Tiger Woods in serious accident in a Genesis GV80

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Tacoma

According to Yahoo Sports:

"[COLOR="Blue"]In a news conference Wednesday, law enforcement said that data recordings from the car show that Woods did not brake prior to the accident but did press on the accelerator at a "99 percent" rate. Lomita Captain James Powers said investigators believe Woods accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake. The final estimated speed when Woods' vehicle struck a tree was 75 mph.[/COLOR]"

I'm not sure what made Captain Powers "believe" Tiger accidentally hit the accelerator? Tiger said himself that he didn't recall the incident.

Tiger is a top level professional athlete playing a sport that requires excellent body coordination. I don't buy this 'accidentally hit the accelerator" crap. Maybe if he were a 80 year old accountant, but not a top tier professional golfer. If they blame this on the car, Hyundai better take this to the courts.

Captain Powers didn't investigate the incident. Our Traffic Services Detail investigated the incident and pulled the black box (...which is in every car made since the early 90's until now). The black box details acceleration, yaw, steering angle and everything else. Either Wood's purposely mashed the accelerator or he did so accidentally [instead of activating the brakes] when he realized he couldn't navigate the turn. At that point we looked at the information obtained from the black box and given Wood's lack of recollection, we can only speculate. The people closest to the investigation (...two whom I met with yesterday) have the opinion he was impaired, but since none of our DRE's (...which I will be soon) officially put Wood's through the paces, it's all opinion.

[Littlebear]

Is the black box the property of the car owner, and needs their OK before being investigated?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Is the black box the property of the car owner, and needs their OK before being investigated?

No.

[Fly320s]

Why didn't a DRE conduct a sobriety test, or whatever?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

Why didn't a DRE conduct a sobriety test, or whatever?

I wasn't at the scene, but there are only two answers:

• The official answer: The DRE's on scene didn't observe any behaviors that would lead them to believe Wood's was significantly impaired enough to conduct any sobriety tests.
• The alternative answer: The powers that be told them directly or indirectly to stand down and not go looking if it wasn't obvious.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

Wonder if his car insurance carrier dropped him

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Doubt it. He's Tiger Woods.

Unless there is a law against it where he lives, he is wealthy enough to self-insure. I know I would if I had his kind of paper.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

What an absolute idiot. Blaming the placement of the gas and brake pedals. First off, if he did accidentally hit the gas rather than the brake pedal (which is a ridiculous excuse), he had to have been well over the speed limit before that alleged event occurred, otherwise he should have been able to recover before crashing IMO. I wonder what Hyundai(Genesis) is thinking about him right now.

Not really.

Let me share with you what happened to me this weekend. I typically wear driving moccasins when driving the M6. Well...since I had a date (and a hot one might I add ), I was wearing normal dress shoes. The ledge of my dress shoe caught the underside, right edge of the brake pedal for a micro-second and the car lurched forward about a foot or two. This is a car I have tracked for thousands of laps and hit about 190mph on many occasions and a simple change like that caused me, a very experienced driver, to make an error. It isn't stupidity.

Driving is about 70% muscle memory and 30% acute awareness for experienced drivers in their own cars. When any variable changes anything can happen.

A reminder of what big American Feet on little foreign car pedals can result in:

https://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/...-acceleration/

[mahalom3]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I wasn't at the scene, but there are only two answers:

• The official answer: The DRE's on scene didn't observe any behaviors that would lead them to believe Wood's was significantly impaired enough to conduct any sobriety tests.
• The alternative answer: The powers that be told them directly or indirectly to stand down and not go looking if it wasn't obvious.

Also due to the severity of his injuries and his status is first get him to the hospital. All you could do is have a blood nurse 87 the hospital then get consent from him for a blood draw.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Tacoma

According to Yahoo Sports:

"In a news conference Wednesday, law enforcement said that data recordings from the car show that Woods did not brake prior to the accident but did press on the accelerator at a "99 percent" rate. Lomita Captain James Powers said investigators believe Woods accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake. The final estimated speed when Woods' vehicle struck a tree was 75 mph."

I'm not sure what made Captain Powers "believe" Tiger accidentally hit the accelerator? Tiger said himself that he didn't recall the incident.

Tiger is a top level professional athlete playing a sport that requires excellent body coordination. I don't buy this 'accidentally hit the accelerator" crap. Maybe if he were a 80 year old accountant, but not a top tier professional golfer. If they blame this on the car, Hyundai better take this to the courts.

Being a top level professional athlete doesn't confer driving god status on them. You may want to read up on how many professional athletes fold up their exotic sports cars.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by mahalom3

Also due to the severity of his injuries and his status is first get him to the hospital. All you could do is have a blood nurse 87 the hospital to get consent for a blood draw.

Indeed! I'm sure the investigators that responded to the hospital got the indication Woods wouldn't consent and there wasn't enough PC to force a blood draw.


Now that you mentioned blood draws....


....thankfully I've been able to sweet talk the RN's, etc. at the hospitals I frequent to perform my DUI blood draws without having to call a specified nurse or phlebotomist to come perform my draws for me. When I know I'm en route with a deuce, I start complimenting nurses and doctors as soon as I arrive, building up that rapport before I pop the question. Lol!

[rwheels]

In honor of Tiger, here is a new excuse. It worked for this guy.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

No.

