92 yr old woman kills woman on motorcycle

[eddiekay]

Shavelleva is right about voting getting her off the road today. But, based only on what we read, there is no reason to take her off the road.
Go back and read both press accounts of the event please.
The accident happened on May 19
It was classified as a sideswipe meeting...avoidable by either party regardless of who initiated it.
Hunter, the LICENSED operator avoided the car by driving off the road.
Leidholt the UNLICENSED operator either sideswiped or was sideswiped by the car.
HIS injuries kept him in the hospital for about 17 days and he was released.
His wife died of internal injuries within hours of the event.
There was no evidence of excessive speed nor of drinkin' or drugs.
There IS evidence that 2 violations occurred...crossing the center line and operating bike vehicle without a license.
The only violation that can be proven to be intentional, then aggrivated is Leidholt;s operating the bike with no license.
Look...we all assume that this woman is some kind of menace behind the wheel just because she's old...I can undertand that and agree with it to a small extent because older drivers tend to drive real slow.. But be just as honest about the biker...this guy didn't just get on the bike for the first time, unlicensed, that night. He may have been riding around for years with no paper and tell the truth, an 80's HD is far from a vehicle suited to evasive maneuvers. this is for sure...if he had obeyed the law that night...there would have been no fatality. If this event happened in NY...Leidholt would be in jail ( thank god NY lawyers don't live out west) We had a guy, about 3 weeks ago...riding too fast ( count 1) running from the cops ( count 2) crashed the bike and his wife died ( count 3) He's on trial for some variance of murder or homicide.
It, both of them, were accidents

[dimeified]

What the hell is wrong with everyone here? The woman is 92 years old and her time is up. Of course her actions ruined the lives of the victims, but her actions were not intentional, and she has to live her last remaining days knowing that she caused this. Normally i'd be one to flame this broad and condem her to death, but what good will it do to convict a 92 year old woman who is counting her last days? She isn't a criminal, she made a mistake and ruined a newly wed's lives. How do you think that makes her feel? No criminal conviction could feel worse than her own.

[Alex]

Bill -

IMO it doesn't matter what happens to the woman at this point from a criminal perspective. For all the points you and others have raised, I agree. I think the more relevant debate is what happened (i.e. what failed) that allowed this tragedy to happen. She shouldn't have been on the road, she should have immediately had her license pulled (rather than a $20 ticket), and her estate should be used to compensate the family whose lives she ruined.

[dimeified]

i may have come off a little rude last night. my apologies. but yea alex i agree with you and travis that the real problem here is how she even had a licence, and that it should be pulled immediately. criminal convictions would be pointless. i also agree about her estate being used to compensate the family members. im also upset to see that one of the riders was unlicensed. perhaps if he had been, the situation would be less grim.

[CC Cowboy]

I wonder if she was texting?

[eddiekay]

If she was texting, what would her last message have been ?
**Oops**

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by eddiekay

If she was texting, what would her last message have been ?
**Oops**

Last message to Mable, " won twice today, once at the casino, then not getting thrown in jail. It's been a lucky day".

[backinthesaddleagain]

We were just talking about my grandmother getting stopped for speeding last week. She is 90 and was going 47 in a 25 (downhill section of road) where many get stopped. She also had no seat belt on (a violation in RI). She hadn't been stopped in decades. The officer spoke with her, and let her go with no infractions. She said he was nice.

At the moment I think she is safe on the roads, but at her age you really have to monitor it closely.

[sb71]

Originally Posted by bob706

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttt??????????

