One of the most incorruptible attributes of the human condition is our immutable desire to honor life in times of death. Never before has this been more apparent to me than it has been this week, when dozens of average citizens expressed their collective disdain over a bout of disrespectful and irresponsible coverage of the tragic deaths of Lt. Commander Denis Tri and Tricia Goken.

As most readers of Southern Maryland Online know by now, Denis and Trish were killed on Saturday, January 29, when, according to the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office, Denis lost control of his 1996 Lexus on the ice covered roadway, crossed the center line, and was struck by a 1986 Dodge pickup.

As all responsible journalists tend to do, the editors of SMO reported the facts of the case as related by the sheriff’s office, noting, “The primary cause of the accident was icy roads. Speed or alcohol was not a contributing factor in the accident.” Likewise, the Hollywood (Md.) Volunteer Fire Department, Company 7, website states that its emergency rescue squad “arrived on location at 2213 hours establishing the Hollywood command and advised that there were dangerous road conditions due to the weather.”

However, Ken Rossignol, publisher of St. Mary’s Today, wrote that this accident occurred because Denis was “going too fast,” which caused him to “[lose] control of his vehicle and [cross] the center line of the highway into the path of a pickup truck.”

Notice that Rossignol mentions nowhere that Denis encountered ice on the roadway, which clearly caused him to lose control of his vehicle; he merely insinuates that Denis was driving irresponsibly, akin to a drunken teenager careening recklessly down the highway.

This intentional oversight by Rossignol drew the ire of many local and out-of-state residents, some of whom Rossignol simply dismisses by assuming readers are attempting to “change [his] accurate report to attempt to soothe [their] grief.”

On the contrary, an “accurate report” would have included the tiny little fact that an icy roadway caused Denis to cross the center lane.

What Rossignol fails to understand is that readers of his rag aren’t expressing their dissatisfaction with his coverage simply to slake their grief over the loss of Denis and Trish. Indeed, many readers never even have met them. They’re outraged because his provocative and disparaging comments are an affront to responsible journalism, which readers are entitled to expect, as well as standards of decency.

However, readers get a true glimpse of Ken Rossignol’s psyche and maturity level after examining some of his responses to related letters to the editor (to which, in these instances, he does have the right to respond editorially).

After Nancy Beebe of Chicago objected to Rossignol’s “preachy responses” (her words) to his readers and his assumption that “the only safe speed under such conditions is about 15 to 20,” he responds:

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn if you were offended by preachy responses. Going over 15 to 20 on an ice covered road is not only dangerous but suicidal. It is a fact, not conjecture, that the death of two people on our highway on Saturday night took place due to the driver going too fast for the weather conditions. Your decision to stick your head somewhere which hinders clear thinking is nothing that any rational person can do anything about. This is America and you have the right to be irrational. Nothing has been reported to impugn the character of the deceased. Nothing. The reconstructionist knows exactly what caused the crash and his written investigation shows that cause. It's a public record, seek and learn. While you may crave sensational reporting in Chicago, we don't have to invent sensation here in Southern Maryland. [emphasis added]
Mr. Rossignol is correct. It’s what he didn’t report that “[impugned] the character of the deceased.” He continually claims that Denis Tri was driving too fast for the weather conditions, yet he never once mentions that in his “report.” That in itself sensationalizes the reporting.

But since it seems we’ve gone from lamenting an incident of such misfortune to playing the “What if?” game and ridiculously speculating as to what exact speed could have prevented the deaths of Denis and Trish, let’s consider some worthwhile facts.

For starters, it is indeed true that Denis was ultimately driving too fast for the weather conditions. However, that Ken Rossignol states this in a “news report” while failing to mention the weather conditions at all implies that Denis ipso facto is solely to blame for the accident. Hence the unfair implication that Denis was driving irresponsibly. And of course, there is no speculation as to the speed of the Dodge truck (which, it goes without saying, is much heavier than a Lexus sportscar).

What is more, Rossignol demonstrates ignorance on stilts by saying Denis was “going too fast” when it’s common knowledge that even 10 mph is too fast if ice forces you off the road. Indeed, Rossignol has no idea how fast Denis was even driving in the first place, as he admits in a response to a reader, “There are no skid marks on ice, that is the problem, a lack of traction.”

