Export thread

So Monday I was on my way home from work and I witnessed the following:

Traveling West on street directly behind a green Ford Taurus. I watched as a red car (make model unknown to me) pulled away from a stop sign directly into the path of the green car, which hit the red car directly on the passenger door. Bam. Red car spins violently and comes to rest in the center of the road. Green car caroms off and ends up in a deserted lot down an embankment.

I immediately pull over, put on my hazards and as I'm dialing 9-1-1 I approach the red car. The driver ( a youngish lady) says she's okay but she needs to check on her daughter in the back seat. The child is upset but says she's fine and was belted in perfectly. I then move down the embankment and make sure that the other driver is fine and she is already out of her car and says she's perfectly okay. Both cars have air bags deployed and all were wearing seat belts.

Here's where it gets weird.

The lady in the green car - who was not at fault - says she doesn't want to call the cops and that they would just exchange information. Little light went on above my head. About that time a local bar on the corner had a group of old men boil out of it to see what the commotion was (3 pm on a Monday and they were all in there drinking - I love it!). I mentioned to one of them what was going on and told him to talk to the lady from the green car. I then proceeded to the red car and noticed the driver had blood on her neck. As it was raining and I could see she was shaking I gave her my coat and took her inside the bar. I bought the little girl (about 6) a soda with a straw and tried to calm her down, although this was difficult as her mom was crying and shaking.

It was then that the old guy came in and said the lady in the green car had taken off. She just hopped in her beat-up car and drove off. The old guy had her license # for the cops so her running was a bad fucking idea. He did note that her eyes were huge and she was probably driving impaired. The lady from the red car couldn't remember anything that happened as she obviously didn't see the green car or brace for any impact.

So here's my question as to whether I did the right thing. I was the only witness!! I am the only car that stopped. Nobody in the bar saw anything. The lady in the green car ran like a rabbit and the lady in the red car had no recollection of what had happened.

When the cops came I told them exactly what had happened: the lady in the red car failed to yield - it was her fault - and the lady in the green car ran.

Should I have thrown the lady in the green car under the bus and say it was her fault? The poor lady in the red car was young, had a kid and now had a car that was completely gone. She was in a poor neighborhood and this is probably a terrible blow to her financial well-being. I know that she was licensed and insured. The lady in the green car was probably about my age, apparently driving impaired and was probably uninsured. If it went to court it would have been my word against hers and I doubt hers would have stood up.

So did I do the right thing or the wrong thing by telling the truth in this case?

YES.

Yes.

The Canadians have spoken! Or something like that.

Yes, you did the right thing, if only because it covers your ass if this goes further. A conflicting story could only lead to problems down the the road, especially if it's YOU who changed the events.

You'd be doing no one any favours by lying about what happened based on speculation.

Another Canadian says, "affirmative."

Yes. Bolting from the scene of the accident was wrong, driving impaired was wrong, but just because she did two wrongs doesn't mean you should tack on a third.

Just because she made some bad choices doesn't mean she's a bad person who deserves worse than what she's going to get already.

So yes, you did the right thing.

You did the right thing , the duty of a witness is to state what happened and nothing else. You have no way of knowing if the green cars driver really was doing anything wrong or not. It sounds like she was but you can't be certain of that. Plus by telling the truth you are covering your own hide for later on down the road. Now you can mention your suspicion to the police officers about the green cars driver but you must remember that is all they are "suspicions" they are not facts. Even if the green cars driver was impaired in some way it was still the red cars drivers fault. Now granted if the green cars driver was impaired it could have affected her reaction time and if she wasn't maybe she could have avoided the accident. Now by running she has made herself at least suspect if not wrong in the eyes of the law at least to some extent and the cops will probably track her down for to ask her questions cause that is there job.


tl;dr: yes you did the right thing

The right thing is not always the easy thing to do.

No question you did the right thing. If the person was inebriated, they'll be at fault anyways. (My wife was a in a similar car accident where she pulled out in front of someone driving drunk. Technically she's at fault, but because of the DUI, she wasn't held responsible.)