About 2 yrs ago, my father in law was riding his bicycle on a busy road. He had come up to an "on ramp" of sorts where a woman was trying to merge onto the road my FIN was on. (Please note that there is a clear view of the traffic of the road you are merging onto from the on ramp). It is not clear as to whether the woman did not see him(?) or thought that she had the right of way, or even that she could beat him. Either way, she hit him, he slipped into a coma by the time he reached the hospital and died.
The woman was not charged. She did not loose her DL. There is nothing on her driving record as a result. The only thing that changed for her is that I hope her insurance went up.
Now, I am not out for blood. While I DO NOT feel that this was an "accident", I don't feel she needs jail time. I think she should have lost her DL for at least a year and had this on her record.
I do hope that she thinks about this every day of her life. Over time, she may be able to convince herself that is was just an accident and be able to forget. But we can't.
Driving is not a right! I don't think you should get your DL just because you turn 16 and I don't think you should keep it just because you have been driving since the dawn of time.
In my situation and that of the 92 y/o woman things should have been done differently. Both in the events that lead up to the accident and those that took place afterward.
I also think that in order to get your DL you need to pass a class on how to drive with motorcycles/bicycles. Car drivers need to be taught to look for us and how to SEE us. I do feel strongly that age is a factor in driving. Just as kids are too young, you can be too old!

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by sb71

I do feel strongly that age is a factor in driving. Just as kids are too young, you can be too old!

Ability is another factor. Some people don't have it (mentally or physically). There are people who are just too stupid also (think Hollywood).

[WOWNinja]

ok my friends Civic Mugen was totalled because it was hit by an elderly woman... what's her excuse??? "i though he was turning the otherway"... now she reads my friends mind...

92YO should not be driving at all most of these people are under medications/drugs. i know that because i work in a nursing home facility.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by eddiekay

Shavelleva is right about voting getting her off the road today. But, based only on what we read, there is no reason to take her off the road.
Go back and read both press accounts of the event please.
The accident happened on May 19
It was classified as a sideswipe meeting...avoidable by either party regardless of who initiated it.
Hunter, the LICENSED operator avoided the car by driving off the road.
Leidholt the UNLICENSED operator either sideswiped or was sideswiped by the car.
HIS injuries kept him in the hospital for about 17 days and he was released.
His wife died of internal injuries within hours of the event.
There was no evidence of excessive speed nor of drinkin' or drugs.
There IS evidence that 2 violations occurred...crossing the center line and operating bike vehicle without a license.
The only violation that can be proven to be intentional, then aggrivated is Leidholt;s operating the bike with no license.
Look...we all assume that this woman is some kind of menace behind the wheel just because she's old...I can undertand that and agree with it to a small extent because older drivers tend to drive real slow.. But be just as honest about the biker...this guy didn't just get on the bike for the first time, unlicensed, that night. He may have been riding around for years with no paper and tell the truth, an 80's HD is far from a vehicle suited to evasive maneuvers. this is for sure...if he had obeyed the law that night...there would have been no fatality. If this event happened in NY...Leidholt would be in jail ( thank god NY lawyers don't live out west) We had a guy, about 3 weeks ago...riding too fast ( count 1) running from the cops ( count 2) crashed the bike and his wife died ( count 3) He's on trial for some variance of murder or homicide.
It, both of them, were accidents

+1. While many here are quick to blame her crossing the line on her age, we don't know that. I have certainly been witness to many cars crossing the line with drivers under the age of 70. As I said in an earlier post, I am all in favor of testing drivers who are over a certain age. But I don't think you can just assume that every driver over a certain age is a bad driver.

Just one correction to the post I quoted: I believe the HD bike that Leidholt was riding was a 2006 model. The other guy had the 80s Harley.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

I disagree. It is absolutely more their fault. We are the ones who are closest to our own family, and the most likely to have an ability to effect change. It's hard dealing with elderly parents or grandparents, but if you don't step in, who will? Is it too late when they've already killed other people on the road? Yup.

The AARP has some links on how to deal with drivers who should no longer be on the road:



Here's another decent resource on Senior Driving on the California DMV site: link

They make it clear here of the ways that a Re-examination can be triggered, and one of them is simply a letter from a concerned family member.

I disagreed with you about the family because there was no evidence that the family had any idea that this accident was going to happen. There is also no evidence to say that prior to the crash, she was identified as a poor driver. If a family suspects someone is a poor driver for whatever reason, I support them doing what they can to stop the person from driving. But even if this were the case, the family is not to blame if they were unable to stop the woman from driving.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

If a family suspects someone is a poor driver for whatever reason, I support them doing what they can to stop the person from driving. But even if this were the case, the family is not to blame if they were unable to stop the woman from driving.

