Our local newspaper has a comment forum for each article they post. This topic has to do with a 22 year old kid dying on Fischer Blvd. in Toms River, NJ. Fischer Blvd. is actually a very safe road, two lanes in each direction and usually light on traffic.
Most of the comments echo what our LEOs say here... the "public" believes lower speed limits and higher fines are the cure-all for this sort of thing.
http://forums.app.com/viewtopic.php?t=12828
James should register over there and set them straight. :rockon: :tounge:
Wow there are some people on there I'd like to have a 1 to 1 talk with and just say what the hell are you thinking. No seriously, tell me what you are thinking cuz I can't figure it out.
A) Why are so many people typing in all caps? Seriously figure it out.
B) first page was riddled with: 22 year old crashed, I'm SURE drugs / alcohol / cell phone was involved. These people just IMMEDIATELY spit out oh he was probably high on meth and heroine, while taking shots of jag, texting on his phone and jerkin off. Because every 22 year old drives like that.
C) Some teenager crashes his car goin 100 in a 45 and they say let's lower the limits...? wtf? Oh yea, John Doe doin 100 in a 45 would take it down to 40 if you set the limit at 35. I'm sure he wouldn't speed then..... (Not related to that story, but that's why people were advocating lower speed limits. That just doesn't make sense.)
ad naseum....
Wow. I like how people are making up parts of the story when they don't know anything.
And i like how others are talking about how young drivers make the roads unfit for bicyclists. :rolleyes:
That's a risk you have to take. If you ride around thinking you're going to be run over by a young driver, you should go live in a padded room by yourself. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Champ on July 09, 2007, 11:33:37 PM
Wow there are some people on there I'd like to have a 1 to 1 talk with and just say what the hell are you thinking.? No seriously, tell me what you are thinking cuz I can't figure it out.
C) Some teenager crashes his car goin 100 in a 45 and they say let's lower the limits...?? wtf?? Oh yea, John Doe doin 100 in a 45 would take it down to 40 if you set the limit at 35.? I'm sure he wouldn't speed then.....? (Not related to that story, but that's why people were advocating lower speed limits.? That just doesn't make sense.)
ad naseum....
No it doesn't make any sense: the kid was obviously ignoring the speed limit, and it wouldn't matter to him if it was 45 or 70 or 25: He was completely ignoring it.
This reminds me of everytime some drunk kills somebody on the road; Despite the fact the guy's BAC was already 2 or 3 times the legal limit, somebody will always suggest lowering the limit.
The vast majority of the times someone has caused me to take evasive actions, the driver of the other car was middle aged.
I forgot to add, by far the most outrageous claim on those forums was:
QuoteForget age. I'm in favor of re-testing every driver who receives a moving violation and/or is involved in an accident. We should scrap the vehicle inspection and replace it with a driver inspection. You get a ticket for speeding, reckless driving, DUI, failure to use your seatbelt or signals, etc. you go to re-testing. Eyes, written, road test, the whole bit.
failure to use my seatbelt means I should go get everything retested? Or turn signals?
This individual committed significant transgressions behind the wheel - only he is to blame.
The spirit of those posts I agree with: the only way to compell better behavior on our roads is through consequences.
The spirit of those posts I don't agree with: that young drivers are worse today; it only appears that way IMO. There are not only more young drivers, but a higher percentage of young drivers with cars, along with the proliferation of bleeding/leading MSM.
His road behavior will be perfect now. He's dead. Way more effective than a fine.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10057.msg501978#msg501978 date=1184081335
His road behavior will be perfect now.? He's dead.? Way more effective than a fine.?
:praise:? Darwin theory at its best
It would just be sad if he hurt someone else while he's improving the gene pool, though.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on July 10, 2007, 09:57:09 AM
:praise:? Darwin theory at its best
It would just be sad if he hurt someone else while he's improving the gene pool, though.
That's true. It's a damn shame when other people get hurt.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 10, 2007, 09:27:07 AM
This individual committed significant transgressions behind the wheel - only he is to blame.
The spirit of those posts I agree with: the only way to compell better behavior on our roads is through consequences.