Or at least that's how good cops would look at it

If they catch the person in time to be able to test them.

Dave said:

If they catch the person in time to be able to test them.

Click to expand...

If she is a serious alcoholic, she will still test positive HOURS/DAYS/MONTHS later.

Truth is a good thing, because lying to the police is just going to piss them off (and might even be considered obstruction of justice).

You did the right thing Turbo.

you seem to have this... thing with cars and crashes.

you catpeelier you.

glad everyone is okay.

You did well, grasshopper.

I woulda thrown the one in the green car under the bus. IMO, if they drive impared and without insurance they deserve what they get.
Added at: 11:37
but really if it goes to court all the lady in red has to do is say that is was the green cars fault, no witnesses (you don't show up) and she at least will beat the ticket hopefully

CrimsonSoul said:

I woulda thrown the one in the green car under the bus. IMO, if they drive impared and without insurance they deserve what they get.
Added at: 11:37
but really if it goes to court all the lady in red has to do is say that is was the green cars fault, no witnesses (you don't show up) and she at least will beat the ticket hopefully

Click to expand...

There is no evidence beyond an old drunk's opinion that she was drunk.

Then I would have because she drove off

Lied? She's already fucked because she drove off. Lying to the police does no one any good. Either don't give a statement (which you are fully in your rights not to do in most places) or tell the truth.

Quick question.... both were or were possibly uninsured? What does that mean? Like the driving insurance or medicare?

I don't know how things are in America, but in Canada hit and run is a criminal offense and will give you jail time. I had a friend who was at fault in an accident but the other driver took off, he was caught, didn't even have car insurance and went to jail, she was considered not at fault and the insurances covered everything without her resorting in paying any penalties.

She also went to the clinic to check out a sore neck and was provide free medicine and 2 visits to the physiotherapy... all free. Like it should be.

When some one flees the scene, they are likely at fault at some level, or have warrants out for their arrest.

The lady in the red car (at fault) had insurance. The lady in the green car it is unknown.
Added at: 13:30
I'd really like to know if/how I can get followup information on this.

Since you weren't directly involved in the accident, being only a witness, I'd think it unlikely that you'd have any chance at being kept in the loop on the investigation, unless the police need more information than you provided in your statement, come back to ask you more questions, and you ask them how the investigation is going (and they're able to provide you with the information). You may be able to watch the court system for public information releases regarding the case, if one is brought against the woman who fled the scene and if the information is made public, but I don't know. Other than that, your best bet would probably be to keep in touch with the woman from the red car whose daughter you helped settle down - but I don't really know that that's a good idea.
Chances are, if your experience is the same as mine - having been a witness in a few major collisions and a smash and grab robbery - unless the police need more details, you will never hear about this again.
Seriously, what the hell is up with paragraph spacing?

I think you did the right thing. The lady in the green car has screwed herself by running even though the accident was not her fault. If you lied to the police, and they found out, couldn't you technically be in trouble for falsifying a report/obstruction of justice or something like that?

Yes. In fact I'm still trying to see where you might think you did the wrong thing.

Covar said:

Yes. In fact I'm still trying to see where you might think you did the wrong thing.

Click to expand...

By destroying the insurance rating for a young mother.

sixpackshaker said:

By destroying the insurance rating for a young mother.

Click to expand...

All she needs is a decent explanation of what happened and an understanding judge.

sixpackshaker said:

By destroying the insurance rating for a young mother.

Click to expand...

Dave was not driving the car. Witnessing an accident and giving his statement does not make him responsible for the actions of those who were involved.

sixpackshaker said:

By destroying the insurance rating for a young mother.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was his fault.

Covar said:

Yes. In fact I'm still trying to see where you might think you did the wrong thing.

Click to expand...

Dave has a soft and squishy heart.

Emrys said:

Dave has a soft and squishy heart.

Click to expand...

That indeed I do.

