Nissan 370Z Forum
Page 3 of 8 12 3 45 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Nissan 370Z Forum (http://www.the370z.com/)
-   Nissan 370Z General Discussions (http://www.the370z.com/nissan-370z-general-discussions/)
-   -   Woman charged in fatal 370z crash caught on dash cam (http://www.the370z.com/nissan-370z-general-discussions/105721-woman-charged-fatal-370z-crash-caught-dash-cam.html)

onzedge 07-17-2015 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasZ34 (Post 3259198)
Giving Z drivers a bad name, get off the motherfucking phone and drive your car. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand, A life is now lost because a DB was on the phone instead of paying attention. Sympathy cannot bring that woman back to her loved ones.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
:iagree:

onzedge 07-17-2015 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic Bus (Post 3259247)
Seriously? More than 30 mph over the speed limit on a city street weaving between cars? I really hope you don't drive like this.
:iagree:

jpkirk 07-17-2015 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwest2300 (Post 3259326)
prayers for both families.
Indeed, many prayers

SwissCheese 07-17-2015 07:44 PM
Did it say what kind of injuries (if any) the Z driver had?

Magic Bus 07-17-2015 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC-Nismo (Post 3260023)
Hate to say it, but this case is gonna flop!!! Any good lawyer will eat this case up cause the manslaughter charge won't stick with Gorilla Glue. Reckless driving or not, the victim pulled into on coming traffic unless there a stop sign that's not visible in the video. I don't know what the laws are in that state, but back home in Jersey where I've seen this about a dozen times, if you pull into oncoming traffic it's your fault regardless of the speed. One time a car hit an ambulance that blew through the intersection with it's lights flashing, but never slowed down and looked for oncoming traffic, needless to say it got T- Boned and flipped over. They charged the driver saying the ambulance always has the right of way. Went to trial and got thrown out based on witness testimony that ambulance never looked or slow for oncoming traffic. The driver in return sued the city and won a 6 figure payout. This is horrific either way and prayers to both family's, but am I wrong and if so please correct me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37zeroZ (Post 3260033)
The 370Z driver had the right of way regardless if she was going over the speed limit and using her cell phone. Suppose the 370Z driver died instead of the other woman, would that woman be charged with manslaughter for driving into oncoming traffic.
Do both of you honestly feel that if you were to drive 60 mph in a 25 mph zone and you hit a car coming out of cross street or a pedestrian crossing a street that you'd have no liability?

The police did not prosecute her earlier because even though they did have the video evidence of her speeding, they can't be exact and factual about her speed. This in itself may not be strong enough to convict the driver. However you combine this video evidence with the fact that she was on her cell phone, now the prosecuting attorney's office has a strong case against her.

1087 07-17-2015 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic Bus (Post 3260162)
Do both of you honestly feel that if you were to drive 60 mph in a 25 mph zone and you hit a car coming out of cross street or a pedestrian crossing a street that you'd have no liability?

The police did not prosecute her earlier because even though they did have the video evidence of her speeding, they can't be exact and factual about her speed. This in itself may not be strong enough to convict the driver. However you combine this video evidence with the fact that she was on her cell phone, now the prosecuting attorney's office has a strong case against her.
I absolutely agree with you.
Without the video this case will fall into the right of way for the 370Z.
But the video clearly shows that the speed the Z was carrying did not allowed the other party crossing the intersection to realize how fast the Z driver was going.
Quite simple if the Z driver was travelling at the posted speed there will be no accident.
This is quite simple to understand, also the police will not prosecute without that evidence.
The Family of the deceased person has a very strong case, this is not your typical 50-50 case.

JC-Nismo 07-17-2015 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic Bus (Post 3260162)
Do both of you honestly feel that if you were to drive 60 mph in a 25 mph zone and you hit a car coming out of cross street or a pedestrian crossing a street that you'd have no liability?

