Author Topic: I cannot say this strongly enough (Read 8052 times)

I think the law is that you are guilty of vehicular manslaughter purely by reason of being involved in an deadly accident while intoxicated. What the other person was doing is irrelevant.

Also, as an aside, the issue of red and green lights isn't as clear as people think. A green only means that you can proceed through the intersection if the intersection is clear and it is safe to do so. If someone is coming through, regardless of the colour of the lights, you're not allowed to enter the intersection. When it comes to right of way in an intersection, possession is ten tenths of the law.

ETA: Reports all seem to say that Leyritz' car hit Fredia Veitch's, which suggests that she was in the intersection first. If so, that will evaporate Leyritz' (probably irrelevant) defense about who had right of way. However, Veitch's BAL (.18) was higher than Leyritz' (.14), which will likely have an impact in the wrongful death suit filed by Veitch's family.

Also, just because Leyritz drunkenly killed someone who may have, one day, drunkenly killed someone else does not make him any less of a douche. It's not like he knew she was as drunk as him when he plowed into her car.

JaneDoe · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2008, 11:51:01 am »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 11:45:36 am

I think the law is that you are guilty of vehicular manslaughter purely by reason of being involved in an deadly accident while intoxicated. What the other person was doing is irrelevant.

Also, as an aside, the issue of red and green lights isn't as clear as people think. A green only means that you can proceed through the intersection if the intersection is clear and it is safe to do so. If someone is coming through, regardless of the colour of the lights, you're not allowed to enter the intersection. When it comes to right of way in an intersection, possession is ten tenths of the law.

I agree. I was only responding to the post by Sphinx about them trading places. Would he feel the same if he had died and she had lived? She had a committed a drunk driving offense only months earlier.

Limey · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2008, 11:56:46 am »

Quote from: JaneDoe on November 18, 2008, 11:51:01 am

I agree. I was only responding to the post by Sphinx about them trading places. Would he feel the same if he had died and she had lived? She had a committed a drunk driving offense only months earlier.

See my "ETA" above.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2008, 12:14:33 pm »

Having been spared a similar fate after having driven under the influence of something more than 2000 times by my estimates (doesn't happen anymore and hasn't for quite a while now), my heart goes out to her family despite her being probably partially at fault. Leyritz should have been much more respectful. I agree with MM's orignial feelings here. [/soapbox/we simply must have a zero tolerance of inebriated driving /soapbox]

Limey · « **Reply #12 on:** November 18, 2008, 12:44:41 pm »

This writer is more charitable towards Leyritz than I, but it seems that Leyritz was unable to manage many aspects of his life. Apparently his marriage broke up over accusations of drug and alcohol abuse, and neither parent was deemed fit to be given custody of their three kids. He'd blown much of the $11mm earned as a player and was actually getting financial assistance from baseball. Seems to me that he was a wreck looking for a place to happen.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #13 on:** November 18, 2008, 12:52:53 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 12:44:41 pm

This writer is more charitable towards Leyritz than I, but it seems that Leyritz was unable to manage many aspects of his life. Apparently his marriage broke up over accusations of drug and alcohol abuse, and neither parent was deemed fit to be given custody of their three kids. He'd blown much of the $11mm earned as a player and was actually getting financial assistance from baseball. Seems to me that he was a wreck looking for a place to happen.

He was a wreck waiting to happen, and he ain't alone in that regard, botn inside and outside of the lines.

matadorph · « **Reply #14 on:** November 18, 2008, 02:22:08 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 11:45:36 am

Also, as an aside, the issue of red and green lights isn't as clear as people think. A green only means that you can proceed through the intersection if the intersection is clear and it is safe to do so. If someone is coming through, regardless of the colour of the lights, you're not allowed to enter the intersection. When it comes to right of way in an intersection, possession is ten tenths of the law.

Link?

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #15 on:** November 18, 2008, 02:31:44 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 02:22:08 pm

Link?

Seriously? Go read your Texas Drivers manual.