Frankie Williamson said:

Yes, that was his fault.

Click to expand...

I liken this to all of the people bitching right now about red light cams and speed cams. Think it's evil that cash strapped cities are turning to speeding and traffic law enforcement to beef up their incomes? Tough shit. Don't want to pay a fine for speeding and/or running a red light? Don't fucking run red lights and/or speed. Hell, some dumbass around here was bitching that he can't afford to go to Mariners games, and it's all the WSP's fault because they pulled him over and cited him for not wearing his seat belt in a construction zone. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions once in a while, and maybe we won't have to pay extra for every single thing we buy because the companies that make them have to pay for an outside safety firm to put a warning on the item advising us that it's dangerous to stop the chain of a chainsaw with our bare hands. That being said, I can certainly see a caring person feeling bad for someone possibly getting dinged on her insurance, but lying to the cops is NEVER a good idea.

Let me tell you something, Dave. You did the right thing.

As an extension to how right it was, in my line of work if you do something similar to making up a story other than what was witnessed, you can go to jail. It would have been fraudulent to have said anything but what you witnessed.

The lady in the red car will be ok. Her insurance premiums might go up, but that's the way it is. Don't make assumptions about peoples' financial situations. That is NONE of your business; nor is it your place to change the facts based on morality compromised due to those assumptions. Your job, plain and simple, is to report what you saw.


When I was younger, I was put in a similar situation. My friend and I witnessed an accident. It was raining and dusk. The BMW Suv in front of me was turning left, and -BAM- gets nailed by a dude in a beat up Honda. The dude was driving with no headlights on. I didn't see him at all until I saw the BMW's ass-end 180, 3 feet in the air. My friend (who was from a financially strapped family) automatically put bias on the lady driving the BMW; not on the guy with the Honda.

It was clearly not a one sided issue. A few weeks later my friend and I got called up to testify as witnesses. The Honda guy was suing the BMW lady. The lawyer for the BMW lady made my friend look like a total lying, asshole - thus unreliable witness. I gave my testimony that I was driving behind her and the Honda guy did NOT have headlights on in rain and at dusk. That's all I could do.

I know it suck to hear it, but you did the right thing. Honesty is the best policy even if feels bad. why? Cause I can almost assure you that you may get call into court (i.e. if they caught up to the Green car lady) and conflicting stories will only hurt people more.

You may get called to testify at one point, but YOU DID THE RIGHT THING. You were honest with the cops, and you tried to assist everyone in the accident. How is that anything other than the right thing? It was a hell of a lot more than anybody else did.

You did the right thing, O floppy-titted one. It is a sad day when telling the truth to the police is a bad thing.

Dave, you did the right thing.

You had two options, both in the right. Either give true testimony, like you did, or tell the police you ain't snitchin', and then drive off yelling fuck da po-leese.*

*No offense to our badged brethren on the board.

Gared said:

I liken this to all of the people bitching right now about red light cams and speed cams. Think it's evil that cash strapped cities are turning to speeding and traffic law enforcement to beef up their incomes? Tough shit. Don't want to pay a fine for speeding and/or running a red light? Don't fucking run red lights and/or speed. Hell, some dumbass around here was bitching that he can't afford to go to Mariners games, and it's all the WSP's fault because they pulled him over and cited him for not wearing his seat belt in a construction zone. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions once in a while, and maybe we won't have to pay extra for every single thing we buy because the companies that make them have to pay for an outside safety firm to put a warning on the item advising us that it's dangerous to stop the chain of a chainsaw with our bare hands. That being said, I can certainly see a caring person feeling bad for someone possibly getting dinged on her insurance, but lying to the cops is NEVER a good idea.

Click to expand...

