A baby died after an (off duty) officer crashed his Corvette at 94 mph, investigators say. He won’t face charges.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Person A: So anyway, I was in a car accident yesterday.

Person B: That’s awful!

Person A: Totaled the car. I was going about 95 mph in a 50 mph zone and rammed into a van and a baby was killed. But the other vehicle was being driven by someone without a license and I had the right of way.

Person B: The monster!

Person A: Also had a tail light that was out.

Person B: I tell ya, the gaul of some people.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here are some images of the crash site.:









And a google map of the intersection.:



This is a busy intersection in a business district and the asshole cop flew into at at almost 94 mph, 138 feet per second.

How anyone can defend the indefensible is beyond me.

 

[laughing dog]

I think driving an orange Corvette should be a criminal offense, let alone driving at 94 mph.

Whether or not the driver of the van had a license ought to be irrelevant to the issue of the Corvette driver's behavior. And whether or not van passengers were secured properly is also irrelevant to the Corvette driver's behavior. As to failure to yield the right of way, I wonder how anyone would be able to react to a vehicle approaching that fast.

Either the DA or the police department ought to take action against this officer. He is a menace to people on the road.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The whole right of way thing seems absurd because as you note, a car going 94 needs more right-of-way due to its speed. It isn’t like pulling out onto. 25 mph road.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think driving an orange Corvette should be a criminal offense, let alone driving at 94 mph.

Whether or not the driver of the van had a license ought to be irrelevant to the issue of the Corvette driver's behavior. And whether or not van passengers were secured properly is also irrelevant to the Corvette driver's behavior. As to failure to yield the right of way, I wonder how anyone would be able to react to a vehicle approaching that fast.

Either the DA or the police department ought to take action against this officer. He is a menace to people on the road.

It's yet another example of fallacious TTH defense. It doesn't actually matter that the person you hit was time traveling Hitler without a license drunk riving while texting on his cellphone. If you are going 95 in a 50, there's no way they could see to not make a turn or whatever even if they weren't TTH driving like an idiot. The idiot going 95 in a 50 still was at fault for driving in a way even a defensive driver wouldn't be able to account for or react to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Driving twice the speed limit is reckless.

The primary cause of the accident seems to be an improper turn, though, not the speed.

Would it have been an improper turn if the corvette driver wasn't driving at twice the speed limit?

No one expects a car more than a football field away to be of any consequence.

Turn in your license.

The speed limit on that road was 50mph. A football field is 4 seconds at that speed. You can't make a turn into traffic in a 4 second gap--my memory is that the minimum is 6 seconds for a right turn, 7 for a left, but I'm not finding the numbers right now. The 50 mph limit probably adds a second or two to that, also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Driving twice the speed limit is reckless.

The primary cause of the accident seems to be an improper turn, though, not the speed.

Is there anything at all that a police officer, on or off duty, can do that you will say was wrong? At least twice on this forum you have spouted apologia for police officers killing children, once with firearms and now, an infant.

What, exactly does it take for you to believe a police officer to be guilty of a criminal offense?

This has nothing to do with whether he's a police officer. I'm just placing more blame on the car that entered when it was unsafe than the car that was going too fast. The default is the car on the road has right-of-way over any car not on the road, thus the primary error here is a right-of-way violation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a busy intersection in a business district and the asshole cop flew into at at almost 94 mph, 138 feet per second.

How anyone can defend the indefensible is beyond me.

The cop was wrong. She was wronger, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think driving an orange Corvette should be a criminal offense, let alone driving at 94 mph.

Whether or not the driver of the van had a license ought to be irrelevant to the issue of the Corvette driver's behavior. And whether or not van passengers were secured properly is also irrelevant to the Corvette driver's behavior. As to failure to yield the right of way, I wonder how anyone would be able to react to a vehicle approaching that fast.

Either the DA or the police department ought to take action against this officer. He is a menace to people on the road.

It's yet another example of fallacious TTH defense. It doesn't actually matter that the person you hit was time traveling Hitler without a license drunk riving while texting on his cellphone. If you are going 95 in a 50, there's no way they could see to not make a turn or whatever even if they weren't TTH driving like an idiot. The idiot going 95 in a 50 still was at fault for driving in a way even a defensive driver wouldn't be able to account for or react to.

Why? I've entered a light traffic stream doing a bit over 80 before--you just need a humongous gap to do it with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is there anything at all that a police officer, on or off duty, can do that you will say was wrong? At least twice on this forum you have spouted apologia for police officers killing children, once with firearms and now, an infant.

What, exactly does it take for you to believe a police officer to be guilty of a criminal offense?

This has nothing to do with whether he's a police officer. I'm just placing more blame on the car that entered when it was unsafe than the car that was going too fast. The default is the car on the road has right-of-way over any car not on the road, thus the primary error here is a right-of-way violation.

ROW is a BS argument. There is an expected distance a car is going to need for said ROW when crossing the path of a vehicle. This speeding car was requiring well in excess of average needed ROW and space.

 

[ZiprHead]

Would it have been an improper turn if the corvette driver wasn't driving at twice the speed limit?

No one expects a car more than a football field away to be of any consequence.

Turn in your license.

The speed limit on that road was 50mph. A football field is 4 seconds at that speed. You can't make a turn into traffic in a 4 second gap--my memory is that the minimum is 6 seconds for a right turn, 7 for a left, but I'm not finding the numbers right now. The 50 mph limit probably adds a second or two to that, also.

Seven seconds for a left turn? Are you daft?

 

[Politesse]

I didn't realize I can just drive everywhere at 95 without penalty, even if I cause an accident. I should be more carefree on the road!