I dunno, we may agree more than we disagree, but on this point I think that if it were the case (they knew she couldn't drive for crap, and tried to get her to stop but she wouldn't), the family should consider themselves partly to blame for not staying firm and following things through. Giving it the old college try isn't good enough, is the unsafe driver still on the roads or not?

There's no evidence that that was the case in this situation, but it very well may be the case in many other situations.

[backinthesaddleagain]

Former governor of RI was forever getting into traffic incidents such as hitting pedestrians in crosswalks or parked cars, passing stopped school busses and yelling at the other parties. Under advice of friends and family (and newspaper coverage) he surrendered his license. BTW he was an avid biker and pilot at one point.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/su...3.37886ab.html

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Alex

I dunno, we may agree more than we disagree, but on this point I think that if it were the case (they knew she couldn't drive for crap, and tried to get her to stop but she wouldn't), the family should consider themselves partly to blame for not staying firm and following things through. Giving it the old college try isn't good enough, is the unsafe driver still on the roads or not?

There's no evidence that that was the case in this situation, but it very well may be the case in many other situations.

No evidence yet, but I'm sure the discovery process for the civil trial will bring much to light. If it turns out that her driving was impaired for any reason, such as age or other issues, and it can proven to a majority of a civil jury that she could have been aware of that, then she's done for. The main issue after that will be stripping her of her assets, and going after anyone that she may have transferred assets to in order to avoid paying up on the settlement.

I'd love to be a fly on that courtroom wall...

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

No evidence yet, but I'm sure the discovery process for the civil trial will bring much to light. If it turns out that her driving was impaired for any reason, such as age or other issues, and it can proven to a majority of a civil jury that she could have been aware of that, then she's done for. The main issue after that will be stripping her of her assets, and going after anyone that she may have transferred assets to in order to avoid paying up on the settlement.

I'd love to be a fly on that courtroom wall...

Not so sure it would be that cut and dry. It would depend on what she knew about herself. Most people who are still driving and shouldn't be do not believe they are a danger, or that their driving is impaired.

[shavelieva]

Originally Posted by Alex

I dunno, we may agree more than we disagree, but on this point I think that if it were the case (they knew she couldn't drive for crap, and tried to get her to stop but she wouldn't), the family should consider themselves partly to blame for not staying firm and following things through. Giving it the old college try isn't good enough, is the unsafe driver still on the roads or not?

There's no evidence that that was the case in this situation, but it very well may be the case in many other situations.

agreed in whole, however its not the family's responsibility. She's definitely mature enough to make her own decisions. This wasn't a case of a 16yr old side swiping a couple of bikes. Then at that point the family should be held responsible.

[kkim]

Families of the elderly (or anyone driving for that matter) have a moral obligation to get them off the streets if the families have determined they are a hazard. It is indeed their moral responsibility to help preserve the safety of other motorists if they feel their loved ones prove to be a menace on the roads.

The AARP recognizes the difficult task in getting senior citizens to surrender their licenses when it's time and helps it's members families with suggestions on how to accomplish this. This is a big problem and is difficult to deal with for many families, mine included.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but many of you view this as an age problem by assumption.

it's sad to see a fellow cyclist lose his life in this, but making assumptions based on race, sex, age, religion, etc. is the very definition of bigotry.

bigotry n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

After saying all of this, it does sound she should have been dealt with more fairly and received a harsher citation/reprimand/sentence. Does she possibly have connections higher up? Someones grandmother, perhaps?

[sb71]

[QUOTE=eddiekay;181505]Shavelleva is right about voting getting her off the road today. But, based only on what we read, there is no reason to take her off the road.
Go back and read both press accounts of the event please.
The accident happened on May 19
It was classified as a sideswipe meeting...avoidable by either party regardless of who initiated it.
Hunter, the LICENSED operator avoided the car by driving off the road.
Leidholt the UNLICENSED operator either sideswiped or was sideswiped by the car.