This I do not agree with. Sure, some people who "deserved" tickets are getting them, but the very essence of "cracking down" implies that some lenience is being lost. That makes me ask why the law enforcement officers were lenient in the first place. Because in their practiced judgement, a few minor traffic violations didn't a) pose a danger to public welfare b) weren't worth punishing the citizenry over c) weren't worth damaging the relationship between the city/state and citizens over. In effect, there's almost an unspoken understanding that a few MPH is okay, or a u-turn on a completely empty street is fine. It does feel like a violation of that bond when suddenly we're being slapped with fines for 2 MPH speeding violations.

It's also bothersome because the purpose of law enforcement is to maintain public safety, not to raise money, and not to robotically mete out punishments. It's partly why we give our officers some autonomy in the first place. I might agree with you about warning labels and lawsuits, but I don't this as a subset of that.

If I seem irritated about this, it's because this state has put in loads of those red light/speeding cameras, which are completely non-lenient robots. There was a fairly large uprising against them, but it was quashed on the "shouldn't be doing it anyway" grounds.

I just hate the fact that in NC the owner of the car is presumed to be the driver, and declared guilty of speeding until they can prove otherwise.

I hate red light cameras and speed cameras. Here's one good reason, and good on them in Edmonton for doing the right thing with them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/01/14/edmonton-speeding-tickets-cancelled.html

Boom.

I personally don't care unless the person is going 15 over the limit (generally, school zones and such have some exceptions), though, with all honesty, I could find a reason to pull over and ticket pretty much anyone on the road.

Well, fade, where do you want them to draw the line? If I'm reading your argument right, then new methods such as cameras are bad because they catch people making minor violations of the traffic law. And you reject the idea that these minor offenses should be punished at all, and would rather have lenient police officers let it slide. But where do you draw the line? Five miles over the speed limit? Ten?

A principal at a school I was teaching at once told a story. When he was starting out there was an uproar over a new rule. The rule said that students couldn't go to their prom if they had 3 or more tardies for a single class. The problem came up because of a pair of siblings. Both rode in the same car every day to school. They had classrooms right next to each other. Both were sometimes late. The brother was able to go to his prom, because his teacher was lenient and never recorded tardies. The sister couldn't go to her prom because her teacher was strict and recorded every tardy. So two students who arrived at school at the exact same time every day (late) were being treated differently because the authority figures did not enforce the rules evenly.

I think traffic laws have a similar issue. Don't you think it would be a problem if the deciding factor of getting a ticket wasn't whether or not a driver broke the law, but rather how that officer felt that day?

Actually, no, I don't reject that minor punishments should should be summarily ignored. I'm saying that's why we allow our officers to think. Sure, you could throw in the officer having a bad day issue, but that same issue would have to call into question the entire government system made of people, including the ones that set the speed limits in the first place.

I personally have far less of an issue with red light cams as speeding cams. Red light running can be hugely more dangerous than speeding, and even if it doesn't cause a collision, it can severely screw with traffic.

Okay, after a second read-through I see what you're saying.

To Dave's OP: I think that you did the right thing. Altering your story to cover for someone based on perceptions and assumptions would have been wrong. Just have some faith that things will work out as they should.

Ok, perhaps the red light and speeding cams were a bad example for personal responsibility vs. responsibility of the person making a statement to police... How about I just rephrase with "If you don't want to be held responsible for doing something wrong, you shouldn't do it," that better?
I know there've been a lot of complaints and issues with red light and speed cams, especially speed cams/zones associated with school zones. There have been a lot of tickets rejected around here because of illegally placed red light cams (cams are only allowed to be placed at 4 way intersections, but they've been placed at some 3 way and/or 5 way intersections as well). And, there have been a lot of complaints because of speed cams ticketing people for failing to slow down to the school zone limit outside of the hours posted on the speed limit sign (in some cases people were getting tickets between 10pm and 4am, when they were going the normal speed limit). I also remember a county I lived in in Oregon that passed a law saying that you must ALWAYS slow down to 20mph in front of a school, regardless of time of day or night - which is absolutely ridiculous.
And, I agree that the job of Law Enforcement is to maintain public safety not to make money for a municipality, county, or state; but to me, if revenue is generated as a byproduct of maintaining public safety, and public safety is still the main concern, I'm all for it. I'd be happier if the money generated by speeding tickets went into a budget for supplying better safety and other equipment for the department issuing the tickets, departmental pay, and/or a fund to support victims and victim families of speed related fatalities and injuries, but I don't see that happening in today's economy.

