Jump to content

Deadly Duesenberg Accident Update


Recommended Posts

I guess this means that just because you have a blood alcohol level in your blood, doesn't necessarily mean that you are the cause of a deadly accident. True, Patton shouldn't have been on the road, but it is also true that the Volvo driver should not run stop signs, either. Especially since the Volvo driver has already been ticketed for doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if that figure of 0.08 is accurate, or even at all based on fact. I believe that it is a fabrication by the defense lawyers to exonerate their client and shift all the blame onto the Duesenberg. I mean, it is very suspicious that the intoxication limit is 0.08 and the Duesenberg driver's blood alcohol was also 0.08.

But even if the driver was intoxicated, it in no way should legitize the crime of the Volvo driver.

--Scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that changes much--the Duesenberg wasn't doing anything wrong. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is zero indication that the Duesenberg driver was doing anything unsafe or driving erratically.

There is, however, strong evidence to suggest that the guy who hit the Duesenberg wasn't paying attention and has a history of running stop signs and red lights due to inattention.

My question is this: if you're driving drunk and a sober person hits and kills your wife in the passenger's seat, is it your fault for driving drunk in the first place? Or is it the sober person's fault for actually acting negligently?

We automatically assume that drunk drivers are always at fault (and before you jump all over me as an apologist, my father-in-law was killed by an uninsured drunk driver three days after he retired from his job, so I'm no fan of the practice). Many limits are so low that having just one beer with buddies and hitting the road will cause you to "blow drunk" when tested. Any of you ever driven with "just one or two" in you? You were, according to many legal definitions, legally drunk. Were you incapacitated? Were you dangerous (possibly, but not probably)? If you had been rammed by a car full of teenagers who were not paying attention, how would you feel if they got off because you were drunk?

Blaming the victim is the oldest trick in the book for deflecting blame and spinning public opinion. It's pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Impaired driving means just that. I was very nearly T-boned by a woman running a red light last week. Being sober and attentive to what was happening around me I noticed that she was approaching the stop sign at a speed which I knew would make it imposible for her to stop so I waited and let her pass by. Had I had a few too many I may not have noticed. I know from experience that some people can have a blood alcohol level of .08 and seem perfectly sober while others can be faling down drunk so the .08 is arbitrary but almost everyone would experience some level of impairment at that level. I am not saying that driving while intoxicated would have made one bit of difference in avoiding this terrible tragedy but it may have been a contributing factor had the Duesenberg driver been perfectly sober but we will never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Verigo, No need to shout! Being in the right is no consolation if you are also dead. The Volvo driver was negligent; possibly criminally so. Mr. Patton was in the right as far as the rules of the road but if alcohol was indeed involved it might well have impaired his faculties and judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole situation is tragic and I feel sorry for both families, but I am not ready to chastise the Volvo driver who unwittingly made a mistake that anyone of us could of made. On the other hand, drinking and driving is a very serious situation in which the driver is knowingly putting both himself and others in danger. Lets not forget that he drove his children in car without seatbelts with a .08 blood level. No one even mentioned this fact. I am not saying that the Volvo didn't cause the accident, because he did, but it is what happend after the collision that I question. A sober driver will react to a situation quicker and more correctly than one who is under the influence. If the Dusenberg overcompensated for the initial collision (in which the volvo was going less than 10 mpr) and turned the steering wheel too much, then that might be the cause of the roll over.

I understand what you are saying about your friend but there is basic science involved in determining the blood level of a drunk driver or not. The blood was drawn and they measrued the alcohol content to be .08. If the Duesenberg driver's weight is approximately 180 lbs or more than he would have to consume approximately 3 drinks (12oz. beer) in a hour to reach .08. Depending on an empty stomach the alcohol can metabolize quicker or slower. If he weighed more, then increase the amount of beers he needed to get to .08. I doubt a firefighter would weigh less than 180 lbs but I guess its possible. Either way, he should know his limits and not exceed those when driving. I don't understand why anyone would side with a drunk driver over a sober person...especially if you did not even see the accident.

The reason your friend seemed reasonably sober after knocking down six beers is because he has built a tolerance to the alcohol and has learned to cope with the effects. That doesn't mean that he can walk a straight line or that his judgement is all together, because it is not. He has just learned to cope with the effects of alcohol in his body to make the appearance that he is sober.

