicates to me that they have already done their preliminary calculations. Then include the fact that she was on her cell phone, gives the prosecuting attorney a solid case.

And someone said yakking on your phone while driving isn't illegal. It is here in CA, and for good reason! It should be mandated everywhere else too imo.

^^^ Imperssive.

In this case it's not against the law. In CA, yakking is legal as long as it's on hands-free equipment.

:werd: I am imperssed :D

I wasn't referring to handsfree. I'm talking about driving while holding your phone in one hand and yakking away, which is the case in this accident.

Video in HD:

https://youtu.be/io3OP8sZ77o

Oh yeah, much better and I stand on my original statement that I feel like the victim was at fault for pulling into oncoming traffic.

I see it this way. The van would have made it cleared to the other side had the 370 not been in that exact spot when impact occurred. The Z wouldn't be in that spot in the first place if it wasn't speeding 30 over the limit and weaving around the lanes like it did. That was reckless driving that caused the accident, as evidenced in the dash cam posted. It would have been difficult to prove this case against the Z without the video showing the events prior to the accident happened.

I agree. There were two cars at the stop sign. Looks like the van driver attempted to across the road at the same time the other car made a right hand turn. Just maybe the bushes in line of sight of the van driver provided a blind spot from seeing the Z fast approaching.

The cops would have agreed with you guys if it wasn't for teh videoz! lol Thank God they didn't. At least we learn some part of law enforcement is still working in this country.

The van did a failure to yield thing no matter how you look at it. They should find the Z driver not guilty. If they do find her guilty, then this we be a very bad deal for everyone else who gets into an accident in the future.

I'll begin by noting that I have 0 idea how Texas state laws work with regard to T-bone accidents/right-of-way/side collisions, etc.

But do know that in some states it is entirely on the yielding driver to cross the intersection safely. It doesn't matter how fast the hitting driver is going. If that's the state of Texas, you're going to see a not guilty verdict.

You say if the driver wasn't speeding, the accident wouldn't have occurred. A lawyer says if the crossing driver would have properly yielded to oncoming traffic, the accident wouldn't have occurred. Lawyer says the crossing driver didn't come to a complete stop before crossing, or that he was speeding while crossing the intersection, which caused the collision. While these seem like obnoxious claims, they are the type of things lawyers will look for.

Some states have exceptions to laws regarding yielding the right-of-way which will charge the hitting driver at fault if they are determined to be speeding/reckless driving/etc (name your offense).

Anyway, this is just a little devil's advocate on my part. I am not trying to be insensitive toward the deceased driver, as this is a horrible and unfortunate event that happened. I just wanted to throw it out there that, unfortunately in the US legal system, it is not this simple.

On a personal (and emotional) note, I hope she gets convicted because it's painfully obvious she is driving like a reckless idiot, and she contributed to someone losing their life. Regardless of if it is determined that the crossing driver did anything wrong, it doesn't change the fact that the Z driver contributed to that loss of life.

Yeah, every case the cops and the DA put forth are always right. :rolleyes:

And did I ever said that? :rolleyes:

And it's the people like you two guys who choose to ignore evidence presented (OJ rings a bell) that we have law breaking motherfuckers walking free and thinking there are no consequences for their actions :eek:

All the Z driver had to do is stay in her lane or go to the right and this would not have happened. It' s the old - if you want to miss something don't stare at it.

Ignore evidence??? The evidence is clear as day!!! The cops aren't saints and a lot of laws ALLOW people to walk not us TWO GUYS!!!

WTF you talking about. OJ - without doubt - should of been been found guilty.

This case is totally different. Sure, the Z driver was driving over the speed limit, but she should not of been charged due to the van driver not yielding to oncoming traffic.

In hindsight, yes. However, the Z driver reacted like a majority of people would have by swerving away to avoid an accident. Not much time to think, but it's instinct to veer away from a potential collision.

