[Templar]

Originally Posted by kits135i

BULL SHIT!!! Show me the law and state this crap would stand. IT WAS NOT HIT FAULT PERIOD!!!

Fleeing the scene of the accident is the crime. No one would be able to prove he was drunk at the time, as it has been weeks after the incident. So arguing that is really a moot point. However, the family of the old guy likely could file a wrongful death suit if they wanted to, and could win... maybe. I don't know. It would be a tough case, but the fact that he fled the scene doesn't look good for him.

Why you so mad? Was it you?

No matter what the old man did, fleeing the scene of an accident is against the law. For that reason alone, the GTI driver broke the law.

Think of it this way... The old man broke the law basically by not abiding traffic signals, and now he's dead. I guess he got his.

The GTI driver also broke the law, and could still be punished.

I'm not saying it's manslaughter, but all you laptop lawyers have to agree that the GTI driver broke a law.

According to the CA DMV, both were wrong, but the GTI driver was more wrong, if that makes sense:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

[schoy]

Originally Posted by e92zero

I don't think the argument is the same when the light has been green already because that mean the pedestrians jay walked or the other vehicles ran a red light completely. The burden is on the pedestrians in that case. The point that I am trying to make here is that the light just turn green and you cannot just step on the gas and go because you have a green light. At least that's what I was told before. 'A green light does not mean you can automatically go, it just means it's your turn to proceed but you have to make sure the intersection is clear/safe'. Something to that degree.

There are also lots of drivers (legally maybe) flooring it to get into an intersection when the light turns yellow and didn't finish crossing the intersection before the signals in the side turns green. I see it every single day. If every driver step on the gas as soon as the light turns green without checking the intersection, there would be a lot more accident.

My thought is that the driver in the GTR is at least partially at fault when he enter the intersection without looking to see that the intersection is clear. And then on top of that, he did the hit and run. Extremely irresponsible.

On a side note, automated cars would be much easier to program if they can go as soon as the light turns green.

Here's the strange thing. The light had been green for a good 3-4 seconds before the GTR went. In fact, the light turned green before the biker even entered the picture. Clearly then, the biker was jaywalking. However, the GTR stopped a good 10-15 feet before the crosswalk, meaning that the GTR had no way of seeing whether there was a pedestrian/biker in the intersection (as his view was blocked by the car that was filming). But it would be no different if the GTR moving at the time and approaching the intersection; the same accident would still have happened. I just don't see the GTR being at fault at the time of impact.

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by Templar

Fleeing the scene of the accident is the crime. No one would be able to prove he was drunk at the time, as it has been weeks after the incident. So arguing that is really a moot point. However, the family of the old guy likely could file a wrongful death suit if they wanted to, and could win... maybe. I don't know. It would be a tough case, but the fact that he fled the scene doesn't look good for him.

Why you so mad? Was it you?

No matter what the old man did, fleeing the scene of an accident is against the law. For that reason alone, the GTI driver broke the law.

Think of it this way... The old man broke the law basically by not abiding traffic signals, and now he's dead. I guess he got his.

The GTI driver also broke the law, and could still be punished.

I'm not saying it's manslaughter, but all you laptop lawyers have to agree that the GTI driver broke a law.

According to the CA DMV, both were wrong, but the GTI driver was more wrong, if that makes sense:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

Thanks for finding the DMV piece.

[991brothers]

Sad indeed. he should've just stopped to see if the guy would be ok

[grimlock]

If he had stayed and got caught for DUI what additional charges would he face for involvement in an accident which lead to a death, but which evidence (this recording) clearly shows he is not resposible for (and which his drunkedness had no ability to affect)?

Incidently, If someone plows into from the rear, or sideways, if you want a situation with more disputable culpability, what affect does DUI on charges/culpabality?

If the two are not linked, then by leaving the scene he was trading DUI for fleeing the scene on an accidently (+don't know what other charges, failure to render assistence, report etc.)

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Templar

Fleeing the scene of the accident is the crime. No one would be able to prove he was drunk at the time, as it has been weeks after the incident. So arguing that is really a moot point. However, the family of the old guy likely could file a wrongful death suit if they wanted to, and could win... maybe. I don't know. It would be a tough case, but the fact that he fled the scene doesn't look good for him.

Why you so mad? Was it you?

No matter what the old man did, fleeing the scene of an accident is against the law. For that reason alone, the GTI driver broke the law.

