LLB causes road anger and death in Loudoun County
in [Drive]
|
From: brink on 11 Aug 2006 13:54 "N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155303471.870881.325690(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > brink wrote: >> "N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1155235232.696413.90510(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Alexander Rogge wrote: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901250.html >> >> >> >> > During a hearing in Loudoun County yesterday, a prosecutor dropped >> >> > charges of aggressive driving and driving on a suspended license >> >> > against Indeshaw Adenaw, 32, whose pickup truck struck Charles Vo, >> >> > 50, >> >> > killing him about 8 p.m. Saturday. >> >> >> >> > Another driver who said he witnessed much of the incident told The >> >> > Washington Post that Vo stopped in the left lane of traffic, climbed >> >> > out of his van and walked back toward Adenaw's truck. The witness, >> >> > Hugh >> >> > Grindstaff, said Vo tailgated Adenaw's truck, tried to pass it on >> >> > the >> >> > left shoulder, then did pass in the right lane before cutting in >> >> > front >> >> > of Adenaw and stopping. >> >> >> >> >> >> It may be obvious that this incident wouldn't have happened if Adenaw >> >> was following Keep Right Except To Pass. Vo probably snapped after >> >> being stuck behind too many LLBs and took out his anger on Adenaw. >> >> It's >> >> easy to reduce road anger by following Keep Right Except To Pass and >> >> yielding to faster traffic in the passing lane. >> > >> > sounds like Adenaw should have read the law; unlike in Maryland, LLBing >> > *is* illegal in Virginia. (although I've never heard of anyone being >> > ticketed for it.) >> > >> > I'd like to know why the charges were dropped, and why he wasn't also >> > charged with failure to keep right. Sounds like an all around jackass, >> > testimonials given in the article to the contrary. I mean, it's about >> > as easy to get a license in MD as it is to buy a box of cereal, so it >> > shows some pretty blatant disregard for the law to not have one. >> >> You guys are too much. The article has precious few facts to go on and >> you're jumping to these conclusions? >> >> All we "know" -- and we don't even really know it -- is that the driver >> who >> died allegedly pulled some pretty weird moves to try to get around the >> other >> driver. We don't know why -- could be a LLB, though it cpould be >> something >> else. Sometimes drivers will go psycho for weird reasons unrelated to >> LLBing. >> >> Either way, sounds like the guy got what he had coming threatening >> another >> person by approaching his vehicle. That's just dumb. >> >> brink > > from TFA: > > "The witness, Hugh Grindstaff, said Vo tailgated Adenaw's truck, tried > to pass it on the left shoulder, then did pass in the right lane before > cutting in front of Adenaw and stopping." > > So it sounds like Adenaw was either blatantly LLBing or had cut off Vo, > and was also deliberately making it difficult for Vo to pass. Sounds > pretty typical for around here, sadly. I really don't know, Nate. Perhaps the "blocking" driver was completely unaware -- or maybe he was playing games with the other driver -- or maybe he was fearing for his life. Do you know? No. You can speculate, I can guess, but neither of us *know*. I'd prefer to wait to see how things sort them out before using this case to champion my cause. Haven't you ever had another driver go koo-koo on you before? Wait, Your Honor, I retract that question. Not a good question to ask in this here chatrum, everyone's a perfect driver here who has never pissed off another driver on the road. All I know is it is too bad someone died over this; however, it sounds to me like the person killed contributed hugely to the circumstances which led to his death, not unlike the guy who wraps his car around a tree trying to do 120 MPH on the PCH. brink
From: Brent P on 12 Aug 2006 21:15 In article <4k5fr1FammmjU1(a)individual.net>, brink wrote: > Sorry, this is a discussion forum. If you say 2 + 2 = 5, I will tell you > you're wrong. I know you don't like criticism but I'd suggest that usenet > isn't a good place to avoid it. If you were doing that, you'd have something to show the facts in the article were incorrect. You'd actually have a more supportable alternative. You have neither. You just sit back and poke, because doing so amuses you. When you actually have something to contribute to a discussion I'll consider responding to you.
From: brink on 12 Aug 2006 23:08 "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mbKdnRMXcuet4EPZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > In article <4k5fr1FammmjU1(a)individual.net>, brink wrote: > >> Sorry, this is a discussion forum. If you say 2 + 2 = 5, I will tell you >> you're wrong. I know you don't like criticism but I'd suggest that >> usenet >> isn't a good place to avoid it. > > If you were doing that, you'd have something to show the facts in the > article were incorrect. You'd actually have a more supportable > alternative. You have neither. Now you're getting it. I -- we -- have precious few facts to go on. So you are in effect asserting 14 + B * (C - D) = 274, when we don't know B, C, or D. You could be right; I think you're doing far too much guessing to be reasonably certain of your conclusion, however. Me, I like to be certain of as many supporting facts as possible before making my conclusions about things. You just sit back and poke, because doing > so amuses you. When you actually have something to contribute to a > discussion I'll consider responding to you. Given your seven responses to me in this thread already, I must be making quite a contribution. brink
From: Brent P on 13 Aug 2006 00:35
In article <4k7jeqFau572U1(a)individual.net>, brink wrote: > Now you're getting it. I -- we -- have precious few facts to go on. So you > are in effect asserting 14 + B * (C - D) = 274, when we don't know B, C, or > D. You could be right; I think you're doing far too much guessing to be > reasonably certain of your conclusion, however. If you disregard the eye witness, I have nothing. However with the eye witness there are facts to support my theory. (what you keep incorectly calling conclusions, and when I pointed out that it was theory based on facts you decided to insult me, considering that a point of weakness) > Me, I like to be certain of as many supporting facts as possible before > making my conclusions about things. And in your world, my ideas, my theories are conclusions. Because you have to declare them that to do your poking. I think as someone trained in science and engineering, where one forms a hypothesis from the _available_ facts. You wrongly consider a hypothesis to be a conclusion. To not form a hypothesis until one has _all_ information is silly. One will never have _all_ the information. The court will never have _all_ the information. No one will have _all_ the information. We already have as many supporting facts as possible for us to have at this moment in time. But you sit there and snipe 'but those may be wrong'. As a test, I ask you, who built the great pyramid of Giza? Because if you give the answer that you may have been taught or read in countless texts you'll be choosing a answer based on one skethcy fact, and one which is quite possibly a forgery at that. If you want to have a real discussion, you find a way to test my hypothesis or find additional data that does not support it. If you want to snipe, you just post drivel about conclusions and not being 'sure'. Am I sure? No. > You just sit back and poke, because doing >> so amuses you. When you actually have something to contribute to a >> discussion I'll consider responding to you. > Given your seven responses to me in this thread already, I must be making > quite a contribution. Since that point forward. I thought the first statment of your last post showed hope. Your last one takes it away. My initial theory is correct, you're in it to just sit back and be critical of everything and contribute nothing. I am sure you'll take me not being sure as yet another sign of weakness to pounce on. That's what makes your posts more troll than discussion. |