Eddie,
Where did you read that HUNTER avoided the car? In the Grand Forks release it states that..
"According to the patrol, the Oldsmobile struck a 1980 Harley-Davidson driven by Jason Hunter, 33, then continued south and hit a 2006 Harley-Davidson, carrying driver James Leidholt, 37, and his passenger, Sheri"...?
While I agree that LEIDHOLT did not have a license, why do you question that he may have sideswiped her?
This indicates to me that she hit one rider and did not have the natural instinct to get back in her lane before she hit the second. OR that she was too far over to recover to her lane.

Originally Posted by shavelieva

agreed in whole, however its not the family's responsibility. She's definitely mature enough to make her own decisions. This wasn't a case of a 16yr old side swiping a couple of bikes. Then at that point the family should be held responsible.

I see your point, however, I respectfully disagree. I am not sure that I see a difference. She does have life experience on her side, but since when does age dictate ABILITY to make correct decisions when driving?
What I mean is that your comment says to me that if the driver was 16, you would expect lesser driving skills. You would hold the parents accountable.
However, do you assume that extreme age also indicates extreme driving ability? Would you step in if your mother killed 2 people?

[demp]

The thing bothering me here, her insurance probably costs her next to nothing, yet she's clearly one of the more dangerous ones out there.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by demp

The thing bothering me here, her insurance probably costs her next to nothing, yet she's clearly one of the more dangerous ones out there.

Considering she was involved in an accident which took someone's life, I really doubt she will be able to get a good insurance rate. If you're talking about her insurance costs prior to the accident, we have no idea if she was "clearly" dangerous on the road.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by sb71

I see your point, however, I respectfully disagree. I am not sure that I see a difference. She does have life experience on her side, but since when does age dictate ABILITY to make correct decisions when driving?
What I mean is that your comment says to me that if the driver was 16, you would expect lesser driving skills. You would hold the parents accountable.
However, do you assume that extreme age also indicates extreme driving ability? Would you step in if your mother killed 2 people?

I think his point was that a parent is still legally responsible for a 16 year old. Her family is not legally responsible for her (92 year old woman).

And just as age does not dictate one's ability to make correct driving decisions, it also does not dictate one's ability to drive. I agree, that if her family knew she was a poor driver, they should have done what they could to keep her off the road. But what we don't know is if her family had any evidence to suggest she was a bad driver. Or if her family had tried and failed to get her off the street.

I think before anyone can start pointing fingers at the family, they need a lot more information. Otherwise, we could be pointing our finger at the Leidholt family, holding them responsible for allowing James to operate a motorcycle that he was clearly not qualified to operate.

[cifex]

I agree that beyond 65, coordination and driving skills tests should be performed more often. The fact is, however that older drivers are not nearly as dangerous as those in the 16-24 bracket. Not even half as dangerous...

[kkim]

Originally Posted by cifex

I agree that beyond 65, coordination and driving skills tests should be performed more often. The fact is, however that older drivers are not nearly as dangerous as those in the 16-24 bracket. Not even half as dangerous...

I agree with this 100% and have always felt there should be a driving skills test given to ALL drivers, no matter their age, when their license renewal comes up.

[CZroe]

I just wonder: Who paid more for their ticket?!

[iceman.kcmo]

Originally Posted by Guinss

Their pretty good at it where i live, you have to take medical tests and renew your license every so often(grandmother told me). If you have any conditions you get followed pretty closely(no matter what age). Despite this there are some incidents where drivers comes down the exit ramp on the highway(wrong way), that clearly should not be driving. The signs are HUGE that your going the wrong way, their still managing somehow to drive down there. Ends bad.

That is exactly what they need here!

Think about it for a second.

How many deaths are there a year from Flying? Those guys go through one hell of a medical exam. Yet you just need to take ONE driving test here and you are good for life??? I am pushing the Bull $H!T button!

[BlueTyke]

I would have to say that if I felt any of the older people I cared about in my life did not show an aptitude for driving in a safe way I would do EVERYTHING in my power to stop them. Why? If not for the safety of others... for the safety of them.