Think of it this way... The old man broke the law basically by not abiding traffic signals, and now he's dead. I guess he got his.

The GTI driver also broke the law, and could still be punished.

I'm not saying it's manslaughter, but all you laptop lawyers have to agree that the GTI driver broke a law.

According to the CA DMV, both were wrong, but the GTI driver was more wrong, if that makes sense:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

Not saying he did not break the law for leaving, I am saying it was NOT HIS FAULT!!! There is no way he would have been liable for this. With any good lawyer even if he was under the influence he would have gotten off. He was in the far lane, no visibility on a LIGHT that HAS BEEN GREEN. They would prove in the stance of the car even sober he would NOT have seen him. The biker was CLEARLY against the RED light. This would be a NOT GUILTY in the court of law. I doubt it would have even got that far if he stay at the scene. HE would have went to the police station, left his statement and left.

I never said he did not break the law for leaving the crime. My whole argument is he would NOT BE GUILTY! Which was the reply I left to the person who claims he would be guilty no matter is he stayed or not.

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

If he was drunk or under any other drug influence it would have partially been his fault, they could tie that into delayed reaction time, etc.... If he is getting caught now it will be hard to prove, unless there is a witness coming forward.

In any case I think you should just turn yourself in.

I would not be caught dead in a GTR. Sorry I hate them that much.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by kits135i

Not saying he did not break the law for leaving, I am saying it was NOT HIS FAULT!!! There is no way he would have been liable for this. With any good lawyer even if he was under the influence he would have gotten off. He was in the far lane, no visibility on a LIGHT that HAS BEEN GREEN. They would prove in the stance of the car even sober he would NOT have seen him. The biker was CLEARLY against the RED light. This would be a NOT GUILTY in the court of law. I doubt it would have even got that far if he stay at the scene. HE would have went to the police station, left his statement and left.

I never said he did not break the law for leaving the crime. My whole argument is he would NOT BE GUILTY! Which was the reply I left to the person who claims he would be guilty no matter is he stayed or not.

Understand, but a lot of things changed when he fled the scene.

I agree the driver didn't do anything legally wrong (saying he was drunk is pure speculation)... He was fine right up to the point he got back into his car and took off.

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Templar

Understand, but a lot of things changed when he fled the scene.

I agree the driver didn't do anything legally wrong (saying he was drunk is pure speculation)... He was fine right up to the point he got back into his car and took off.

That still does NOT make this accident his FAULT....

[Templar]

Originally Posted by kits135i

That still does NOT make this accident his FAULT....

Nevermind, obviously you don't get it...

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Templar

Nevermind, obviously you don't get it...

No really, you are not getting it. You keep saying he left the scene of the crime so its his fault. I am saying who cares if he stayed or not the driver is still NOT his fault. Sure he will be busted for running, but again he will be let off for the crime and punished for leaving the scene.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

Not to beat a dead horse here, but there was a reason for him to take off.... obviously we don;t know the real reason, but it was bad enough for him to make the decision of leaving the accident and cyclist.

So if that reason was that the driver was impaired, had a suspended license, etc... the whole 'who's fault was it' discussion would be greatly affected by it.

Yes, it was the biker's fault by running a red light, but if the driver was impaired, so would have his/hers reaction time be delayed, etc... Obviously this is all speculative as templar mentioned, but again, there had to be a big reason for the driver to leave, and that would've played a role in determining the guilt or probably partial guilt of that horrible accident.

Unless there's evidence showing otherwise (and there isn't), I think the reason the driver left is the same human nature reason from the beginning of civilization: simply to avoid responsibility. Our 5-year-old's do it; our 60-year-old politicians do it. Even if it's not their fault, they don't even want the implication (or the hassle).

Edit: The driver waited for quite some time before taking off. I'm guessing the driver was doing a basic cost/benefit analysis as to whether to stay or leave. Probably was also wondering, "Gee, I can't remember with certainty whether that light was green or red. And if the light is green, what is the law concerning pedestrians? Am I allowed to go, or am I supposed to make sure there are no pedestrians even if they're jaywalking? Why take the chance? I'll just take off ..."

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by Templar

Fleeing the scene of the accident is the crime. No one would be able to prove he was drunk at the time, as it has been weeks after the incident. So arguing that is really a moot point. However, the family of the old guy likely could file a wrongful death suit if they wanted to, and could win... maybe. I don't know. It would be a tough case, but the fact that he fled the scene doesn't look good for him.

Why you so mad? Was it you?