Furthermore, Rossignol writes in another response that “A prudent decision for anyone would be to first, stay off the roads and second, to go slow.” Wow, there’s nothing like the uncanny ability to predict the past, eh Ken? I suppose Denis and Trish could have packed some camping gear and slept in the restaurant parking lot Saturday night instead of driving home. You know what? I suppose they could have done many things differently that night, not least deciding to drive three minutes from their house on Solomons to China Harbor, where we had earlier in the day invited them to join us for dinner.

But they didn’t. They decided to go to a nice dinner in Leonardtown and head home for the night around 10:00 p.m. Interestingly, they were followed by Derek Dean, a 16-year-old who witnessed the entire incident and impressively leapt immediately from his vehicle to assist Denis and Trish and call 911. If it weren’t for his quick response, the Hollywood rescue squad probably wouldn’t have been able to arrive at the scene in a mere four minutes, and Trish probably wouldn’t have even been able to hang on as long as she did before eventually succumbing to her injuries.

Via Derek’s sister, I’ve come to learn that Derek said both he and Denis were driving slowly and cautiously, and that the roads were not that bad until they reached the icy patch Denis encountered first.

In sum, it is infantile to speculate about “what might have been” after the fact, especially absent all the facts of a case. And it defies common sense to believe that motorists should forever creep along on the roads simply for fear of the unknown (which in itself is a cause of accidents) -- after all, there’s always the possibility of encountering a deer, a falling boulder, a cow, or in the case of Denis and Trish, black ice (which gets its name, of course, from the fact that it is indistinguishable from the common navigable road).

Ken Rossignol is not concerned about telling the story right, so long as he gets to tell the right story. The commonality among those who are able to detect the cynicism and ignorance of Mr. Rossignol is that we were all guilty of attempting to rationalize with an irrational man, who quite surely derives pleasure from instigating those providing him the satisfaction of being taken seriously.

Indeed, for the second year in a row, my New Year’s resolution has been to give up trying to reason with unreasonable people. And if, like me, you’d like to take Ken Rossignol’s advice and find something that will “soothe your grief,” you’d be surprised how therapeutic that really is.

Trevor Bothwell
Host, The Right Report
www.therightreport.com

responsible journalism = oxymoron?

:clap:

Trevor, well said. Ken had a great objective when he started going after drunk drivers, but his bitterness has turned him into a tyrant.

Well put Trevor.

Thank you for illustrating the apparent insincerity of Mr. Rossignol's style of reporting.

From what you've told me, this journalist sounds like a complete dolt. Even if this was the journalist's opinion (with no solid facts or evidence to back it up- go figure), it seems very unprofessional for Rossignol to have created a supposed factual article with anything in it but the facts. The police report provided and the witnesses’ testimony are the closest you're ever going to get to the facts in a situation like this. What Rossignol seems to be assuming is that anyone who hits ice and spins out while driving must be speeding- no exceptions. That's idiotic. There are many, many different factors when it comes to loosing control of your car than speed. Fortunately, other journalists are able to combat such nonsense.

Wait till Mr. Perfect gets into an accident on the ice. What goes around comes around.

Rather cold hearted and opinionated is the view of what I've seen over at the St. Mary's Today Online website.

The web page layout is sophomoric at best, with a hint of anger towards authority figures or any person with an alternate opinion other than the Editor as a whole.

Don't let this "tool" effect the memory of a friend of yours. He can voice his opinion of things, so I can as well.

He (Rossingnol) is just a disgruntled / malcontent with an axe to grind because his lunch money was taken a few too many times as a kid and now wants to seek revenge upon the world using the guise of "providing a public service" by pointing out the faults of others. I know of more than a few persons that are waiting for this guy to step out of line and then clobber him like a baby seal in Newfoundland (figuratively of course!).

Patience.

Peace to all, prayers to the famalies of LCDR Tri and Ms. Goken

This style of moronic reporting from Rossignal is nothing new from him...that is why is paper has always been refered as the National Enquirer of St. Mary's County.


Couple examples - his last minute attempt to influence the Fritz/Mattingley election a few years ago. Printing a story about the local fire department having a chief's vehicle at a bar late one night when it was someone's private vehicle painted the same color. Constant speculation into causes of accidents such as last Saturday night.....he always goes for the sensational headline - whether or not the facts are correct or even relevent. National Enquirer...that's all his rag is.

