Sloth Kills Two More

On 10 Jul 2005 23:04:02 -0700, "Old Wolf" >
wrote:

>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
>> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
>> you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
>> oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
>> in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
>> drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?
>
>This happened to someone I know, except it was on a motorway with
>median barriers, and the guy behind swerved off and drove into
>the barrier. The guy behind's insurance co. then successfully sued
>for the damages to his car.

How did they catch the guy who pulled out in front of your friend?

On 11 Jul 2005 06:33:45 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>> My post was a SATIRE, not a troll, you top-posting ninny.
>
>So in addition to posting dishonest headers you don't even know what
>top posting is?

You're right, I made a mistake. You were not top-posting. I apologize
for calling you a top-posting ninny.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news
> On 10 Jul 2005 11:00:51 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>How, from the evidence in that article, are you able to determine that
>>sloth had anything to do with this?
>
> By reading between the lines, of course. As with most news reports of
> vehicle collisions, there is not enough information presented to draw
> an accurate conclusion. However, experience tells us that the liberal
> media tends to spin the "cause" in certain ways, i.e. calling it
> "speed related" or noting that a deceased victim was not wearing a
> seat belt - so they filter the information they provide in order to
> support their own preconceived notions. You'll notice they don't say
> what the result of the driver's blood test was. Did he have any
> alcohol in his blood, or was that "strong alcohol smell" simply the
> result of a bottle of legally-transported liquor being damaged in the
> crash?
>
>>How do you know the accused sloth
>>kept going, and didn't stop, call 911, and start first aid treatment?
>
> It's a guess, but a pretty safe one. Most Sloths are so totally
> oblivious to their surroundings that they wouldn't notice the
> collision. Or, since they weren't "involved" in the collision (i.e.
> none of the other vehicles actually struck the Sloth) he figures he's
> not required to stop.
>
>>Yeah, sloth happens on that road, but I've seen people pass people
>>going 10 over the limit on CA-152.
>>
>>Weak argument this time though.
>
> I disagree. There is not enough information presented to either prove
> or disprove any conclusions regarding cause. My hypothesis is as good
> as any other right now. It's certainly as good as the insinuations of
> a slanted news report from the liberal media...
>

Reading between the lines, I am surprised that it was not an alien abduction
gone awry! That is also a possibility.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> I've driven CA-152.Part of it is a narrow, twisty mountain road with
> no passing zones (although it does have turnouts, IIRC). It's
> precisely the kind of road where you always see some Scaredy-cat
> Sloth, driving slowly and carefully because they are scared ****less,
> with a long train of frustrated drivers stuck behind him.
>
> Here's a case where one driver became so frustrated by the Sloth in
> front of him that he made a poor judgement call, crossed the double
> yellow center line to attempt a pass, and wound up paying the ultimate
> price. As usual, the Sloth just puttered away from the scene,
> completely oblivious to the carnage he had just caused.
>
> What's especially sad is that the clueless cops rushed to judgement as
> to the cause. For all we know, that "strong smell of alcohol" inside
> the Ford is the result of a closed bottle of Vodka that shattered
> during the crash. If it weren't for that broken bottle, no doubt this
> would have been just another "speed-related" crash.
>
> Cops need to start accurately determining the causes of these kinds of
> collisions, and to aggressively ticket the Sloths who perpetrate them.
>
> http://www.kiontv.com/news/local/sto...D-8E94353E0D66
>
> Gilroy (BCN) - A crash that killed two people in unincorporated Gilroy
> Wednesday night is believed to be the result of one driver being under
> the influence of alcohol, California Highway Patrol Officer Matt
> Ramirez said today.
>
> The accident occurred at approximately 9:20 p.m. on state Highway 152
> just west of Lover's Lane.
>
> A preliminary investigation revealed a 22-year-old Texas man was
> driving west on Highway 152 in a 2004 Ford Ranger when he tried to
> pass another car.
>
> The driver crossed over double-yellow lines and struck a 1996 Jeep
> Grand Cherokee heading in the opposite direction.
>
> The driver of the Jeep, identified as a 72-year-old Springville man,
> died from his injuries.
>
> The driver of the Ford also died, Ramirez said.
>
> The identities of both men were not immediately available, pending
> notification of their families.
>
> A passenger in the Jeep, identified as Margaret Phillips, was
> airlifted to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center with serious injuries.
>
> Phillips was the Jeep driver's wife and had just been released from a
> hospital after surgery, according to Ramirez.
>
> Investigators detected a strong smell of alcohol emanating from the
> Ford and witnesses reported that the vehicle was driven erratically
> just prior to the crash.
>
> The two vehicles involved in the crash blocked lanes of the highway in
> both directions for about two hours.
>

I have a better theory. It was a Jeep and a Ford. We both know that Jeeps
and Fords are unreliable -so the ford probably just caught on fire...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:57:22 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>Unfortunately that happens every day on 152, idiot sloths and even
>>bigger idiots passing the sloths where passing is not feasible.
>
> So you agree that my interpretation is probably correct?