 

[Jarhyn]

I think driving an orange Corvette should be a criminal offense, let alone driving at 94 mph.

Whether or not the driver of the van had a license ought to be irrelevant to the issue of the Corvette driver's behavior. And whether or not van passengers were secured properly is also irrelevant to the Corvette driver's behavior. As to failure to yield the right of way, I wonder how anyone would be able to react to a vehicle approaching that fast.

Either the DA or the police department ought to take action against this officer. He is a menace to people on the road.

It's yet another example of fallacious TTH defense. It doesn't actually matter that the person you hit was time traveling Hitler without a license drunk riving while texting on his cellphone. If you are going 95 in a 50, there's no way they could see to not make a turn or whatever even if they weren't TTH driving like an idiot. The idiot going 95 in a 50 still was at fault for driving in a way even a defensive driver wouldn't be able to account for or react to.

Why? I've entered a light traffic stream doing a bit over 80 before--you just need a humongous gap to do it with.

You CANNOT ethically expect the other people in a traffic stream, when entering it at 95MPH, to react to your irresponsible speed. It doesn't matter who they are, once you are past 30 over you are taking responsibility for all that happens.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Would it have been an improper turn if the corvette driver wasn't driving at twice the speed limit?

No one expects a car more than a football field away to be of any consequence.

Turn in your license.

The speed limit on that road was 50mph. A football field is 4 seconds at that speed. You can't make a turn into traffic in a 4 second gap--my memory is that the minimum is 6 seconds for a right turn, 7 for a left, but I'm not finding the numbers right now. The 50 mph limit probably adds a second or two to that, also.

So a car going 60 mph would have been half the substantially further away and there is no accident.

 

[Jarhyn]

Would it have been an improper turn if the corvette driver wasn't driving at twice the speed limit?

No one expects a car more than a football field away to be of any consequence.

Turn in your license.

The speed limit on that road was 50mph. A football field is 4 seconds at that speed. You can't make a turn into traffic in a 4 second gap--my memory is that the minimum is 6 seconds for a right turn, 7 for a left, but I'm not finding the numbers right now. The 50 mph limit probably adds a second or two to that, also.

So a car going 60 mph would have been half the substantially further away and there is no accident.

At 95 you wouldn't be able to see the car that would hit you at all. You would be "oh, gonna turn now, looks clear", and then be hit.

 

[ZiprHead]

Would it have been an improper turn if the corvette driver wasn't driving at twice the speed limit?

No one expects a car more than a football field away to be of any consequence.

Turn in your license.

The speed limit on that road was 50mph. A football field is 4 seconds at that speed. You can't make a turn into traffic in a 4 second gap--my memory is that the minimum is 6 seconds for a right turn, 7 for a left, but I'm not finding the numbers right now. The 50 mph limit probably adds a second or two to that, also.

So a car going 60 mph would have been half the substantially further away and there is no accident.

Yeah, I think Miss Daisy above you needs a driver.

There is only a split second of time where the SUV would be directly in front of the corvette.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So a car going 60 mph would have been half the substantially further away and there is no accident.

Yeah, I think Miss Daisy above you needs a driver.

There is only a split second of time where the SUV would be directly in front of the corvette.

And then we take the physics involved with slowing down and avoiding accidents. Speed limits don't exist because Big Brother wants to control people. They exist because of physics and the ability of people to control their cars.

 

[Jarhyn]

So a car going 60 mph would have been half the substantially further away and there is no accident.

Yeah, I think Miss Daisy above you needs a driver.

There is only a split second of time where the SUV would be directly in front of the corvette.

And then we take the physics involved with slowing down and avoiding accidents. Speed limits don't exist because Big Brother wants to control people. They exist because of physics and the ability of people to control their cars.

Hell, even if it were an automated car that got a signal that the SUV was turning at a football field of distance (hell, two football fields!) I have my doubts as to how fast an AI could stop from 95 to 0 without flipping the car or losing the road. That's a fuckton of momentum.

It's just plain irresponsible to approach an intersection at those speeds

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And then we take the physics involved with slowing down and avoiding accidents. Speed limits don't exist because Big Brother wants to control people. They exist because of physics and the ability of people to control their cars.

Hell, even if it were an automated car that got a signal that the SUV was turning at a football field of distance (hell, two football fields!) I have my doubts as to how fast an AI could stop from 95 to 0 without flipping the car or losing the road. That's a fuckton of momentum.

It's just plain irresponsible to approach an intersection at those speeds

I'm pretty sure the AI would have just thought that they had the right-of-way so 'fuck-it'.

 

[Jarhyn]

And then we take the physics involved with slowing down and avoiding accidents. Speed limits don't exist because Big Brother wants to control people. They exist because of physics and the ability of people to control their cars.

Hell, even if it were an automated car that got a signal that the SUV was turning at a football field of distance (hell, two football fields!) I have my doubts as to how fast an AI could stop from 95 to 0 without flipping the car or losing the road. That's a fuckton of momentum.

It's just plain irresponsible to approach an intersection at those speeds

I'm pretty sure the AI would have just thought that they had the right-of-way so 'fuck-it'.

So glad that "right of way", assuming that you are visible enough to know someone is even there to claim it at the speeds you are going, has the ability to stop 1086100 Newtons force coming at you in the form of 3600 lbs of metal.

Edit: scratch that, the weight to consider is wrong. I calculated for a Corvette, when I should have calculated for a SUV. The force is actually closer to 1.3m Newtons of force, since the relative speed is the same but the weight to consider is 4400 lbs at a minimum.