Sloth Kills Two More

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.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:

> 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.

> 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.

How, from the evidence in that article, are you able to determine that
sloth had anything to do with this? How do you know the accused sloth
kept going, and didn't stop, call 911, and start first aid treatment?

>From witnesses reporting that the vehicle was driven erratically at the
time of the crash I'd assume he was probably another drunk **** going
20 over the limit getting ****ed at people driving at a reasonable
speed at night.

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.

Dave

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...

"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?

Gleaned from your own post, Scott:

> As with most news reports of vehicle collisions, there is not enough
> information presented to draw an accurate conclusion.

> It's a guess, but a pretty safe one.

> There is not enough information presented to either prove
> or disprove any conclusions regarding cause.

So all this talk about a sloth causing a fatal accident is the merest
moonshine. You have no facts other than what you read in a newspaper.

"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...

i didn't see you presnet your "findings" as a "hypothesis," it looked like
you were making a statement of fact to me.

who knows, it may have had nothing to do with sloth, the guy who caused the
accident by barrelling over a double-yellow may very well have run up on
someone who never even had a chance to use a turnout.

btw, are there even turnouts on the gilroy section of the road? that's
mostly flat terrain through farmland there.

that can be a frustrating road as it's a two-laner most of the way that just
isn't adequate for the large volumes of traffic at a lot of times... i also
seem to remember this being something of a truck route so big vehicles tend
to cause backups as well... it's a dangerous route, one of those "keep your
headlights on for safety" signed roads...

brink

Texan driving a pickup truck on a mountain road....
No mountain driving skills, poor vehicle choice,
and probably a macho idiot as well.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:06:30 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

I don't like sloths either. But I have enough self control and judgement
not to pass where it is dangerous and on 152 it is dangerous almost
everywhere. CA152 is one of the few stretches of road I intensely
dislike, precisely because all too often asshole sloth meets impatient
asshole there and the result usually is that an innocent person died.

That you defend a driver, who killed someone else because he was too
stupid and too drunk to properly assess the situation and restrain himself
from passing without sufficient space to do so, surprises me.

Chris

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> 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.

What about the other type of report where the vehicle loses control or
flips spontaneously? Then again, they never ever state the PKE readings
were higher than normal in the immediate area ...

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> 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?
>

So now you have been called on one of your trolls and in order to
support it you start adding information that wasn't in the report. You
started it with a non-existent sloth driver, now you have a broken
bottle of booze. Above you wonder about what the blood alcohol content
was. Hmm, accident happened Wed, this is Sunday. Given the sample hit
the mail to the lab on Thursday it is hardly surprising that the test
results aren't in yet.

Your post headlines matches the story how? Let's see...nope, not even
remotely.

Harry K

> >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...

So just how is your conclusion better than the report? At least they
had some facts in theirs, where are yours?

Harry K

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:57:01 -0500, "brink" >
wrote:

>i didn't see you presnet your "findings" as a "hypothesis," it looked like
>you were making a statement of fact to me.

Would it have helped if I had described the incident as
"Sloth-related" like the newspapers do?

The point is, the news media also present their conclusions (e.g. the
crash was "speed-related" or "alcohol-related") as if they were
statements of fact. How come it's OK for them to do that and not me?

>btw, are there even turnouts on the gilroy section of the road? that's
>mostly flat terrain through farmland there.

I agree, turnouts aren't absolutely necessary as long as there is a
sufficiently wide shoulder. However, most Sloth RRBs won't pull over
no matter how much space there is. They're just too damned oblivious
(or arrogant) to see the need.