STEADY GREEN LIGHT
Go if it is safe to do so. You may go straight ahead or you may turn, unless
prohibited by some other sign or signal. Watch for vehicles and pedestrians
in the intersection. Beware of careless drivers who may try to race across the
intersection to beat a red light.

http://www.onlinedmv.com/TX_drivers_manual.html

page 5-1 in case you can't find it....

eta: Having a greenlight does not free you from the obligation of using good, unimpaired judgement when operating a vehicle.

matadorph · « **Reply #16 on:** November 18, 2008, 02:43:09 pm »

Quote from: S.P. Rodriguez on November 18, 2008, 02:31:44 pm

Seriously? Go read your Texas Drivers manual.

STEADY GREEN LIGHT
Go if it is safe to do so. You may go straight ahead or you may turn, unless
prohibited by some other sign or signal. Watch for vehicles and pedestrians
in the intersection. Beware of careless drivers who may try to race across the
intersection to beat a red light.

http://www.onlinedmv.com/TX_drivers_manual.html

page 5-1 in case you can't find it....

eta: Having a greenlight does not free you from the obligation of using good, unimpaired judgement when operating a vehicle.

Where did I say having a green light frees a driver from that obligation?

The Texas Transportation Code does not say, however, that you can only proceed if it's clear and safe to do so and certainly does not suggest that possession is ten tenths of the law.

Limey · « **Reply #17 on:** November 18, 2008, 02:48:19 pm »

Quote from: S.P. Rodriguez on November 18, 2008, 02:31:44 pm

eta: Having a greenlight does not free you from the obligation of using good, unimpaired judgement when operating a vehicle.

Mrs Limey was once t-boned by some drunken* twat** who ran a red light. She told the cop that she was stopped at the light, saw her light go green, and pulled into the intersection. The cop noted in his report that her inattention was a contributory factor to the accident, which opened up the door to a ludicrous lawsuit against her by the other driver. The cop told her that she would've been ticketed for unsafe driving if there had been an independent witness. Two lessons here: always look before pulling away from the stop line, and if you forget, don't tell the cop.

* He avoided getting caught for being drunk by declining medical attention at the scene. He would later sue for endless medical bills arising from the loss. It was a suit that got so large and so ridiculous that he ended up trying to represent himself after being dropped by two attorneys, but we ended up getting the case dismissed when he was unable to comply with numerous discovery motions.

** Of course, it's hard to comply with discovery when you're in jail following your 3rd - yes, THIRD - DUI conviction.

Limey · « **Reply #18 on:** November 18, 2008, 02:53:23 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 02:43:09 pm

Where did I say having a green light frees a driver from that obligation?

The Texas Transportation Code does not say, however, that you can only proceed if it's clear and safe to do so and certainly does not suggest that possession is ten tenths of the law.

What part of "Go if it is safe to do so" do you not understand? If there's someone clearly coming through the intersection, it's not safe to proceed regardless of the lights. See also my tale above.

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #19 on:** November 18, 2008, 02:58:07 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 02:43:09 pm

Where did I say having a green light frees a driver from that obligation?

The Texas Transportation Code does not say, however, that you can only proceed if it's clear and safe to do so and certainly does not suggest that possession is ten tenths of the law.

Interesting....

your link - Section 544.007 - (b) An operator of a vehicle facing a circular green signal
may proceed straight or turn right or left unless a sign prohibits
the turn. The operator shall yield the right-of-way to other
vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully in the intersection or an
adjacent crosswalk when the signal is exhibited.

So I had to edit my initial link as it clearly omitted the portion about "proceed if safe to do so..." but the DMV driver's manual, provided by the Texas DPS clearly notes that requirement. No wonder accident liability is such a crap-shoot....

matadorph · « **Reply #20 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:00:18 pm »

Key phrase: lawfully in the intersection.

A driver who runs a red light is not lawfully in the intersection.

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #21 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:03:06 pm »

Note my revision. So much for non-conflicting guidelines/laws.

