Road rage is believed responsible for an accident on Hwy. 401 in Milton early today that claimed the life of a local man.
Ontario Provincial Police say a black Yukon SUV and what they believe to be a burgundy Pontiac Grand Am or Grand Prix were jockeying on northbound James Snow Parkway shortly after 5 a.m. when the two vehicles entered the eastbound lanes of Hwy. 401.
"The vehicles sped east until the car pulled in front of the SUV and slammed on its brakes," said Staff Sgt. Scott Lawson.
The SUV swerved to avoid the car, struck the centre guardrail and careered down the highway, rolling over at least once before it came to a stop 300 metres away.
The driver, a man in his 50s believed to be from the Milton area, was ejected and crushed as the SUV rolled. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
The Pontiac fled the accident scene. Police are now trying to locate the vehicle and identify its driver.
The accident caused chaos during the morning rush hour as police closed all eastbound lanes of Hwy. 401 from James Snow Parkway to Trafalgar Rd.
Lawson said there was "some interaction" between the two vehicles, but that investigators hope witnesses will come forward to give them a more complete picture of what happened.
The SUV has been removed from the scene and the highway was reopened about 10:30 a.m
Let's see ...
Oversized black SUV (pictured in linked article): check.
Aggressive driving/racing with other vehicle: check.
Too stupid to wear a seatbelt, hence ejected from vehicle: check.
All in all, we're better off without this asshole on the road. It's just too bad that both of these road-rage idiots didn't die. Why can't more aggressive drivers in SUVs kill themselves?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Kanastrous wrote:If they drove subcompacts the same way, we'd be rids of a lot more of them.
This guy might have actually survived in a different type of vehicle. He swerved in an SUV and rolled it: a common weakness of the high-riding SUV vehicle type.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Anyway, why did the driver of the Pontiac think for a moment that it was a good idea to slam on his brakes in front of an SUV? If the SUV hadn't attempted to avoid the collision, it might have simply gone right over the top pf the car, crushing it. Road rage or not, there evidently wasn't a whole lot of wise decision-making on the part of the Pontiac driver.
The other day I saw an SUV (not much larger than the one in the photo linked above) that was resting at an angle on top of a concrete divider/barrier between opposing lanes of the highway. It looked as if the SUV had been carefully lowered on top of the barrier by a crane or something--the vehicle was nearly perpendicular to the road. It also didn't appear to be heavily damaged, at least not in front, so I am still trying to figure out how it got perched up there. I've no doubt speed was a factor.
Kanastrous wrote:If they drove subcompacts the same way, we'd be rids of a lot more of them.
This guy might have actually survived in a different type of vehicle. He swerved in an SUV and rolled it: a common weakness of the high-riding SUV vehicle type.
They would be less prone to rollovers, but there are other departure modes which can still get them killed, where the subcompact offers less impact-protection.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
True; I've been in a small, low car(GM/Opel Astra) when the driver lost traction to all four wheels in dry conditions at about 110kmh. It still felt quite stable.
It pisses me right up the wall to see SUVs driven around by one person with no passengers in commuter traffic. And to think that when people used to need a bigger car, if a sedan didn't cut it they bought a van.
tim31 wrote:It pisses me right up the wall to see SUVs driven around by one person with no passengers in commuter traffic. And to think that when people used to need a bigger car, if a sedan didn't cut it they bought a van.
Indeed. There's a woman who lives nearby here and ever day she returns from wherever driving this enormous Hummer. I don't know which model it is, but it barely fits in the garage. And every time she drive in or out she is alone. It's obscene to be driving something like that.
FSTargetDrone wrote:Crushed by his own monstrosity. How fitting.
Anyway, why did the driver of the Pontiac think for a moment that it was a good idea to slam on his brakes in front of an SUV? If the SUV hadn't attempted to avoid the collision, it might have simply gone right over the top pf the car, crushing it. Road rage or not, there evidently wasn't a whole lot of wise decision-making on the part of the Pontiac driver.
Either way, it would've been evolution in action. No matter which one got crushed (and only if it was one of our two winners,) the gene pool would be just a bit cleaner.
TheKwas wrote:Excuse me if I'm out of place, but when did driving an oversized car too aggressively become a crime worthy of capital punishment?
Actually, I believe what most people are saying is that the road is safer without assholes like that driving on it. Considering the fact that driving is inherently hazardous for a variety of reasons, and idiots in enormous SUVs who think traffic laws don't apply to them make it more so, I find it hard to disagree with that assessment.
Nobody said "drivers like this should be arrested, tried, and executed."
I suppose Darth Wong's original post with the sentence "It's just too bad that both of these road-rage idiots didn't die. Why can't more aggressive drivers in SUVs kill themselves?" can be construed as promoting the deaths of bad drivers. Still doesn't involve the legal system or even suggest that this should be a legal punishment for bad driving in an SUV.
TheKwas wrote:Excuse me if I'm out of place, but when did driving an oversized car too aggressively become a crime worthy of capital punishment?
Reckless endangerment of the public. I have no problem with shooting the assholes, and I couldn't be much happier that this particular dipshit is dead.
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
TheKwas wrote:Excuse me if I'm out of place, but when did driving an oversized car too aggressively become a crime worthy of capital punishment?
Look at it this way: People who drive like that, in vehicles like that, are a danger to everyone around them. Their shitty driving habits threaten the lives of everyone sharing the road with them on a daily basis, thus it is a measurably good thing that in the end, the only person offed by their assholery was themselves.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
FSTargetDrone wrote:
Anyway, why did the driver of the Pontiac think for a moment that it was a good idea to slam on his brakes in front of an SUV? If the SUV hadn't attempted to avoid the collision, it might have simply gone right over the top pf the car, crushing it. Road rage or not, there evidently wasn't a whole lot of wise decision-making on the part of the Pontiac driver.
I don't know if it's the case in Ontario, but I know that in some places, if you rear-end someone, it's automatically your fault, even if the asshole in front of you slammed on their breaks deliberately so you'd hit them and they could sue you or collect insurance money or something.
But I seriously doubt even that much thinking went into it. He (and the driver is probably a he) probably just thought it'd be really awesome, like a game of chicken (not that the game is actually awesome except in the minds of potential Darwin Award winners).
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!
SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
Mayabird wrote:
I don't know if it's the case in Ontario, but I know that in some places, if you rear-end someone, it's automatically your fault, even if the asshole in front of you slammed on their breaks deliberately so you'd hit them and they could sue you or collect insurance money or something.
A rear-end collision is automatically your fault in Ontario, your supposed to leave enough space between you to stop even if he slams on the brakes full bore.
Now they might charge the other guy if they find out he did it deliberatley (not sure how they find that out if the passenger doesn;t come forward) but they'll probably still charge you for following to close.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