Once again, the situation is horrible but you can't just look at the Volvo driver as the only contributing factor. Don't ignore the facts...the Duesie was drinking and he was drinking more than just a little bit. By the way, this has nothing to do with a liberal town and everything to do with fully understanding every possible senerio to come up with a correct judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">your obviously blind from bias. </div></div>

Oh... okay.

A pedestrian is walking down a sidewalk drinking a beer and minding his own business. A drive-by shooter nails him and it's the pedestrian's fault because he shouldn't have been drinking on public property in the first place. If he hadn't been taking a swig, he would have noticed the car pull up along side him with a gun pointed out the window.

Now it's clear to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic is flawed and once again you miss the point. There is a big difference between drinking and driving/drinking and walking. If you don't understand that then their is no point further discussing the topic. Besides, I absolutely hate hypothetical situations because they refuse to look at the particulars of the case and are mostly skewed generalizations that have no correlation to the original topic. But I will play your game...say your neighbor was driving your kids to the ice cream store and he drank enough beer to reach a .08. To all accounts he was driving fine until a car pulled out in front of him. He swerved but not quick enough to avoid the accident. Do you blame his drinking or the other driver for the accident...maybe even both? More importantly, do you ever let you kids drive with him again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Packard V8- the Duesenberg came out of the accident far,far better than it's human occupants. It did not sustain any major damage, and the owner has definitely decided to keep it and have it repaired. The extreme tragedy of this has not left my consciousness, and I truly feel for the two little girls who lost their family due to the negligence of the Volvo driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When compared to a "new" volvo, the deusenberg must look like it's a block long, a very large, ominous target to "not notice" when driving a smaller car.

The driver of the smaller car should have easily SEEN a large car, the size of a smallschool bus, in his path, whether or not he SAW the stop sign.

If the deusenberg was instead a school bus, the occupants would suffer similar injury, considering few modern school busses have seat belts.

And, like the bus, it's nearly impossible to avoid a t-boner by trying to maneuver around the oncoming car.

If both drivers had the same .08 BAC, then throw out that data, and work with what's left.

One driver did everything in his/vehicle's power to avoid it, while the other blew thru a stop sign, and still managed to hit a car trying to avoid him.

Yes, the offending driver made a mistake, that's how accidents happen, and that's how we determine who's at fault.

The fault in this case has more to do with obeying posted traffic laws/signs than the minimal alcohol consumption on either part.

I'd bet the defense won't allow any antique car enthusiasts on the jury. And will play on the ignorance of those they do. They'll be at an advantage, considering the other driver is'nt there to defend his position. The other witnesses are minors, so who will the court/jury hear? ONE SIDE, that's all.

Most folks STOP for an antique car, just to look at it.

But then, MOST folks also stop at stop signs with NO antique car in sight.

But. like Michael Moore, some blame the folks at ground zero for 9/11!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my liberal education and constant bombardment of anti-drinking and driving commercials/education has skewed my perspective of what is right and wrong...in addition to what is an acceptable alcohol blood level content when driving. Look, I do my fair share of drinking, so I am not naive to building up a tolerance but I never drink and drive because no matter how much you drink it will effect your judgement. By the way, Michael Moore skews the data to his particular agenda a lot of times but he never blamed the men and women working at ground-zero for 9/11. He might of blamed the idiot in office (I do too), but not the people actually working to save lives.

It seems we both have deep seeded beliefs that are not going to change any time soon so lets just agree to disagree. Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh is no better then Michael Moore....both are too extreme that they are blinded by the truth and only see what fits into their agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, traffic accidents suck and this one is especially tragic. There is plenty of blame to go around. There is no way the operator of the Duesey was acting responsibly, loading his wife and kids into a customer's car with no seat belts for a test drive -- along with a few drinks just to make it a bit more fun. Do you think he might have been showing off just a teeny bit? The Volvo went through a stop sign, not a good thing, but it does happen. My prayers to all of them.

Sorry, I am no fan of Michael Moore, but he did not blame anyone at ground zero for what happened on 9/11, watch the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...