Limey · « **Reply #22 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:05:42 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 03:00:18 pm

Key phrase: lawfully in the intersection.

A driver who runs a red light is not lawfully in the intersection.

So it's ok to crash into him? What if it's a pedestrian not lawfully in the intersection...run him over?

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #23 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:06:06 pm »

Quote from: S.P. Rodriguez on November 18, 2008, 03:03:06 pm

Note my revision. So much for non-conflicting guidelines/laws.

It all comes down to who has the best lawyers. Is it safer to slam on your brakes at every green light to see if someone will run the opposing red light?

matadorph · « **Reply #24 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:06:56 pm »

Terrible story, Limey. Hopefully the S/O wasn't injured. Was the other driver given a field sobriety test?

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #25 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:10:14 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:05:42 pm

So it's ok to crash into him? What if it's a pedestrian not lawfully in the intersection...run him over?

Actually, and quite useless information.....my uncle was stopped at a red light when a drunk on a bicycle ran into the front of the car he was driving. My uncle was cited for failing to yeild the right of way to a pedestrian...(this was in California in the 1970's).

matadorph · « **Reply #26 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:12:44 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:05:42 pm

So it's ok to crash into him? What if it's a pedestrian not lawfully in the intersection...run him over?

No, but if you do, the blame gets divvied up into percentages.

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:17:52 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 03:12:44 pm

No, but if you do, the blame gets divvied up into percentages.

Oh, I used to work at a rental car office while in college. These so called adjustors are not necessarily the most ethical.

Limey · « **Reply #28 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:18:01 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 03:06:56 pm

Terrible story, Limey. Hopefully the S/O wasn't injured. Was the other driver given a field sobriety test?

Both cars were written off, but no injuries to Mrs Limey other than some cuts, bruises and a little post-traumatic stress reaction. Luckily, his car was low slung because he wasn't on the brakes (which would've dipped the nose) and he hit her Ford Probe square on the driver's side, where the floor sills took most of the force. Her car was slammed from the left lane, through the right lane and into a light pole. If the twat's car was an inch or two taller, or the impact was a little more towards the front...game over. Wrecker truck driver estimated the impact a 50+mph and, as I said, no pre-impact skid marks to be found (the fucker was on the gas at impact).

I can't stress enough, people, especially in this red light-running town: check who's coming before you set off into an intersection. If you're dead, who had the green won't matter to you any more.

Limey · « **Reply #29 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:20:11 pm »

Quote from: EasTexAstro on November 18, 2008, 03:06:06 pm

It all comes down to who has the best lawyers. Is it safer to slam on your brakes at every green light to see if someone will run the opposing red light?

You can't really help it if you're in a stream of traffic going through a junction and someone comes flying in from the side. You can help it, though, when you're at a red and it goes green. Just a quick look to make sure that anyone coming from the side is stopping or stopped is all it takes.

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #30 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:23:11 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:20:11 pm

You can't really help it if you're in a stream of traffic going through a junction and someone comes flying in from the side. You can help it, though, when you're at a red and it goes green. Just a quick look to make sure that anyone coming from the side is stopping or stopped is all it takes.

No doubt. I agree with that. When doing a nice 20-25 through downtown when the lights are all changing for you, though, I can understand not being able to see the idiot around the building, even if he does reach the intersection a split second before you do.

ETA: I'm not condoning the drunk driving thing....I hate that I have to edit to add that....

matadorph · « **Reply #31 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:25:58 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:18:01 pm

I can't stress enough, people, especially in the red light-running town: check who's coming before you set off into an intersection. If you're dead, who had the green won't matter to you any more.

Yep.

Many a night I'd scream this at dumbass drunk pedestrians in the Warehouse District who'd step right out into the middle of my lane as I was driving home from work at 2 am.

Limey · « **Reply #32 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:27:41 pm »

Quote from: EasTexAstro on November 18, 2008, 03:23:11 pm

No doubt. I agree with that. When doing a nice 20-25 through downtown when the lights are all changing for you, though, I can understand not being able to see the idiot around the building, even if he does reach the intersection a split second before you do.