Maybe she didn't have the online gaming, Xbox and/or PlayStation skills like some here have. :icon14:

Very well said, did you noticed that she did not attempt to brake at all?

What's clear as day is the Z recklessly speeding through the lanes, putting her in the position to crash into the van. But you choose not to accept this fact because the evidence doesn't support your views in this case.

I am talking about you two ignoring evidence that the Z driver's reckless action caused the accident. The Z shouldn't have been in that spot if it hadn't been driving like a maniac. What's funny is you two keep insisting that the van did not yield without any facts to prove whether she did or did not :rolleyes:


And why did she not have enough time to react? Oh yea, she driving way too fast and wasn't paying attention to the road. The bitch was too busy talking on her phone! She should have been home playing her Xbox instead of out on the road killing people :shakes head:

Unfortunately this thread looks like it may become a shouting match at each other. I'd like to attempt to diffuse that and add in some logical thought here. Please review below.

Car Accidents Caused by Negligence | Nolo.com

Key provisions to read for the defendant, in this case, the Z driver. "Duty of reasonable care" and "breaching". Also take special note of "reasonable person" definition.

One of the questions we need to ask ourselves is, would a "reasonable person" drive 65+ mph on a 35 mph road, with many side streets, weave through traffic and talk on their cell phone at the same time. I know I would not and I'm guessing 90% plus on this forum would not as well.

Now lets address the claim that the van did not stop properly, please remember that the van and the car to the right of it entered that intersection at the same time. Both of them were not expecting a car to be weaving and speeding at 65 mph+ on that street. IMO that's evidence that would lean heavily in the favor of the van driver and the car turning right acted in a reasonable manner. Much more so than an individual speeding, weaving, cell phone talking driver.

I've been in situations where I've accelerated and braked to avoid accidents. Each time I had no accident. Who's to know if either would of turned out different if I done the opposite.

Bad news

Cool story brah! How is it anyway related to this situation? :confused: can we get back to why you think the Z is not responsible for the wreck?:tiphat:

Hey brah brah....lol.

I answered the man's question. You know where I stand so what's your point questioning my reasoning where I stand. Each of us have opinions, so God Bless America!!! If this offends you, so sorry. :p

Not offense taken at all! It's slow Saturday here, just trying to carry on the topic lol:hello:

In Austin, a law recently went into effect prohibiting cell phone use (without hands-free) during driving. And now, instead of everyone holding their phone up by the steering wheel so they can occasionally glance at the road, they hold their phones in their laps so cops can't see them and just don't bother to look at the road at all. Awesome :wtf2:

Genius!

Sure...I don't have any video of your successful accident avoids, however in this particular accident there is a video available, sadly she did everything wrong ( not decreasing speed at all and swerve to the left not to the right).

So your the judge, jury, and executioner. Ok, I'll be sure to tell my lawyer to exclude you from any of my trials.

I'm not saying that the Z driver is completely innocent, but the van driver contributed to the accident by not yielding to oncoming traffic. Both are at fault which will result in the Z driver getting probation at most. As I stated, this case is all emotional driven by the DA charge of manslaughter.

I'm confused -- who hit whom?

The girl in the Z was obviously speeding, (at least relative to other drivers), but it looked like the van t-boned the Z.

Did the girl in the Z run a stop sign or something or am I not following the vid properly?

EDIT: okay, so the van driver didn't yield, and technically, they are both at some degree of fault, but you can't prosecute someone who is deceased, so the state decided to nail the survivor to the wall...

Jeez... that's rough. My sympathies to everyone on this one.

As to the cell phone thing, it has nothing to do with having hands free or not, it's all about cognitive load and divided attention -- holding a conversation commands a lot of it, so it does tend to increase error rates (in this case, fatally). Texting while driving is just impossible to do without some added error because it consumes a lot of executive function as well as ties up your hands.

Check your phone briefly at red lights only, put away when green, eyes on the road -- problem solved.