My Grandmother was 89 years old. Quick as a wick, had the reflexes of a cat.. She square danced, she played her bingo, traveled all over the place, she loved to camp, and all other manner of things. That didn't stop the 20 something year old, drunk mind you, from taking her out her. Killing her while he survived.

I don't favor one age or another. I believe my Grandmother would still have been an excellent driver at 92 or 105 but I won't ever know that... With that in mind I think it should be applied to EVERYONE. Every five-eight years go and take the test again.

And for the record, at least in CA, any time you add a new class to your license you have to take the written test for ALL classes of your license. I believe it is the same in most state. It is not the physical driving test but it is a test.

I wish those who lost their loved ones the best in coping with this loss. Married four days, they were propbably on their honeymoon which makes it even more tradgic.

I do have to wonder though.. If she wasn't under the influence of anything (Drugs/Alcohol) and she sideswiped these bikes... Why did she cross the center line? Did she fall asleep? I guess we won't know but, I believe her driving skills should be tested and determined if she should still have a license, as it should for anyone in this situation where a life had been taken... If anything else to assure that the accident won't happen again.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by BlueTyke

I would have to say that if I felt any of the older people I cared about in my life did not show an aptitude for driving in a safe way I would do EVERYTHING in my power to stop them. Why? If not for the safety of others... for the safety of them.

My Grandmother was 89 years old. Quick as a wick, had the reflexes of a cat.. She square danced, she played her bingo, traveled all over the place, she loved to camp, and all other manner of things. That didn't stop the 20 something year old, drunk mind you, from taking her out her. Killing her while he survived.

I don't favor one age or another. I believe my Grandmother would still have been an excellent driver at 92 or 105 but I won't ever know that... With that in mind I think it should be applied to EVERYONE. Every five-eight years go and take the test again.

And for the record, at least in CA, any time you add a new class to your license you have to take the written test for ALL classes of your license. I believe it is the same in most state. It is not the physical driving test but it is a test.

I wish those who lost their loved ones the best in coping with this loss. Married four days, they were propbably on their honeymoon which makes it even more tradgic.

I do have to wonder though.. If she wasn't under the influence of anything (Drugs/Alcohol) and she sideswiped these bikes... Why did she cross the center line? Did she fall asleep? I guess we won't know but, I believe her driving skills should be tested and determined if she should still have a license, as it should for anyone in this situation where a life had been taken... If anything else to assure that the accident won't happen again.

Sorry to hear about the way you lost your grandmother. It is a shame and a tragedy.

My father is 89 years old and still drives. He has great vision and is still a good driver. He lives in a different state than I do, but when I visit him once a year, I do make him take me somewhere to specifically judge his abilities. So as far as I can tell, he is fine when it comes to driving.

The thing is, no matter how good of a driver you are, you can get distracted for various reasons which can lead to someone crossing the center line. Most of the time, this probably won't lead to an accident. But every now and then, it could. No matter how old you are, or how well you drive.

Unfortunately, when someone over a certain age is involved, the assumption will automatically be that this person should not have been driving. So are we saying that everyone who has ever strayed over the center line and sideswiped an oncoming vehicle should not be driving? Even if they were a perfect driver before, is their family still to blame for allowing this person to drive?

If someone, anyone, is a dangerous driver, then I do think the family should do whatever they can to take them off the road. But I do think the States should come up with a better way of ensuring that people retain the skills needed to drive. So I agree with mandatory testing on a regular basis. But then, could someone pass the test and still be a bad driver?

[patw]

Originally Posted by kkim

I agree with this 100% and have always felt there should be a driving skills test given to ALL drivers, no matter their age, when their license renewal comes up.

Maybe it should also get progressively more difficult as well, under the assumption that as you get more experience, you should be getting better at the skill... Until eventually, 65 year olds are taken to a track and have to beat pre-determined lap times... at 80 you're in a rally car...

