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.