ID:183817
 Apr 8 2007, 8:57 am (Edited on Apr 10 2007, 12:20 pm)
|
|
|
Apr 8 2007, 8:58 am
|
|
Popisfizzy
 |
Well, you shouldn't have taken the blatanly stupid option of leaving, because now the cops are going to get involved.
|
Knifo wrote:
As i was leaving, my car hit 2 parked cars. 1 was the kid who was having the party, and the other was the person next doors car. ... Why? ~Kujila | |
Obvious question: How in the world do you hit 2 parked cars, and why would you get into a situation where you'd be apt to do so if you already had 2 accidents? Taking off was truly a dumb thing to do since you've just elevated the accident to a criminal matter. Of course, I'm guessing to hit the parked cars you were driving drunk, which is another criminal matter as well--and I'd make an educated guess that it was a factor in the other accidents as well.
Another question comes to mind: Why didn't your family get you off the insurance after 2 accidents and make you buy your own? Lummox JR | |
What the hell is wrong with you? You have an accident and then just take off? I mean, I agree, you HAD to have been drinking and then you leave the scene of an accident? Man you are dumb. How old are you? You got to be young because you obviously have no sense of responsibility. You would have been better off just dealing with the accident like an adult. Three car accidents sounds like a problem too. They should make you go to a defensive driving class. Where I used to live, you had to even if you got into just one car accident.
| |
the cars were parked vertically on a narrow road, i was on the other side and pulled out. When i turned to go the other direction my car slide and hit the back of the first car, and then slid off and hit the front of the other one.
| |
Knifo wrote:
First let me give you a background. I have already been involved in 2 accidents, and if i got into one more my family would be dropped by the insurance company. So why are you driving to parties? With that kind of record, school/work and the store should be the only places you are allowed to drive to. So back to last night... I was at my a party that i wouldnt call him a friend, but someone i knew was having. As i was leaving, my car hit 2 parked cars. Cars don't hit anything- drivers do. How much were you drinking? If the answer wasn't 0, you shouldn't have gotten into the car. I decided to hit the gas, and run. Bad decision #3. You know what they say about strikes... If only I had a time machine... If only you had some common sense! Wake up and start taking responsibility for your actions! You can't skip it so start working. Buckle down and get serious about living in the real world. Work off the damage and maybe you will get lucky and the DA won't press charges on your hit and run. Keep being a screw up and things will get worse. I know it sounds harsh, but the last thing you need is a sugar coating. What you do need to do is get focused. I have seen people go both ways. I really hope for your sake that you learn from this and start doing better. Good luck. | |
Jmurph wrote:
Cars don't hit anything- drivers do. How much were you drinking? If the answer wasn't 0, you shouldn't have gotten into the car. Ditto | |
I'd like to take a second to go off topic and have a rant here. It has been a discussion with me and my friends for awhile now. Alcohol seems so destructive and cigarettes can cause cancer and yet they are still perfectly legal. And yet on the other hand, a harmless drug like marijuana is banned from any public use. I don't do drugs and I don't smoke or drink either. But it just seems so stupid that, out of all the terrible things you can do, one of the least dangerous is banned.
| |
Item A is dangerous and banned. Item B is more dangerous and not banned. Generally this leads to the conclusion that Item B should be banned, not that the ban on Item A should be lifted.
| |
I sympathise with the sentiment, but they tried Prohibition. It didn't work too well.
Looking at the historical evidence, it seems that a better way to handle it is to legalise the drugs (at least for use) and focus on harm minimisation - helping addicts with rehab programs and safe injecting rooms and such. The upshot of this is that the drugs don't need to be harvested/synthesized/whatever in a dodgy backstreet lab to hide from the police any more, so the safety of the drug improves (it's still bad but at least it's less likely to be laced with rat poison in what essentially becomes a commercial environment), it hurts organised crime, and we can get on with helping addicts to break their behaviour rather than punishing them. They are, after all, the victims. I should note that I've never touched cigarettes or illegal drugs and I never plan to; I'm not advocating legalisation because I want to do it, but rather because I think the harm minimisation approach is simply the best way to rid society of most of the evils of drug use. I do drink alcohol in moderation, very occasionally. | |
I've sorry to say but i don't think you can avoid this in anyway your going to have to buckle down and say that you was under the influence of alcohol (how old are you anyway) that might help in someway you will get points but not as bad as saying you wasn't under the influence of alcohol.
Well at least its not as bad as getting ran over by a parked car. >.>' | |
Yorae wrote:
how old are you anyway Not long ago he was complaining about a fake idea being taken off him, and the drinking laws in America being too strict. So not old enough to drink, and was probably drinking on the night. Either way, it's him who should suffer. Not his parents. | |
I agree and what is worse is the fact that in a lot of places, they hold the parents responsible for what their children do. Which is ridiculous. If I had a kid and he did what this guy did, not only would he be grounded forever, have any privileges taken away, but I would request they put him in jail for awhile so he can see what it is like.
| |
Smoko wrote:
Yorae wrote: Some people never learn. He gets off easy and not a week later does something even more stupid, while likely doing the same thing he was attempting to do that only got him the slap on the wrist. And pretty much no matter how you cut it, $7,000-$10,000 in damages from hitting two parked cars? That was much more than sucking at backing up and just bumping into a car. | |
Nick231 wrote:
Some people never learn. He gets off easy and not a week later does something even more stupid, while likely doing the same thing he was attempting to do that only got him the slap on the wrist. And pretty much no matter how you cut it, $7,000-$10,000 in damages from hitting two parked cars? That was much more than sucking at backing up and just bumping into a car. In addition to this, I fail to see how a car can 'slide' and hit each end of two cars parked in opposite directions, as he described. | |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
They should make you go to a defensive driving class. is there a defense against parked cars? | |
Jmurph wrote:
Knifo wrote: But the manufacturers decide how wide/fat/long/crappy the cars are. :) | |