I like this vision of the future

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by revstriker

The thing is, no matter how good of a driver you are, you can get distracted for various reasons which can lead to someone crossing the center line. Most of the time, this probably won't lead to an accident. But every now and then, it could. No matter how old you are, or how well you drive.

There are certain times while driving when being distracted to the point of losing control of your vehicle is unacceptable under any circumstances. By losing control, what I mean is that the vehicle does something that you didn't want it to do, such as cross a centerline, etc. Failure to control a vehicle is just that, failure to control a vehicle. In my thirty years of driving I have never unintentionally crossed a centerline or run a light, or broken other driving laws. It's what's expected of me as a member of the driving public, and it's a responsibility I take seriously. At some point in the future I may become unable to meet the responsibilities of being a driver and at that point I will cease driving. I make it a point to be very aware of how I drive so that I won't be able to miss a loss of driving ability.

I still believe it's highly probable that the 92 year old woman's reason for crossing the centerline was a loss of control of her vehicle due to age-related inattentiveness or loss of focus. I also believe that the $20 fine sends a message to some that the financial consequences of inattentive driving aren't really all that bad.

[tinng321]

people this old shouldn't be on the road in the first place.
they should be home reading to their grand-grand children.

[capt_bugaloo]

Originally Posted by cifex

I agree that beyond 65, coordination and driving skills tests should be performed more often. The fact is, however that older drivers are not nearly as dangerous as those in the 16-24 bracket.

I see plenty of poor driving skills across the board: elderly, young, and the folks in between!
A basic written test or skills test every few years for all drivers doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. Pilots have to get exams and constant training to keep their licences; why should car drivers be any different?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

There are certain times while driving when being distracted to the point of losing control of your vehicle is unacceptable under any circumstances. By losing control, what I mean is that the vehicle does something that you didn't want it to do, such as cross a centerline, etc. Failure to control a vehicle is just that, failure to control a vehicle. In my thirty years of driving I have never unintentionally crossed a centerline or run a light, or broken other driving laws. It's what's expected of me as a member of the driving public, and it's a responsibility I take seriously. At some point in the future I may become unable to meet the responsibilities of being a driver and at that point I will cease driving. I make it a point to be very aware of how I drive so that I won't be able to miss a loss of driving ability.

If what you say is true, then you are in a minority of drivers. Certainly most people, at one time or another, have been distracted while driving. Not always to the point where it causes an accident, but distracted none the less. As a motorcycle rider, I have lost count on the number of cars which have cut me off because they were distracted and did not see me. Most of these drivers were well under 92.

I still believe it's highly probable that the 92 year old woman's reason for crossing the centerline was a loss of control of her vehicle due to age-related inattentiveness or loss of focus. I also believe that the $20 fine sends a message to some that the financial consequences of inattentive driving aren't really all that bad.

This all depends on how you define losing control of her vehicle. She may have been in perfect control of her vehicle and just didn't realize that her left tire had crossed over the center line. The assumption you are making is based completely on her age. However, there are no facts that her age had anything to do with this. In fact, the police who did investigate the incident did not come to this conclusion either.

While you may be correct (I don't know), I find myself trusting the police in this case.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by capt_bugaloo

I see plenty of poor driving skills across the board: elderly, young, and the folks in between!
A basic written test or skills test every few years for all drivers doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. Pilots have to get exams and constant training to keep their licences; why should car drivers be any different?

I would be all for some kind of a skill test and vision test for all drivers. At least every 4 years. But to be honest, I don't think this is really going to solve a lot. There will still be drivers on the road who shouldn't be there.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by revstriker

This all depends on how you define losing control of her vehicle. She may have been in perfect control of her vehicle and just didn't realize that her left tire had crossed over the center line.

The definition I used was the vehicle doing something that she didn't intend it to do. In other words, either she deliberately crossed the centerline, or, she failed to control her vehicle such that it crossed the centerline without her wanting it to. I'm going to assume she didn't want to get into a head-on collision, so therefor the latter scenario applies. The only other scenario that could possibly apply would be a mechanical failure in the car's steering or suspension. No mention of that was made, so that's a dead end.