But did he? Nowhere in the article did it say he was speeding, drinking, talking on a phone, or doing anything else wrong. For all we know, his brakes could have gone out or something. Why is "he to blame?" Where is your evidence to blame him?
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10057.msg501908#msg501908 date=1184078613
The vast majority of the times someone has caused me to take evasive actions, the driver of the other car was middle aged.?
Could be because the vast majority of drivers ARE middle aged.
Quote from: TurboDan on July 10, 2007, 10:22:41 AM
But did he?? Nowhere in the article did it say he was speeding, drinking, talking on a phone, or doing anything else wrong.? For all we know, his brakes could have gone out or something.? Why is "he to blame?"? Where is your evidence to blame him?
Single car accident; straight four lane road; 4.15am; young male driver?
Context and experience tells me that it's
at least a 99% chance that he was doing at least one of those things (or something of that ilk).
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10057.msg501908#msg501908 date=1184078613
The vast majority of the times someone has caused me to take evasive actions, the driver of the other car was middle aged.?
Must bge a regional thing. The vast majority of the time that I have to take evasive actions its because of a) some kid who can't drive, or b) some twat on a cell phone.
UPDATE: It appears there wasn't alcohol or drugs involved.
2 young drivers killed in accidents
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 07/10/07
BY KATHLEEN HOPKINS
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
Post Comment
Authorities are seeking witnesses to two early morning fatal, one-car, accidents Monday in Ocean County.
Jonathan Barna, 22, of Waters Edge Drive, Toms River, was pronounced dead at the scene of a crash about 4:15 a.m. on Fischer Boulevard in Toms River, said Toms River Police Chief Michael G. Mastronardy.
About 5:25 a.m., a car driven by Lynn M. Manna, 21, of Berkeley's Bayville section, crashed into several trees after leaving the southbound lanes of the Garden State Parkway in Stafford, killing her, New Jersey State Police said.
Speed was "most likely" a factor in the Parkway accident, based on the amount of damage to Manna's car, said Sgt. Andrew Randik of the Bass River station of the State Police.
It appeared both victims were wearing their seat belts, authorities said.
Autopsies revealed both victims died as a result of multiple injuries, said Capt. Jeff Harper of the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office.
There were no passengers in either car, police said.
Police said they've not heard from witnesses to either crash.
"We don't believe at that time in the morning, there were any (witnesses)," Mastronardy said of the Toms River accident.
"We have no witnesses," Randik said of the Parkway crash. "There's nobody to talk to about it."
Mastronardy said police believe Barna was on his way home from Seaside Heights when his 2001 Nissan left the northbound lanes of Fischer Boulevard near the Yellow Bank Road intersection and struck a tree and a utility pole, Mastronardy said.
There were some, although not many, skid marks in the road, the chief said.
Mastronardy could not say whether speed was a factor in the crash, saying that is part of the investigation.
The East Dover and Silverton fire companies had to extricate Barna from the wrecked car, Mastronardy said.
Traffic was detoured from the northbound lanes of Fischer Boulevard until 6:30 a.m.
There was no traffic backup or lane closures in the southbound lanes of the parkway in Stafford, where Manna's 1997 Honda Accord left the road at milepost 64.6, according to State Police. Her car struck the trees on the driver's side door, he said.
Manna was last seen the night before at the Sloop Creek Drive home where she lives with her mother, Randik said. Police believe Manna was traveling from her home when she was killed, but they do not know where she was going, he said.
"She was seen there (at home) at night and left there some time during the night or in the morning," Randik said. "Our guys went up there to talk to the family. We're looking into friends who may know something."
Authorities had no indication that either driver was impaired by drugs or alcohol, but in both cases that is part of the ongoing investigations.
Anyone who witnessed the Parkway accident in Stafford is asked to call Trooper Adam Tighe at (609) 296-0503.
Anyone who witnessed the accident in Toms River is asked to call the police Traffic Safety Bureau at (732) 349-0150.
CARE TO COMMENT? Visit our Web site, www.app.com, and click on this story to join in the online conversation about this topic in Story Chat.
