Wednesday, March 26, 2008

It's The Driver's Fault?

I'm wondering if I should add automobile drivers to my list of persecuted people. Yes, I know drivers are often at fault in vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents, but this one doesn't seem to be and it seemed right off the bat a number of people assume she was the wrongdoer.

It first struck me, when reading accounts of the kid run over by the high school in Mckinleyville, that everyone seemed to think it was her fault, except for the newspaper accounts. I was wondering why the Highway Patrol had her take a sobriety test right after the accident? After all, no mention that she'd been drinking or smelled of alcoholic beverages.

Do they give sobriety tests to all drivers after a vehicle vs. pedestrian accident? I was under the impression they only did that if they had reason to believe the driver might be under the influence.

And for some reason, a number of people seemed unable to accept that the kid would actually be doing something so stupid as laying in the street. Was I the only one that finds such behavior believable?

The latest little gem is the supposed eyewitness who saw the accident happen yet seems to have all the known facts wrong. I can't help but wonder if she simply saw what she wanted to see?

So much for eyewitnesses, yet we'll still probably see the kid's parents trying to sue the driver despite overwhelming evidence- at this point, anyway- that the fault for the accident lies mostly with the kid.

5 Comments:

At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Andrew Bird said...

Emily Wilson's story in today's ER has a full account. Reports that the teen was walking while hit have been debunked. Yes, it's routine for drivers involved in accidents as severe as this one to be substance-tested.

http://eurekareporter.com/article/080325-mckinleyville-teenager-and-family-give-statements

 
At 3:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, it works in her favor to take a field sobriety test. It proves that she wasn't driving impaired.

 
At 6:06 PM, Blogger Rose said...

He (the boy) admits he was laying in the road and the damage to the vehicle, according to the reports is all to the undercarriage, which supports his statement while the “eyewitness” who claims he was walking upright’s story does not add up, according to today’s story in the Eureka Reporter.

 
At 7:54 PM, Anonymous Andrew Bird said...

My guess is that the police asked to her undergo a test and she was happy to comply.

These days if you have an accident while driving a company vehicle the company requires a substance test in order to keep your job. This just happened to a buddy, who hit a cow while on the job.

 
At 2:28 PM, Blogger Rose said...

I agree. It would be for her own protection to take a sobriety test. The kid has been pretty straightforward about what happened, and seems to have a good attitude about it all. Man, it's just crazy though.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home