Sounds to me like the pot was incidental, and that this one is really chalked up to "pedestrian error."

nmrsnr: Sounds to me like the pot was incidental, and that this one is really chalked up to "pedestrian error."


Yup.  Darwination ensued.

Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.

And the blaming of marijuana smokers for the stupid actions of others begins

nmrsnr: Sounds to me like the pot was incidental, and that this one is really chalked up to "pedestrian error."


no error, the guy committed suicide by walking out into traffic.
so how do they charge you with dui pot?
blood tests? did he fail the roadside tests?
LOL

Clearly, we need to criminalize driving.

"Police say the victim was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault. "
 
Yup
dumbass committed suicide. charge his family for cleaning up the accident and let the poor driver go aready.

namatad: no error, the guy committed suicide by walking out into traffic.

What I learned in traffic school is that (at least in MD) the police almost never blame the pedestrian for getting hit, so unless the guy is wearing a sign saying "please hit me" while yelling "goodbye, cruel world" in front of a dozen witnesses, the police will write it up as "pedestrian error" so that no one is at fault. That's why I put it in quotes.
 
regardless, it doesn't seem like the kid would have done any better. Still, don't drive stoned.

nmrsnr: would have done any better sober.

alright, that means bedtime for me.

AverageAmericanGuy: Police say the victim was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault.
 
However, because Rowles was believed to be under the influence of marijuana, Washington State law says he is technically at fault, according to police.
It's a shame what happened here. The 'victim' lunges out into traffic and an unwitting driver slams into him. Because of something the driver had been doing an hour beforehand, he's now going to jail and will have this stain on his record follow him forever.
 
The logic is that a non-intoxicated driver would be able to react well enough to swerve or stop and not hit the pedestrian. 
 
Is that true in this case?  We don't know.

nmrsnr: namatad: no error, the guy committed suicide by walking out into traffic.

What I learned in traffic school is that (at least in MD) the police almost never blame the pedestrian for getting hit, so unless the guy is wearing a sign saying "please hit me" while yelling "goodbye, cruel world" in front of a dozen witnesses, the police will write it up as "pedestrian error" so that no one is at fault. That's why I put it in quotes.
 
regardless, it doesn't seem like the kid would have done any better. Still, don't drive stoned.

THIS
I agree. The pedestrian always has the right of way. SORT OF.
Limited access roads are the exception. Dumbasses get killed crossing Lake Shore Drive all the time.
Hello. It is 40mph and every speeds. No or few stop lights. ZERO pedestrian crossing, except for a few spots downtown. And yet tards trying to get to the beach get killed every year.

In the end, drunk or sober, you should never be required to avoid people in the middle of a major street.
With video and time of day, day light, traffic conditions and more, we could better determine who was mostly at fault.
 
but the bullshiat idea that one is 100% to blame in this case is silly.
if the driver had be STONE sober and the best driver in the universe, could he have avoid the tard in the road? Because if not, why is this moron getting nailed.
 
NOW
that being said, should be nailed for driving under the influence ... nothing more
 

legendary: And how many alcohol related DUI deaths were there in Washington State yesterday?

and did they jsut smell pot or did the guy fail field tests ??
 

nmrsnr: namatad: no error, the guy committed suicide by walking out into traffic.
 
What I learned in traffic school is that (at least in MD) the police almost never blame the pedestrian for getting hit, so unless the guy is wearing a sign saying "please hit me" while yelling "goodbye, cruel world" in front of a dozen witnesses, the police will write it up as "pedestrian error" so that no one is at fault. That's why I put it in quotes.
 
regardless, it doesn't seem like the kid would have done any better. Still, don't drive stoned.
 
I was in a crowded parking lot yesterday and this old woman was crossing one of the rows ever so slowly, going diagonally instead of straight across, so she was in the middle for a long time.  I pulled into that row to get a spot and when I stopped to let her pass (SLOWLY) she scowled and started swearing up a storm at me.  I wanted to yell "GET OUT OF THE ROAD YOU OLD BAT!" but I just laughed my ass off because it was so farking random.  I think that made her even madder. 

According to police in Oregon and Washington, either a) being nervous or b) having a calm demeanor around police officers is AUTOMATICALLY a reason to suspect someone of marijuana use.
 
Ask me how I know.

Shadowknight: Ok, look, I have worked a couple accidents (as a paramedic) that were, in my mind, caused by someone smoking and not giving it time to wear off before getting behind the wheel.


Now while I think marijuana driving laws need to be judged differently than drunk driving laws, I agree that there are some people who get out on the road that are blitzed and just can't drive. They deserved to be charged with DUI, because they are dangerous as they are on the road.
 
My problem is, for every accident caused largely "because" of marijuana intoxication, there are probably ten or more accidents on the road, severe or not, caused simply by age and degeneration in reaction time, sight, and so forth. Yet, for some reason, unless an elderly person runs down a huge crowd of people and tries to drive away, they "get away" with their actions (an acquaintance died in such fashion, and the millionaire driver of the car that drove across the highway for no known reason received a $650 fine). Honestly, I'd personally be more afraid of the 60-year-old driving certain roads at night than I would be the guy who's way too baked, and that's not because I think 1970s Cheech is more "in tune" with the highway than 2012s Cheech. Heck, lots of idiots get in wrecks because they were checking out a pretty girl or changing the radio, yet they only get a small fine, at most. Sometimes people who have taken too many prescription drugs are arrested, but sometimes not the case.
 
I'm not trying to defend driving while high... I'm trying to point out the other issues that are largely ignored by politicians, probably because they know who the voters tend to be.

And, really, I don't see how the lady who almost hit me the other day shouldn't have been charged with a crime (she'd have simply received a minor citation if an officer had seen it), regardless of her sobriety. Mistakes happen, and sometimes the human eye can play tricks on us and we literally miss something right in front of us, but there's no excuse for making a sudden lane change without so much as looking at the lane into which you're attempting to maneuver. In reality, she should have seen me in her peripheral vision, as I saw her as she was changing lanes (so I swerved to the side of the road). Again, perhaps age played a role, or the conversation she was having with her passenger, who knows...

Come to think of it, that's the second time I was nearly hit by someone doing the same thing this week. Last time it was some old guy.
 
Hey, what a shock. Old.

BALLROOM BLITZ!

Pocket Ninja: Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.


... Graphs?  Math?  It's early

BSABSVR: legendary: And how many alcohol related DUI deaths were there in Washington State yesterday?


The funny thing is is that many (most?) states will consider an "alcohol related traffic accident" to be anything that can even remotely involve booze.  Passenger drunk?  Alcohol-related.  Sealed wine bottle in your trunk? Alcohol related.  Wearing a t-shirt from your favorite brewery? Alcohol related. Mostly it's to get federal grants.
 
I have no doubt that they will start doing the same thing with weed.


You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Impossible, weed doesn't affect your ability to drive a car.
 
Yes, this is what stoners actually believe.