Kathleen Hopkins: (732) 557-5732 or khopkins@app.com
And give me a break.? The kid could have been working some odd hours at a Walmart or gas station and just driving home and fell asleep.? An animal could have ran out in front of him and he lost it taking evasive action.? Another driver might have accidently caused him to run off of the road.
Would any of you like to have everybody automatically assume that you were drunk, high on drugs driving recklessly or whatever everytime you had an accident?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 10, 2007, 10:43:43 AM
Single car accident; straight four lane road; 4.15am; young male driver?
Context and experience tells me that it's at least a 99% chance that he was doing at least one of those things (or something of that ilk).
Context and experience should tell you to look first at falling asleep, the number one cause of single-car crashes, the fastest growing type in America.
Another likely possibility is suicide, not officially recognized by NHTSA as a "cause of" or "factor in" crashes, but estimated by academic types at anywhere from 4% to about 15% of all fatal crashed.
"Round up the usual suspects. . ."
The almost universal response of the safety cabal (fostered by the woefuly ignorant public) is to lower the speed limits or the allowable BAC, which of course arises from their institutional behavior rather than from the reasoned address to solving a problem.
Quote from: Tave on July 10, 2007, 10:27:31 AM
Could be because the vast majority of drivers ARE middle aged.
Yeah, but in, say, high school, you're around a lot of kids, and you leave around the same time. Still, it's mostly adults.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 10, 2007, 10:43:43 AM
Single car accident; straight four lane road; 4.15am; young male driver?
Context and experience tells me that it's at least a 99% chance that he was doing at least one of those things (or something of that ilk).
Quote from: James Young on July 10, 2007, 11:18:47 AM
Context and experience should tell you to look first at falling asleep, the number one cause of single-car crashes, the fastest growing type in America.
Another likely possibility is suicide, not officially recognized by NHTSA as a "cause of" or "factor in" crashes, but estimated by academic types at anywhere from 4% to about 15% of all fatal crashed.? ?
"Round up the usual suspects. . ."
The almost universal response of the safety cabal (fostered by the woefuly ignorant public) is to lower the speed limits or the allowable BAC, which of course arises from their institutional behavior rather than from the reasoned address to solving a problem.
Perhaps, sure.
IMO however, falling asleep is "something of that ilk."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 09, 2007, 11:49:19 PM
No it doesn't make any sense: the kid was obviously ignoring the speed limit, and it wouldn't matter to him if it was 45 or 70 or 25: He was completely ignoring it.
This reminds me of everytime some drunk kills somebody on the road; Despite the fact the guy's BAC was already 2 or 3 times the legal limit, somebody will always suggest lowering the limit.
Exactly right. Sometimes, people actually are responsible for what they do, and this prooves it. It also is a good case for speed enforcement, and DUI enforcement.
Sometimes police, engineers, and other government officials can do their job exactly right and perfectly and still have people doing stupid things and die. If this guy were on the plaines of Africa I would call him Lion food.
Quote from: Champ on July 09, 2007, 11:33:37 PM
B) first page was riddled with: 22 year old crashed, I'm SURE drugs / alcohol / cell phone was involved.? These people just IMMEDIATELY spit out oh he was probably high on meth and heroine, while taking shots of jag, texting on his phone and jerkin off.? Because every 22 year old drives like that.
Well there has to be a reason 18-25 year old males have the highest insurance premiums. The majority of times one of these factors will play into account.
Quote from: hounddog on July 10, 2007, 04:19:08 PM
Well there has to be a reason 18-25 year old males have the highest insurance premiums. The majority of times one of these factors will play into account.
I'm not saying it did or didn't, I just thought it was silly that so many people immediately jumped to the conclusion of him being totally wasted and going very fast. Nothing was even published. What happened to innocent until proven guilty!?!?
Quote from: Champ on July 10, 2007, 05:46:38 PM
I'm not saying it did or didn't, I just thought it was silly that so many people immediately jumped to the conclusion of him being totally wasted and going very fast.? Nothing was even published.? What happened to innocent until proven guilty!?!?
That applies to a court of law. The public at large has a funny way of deciding that for themselves.
houndog writes:
QuoteExactly right. Sometimes, people actually are responsible for what they do, and this prooves it. It also is a good case for speed enforcement, and DUI enforcement.