Don't want to make trouble, but how does CA get around the Fed law?

"The federal Driver Privacy Act of 2015 was enacted in December 2015. This law places restrictions on data retrieval from EDRs and it assigns ownership of the data to the owner or lessee of the vehicle. In the state of Delaware, under Delaware Code § 3918, EDR data may be accessed with policyholder’s consent. This applies only to private passenger vehicles and individual policy holders."

https://www.smflegal.com/2016/08/23/...owns-controls/

"In December 2015, the federal Driver Privacy Act of 2015 was enacted. It places limitations on data retrieval from EDRs and provides that information collected belongs to the owner or lessee of the vehicle. Seventeen states–Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington–have enacted statutes relating to event data recorders and privacy. Among other provisions, these states provide that data collected from a motor vehicle event data recorder may only be downloaded with the consent of the vehicle owner or policyholder, with certain exceptions."

https://www.cedtechnologies.com/event-data-recorders/

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Don't want to make trouble, but how does CA get around the Fed law?

"The federal Driver Privacy Act of 2015 was enacted in December 2015. This law places restrictions on data retrieval from EDRs and it assigns ownership of the data to the owner or lessee of the vehicle. In the state of Delaware, under Delaware Code § 3918, EDR data may be accessed with policyholder's consent. This applies only to private passenger vehicles and individual policy holders."

https://www.smflegal.com/2016/08/23/...owns-controls/

"In December 2015, the federal Driver Privacy Act of 2015 was enacted. It places limitations on data retrieval from EDRs and provides that information collected belongs to the owner or lessee of the vehicle. Seventeen states–Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington–have enacted statutes relating to event data recorders and privacy. Among other provisions, these states provide that data collected from a motor vehicle event data recorder may only be downloaded with the consent of the vehicle owner or policyholder, with certain exceptions."

https://www.cedtechnologies.com/event-data-recorders/

When a vehicle becomes evidence, things change (...e.g...certain exceptions).

[mahalom3]

[QUOTE=Sedan_Clan;27445010]Indeed! I'm sure the investigators that responded to the hospital got the indication Woods wouldn't consent and there wasn't enough PC to force a blood draw.


Now that you mentioned blood draws....


....thankfully I've been able to sweet talk the RN's, etc. at the hospitals I frequent to perform my DUI blood draws without having to call a specified nurse or phlebotomist to come perform my draws for me. When I know I'm en route with a deuce, I start complimenting nurses and doctors as soon as I arrive, building up that rapport before I pop the question. Lol![/QUO

You know it!! It's the same thing when it comes to the dispatchers as well...

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

When a vehicle becomes evidence, things change (...e.g...certain exceptions).

And Tiger isn't the owner, right?

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

When a vehicle becomes evidence, things change (...e.g...certain exceptions).

So, pretty much any accident?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

And Tiger isn't the owner, right?

That too!! It was a rental. We can also obtain consent from the legal owner (...e.g. the bank, for any vehicle not owned outright).

Originally Posted by Littlebear

So, pretty much any accident?

If we're holding the vehicle for evidence, yes. We don't hold most vehicles. If I feel like I want to take a vehicle for evidence, and I have the legal authority to do so under 22655.5 CVC, I do!!

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

That too!! It was a rental. We can also obtain consent from the legal owner (...e.g. the bank, for any vehicle not owned outright).

Related, if there is a lien on the vehicle that hit me, can I go after the lien-holder for damages?????

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Related, if there is a lien on the vehicle that hit me, can I go after the lien-holder for damages?????

I doubt it since their lien is in the interest of owed monies. They also aren't the registered or legal owner.

[M-technik-3]

Prior track record for him was driving under influence, so they would pull common folks blood. Not sure how the Sheriff is elected or appointed in California but he might be looking for a new job soon. This case stinks of preferential treatment.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Prior track record for him was driving under influence, so they would pull common folks blood. Not sure how the Sheriff is elected or appointed in California but he might be looking for a new job soon. This case stinks of preferential treatment.

No, he'll be fine. That's not how it works. He's elected. If he loses his job it'll be for reasons way more important than Woods (...and mostly political considering he's at odds with our Board of Supervisors for not bending to the status quo). Our Sheriff didn't really sweep this under the rug. Others wanted him to, but he didn't.

Prior history is information only. You having a prior DUI, for example, only comes into play if I arrest you for another DUI and want to stack charges. A person may decline a PAS or blood draw, however, I'm taking their license for a year on the spot if they do (...and that's highly inconvenient for anybody with a job; and it's convenient for us because we'll get a 14601 CVC stat if we catch you driving.....and take your car). Most of this is in fine print in our California Vehicle Code.

[6oclockshadow]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Not really.

It's all on the officer(s) at the scene and their judgement. I know of someone who was once stopped for 115 mph in a 50 mph zone AND construction zone. No ticket and a verbal warning. No traffic and my friend was very apologetic and remorseful with a logical reason for the speed.

I also know of people who have gotten ticketed for 65 in a 60 with improper lane use and a few other factors because they were driving dangerously.

Speed doesn't equal danger at all times. All speed does is exacerbate problems if they occur and the driver is unskilled at car control (Which, unfortunately, most are).

what "logical"reason is there to be travelling 65mph over the posted limit??seriously?