Frankie Williamson said:

though, with all honesty, I could find a reason to pull over and ticket pretty much anyone on the road.

Click to expand...

Each law enforcement person I've heard speak on traffic violations has said pretty much this. Pick any car, and you can find something illegal.

You know, I was caught in the red camera light. I saw the recording. I just plain didn't see the red light (was yellow) when I pass, but hey. I took a chance and got caught. Yellow doesn't mean SPEED UP AND PASS.

The laws are in place to help protect other drivers. Speeding generally is bad since higher the speed, higher damage it can cause if that person hit someone. Running a red light could hit another person. Now an officer could be lenient case by case depending on his day and situation, but if you are caught on camera, kinda hard to fight that since it is there, YUP you broke the law (in this case I broke the law) pay the fine and move on.

traffic law exist for a reason. I have been to China where driving is new and the traffic law there is not as heavily enforce as it is here and car go ALL OVER THE PLACE! It is scary

Dave, giving an honest statement to the police is the right choice. Being a credible witness helps everyone in the case - if you give a false statement in court, you're not helping the one you sympathize with and you're hurting yourself. After all, while you might be the only eyewitness, if you're called in court and red-light cam footage puts the lie to your testimony, how does that look? At best it makes you look like an idiot, at worst, it might be construed as perjury.

Chibi fought the law and the... law won.

If you're talking about one of those red signs with STOP on them then you lying wouldn't have helped much because any traffic cop should be able to tell which car was on the road that had priority.

Good on you Dave for sticking to the truth. Bad things tend to happen to people who don't.

My department has a policy that whichever person is at fault in an accident receives the citation for causing the accident. This normally doesn't bother me, until I had a little old man driving his pickup truck that contributed to his livelihood fail to yield at a t-junction in the middle of the night, with almost no traffic. The other truck was speeding, the driver drunk, on a suspended license, and with an open container. The little old guy, whose truck was flipped in the incident, received primary at-fault. And only 1 citation, versus the 4 + jail time for the other guy.

As has been already stated, hit-and-run is bad ju-ju. This young mother's insurance premium will take a ding, but they'll also treat it as getting into an accident with an uninsured motorist.

As for the other woman, with her tag info in hand, the officers quite possibly made an arrest that night. Either that, or this woman later on attempted to report her vehicle as being stolen. Again, that doesn't tend to work out so well... heh heh heh...

Frankie Williamson said:

though, with all honesty, I could find a reason to pull over and ticket pretty much anyone on the road.

Click to expand...

Oh hell yes... my favorite? "Tag Light Required" or "Excessive Stereo Volume."

I got pulled over once because "the trailer ball-hitch partially obscured a number on [my] license plate." Then I was questioned about a truck the same color as mine supplying alcohol to minors.

So yeah, I've heard all the bullshit excuses.

License Plate Obscured is a legit charge.... just sayin'....

Mind you, in Savannah we have a city ordinance against spitting on the sidewalk... that's an AWESOME one...

That's one I pull people over with and warn them for ALL the time here in winter since people love to keep their license plates covered in snow to work against the cameras.

That trailer hitch has been there for 15 years, and it's only "partially obscured." It's actually below the plate. I've only been pulled over for it once and the officer immediately changed subject and told me that he was looking for some booze runner with a truck that looked like mine. It was bogus.

Yes Tress, but what they're trying to tell you is that they're legit reasons to stop you. Whether the real reason for questioning is different or not.

Yeah, you did the right thing. The lady in the green car fled the scene of an accident so she's in real deep regardless.

Right thing. You're the only motorist in that story who didn't FUBAR something (someone driving with a child should be extra careful about stop signs and such, you should never leave the scene of an accident, etc).