Folks, I think we all have valid opinions about the SMO and the hard copy sister paper. Since I have been down here (7 years) I have heard no positive comments about either. If I remember correctly, revenue for these publications is mostly with sold advertising. Advertising prices are based on circulation. If we actually stop reading both sophmoric publications, revenue will drop off and eventaully the good folks might have to find legitimate employment. In the meantime, all we can do is pray for enlightenment for the "reporters" for them to remember that the editorial page is for opinions, not the news.
:peace:

:clap:

Trevor, well said.
:yeahthat: Great reading! :clap:

Folks, I think we all have valid opinions about the SMO and the hard copy sister paper. Since I have been down here (7 years) I have heard no positive comments about either. If I remember correctly, revenue for these publications is mostly with sold advertising. Advertising prices are based on circulation. If we actually stop reading both sophmoric publications, revenue will drop off and eventaully the good folks might have to find legitimate employment. In the meantime, all we can do is pray for enlightenment for the "reporters" for them to remember that the editorial page is for opinions, not the news.
:peace:He has probably tripled his circulation based upon the last few days worth of threads in here.

He has probably tripled his circulation based upon the last few days worth of threads in here.
That's probably true - both sad and ironic.

I've mentioned it before on the board, that what seemed to propel Ken at the time - maybe 15 years ago, (I met him, when he owned a small office next door to Niccoletti's), was the death of his brother in an accident involving a DUI.

But he has gone well beyond that initiative, past the point of true investgative reporting, and it's evolved into something quite different.

No doubt, a certain amount of arrogance has seeped into his personna; maybe the result of popularity among people of his ilk, but it just doesn't work anymore.

His ego has risen above all that, and I suppose he feels he's doing more than an adequate job, reporting the tri-county news.

It's time for him to re-evaluate just what it is that he's accomplishing. JMHO

There is one core truth that Trevor fails to shine a light on: there are no such things as automobile accidents. Automobile "accidents" are always the result of either improper actions, or lack of action, taken. Unless a meteor falls from the sky and crushes your car, there's no accidents.

Mr. Rosignol is 100% correct in his reporting. The car was going too fast for conditions, as evidenced by the fact that the driver was not only unable to maintain control, but was also going so fast that when he did lose control he ended up on the other side of the road. I have been driving on ice and snow since I was 16 (which is to say for close to 40 years now) and while I have momentarily lost control of a car from time to time, I've never lost it to the extent that I was in another lane. But then again, I'm one of those people who does drive very slowly when there is a threat of black ice. Do I drive too slow for conditions? Well, I'll just say I'm alive and leave it at that.

During my 12 years of driving up and down RT 5, a road that's one of teh best cleared in the area, I've seen dozens of cars, trucks, and SUVs off the road and in ditches for the same reason CDR Tri lost control: they were going too fast. The ice didn't drift to the other lane, the ice didn't push the car from one lane to another. Ice was not the cause of the death of these people, merely a facilitator. The speed of the oncoming truck is meaningless as he managed to stay in his lane. The cause of the accident was the poor driving habits of CDR Tri.

There is one core truth that Trevor fails to shine a light on: there are no such things as automobile accidents. Automobile "accidents" are always the result of either improper actions, or lack of action, taken. Unless a meteor falls from the sky and crushes your car, there's no accidents.

Mr. Rosignol is 100% correct in his reporting. The car was going too fast for conditions, as evidenced by the fact that the driver was not only unable to maintain control, but was also going so fast that when he did lose control he ended up on the other side of the road. I have been driving on ice and snow since I was 16 (which is to say for close to 40 years now) and while I have momentarily lost control of a car from time to time, I've never lost it to the extent that I was in another lane. But then again, I'm one of those people who does drive very slowly when there is a threat of black ice. Do I drive too slow for conditions? Well, I'll just say I'm alive and leave it at that.

During my 12 years of driving up and down RT 5, a road that's one of teh best cleared in the area, I've seen dozens of cars, trucks, and SUVs off the road and in ditches for the same reason CDR Tri lost control: they were going too fast. The ice didn't drift to the other lane, the ice didn't push the car from one lane to another. Ice was not the cause of the death of these people, merely a facilitator. The speed of the oncoming truck is meaningless as he managed to stay in his lane. The cause of the accident was the poor driving habits of CDR Tri.


:liar:

So if a deer jumped in front of you and you hit the breaks and slide onto incoming traffic and then perished in a ball of flames.............

You wouldn't consider this an automobile accident? How would you prevent this? Mount a .50 cal. on your hood for oncoming wildlife?

:lmao: :lmao:

:liar:

So if a deer jumped in front of you and you hit the breaks and slide onto incoming traffic and then perished in a ball of flames.............

