[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
Seriously, if the person was exceeding the speed limit by 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident. It's just plain dangerous to drive that fast in a low speed area. An accident is inevitable if she drove far enough at that speed.
[/ QUOTE ]
The point I was trying to make was that
she didn't realize she was going that fast because her attention was focused on her phone, not on her speedometer, and certainly not on the red light up ahead. She did manage by some miracle to hit the brake so at least she didn't plow into my mom at 80. My best estimate that the impact speed was somewhere in the 35 to 50 mph range. Here's my mom's car (she actually still drives that same car today believe it or not):
Here's the car that hit her:
Note the cracked windshield where the cell phone hit:
Here's the intersection:
My mom's car followed the path in yellow, the car that hit her followed the path in red. The path in orange was more or less the path taken after impact. Also note that these are typical main arterial roads for New York City. Despite the posted 30 mph limit, most traffic except buses moves on this road at 40 to 50 mph barring congestion, obstacles, or red lights of course. The buses usually seem to go around 55 or so if they're not stopping. Both roads here are practically laid out like expressways. It didn't take
that much skill to keep the car on the road at 80 for the few blocks or however long she had been driving like that. In fact, the section of Francis Lewis Boulevard that this women was on is a stretch of about 10 blocks with no lights or intersections. The locals used to (and probably still do cops not withstanding) use this section as a drag racing strip, sometimes reaching speeds well in excess of 100 mph according to my brother who used to enjoy watching the "show".
I'll also point out that these *are* typical urban arterial roads with stoplights every few blocks, other intersections where cross traffic has stop signs every 250 or so feet, parallel-parked cars pulling into traffic, pedestrian crosswalks, and of course driveways. While it's a relative rarity, I *do* occasionally see normal people (not drag racers) driving on these roads at 60, 70, or 80 for some unfathomable reason. I've even seen a few cars doing better than 100
on these exact same roads. More often than not, these drivers were seemed to be holding something to their ear as best as I could see when they whizzed by. With today's grossly overpowered cars it doesn't take long to reach speeds like this and not even realize it if you're distracted with a phone call. And as you said, an accident is pretty much inevitable when you're doing 80 in a 30 zone, even on well laid out roads like these.
BTW, I see this nonsense
all the time when I ride. Drivers on cell phones run red lights without even realizing they're doing so, and often without slowing down a bit. This is in addition to usually driving grossly above any sane and reasonable speed for the types of roads in question.
In case anyone is interested, here is a letter I wrote to the insurance company on behalf of my mom regarding my observations:
[ QUOTE ]
To Whom It May Concern:
The following is a series of deductions made from my observations of the accident scene and the vehicles involved in an accident which occurred on Sunday, September 10, 2000 at approximately 12 noon in the intersection of Francis Lewis Boulevard and Union Turnpike, County of Queens, State of New York, United States of America. The accident involved three vehicles. Henceforth, vehicle number one is a 1999 Nissan Altima, vehicle number two is a 1978 Lincoln Continental, and vehicle number three is a large van of unknown make and model.
Vehicle number two was going North on Francis Lewis Boulevard and was making a left turn from the left turn lane in order to proceed West on Union Turnpike. Vehicle number one was proceeding South on Francis Lewis Boulevard going straight when vehicle number one struck the right front quarter panel of vehicle number two which was in the process of turning left. The impact pushed vehicle number two into vehicle number three which was proceeding East on Union Turnpike but was stopped at the time for a red signal. These facts are not in dispute, and my examination of the damage to vehicles one and two is consistent with the damage that would occur in such a collision.
The sequence of lights at this intersection is as follows: Francis Lewis Boulevard has a green signal for approximately 25 seconds. This is followed by yellow and red signals after which Union Turnpike has green signal for approximately 40 seconds. After Union Turnpike gets yellow and red signals but before Francis Lewis Boulevard gets a green signal again the left turn lanes on Francis Lewis Boulevard get a green left turn arrow which lasts approximately 12 seconds, followed by a yellow arrow and then a red signal. It is only after the left turn lanes get the red signal that Francis Lewis Boulevard again has a green signal. The driver of vehicle number two clearly remembers seeing a green arrow while she was making her turn. Furthermore, she also remember seeing vehicles on the two northbound lanes of Francis Lewis Boulevard stopped for a red signal. Because vehicle number three was stopped for a red signal on Union Turnpike, this means that both streets had red signals at the time of the accident. The only time this occurs is when the left turn lanes of Francis Lewis Boulevard have a green left turn arrow. Therefore, the driver of vehicle number two was proceeding legally.
