Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neighbors of the intersection said it’s a frequent spot for crashes. Ruth Urwand, who lives on Depot Lane, said she believes a regular stoplight should replace the blinking light that’s currently there.
That would certainly help but those Suffolk roads where you get up to 60mph and have to stop at a stop light every half mile are super annoying. And yes, I know what you're going to say next.
Oh please stop citing the southern poverty law center. You know the organization that brands anyone who dosen't conform to their ultra leftist political view points a "hate group". They have become a joke and just another attack dog for the democratic party.
Ok Mr. Open borders. I'm starting to get the immigration attorney vibe from you. Would make perfect sense. Regardless, maybe we should all follow TEPlimey's fantasy plan. Lets open up the southern border with zero controls and let anyone who wants in because "THE ECONOMY!!!!". Remember kids Forbes, some economists, and the southern poverty law center said so!! Because they did a study its true!! Never mind anyone who is killed or otherwise victimized by someone who should not be here in the first place. That's just collateral damage right? Anyone have any opposing viewpoint? Time to break out the "ists". I have an idea, why don't you show everybody just how much you love diversity and leave RVC and move to Brentwood? Or Roosevelt? Or even Wyndanch? Why not set an example for all the "racists" out there and show how much you embrace diversity?
No one, including me, has advocated for "open borders" but keep whacking away at your straw man. It's always nice to see a reversion to hyperbole when someone has no objective data to back up their position after being presented with empirical analyses to the contrary.
No one, including me, has advocated for "open borders" but keep whacking away at your straw man. It's always nice to see a reversion to hyperbole when someone has no objective data to back up their position after being presented with empirical analyses to the contrary.
There is no point in wasting one keystroke in providing any data to you. Simonlok did a great job of that when he thoroughly trounced you on the last thread (seriously that was one of the most complete, mic drop thrashings of a commenter that I've ever seen on this board, well done simon). So please continue on like a broken record with your nonsense cut and paste talking points, ignoring questions you either cant or don't want to answer, and completely predictable accusations of racism.
There is no point in wasting one keystroke in providing any data to you. Simonlok did a great job of that when he thoroughly trounced you on the last thread (seriously that was one of the most complete, mic drop thrashings of a commenter that I've ever seen on this board, well done simon). So please continue on like a broken record with your nonsense cut and paste talking points, ignoring questions you either cant or don't want to answer, and completely predictable accusations of racism.
Your only unanswered question presupposed that someone was advocating open borders. Which is not true. On your end, you dismiss every single piece of analysis and data, whether provided by a University, a think tank, a law center, a governmental agency, a respected publication, an economist (or group of economists), or an NGO in favor of your gut feelings and one "study" that was fatally flawed provided by a hate group. You just repeat objectively inaccurate talking points while attacking strawmen. You have no real data or other evidence to support your positions. Keep up the good work.
Your only unanswered question presupposed that someone was advocating open borders. Which is not true. On your end, you dismiss every single piece of analysis and data, whether provided by a University, a think tank, a law center, a governmental agency, a respected publication, an economist (or group of economists), or an NGO in favor of your gut feelings and one "study" that was fatally flawed provided by a hate group. You just repeat objectively inaccurate talking points while attacking strawmen. You have no real data or other evidence to support your positions. Keep up the good work.
Thank you I will. After seeing your weak cut and paste from the economist arguments torn to shreds in the last thread, you really aren't worth any further effort on my behalf.
We will not know if the limo driver made the mistake of not giving it enough time or the drunk was excessively speeding, or just never even bothered to slow/stop or was impaired enough not to stop in time. There happens to be a drunk on scene - which is the more likely scenario and deserves the blame for impact?
This is the left-turn u-turn here that resulted in the right-side t-bone. Can a limo make that turn without stopping and reversing? I'd say yes, but even if he had to, only a drunk would actually hit them square in the middle.
They have mentioned that it was not an illegal u-turn. But I agree, if it turns out the truck was speeding, then he is most likely at fault, also taking into account the DWI. There is a quote from another driver at the scene who said the limo pulled out in front of the truck. It's VERY possible for a truck traveling at 55 mph to broadside a long limo that pulls out directly in front of it, drunk or not.
They have mentioned that it was not an illegal u-turn. But I agree, if it turns out the truck was speeding, then he is most likely at fault, also taking into account the DWI. There is a quote from another driver at the scene who said the limo pulled out in front of the truck. It's VERY possible for a truck traveling at 55 mph to broadside a long limo that pulls out directly in front of it, drunk or not.
I don't think it should matter if there was any fault on the limo. Anyone driving under the influence should be held liable for the deaths and any other damage that occurs. (Not to mention this guy was trying to escape from the scene.)
I'm surprised that people are looking to make excuses for drunk drivers. "No mass transit", "the limo cut in front of him", "he was a lightweight that couldn't handle a couple of beers". We are way too lenient on drunk drivers. I think they're a bigger threat to the average person than terrorists, illegals, gangbangers, murderers, burglars, robbers, druggies, psychopaths with a gun and a death-wish, and politicians. Statistically, they are more dangerous than all those groups combined.
There's just no reason at all for DWIs to still be happening today. It's 100% pure selfishness, and lack of regard for everyone elses safety.
I don't think it should matter if there was any fault on the limo. Anyone driving under the influence should be held liable for the deaths and any other damage that occurs. (Not to mention this guy was trying to escape from the scene.)
I'm surprised that people are looking to make excuses for drunk drivers. "No mass transit", "the limo cut in front of him", "he was a lightweight that couldn't handle a couple of beers". We are way too lenient on drunk drivers. I think they're a bigger threat to the average person than terrorists, illegals, gangbangers, murderers, burglars, robbers, druggies, psychopaths with a gun and a death-wish, and politicians. Statistically, they are more dangerous than all those groups combined.
There's just no reason at all for DWIs to still be happening today. It's 100% pure selfishness, and lack of regard for everyone elses safety.
And that's where you lose me...I, for one, am making no excuses for the drunk driver (if it turns out he was drunk). But ABSOLUTELY there is shared blame if the limo driver just pulled out into traffic, especially if the truck driver was going the speed limit. If he turns out to have been drunk, there is a direct correlation between this intoxication and the deaths of 4 girls...charge him for 4 deaths. But if there was no avoiding the accident on his part, drunk or sober, how can you charge him for 4 deaths when the limo driver pulled an unsafe maneuver?
^ the truck hit the limo dead square in the middle... no attempt to swerve either way. Limos doing a U-turn are not exactly fast and so the drunk, if he weren't impaired, would've been able to do *something* going in either direction of the lengthy vehicle. He did nothing and hit it dead in the middle. It's possible the limo driver pulled out with insufficient time causing someone to have to brake - he may be thinking the truck would slow for him, but he didn't for obvious reasons. I don't think he pulled out in front of the truck leaving it zero time to react - that would've resulted in hitting the front end.
The drunk couldn't comprehend what was happening in front of him. It's a huge slow car and there should've been ample time to slow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
