343 replies to this topic

[LexHillsmom]

There are many ways to hold juvenile offenders accountable that results in the kids owning what he/she did, how it affected others and how to avoid those "thinking errors" that led to the death of that woman and the impact it has left on her family and themselves. We should all want these kids to come out of this profoundly changed for the better and committed to never hurting another human being again. Why? Because that is the right thing and because these kids will not be going away forever...they will come back to society at some point.

This goal will NEVER be achieved in a prison such as the California Youth Authority. If the kids go there you can be sure they will come out having learned nothing but to survive. If any of you have studied the YA you'll know that it is one of the most backward, ineffective youth prison system in the United States. The recitivism rate is greater than 75%.

I'm still a believer that juveniles should not be treated as adults, except in very few circumstances.

There are options where kids are sent and lose their freedom while getting intensive treatment (which is NOT the same as hand holding) but are in a safe environment where they have the best possible chance of grasping the gravity of what they have done and are "forced" to own it and figure out how it happened and how to avoid such future mistakes.

[Robert Giacometti]

The post said, "58MPH at impact." I'd say it's fair to assume that, since there were skid marks, the brakes were applied before impact.

Cw, I'm trying to understand how someone can calculate how the speed of the vehicle at impact with only one given number? ( 166 feet of skid marks) Did you calculate the 58 mph yourself or did you just use the other post as being accurate?

If you or anyone has the formula to use I would appreciate you sharing it.

[cw68]

Cw, I'm trying to understand how someone can calculate how the speed of the vehicle at impact with only one given number? ( 166 feet of skid marks) Did you calculate the 58 mph yourself or did you just use the other post as being accurate?

If you or anyone has the formula to use I would appreciate you sharing it.

The post said "58mph at impact." I didn't calculate anything on my own.

[SST]

Skid speed calculator at
http://www.claimstar...?erube_fh=cstar

The Bee reported 166 ft skid mark. If accurate then the calculator show 58 MPH at impact. Based on the death and dent it was much much faster...

My choice of words were wrong, I am sorry . Here are the facts based on police spokesman and The Bee. There are 166 ft of skid marks.
If you take that number and use smooth asphalt surface based on 166 feet of skid marks the vehicle way have been going give or take 58+- MPH, add to that that the Mrs McNew Toyota Solara had major impact to the door and is dead, you can ascertain that the speed was probably faster and quite in excess of the speed calculated and safe to drive in that area and time frame. You can all make your own judgment of how fast the cars were moving or wait till the court and judge decides.

http://www.claimstar...?erube_fh=cstar

[camay2327]

I drove down there today to check it out. I drove into the lot and turned around and came back out facing Iron Point where she would have been prior to driving out into traffic.


I have a GMC Sierra pickup truck which is quite a bit higher than the car involved. As you stop and look to the left to see if there is any traffic I could see OK. There is one major problem there though. The car she was in was a lot lower and there is a large SIGN on the left which blocks the view to the left until you get out past it.


I think that sign which blocks the view to the left should be taken out of there. I might contact the city about that if no one else has or does.

[Robert Giacometti]

I drove down there today to check it out. I drove into the lot and turned around and came back out facing Iron Point where she would have been prior to driving out into traffic.
I have a GMC Sierra pickup truck which is quite a bit higher than the car involved. As you stop and look to the left to see if there is any traffic I could see OK. There is one major problem there though. The car she was in was a lot lower and there is a large SIGN on the left which blocks the view to the left until you get out past it.
I think that sign which blocks the view to the left should be taken out of there. I might contact the city about that if no one else has or does.

Cal, pulling out after lunch earlier this week....its easy to see how dangerous that intersection is.

I agree...its difficult to see around that sign and the tree limbs create a visual distraction. Normally at an intersection we can look left or right and everything is in front of our periphel vision...because of the curve here...one has to almost turn their head beyond perpendicular to see any cars in that lane nearest the curb. It would be easy for a low profile Dodge stealth to blend in and possibly not be seen before pulling out into the intersection.

When pulling out its very difficult to see into the other lanes ( Eastbound lanes )because of the median and trees there. One really has to spend more time looking here than at a normal intersection that is free of distractions. These fleeting moments looking at the Eastbound lane could contribute to another accident.

Sadly & tragically my gut feeling tells me there was disasterous combination of events that led to the fatal accident.

I agree with you 100% that the city needs to look into modifying this intersection before another accident like this occurs. I too will contact the city and encourage everyone else to do the same.

If the city was to change the intersection...it does not absolve the kids contribution to this accident if they were indeed driving at an excessive speeds.