The driver of vehicle number one states that she had a "green light" in the police report. As one can see by the sequence of signals described above any driver making a left turn when the green arrow is on can be assured that the thru traffic on Francis Lewis Boulevard has already had a red signal for approximately 40 seconds. A driver trying to "make the light" on Union Turnpike is likely to collide with a vehicle turning left on Francis Lewis Boulevard since Union Turnpike gets yellow and then red signals immediately before the left turn arrow on Francis Lewis Boulevard comes on. However, in order for a driver on Francis Lewis Boulevard to collide with a vehicle turning legally with the left turn arrow they would have to pass a signal that was already red for at about 40 seconds. This fact coupled with the driver of vehicle number two's clear recollection of northbound vehicles stopped for a red signal on Francis Lewis Boulevard indicates that either the memory of the driver of vehicle number one is faulty, or she lied in the police report, or she simply had no idea whether the signal was red or green because she had not been paying attention to her driving, and said the signal was green out of self-interest. This last possibility is most likely and is supported by my observations of the wreckage of both vehicles and the crash scene.
I arrived at the crash scene at approximately 4:30 PM on Sunday, September 10, 2000(about 4 hours, 30 minutes after the accident). The day was a sunny day with no rain. I did not observe any skid marks at all in the southbound lanes of Francis Lewis Boulevard and the driver of vehicle number two does not remember hearing any screeching of brakes or tires prior to the collision. When proceeding southbound on Francis Lewis Boulevard the intersection with Union Turnpike is clearly visible from a distance of at least 1000 feet away. I often cycle on this road and can see the traffic signal from 73rd Avenue, which is about 2000 feet away. Furthermore, vehicle number two is a large, conspicuous vehicle which was at least three-quarters into its left turn and therefore in the intersection for at least three seconds prior to the collision. The fact that vehicle number two nearly completed its turn is supported by the presence its tire marks on the crosswalk immediately adjacent to where vehicle two hit vehicle three. The tire marks were the result of vehicle number two being pushed nearly sideways by vehicle number one. If the driver of vehicle one was proceeding at 40 mph or less and observing the road ahead she would have had ample time to stop and avoid the collision. Even if she had the green signal as she claimed she still should have been able to avoid the collision unless she had been going well in excess of 40 mph and/or not paying attention to the road.
The absence of skid marks indicates she was not even aware of the presence of vehicle number two until she collided with it.
On Monday, September 11, 2000 I observed the wreckage of both vehicles. I noticed that the windshield of vehicle number one was shattered in the upper driver's side. The breakage pattern was consisent with that produced by an impact with a blunt instrument hitting the windshield from the inside. The driver of vehicle number one suffered injuries to her left hand, but the injuries would have been far more severe if her hand alone had caused the broken windshield. The driver of vehicle number two observed the driver of vehicle number one holding a cellular telephone. It is highly likely that the broken windshield was caused by the impact of the cellular phone and that this phone was in use by the driver of vehicle number one prior to the accident. I believe that the driver of vehicle number one may have glanced at the intersection several hundred feet away, mistook a green left turn arrow for a green signal, and then proceeded to turn her eyes away from the road while dialing a number on her cellular phone. She then had the collision while her attention was still focused on her telephone instead of the road. This would explain the lack of any attempt at all to slow down or avoid the collision. It is my opinion that the driver's use of her cellular telephone was the primary cause of this collision. I further recommend that said telephone be seized as evidence and examined for damage consistent with my theory. It is clear from the complete absence of skid marks at the accident scene that the driver of vehicle number one was oblivious to the impending collision due to being distracted by something else. As there were no passengers in her vehicle at the time, the most likely culprit is her cellular telephone.
Sincerely,
JTR
(son of driver of vehicle number two)
[/ QUOTE ]
Note the section I bold-faced . In retrospect the absence of skid marks is likely because of antilock brakes which led me to my more recent conclusion that the women was driving much faster than 40 mph and did in fact slow down somewhat before hitting my mom. My (recent) estimate of 80 mph was based on the clear sight distance of the far right lane when it was partially obscured cars stopped for the red light in the middle and left lanes, combined with the fact that my mom simply didn't even see the other driver coming. I figured she could see at least 120 feet of the far right lane prior to the crosswalk at all times, and habitually glances at least once each second when turning. To go 120 feet between glances equates to 80 mph. Since the impact speed was well under 80, the driver did have a chance to slow down somewhat. If she managed to brake for 200 feet, she could have went from 80 down to 40. If she had been going 40 to begin with, she could have stopped in about 75 feet, and she would have easily seen my mom's car at even twice that distance despite the blocked middle and left lanes. I only wish cars had black boxes so as to eliminate most guesswork from accident scenes.