Right. I'm not saying that you're always going to be in a position to do anything if "attacked" by an idiot driver. But you can save yourself some bother by keeping a watchful eye out for the fuckers.

Limey · « **Reply #33 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:28:10 pm »

Quote from: EasTexAstro on November 18, 2008, 03:23:11 pm

ETA: I'm not condoning the drunk driving thing....I hate that I have to edit to add that....

You didn't.

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #34 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:31:03 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:27:41 pm

Right. I'm not saying that you're always going to be in a position to do anything if "attacked" by an idiot driver. But you can save yourself some bother by keeping a watchful eye out for the fuckers.

Seems like there was some small town...Germany, I think....that did away with all traffic signs and signals, and they built in more roundabouts at intersections. It was "procede at your own risk". Accidents became almost non-existant.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #35 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:32:42 pm »

Quote from: S.P. Rodriguez on November 18, 2008, 02:58:07 pm

Interesting....

your link - Section 544.007 - (b) An operator of a vehicle facing a circular green signal
may proceed straight or turn right or left unless a sign prohibits
the turn. The operator shall yield the right-of-way to other
vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully in the intersection or an
adjacent crosswalk when the signal is exhibited.

So I had to edit my initial link as it clearly omitted the portion about "proceed if safe to do so..." but the DMV driver's manual, provided by the Texas DPS clearly notes that requirement. No wonder accident liability is such a crap-shoot....

Any auto insurance adjuster in Texas will tell you Texas has the most fucked up laws regarding everything vehicular.

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #36 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:33:06 pm »

Quote from: EasTexAstro on November 18, 2008, 03:31:03 pm

Seems like there was some small town...Germany, I think....that did away with all traffic signs and signals, and they built in more roundabouts at intersections. It was "procede at your own risk". Accidents became almost non-existant.

Sure, but in the U.S. those who were in such accidents would proceed to sue each other, the city for building the roundabout, the builder of the roundabout, and any passers-by for not warning them.

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #37 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:37:14 pm »

Quote from: Jacksonian on November 18, 2008, 03:32:42 pm

Any auto insurance adjuster in Texas will tell you Texas has the most fucked up laws regarding everything vehicular.

I was pulling a trailer in my truck back in 2001 on the EasTex freeway, middle lane, during rush hour traffic. A truck from Ohio sideswiped the trailer as he tried to move in behind me! They sued my insurance saying I could have avoided it by stopping and letting him in.

They did lose the case, but the fact that they even tried is disturbing to me.

Limey · « **Reply #38 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:45:36 pm »

Quote from: EasTexAstro on November 18, 2008, 03:31:03 pm

Seems like there was some small town...Germany, I think....that did away with all traffic signs and signals, and they built in more roundabouts at intersections. It was "procede at your own risk". Accidents became almost non-existant.

After nearly 15 years in the States, I still lament the lack of roundabouts whenever I pull up to a four-way stop.

ETA: FTR, not all roundabouts are created equal.

MusicMan · « **Reply #39 on:** November 18, 2008, 03:55:21 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:45:36 pm

After nearly 15 years in the States, I still lament the lack of roundabouts whenever I pull up to a four-way stop.

ETA: FTR, not all roundabouts are created equal.

I would start taking the bus.

Limey · « **Reply #40 on:** November 18, 2008, 04:03:50 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on November 18, 2008, 03:55:21 pm

I would start taking the bus.

And then there's this bad boy.

Good job everyone drives Euro fartboxes without the horsepower to go fast enough to do any damage to each other.

Lurch · « **Reply #41 on:** November 18, 2008, 04:04:32 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:45:36 pm

After nearly 15 years in the States, I still lament the lack of roundabouts whenever I pull up to a four-way stop.

ETA: FTR, not all roundabouts are created equal.

I've noticed them in several newer communities in Austin. Steiner has them as does Deer Creek in Cedar Park. Bit of a novelty, I suppose.