That?s absurd. We don?t know enough about the incident yet to render useful judgments, yet that seems to be insufficient to keep the yokels in NJ from offering up conclusions, judgments and condemnation for something about which they know nothing.
Far from being a good case for speed enforcement and DUI enforcement, it should act as a yellow flag that tells us to use our heads and our science to ascertain facts before we formulate and test a hypothesis, much less apply a ?remedy? to it. If one of the two most likely causes ? falling asleep and suicide -- actually obtains, neither one of those could possibly be mitigated by speed or DUI enforcement.
There is no correlation between the intensity and/or type of enforcement and changes in the key safety measures. Without correlation, there can be no causation. Without causation, you can change enforcement up, down or sideways but it cannot and therefore
will not affect the public safety. Continuing to perform the same actions over and over, hoping for a different outcome is a classic definition of insanity. Traffic engineering and enforcement are no exceptions.
Speed limits are not benign creatures without costs. Lowering speed limits to below what people actually drive yields no safety results but does lower respect for all other laws and those who enforce them.
We must get past the ignorant, institutionally-driven insistence that consistently results in rendering all of us just a little more dystopian.
UPDATE #2:
A couple more articles have come out since the other day. Turns out the kid had not been drinking, and he was driving home late because he worked as a waiter at a Bar & Grill on the boardwalk, which doesn't close until late at night.
Hmm... I bet I could sell a few "jump to conclusions" matts up there.. :)
Bullshit. He was young, therefore he was snorting coke, smoking weed, and doing jello shots on the way home from having unprotected premarital sex with multiple partners, some of them of the same sex.
Quote from: Raza on July 11, 2007, 09:48:26 AM
Bullshit. He was young, therefore he was snorting coke, smoking weed, and doing jello shots on the way home from having unprotected premarital sex with multiple partners, some of them of the same sex.
And probably different species too.
Quote from: Champ on July 11, 2007, 11:40:34 AM
And probably different species too.
Those kids and their beastiality. I'll never get it...
It's amazing to see what the general public says about crashes such as these (and they're not "accidents, in my view, as "accidents" implies nothing can be done to prevent them).
We've had 8 teenagers die in a one-month span. Five of them you probably have heard of - the 5 cheerleaders who crashed head-on into a tractor-trailer here in NY. They made CNN, and even got a spot in People. Conversely, the other three were in similar circumstances - rolled a car in a single-car crash late at night. Since they weren't freshly-graduated cheerleaders (just juniors after their prom), and it was a single-car crash (e.g. some misbehahvior - drugs, speeding, etc - must have happened) they got MUCH less press.
So I definitely think there's a stereotype out there as to who crashes and why.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 10, 2007, 10:43:43 AM
Single car accident; straight four lane road; 4.15am; young male driver?
Context and experience tells me that it's at least a 99% chance that he was doing at least one of those things (or something of that ilk).
Or he might have been on his way home from a 12-18 hour shift at work? But of course your answer to that is 'well he should have got a better job then'
*EDIT* I didn't even see Dan's post about the follow up when I made this one... so much for your 99% theory
Your theories are all wrong. What actually happened was some extra terrestral beings beamed up his car to their flying saucer, and when they were done probing, they beamed him down with the car still running, but he was not yet coherent enough to drive it, therefore causing it to fly of the road.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: NACar on July 18, 2007, 09:53:27 AM
Your theories are all wrong. What actually happened was some extra terrestral beings beamed up his car to their flying saucer, and when they were done probing, they beamed him down with the car still running, but he was not yet coherent enough to drive it, therefore causing it to fly of the road.
:rolleyes:
I heard the same thing.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on July 18, 2007, 09:43:44 AM
Or he might have been on his way home from a 12-18 hour shift at work? But of course your answer to that is 'well he should have got a better job then'
*EDIT* I didn't even see Dan's post about the follow up when I made this one... so much for your 99% theory
Per said update My 99% theory is 100% correct - until someone brings it upon themselves to do further research when the accident investigation results are known (and if they're ever made public), that is.
Quote from: TurboDan on July 10, 2007, 11:11:00 AM
UPDATE: It appears there wasn't alcohol or drugs involved.