The police did not prosecute her earlier because even though they did have the video evidence of her speeding, they can't be exact and factual about her speed. This in itself may not be strong enough to convict the driver. However you combine this video evidence with the fact that she was on her cell phone, now the prosecuting attorney's office has a strong case against her.
Of course there's liability, reckless driving and speeding and in which cannot be proven even with this video in regards to speeding unless they can magically compute speed from a dash cam video. 3rd or 4th degree Reckless or Involuntary Manslaughter is what they'll get at the most and she won't serve a day in prison especially at 21 and she has no priors, Just My Opinion.

37zeroZ 07-17-2015 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic Bus (Post 3260162)
Do both of you honestly feel that if you were to drive 60 mph in a 25 mph zone and you hit a car coming out of cross street or a pedestrian crossing a street that you'd have no liability?

The police did not prosecute her earlier because even though they did have the video evidence of her speeding, they can't be exact and factual about her speed. This in itself may not be strong enough to convict the driver. However you combine this video evidence with the fact that she was on her cell phone, now the prosecuting attorney's office has a strong case against her.
You have zero understanding just in your first sentence alone. This was not a 25 mph zone, but a 35 mph zone. It was noted that she was speeding 30 mph over the speed limit, not by your math of 35 mph. Nonetheless, it's all speculation on how fast she was driving. Also, it's not against the law to drive and talk on your cell phone.

Who's to say that the other woman didn't completely stop at the stop sign and obey the right of way law. This is all an emotionally driven charge.

Montez 07-17-2015 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenchan (Post 3260063)
yah, im kinda wondering too how they came up with 30mph..?

sorry to both families. :(
Probably judging by how fast she passed that car with the cam, basing it on how fast she got from front side of that car with cam to a specific identifiable marker.:icon14:

1087 07-17-2015 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37zeroZ (Post 3260234)
You have zero understanding just in your first sentence alone. This was not a 25 mph zone, but a 35 mph zone. It was noted that she was speeding 30 mph over the speed limit, not by your math of 35 mph. Nonetheless, it's all speculation on how fast she was driving. Also, it's not against the law to drive and talk on your cell phone.

Who's to say that the other woman didn't completely stop at the stop sign and obey the right of way law. This is all an emotionally driven charge.

You fail to see that the other woman was almost finishing to crossing the intersection when the accident occurred, look at the video few times, the Z tried to swerve to the right to avoid the van.
Updated: Mother of three dies after major auto wreck in Harlingen : News : ValleyCentral.com

UNKNOWN_370 07-17-2015 11:34 PM
Before I even opened it I knew it was TEXAS.

Home of the world's most moronic drivers!

NRTim 07-18-2015 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNKNOWN_370 (Post 3260259)
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:

IDZRVIT 07-18-2015 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sx moneypit (Post 3259395)
Hands free..........you shouldn't be yakking on the phone while driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3259416)
Talking on your phone is just as distracting regardless of whether it is hands-free. Put down the phone or the food or the ipod and FOCUS ON DRIVING while you drive.
So drivers shouldn't carry on a conversation with their passenger(s)?:ugh2:
It's the same as hands free imho.

37zeroZ 07-18-2015 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1087 (Post 3260258)
You fail to see that the other woman was almost finishing to crossing the intersection when the accident occurred, look at the video few times, the Z tried to swerve to the right to avoid the van.
Updated: Mother of three dies after major auto wreck in Harlingen : News : ValleyCentral.com
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.

Magic Bus 07-18-2015 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37zeroZ (Post 3260234)
You have zero understanding just in your first sentence alone. This was not a 25 mph zone, but a 35 mph zone. It was noted that she was speeding 30 mph over the speed limit, not by your math of 35 mph. Nonetheless, it's all speculation on how fast she was driving. Also, it's not against the law to drive and talk on your cell phone.

Who's to say that the other woman didn't completely stop at the stop sign and obey the right of way law. This is all an emotionally driven charge.
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 PM.
Page 3 of 8 12 3 45 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2