Lurch · « **Reply #42 on:** November 18, 2008, 04:05:44 pm »

And since we're all thinking it...

Look kids, Big Ben! Parliament!

Limey · « **Reply #43 on:** November 18, 2008, 04:15:24 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on November 18, 2008, 04:05:44 pm

And since we're all thinking it...

Look kids, Big Ben! Parliament!

YTIFY

Noe · « **Reply #44 on:** November 18, 2008, 05:22:10 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on November 18, 2008, 04:04:32 pm

I've noticed them in several newer communities in Austin. Steiner has them as does Deer Creek in Cedar Park. Bit of a novelty, I suppose.

North Austin. Hmmmmm.... 'nuff said!

Lurch · « **Reply #45 on:** November 18, 2008, 05:31:04 pm »

Quote from: Noe in Austin on November 18, 2008, 05:22:10 pm

North Austin. Hmmmmm.... 'nuff said!

They tried them in S Austin, but the locals kept parking their RVs in the middle and waiting for the race to start.

strosrays · « **Reply #46 on:** November 18, 2008, 05:42:18 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 03:00:18 pm

Key phrase: lawfully in the intersection.

A driver who runs a red light is not lawfully in the intersection.

Depends on who has a front license plate.

matadorph · « **Reply #47 on:** November 18, 2008, 06:19:58 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on November 18, 2008, 05:31:04 pm

They tried them in S Austin, but the locals kept parking their RVs in the middle and waiting for the race to start.

Nominated.

Deja Vu · « **Reply #48 on:** November 18, 2008, 06:35:14 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 06:19:58 pm

Nominated.

Seconded.

VirtualBob · « **Reply #49 on:** November 19, 2008, 04:50:19 am »

Quote from: matadorph on November 18, 2008, 03:12:44 pm

No, but if you do, the blame gets divvied up into percentages.

Actually, I think it is the pedestrian that gets divvied up into percentages.

Col. Sphinx Drummond · « **Reply #50 on:** November 19, 2008, 05:43:39 am »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 04:03:50 pm

And then there's this bad boy.

Good job everyone drives Euro fartboxes without the horsepower to go fast enough to do any damage to each other.

Looks like it would only work if everyone drove on the wrong side.

Bench · « **Reply #51 on:** November 19, 2008, 09:59:57 am »

Quote from: Limey on November 18, 2008, 03:45:36 pm

After nearly 15 years in the States, I still lament the lack of roundabouts whenever I pull up to a four-way stop.

ETA: FTR, not all roundabouts are created equal.

And then of course there is the clusterfuck of the rotary that goes around the Mecom Fountain. Just a random hodgepodge of stop and yield signs that makes absolutely no sense. Why the hell does somebody who is actually in the rotary need to yield half the time, but not the other half? Not to mention the fact that the bewildered drivers vary anywhere from 5 to 30 mph as they drift through the lanes and signs.

Limey · « **Reply #52 on:** November 19, 2008, 10:32:39 am »

Quote from: Bench on November 19, 2008, 09:59:57 am

And then of course there is the clusterfuck of the rotary that goes around the Mecom Fountain. Just a random hodgepodge of stop and yield signs that makes absolutely no sense. Why the hell does somebody who is actually in the rotary need to yield half the time, but not the other half? Not to mention the fact that the bewildered drivers vary anywhere from 5 to 30 mph as they drift through the lanes and signs.

Do you know which other country gives priority to those entering the rotary instead of those already on it? Yup, France.

MusicMan · « **Reply #53 on:** November 19, 2008, 10:33:26 am »

Quote from: Limey on November 19, 2008, 10:32:39 am

Do you know which other country gives priority to those entering the rotary instead of those already on it? Yup, France.

Yield signs are not necessary in France.

Limey · « **Reply #54 on:** November 19, 2008, 10:35:12 am »

Quote from: MusicMan on November 19, 2008, 10:33:26 am

Yield signs are not necessary in France.

Nominated.

Author Topic: I cannot say this strongly enough (Read 8052 times)

Noe

strosrays