2 young drivers killed in accidents
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 07/10/07
BY KATHLEEN HOPKINS
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
Speed was "most likely" a factor in the Parkway accident, based on the amount of damage to Manna's car, said Sgt. Andrew Randik of the Bass River station of the State Police.
However, had speed not been the presently accepted cause, your premise that the driver fell asleep is little removed from street racing or DUI - and certainly falls within my 99% rule that two people killed in a single car accident is almost always at the hands of negligent, wreckless or intentional action by the driver.
Well, for 99% of all motor vehicle accidents, speed was involved... the only type that doesn't involve speed are the ones wehre you have a tree fall on a car... if it's moving, there's speed... LETS PREVENT ALL CARS FROM MOVING!!! That way there would be no accidents involving speed.. at all!!!
Quote from: traumadog on July 16, 2007, 08:39:47 AM
Five of them you probably have heard of - the 5 cheerleaders who crashed head-on into a tractor-trailer here in NY.? So I definitely think there's a stereotype out there as to who crashes and why.
Alot of young people in one car is always a bad thing. I remember in my highschool and college days we all crammed into a single car and it was an absolute zoo. People throwing things around, loud talking, random making out in the back seat or the front seat. When I was the driver I had a hard time paying attention to the road. Also we tended to do just absolutely stupid things when alot of friends got together. One of my friends decided to drive around at night with the headlights off and then flick them on at the last minute when passing an oncoming car to "scare the crap out of them." There was some statistic that said the risk triples with each additional passenger.
When I get a kid who reaches driving age, I'm ripping out all the seats except the drivers seat.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 18, 2007, 10:25:56 AM
However, had speed not been the presently accepted cause, your premise that the driver fell asleep is little removed from street racing or DUI - and certainly falls within my 99% rule that two people killed in a single car accident is almost always at the hands of negligent, wreckless or intentional action by the driver.
negligent, wreckless or intentional action
Well that covers everything, so why isn't it 100%?
Quote from: etypeJohn on July 23, 2007, 09:16:19 AM
negligent, wreckless or intentional action
Well that covers everything, so why isn't it 100%?
Oh, come now. You've got a bit of imagination left, haven't you?
http://policelink.com/news/articles/2400-falling-tree-kills-deputy-in-funeral-procession
Quote from: 565 on July 22, 2007, 11:04:44 PM
Alot of young people in one car is always a bad thing.? I remember in my highschool and college days we all crammed into a single car and it was an absolute zoo.? People throwing things around, loud talking, random making out in the back seat or the front seat.? When I was the driver I had a hard time paying attention to the road.? Also we tended to do just absolutely stupid things when alot of friends got together.? One of my friends decided to drive around at night with the headlights off and then flick them on at the last minute when passing an oncoming car to "scare the crap out of them."? There was some statistic that said the risk triples with each additional passenger.
When I get a kid who reaches driving age,? I'm ripping out all the seats except the drivers seat.?
Why are you randomly acquiring children!?
Anyway, things weren't like that in my car, but I rarely took more than two passengers.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 23, 2007, 09:40:17 AM
Oh, come now. You've got a bit of imagination left, haven't you?
http://policelink.com/news/articles/2400-falling-tree-kills-deputy-in-funeral-procession
That's quite negligent on the part of the tree. Or intentional.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 23, 2007, 09:40:17 AM
Oh, come now. You've got a bit of imagination left, haven't you?
http://policelink.com/news/articles/2400-falling-tree-kills-deputy-in-funeral-procession
I could argue that anything that was not intentional could fall into negligent or wreckless categories. That includes getting a hummer or any kind of grab ass that might be going on in the front seat. ;)
Quote from: GoCougs on July 23, 2007, 09:40:17 AM
Oh, come now. You've got a bit of imagination left, haven't you?
http://policelink.com/news/articles/2400-falling-tree-kills-deputy-in-funeral-procession
Quote from: etypeJohn on July 23, 2007, 10:58:50 AM
I could argue that anything that was not intentional could fall into negligent or wreckless categories.? That includes getting a hummer or any kind of grab ass that might be going on in the front seat.? ?;)
<crickets>