No. I still say that passing where you can't see enough is fatal
stupidity.

Chris

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On 10 Jul 2005 23:23:23 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>I'd chalk this up to a stupidity related collision, someone decided to
>>pass in a really bad spot, and ended up killing someone who did nothing
>>wrong as well as themself because of a stupid decision.
>
> There's no question that the Ford driver has the lion's share of the
> blame, and that the loss of an innocent driver's life was a needless
> tragedy. But if it weren't for the Sloth RRB, would any of it have
> happened?
There is no mention at all of the speed of the "other" car. Aside from
your know bias towards "Sloths", how do you know whether that other car
was going 10 below the speed limit, exactly the speed limit, 10 above the
speed limit, or some where in between?
>
>>As long as we're assuming things, from the erratic driving witnesses,
>>and the smell of alcohol, he probably was an impatient drunk who wanted
>>to drive 95.
>
> You gotta admit, my assumptions are more original.
>
They sure fit your prejudices.

Doug

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:24:40 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>That you defend a driver, who killed someone else because he was too
>>stupid and too drunk
>
> There is no information in the story that says he was drunk - or even
> that he was drinking.
>
> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
> you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
> oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
> in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
> drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?
>
>

Quick answer, legally, you are, yes.

It is far preferable to hit what ever object that suddenly appeared in
your path than to swerve into oncoming traffic. I would much rather rear-
end or t-bone a car that has just pulled out in from of me than to hit an
oncoming car. The combined speeds would be less for staying put. Also,
you could probably get whoever pulled out on you for failure to yield.

Not that this has anything to do with the article you cited. Again, you
are arguing facts not in evidence.

Doug

DYM wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:24:40 -0700, "C.H." >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That you defend a driver, who killed someone else because he was too
>>>stupid and too drunk
>>
>>There is no information in the story that says he was drunk - or even
>>that he was drinking.
>>
>>Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
>>double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
>>you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
>>oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
>>in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
>>drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?
>>
>>
>
>
> Quick answer, legally, you are, yes.
>
> It is far preferable to hit what ever object that suddenly appeared in
> your path than to swerve into oncoming traffic. I would much rather rear-
> end or t-bone a car that has just pulled out in from of me than to hit an
> oncoming car. The combined speeds would be less for staying put. Also,
> you could probably get whoever pulled out on you for failure to yield.
>
> Not that this has anything to do with the article you cited. Again, you
> are arguing facts not in evidence.
>
> Doug

Actually, the best thing to do in that situation IMHO would be try to
get around on the shoulder. If you have to PIT the a-hole who just cut
you off, so be it, but you might get lucky and squeak past.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote in
news:1121127003.fdcd26481f7cc10eb038617317563fe9@t eranews:

> DYM wrote:
>> Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:24:40 -0700, "C.H." >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That you defend a driver, who killed someone else because he was too
>>>>stupid and too drunk
>>>
>>>There is no information in the story that says he was drunk - or even
>>>that he was drinking.
>>>
>>>Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
>>>double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
>>>you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
>>>oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
>>>in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
>>>drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision?
>>>You?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Quick answer, legally, you are, yes.
>>
>> It is far preferable to hit what ever object that suddenly appeared
>> in your path than to swerve into oncoming traffic. I would much
>> rather rear- end or t-bone a car that has just pulled out in from of
>> me than to hit an oncoming car. The combined speeds would be less for
>> staying put. Also, you could probably get whoever pulled out on you
>> for failure to yield.
>>
>> Not that this has anything to do with the article you cited. Again,
>> you are arguing facts not in evidence.
>>
>> Doug
>
> Actually, the best thing to do in that situation IMHO would be try to
> get around on the shoulder. If you have to PIT the a-hole who just
> cut you off, so be it, but you might get lucky and squeak past.
>
> nate
>

Sorry, around here, road shoulders are problably considered optional.
Therefore, the towships never put them in. If you are lucky enough to
have a white line, 2 inches past that is a 2-3 foot deep ditch.

Doug

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2005 06:33:45 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
> >> My post was a SATIRE, not a troll, you top-posting ninny.
> >
> >So in addition to posting dishonest headers you don't even know what
> >top posting is?
>
> You're right, I made a mistake. You were not top-posting. I apologize
> for calling you a top-posting ninny.

No problem but damn...why did you do that? It takes all the fun out of
ragging on you

Harry K