[old soldier]

we better hope that sign didn't block the view cause the old attorneys who will be on this case will add the city along with the kid driver to the case because of the city'd deep pockets

if that happens we will be paying water meters sooner to fill up the treasure chest. big sign is bad news.

[bordercolliefan]

I don't want in any way to blame the victim -- certainly not before any facts have been established that would tend to make her responsible.

But reading the last few posts, it did remind me of one of my pet peeves about drivers: the assumption that one has a right to make a left turn anywhere they might desire. I grew up in New England, where most left turns are uncontrolled (i.e., there is no left turn lane and no left turn arrow -- you just stop in the road, wait for a clear spot, and take your chances.) Drivers there know that there are some places you would never, ever attempt to make a left because it would be far too busy/dangerous -- you just need to plan an alternate route that avoids the left turn.

I think drivers in California need to use more judgment in deciding where a left turn is appropriate. Coming out of the Applebee's lot and attempting to make a left turn across three lanes of traffic going 50+ mph just seems like a poor idea. --Isn't that why we don't allow left turns on freeways?

[ducky]

Cal, what kind of sign? Is it a city sign or commercial?

[camay2327]

ducky, I think it is a commercial sign for that shopping area. I will try and get a digital photo of it and try and get it in here somehow. I do have problems trying to upload photos here though.

[ducky]

ducky, I think it is a commercial sign for that shopping area. I will try and get a digital photo of it and try and get it in here somehow. I do have problems trying to upload photos here though.

That's okay, Cal. Just was curious. I guess either way it should be reported to code enforcement as a possible hazard.

[BIG PAKO]

I thought I'd share this with everyone: The other night I went out for a late bike ride, I rode on Iron Point Rd for approx 2 hours going back and forth from Folsom Blvd. to where it dead ends near El Dorado Hills, and during those 2 hours I lost count of how many cars were exceeding the speed limit, & I "AINT" talking about 55 or 60 mph, more like 65-75 mph but that's not what shocked me, what shocked me was that I didn't see "one single" police car in the area especially 5 or 6 days after a fatal accident, makes you wonder .

[tessieca]

I'll start another post on parental denial.

As a parent, I don't think that you should. There's nothing to address in such a topic! Steve, the other parent in my household says hi to you.

My best guess as to the reason for those who refuse to accept any of the facts that have been made public thus far is that they can see themselves in the position of the youths or their parents, and they don't want to harshly judge. Either that, or they're up for jury duty soon and don't want to pre-judge and get bumped (although this case will be in juvenile court with no jury).

[Steve Heard]

As a parent, I don't think that you should. There's nothing to address in such a topic! Steve, the other parent in my household says hi to you.

My best guess as to the reason for those who refuse to accept any of the facts that have been made public thus far is that they can see themselves in the position of the youths or their parents, and they don't want to harshly judge. Either that, or they're up for jury duty soon and don't want to pre-judge and get bumped (although this case will be in juvenile court with no jury).

Too late, I already did. Regards to your other half, too.

My best guess about all the denial is that parents don't want to believe their kids do bad things, while others want to poo-poo every claim made in the press, and others still are naturally predisposed to say the opposite of everything they hear or read.

[Family Friend]

As a parent, how would you feel under these circumstances?

You get a phone call in the middle of the night and are told that your child has been invloved in a car accident. One person is dead, two are in the hospital and the police have waited almost 6 hours to call you. Even though the accident happened at 2:45 in the afternoon the police don't think it's important enough for you to get a phone call about your child until after 8:00pm.

You spend almost an hour talking to the police trying to find out what happened. During this time the police tell you:

They don't know how fast the boys were driving.
There are no witnesses to the accident.
They have three witnesses that saw the boys driving fast near Intel. Which is almost 2 miles away.
That all five boys are lying, because they are all telling the police that they were not racing.
That the boys all claim that they were driving with the normal flow of traffic for Iron Point Road.

You end your conversation with the police by confirming that all of the other parents have been contacted already. That you were the last parent that the police called and all the other kids are with their parents. The two police officiers that you are talking to bring out the head of the department to confirm this with you.

Now that you have determined that all the kids are safe with their parents you can take your child home.

As you get in the car to leave the police station you call one of the parents to see if their child is safe with them. It's the first they have heard of the accident and they have no idea that anything has happened. It is now almost 10:00pm. It is now over 7 hours since the accident happened.

On top of all this, two of the police officiers tell you that the first police officier that arrived at the accident has a second grade daughter in Susan McNew's classroom and that he is leading the investigation.

As a parent, how do you feel?