It is certain that the car crossed the centerline. It is certain that there was no mechanical defect to cause that. It is certain that she didn't deliberately cross the centerline. Therefor, without a doubt, she was not in control of the car at that moment. It's one of those on or off things, there's not really any gray in between. Kind of like being sorta pregnant, you either are, or aren't.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

The definition I used was the vehicle doing something that she didn't intend it to do. In other words, either she deliberately crossed the centerline, or, she failed to control her vehicle such that it crossed the centerline without her wanting it to. I'm going to assume she didn't want to get into a head-on collision, so therefor the latter scenario applies. The only other scenario that could possibly apply would be a mechanical failure in the car's steering or suspension. No mention of that was made, so that's a dead end.

It is certain that the car crossed the centerline. It is certain that there was no mechanical defect to cause that. It is certain that she didn't deliberately cross the centerline. Therefor, without a doubt, she was not in control of the car at that moment. It's one of those on or off things, there's not really any gray in between. Kind of like being sorta pregnant, you either are, or aren't.

That is fine, but I disagree with your definition. Using it, we could say that every time a car or a truck starts to drift into your lane, or every time someone backing a car in a parking lot hits something, the person lost control of the car. I would define it as someone losing the physical ability to control a vehicle. The police would most likely define an incident where someone inadvertently crosses the center line as a failure to control the vehicle. My point is that everyone has at one time or another, inadvertently drifted over lane marker, center line, or even hit the curb while trying to park their car. All of these are a failure to control the vehicle.

I'll also point out that she did not get into a head on collision. The accident as I understand it was a side swipe. And when you say it is certain that the "car crossed the centerline" we're talking about the tires of the car and not the entire car.

[Alex]

I don't know why one would try to equivocate or rationalize what happened as anything other than a complete failure of the driver and anyone close to her who knew this was a reasonable possibility. Does it matter if the whole car was entirely over the center line or only a part? Does it matter if it was a sideswipe or a head-on collision? The woman killed two motorcyclists by her own inability to control a vehicle. What else is there to say?

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by revstriker

That is fine, but I disagree with your definition. Using it, we could say that every time a car or a truck starts to drift into your lane, or every time someone backing a car in a parking lot hits something, the person lost control of the car. I would define it as someone losing the physical ability to control a vehicle. The police would most likely define an incident where someone inadvertently crosses the center line as a failure to control the vehicle. My point is that everyone has at one time or another, inadvertently drifted over lane marker, center line, or even hit the curb while trying to park their car. All of these are a failure to control the vehicle.

I'll also point out that she did not get into a head on collision. The accident as I understand it was a side swipe. And when you say it is certain that the "car crossed the centerline" we're talking about the tires of the car and not the entire car.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. All of the examples you posted, such as drifting into another lane, hitting a curb while parking, etc, represent a failure to control the vehicle properly. The reasons why aren't really relevant, only the results. Well, I take that back a little. If someone blacks out because of medical reasons (heart attack, stroke) while driving, the resulting loss of control of the car I wouldn't classify as negligence. Driving into a curb in a parking lot because of inattentiveness I would classify as negligence.

Oh, and unless she was driving a formula one or Indy race car with exposed wheels, the car's body was across the centerline along with the tires. And in any case, that distinction is irrelevant because all parts of the car are considered "the car" when it comes to causing an accident.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't know why one would try to equivocate or rationalize what happened as anything other than a complete failure of the driver and anyone close to her who knew this was a reasonable possibility. Does it matter if the whole car was entirely over the center line or only a part? Does it matter if it was a sideswipe or a head-on collision? The woman killed two motorcyclists by her own inability to control a vehicle. What else is there to say?

Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to excuse this lady. If she drifted over the line, then she is to blame. But when it comes to comments about "blame the family", this shows an assumption of something just because the woman was old; that she was a poor driver. We don't know this is the case, so I won't assume this. When you say that if anyone close to her "knew this was a reasonable possibility", how do you define reasonable? Do you think it's reasonable to suspect anyone who is her age is a dangerous driver?