No matter what the old man did, fleeing the scene of an accident is against the law. For that reason alone, the GTI driver broke the law.

Think of it this way... The old man broke the law basically by not abiding traffic signals, and now he's dead. I guess he got his.

The GTI driver also broke the law, and could still be punished.

I'm not saying it's manslaughter, but all you laptop lawyers have to agree that the GTI driver broke a law.

According to the CA DMV, both were wrong, but the GTI driver was more wrong, if that makes sense:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

Originally Posted by e92zero

Thanks for finding the DMV piece.

Since when is a bicyclist a pedestrian? They have the same responsibilities as a motorist.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by kits135i

No really, you are not getting it. You keep saying he left the scene of the crime so its his fault. I am saying who cares if he stayed or not the driver is still NOT his fault. Sure he will be busted for running, but again he will be let off for the crime and punished for leaving the scene.

Where did I say the accident was his fault because he left the scene?

I never said that. I think you are confusing me with someone else. Stay with me here...

The fact is, the law states leaving the scene of an accident is illegal, and it doesn't matter who was at fault.

If it's a hit and run where a death is involved, most states consider this a felony in itself. I'm not saying he will be charged with manslaughter, and I'm not saying he is at fault for the accident itself. I am saying, based on the video, he is guilty of felony hit and run, which carries a pretty hefty punishment.

Here you go:
http://www.deadlyroads.com/laws/cali...run-laws.shtml

(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to any person, other than himself or herself, or in the death of any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill the requirements of Sections 20003 and 20004.

(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who violates subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(2) If the accident described in subdivision (a) results in death or permanent, serious injury, any person who violates subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. However, the court, in the interests of justice and for reasons stated in the record, may reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment required by this paragraph.

I'm not saying the actual accident was the driver's fault at all (and I was wrong about him being a pedestrian, he wasn't). None of that matters though, I'm not arguing the actual accident. I'm saying the GTI driver is a criminal for fleeing the scene of an accident (remember, it doesn't matter who was at fault). And he can be charged with felony hit and run.

I would think that with the video available, the prosecutor would have no problem convicting them to the fullest extent of the law.

[KwlAznKid]

bump, randomly thought bout this story, does anyone know if they ever caught the guy?

[Maddict3]

this is so sad. Someone should of at least picked him up.

Did anyone catch the M3 in the background?

[PopsnBurbles]

Wasn't there also a hit n' run incident around Sherman Oaks area (in CA). An SUV ran over a jaywalker at night. It definitely was not the SUV driver's fault and the police cleared that the he/she would've been off the hook. Since he/she ran away, they ended up hunting the driver down.

I'm not sure what happened to the driver after but I doubt the driver would have gotten away.

[ItsHectic]

Pretty shocking that with all the beeping 2 people(cyclist and GTR driver) continued on their way.

The GTR driver's reaction is pretty normal though, fleeing is the typical shock response to something like this.
Then people either feel guilt(from an accident so psychologists would say its misplaced) and turn themselves in, or self preservation and decide not to especially on the grounds that facing punishment is not gonna help the victim.

In Australia people dont often get jail for things like this and when they do its "to send a message to others to be more careful on the road". And the last time this happened the victims family felt sorry for the driver for suffering PTSD and they hugged and cryed together in court after he got sentenced.

[zx10guy]

Doesn't surprise me about how people react. They'll want to stare at a car wreck or what have you causing massive traffic back ups but don't have the decency to stop and help.

As for actually helping the old man, it's a tough call. I used to be an EMT with a fire/rescue squad. For a lay person who doesn't have any training, the best thing to do is to call 911 and check to see if the person/patient is able to breathe. If the person is not breathing, check for a pulse. If no pulse or just no breathing, then do CPR or rescue breathing for the latter. The reason why you don't want to move or do anything with a person who just suffered a major trauma like this is the possibility of causing more harm; ie cervical spine issues. If the person is not breathing or has no pulse, all considerations for trying to prevent further injury by moving him go out the window.

[MrPrena]

I just saw this now.
I use to eat at that Carl's Jr around 11 years ago.

IF GTR driver wasn't intoxicated,and did NOT leave the scene of an accident, driver would've been fine. Since he left the scene, IT IS A DAMN CRIME.

6th and Virgil is dangerous. Another intersection i did not like was 3rd and Commonswelth area. Oh yeah. 6th and Rimpau. It has a corner, and it is usually foggy at late hours.