You wouldn't consider this an automobile accident? How would you prevent this? Mount a .50 cal. on your hood for oncoming wildlife?

:lmao: :lmao:

Gee... somehow I just knew that this would the example that someone would use to try to discount the opinion that there are no accidents... thank you likitysplit for being Mr./Ms. Predictable for today. You get a gold star. :yay:

No, a deer running out in front of you and you striking it is generally not an accident. Why? First, most people who live alongside deer know that the deer are out there, and that you should expect one to jump out at you at any time. Second, I think that most people who live around deer know that the Spring and the Fall are the most likely times when a deer will be in a position to become a hood ornament, and should increase their attention to the road. Lastly, every good driver that I know understands the rule for never driving faster than your headlights can illuminate an area.

So, if you're driving at 60 MPH down Golden Beach Drive in the Fall, shortly after dusk, and a deer "unexpectedly" jumps out in front of you and you can't slow down in time to avoid hitting it, it's your fault, i.e., not an accident. If you're driving the same road in the dead of winter at 10:00PM and one jumps out while you're doing 60 MPH, you're still at fault.

Yes... it may be an inconvenience to drive slowly when driving conditions require it, but risk does escalate with speed. SO, if you're willing to trade off risk to get someplace faster, and you get into a speed-related wreck... it's a wreck not an accident.

Gee... somehow I just knew that this would the example that someone would use to try to discount the opinion that there are no accidents... thank you likitysplit for being Mr./Ms. Predictable for today. You get a gold star. :yay:

No, a deer running out in front of you and you striking it is generally not an accident. Why? First, most people who live alongside deer know that the deer are out there, and that you should expect one to jump out at you at any time. Second, I think that most people who live around deer know that the Spring and the Fall are the most likely times when a deer will be in a position to become a hood ornament, and should increase their attention to the road. Lastly, every good driver that I know understands the rule for never driving faster than your headlights can illuminate an area.

So, if you're driving at 60 MPH down Golden Beach Drive in the Fall, shortly after dusk, and a deer "unexpectedly" jumps out in front of you and you can't slow down in time to avoid hitting it, it's your fault, i.e., not an accident. If you're driving the same road in the dead of winter at 10:00PM and one jumps out while you're doing 60 MPH, you're still at fault.

Yes... it may be an inconvenience to drive slowly when driving conditions require it, but risk does escalate with speed. SO, if you're willing to trade off risk to get someplace faster, and you get into a speed-related wreck... it's a wreck not an accident.


So, when did you pass the BAR? Put down the bong godzilla. Ok, so I'm driving down a road I've never been on, I'm from out of town (city folk) not really 'up-to-date' on the whitetails breeding/movement patterns and I'm doing 50 in a 60 mph zone. Deer is rutting and jumps into my lane and slams the side of my card sending me into traffice. Death occurs. If you don't call that an accident my friend, you must obviously be late for court...........

So, when did you pass the BAR? Put down the bong godzilla. Ok, so I'm driving down a road I've never been on, I'm from out of town (city folk) not really 'up-to-date' on the whitetails breeding/movement patterns and I'm doing 50 in a 60 mph zone. Deer is rutting and jumps into my lane and slams the side of my card sending me into traffice. Death occurs. If you don't call that an accident my friend, you must obviously be late for court...........

Much like a neutered dog... you're just not getting it. :blahblah: Rule number 1 of driving at night (this is assuming that you are driving at night, as you could see the deer coming during the day), is that you should drive at a speed that will allow you to safely slow and stop within the distance illuminated by your headlights. If this speed is too slow for you, that's fine... drive faster. But realize that a collision that results because you were going too fast to react to the deer is a result of you taking an incorrect course of action, which means it's not an accident, it's a collision.

I would think that having the deer run into you, which isn't a very frequent occurance, would fall under the meteor example originally posted. Much more common is an accident involving someone striking the deer. Most deer collisons occur because people are driving too fast for conditions, or they are not watching the road properly. But here is another unusual situation: I was driving down US 17 in Virginia one Sunday night, about 10:00PM. There are no streetlights, and illumination of the road was solely from my headlights. I was driving at 68 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. At 55 MPH, I could safely stop within the illumination of my headlights, but at 68 I could not. I came around a bend (which even at 55 MPH I couldn't stop within the illuminated area, and found that someone had hit a doe and left her to die in the middle of the highway. By the time my headlights lit her up, my mind recognized what I was seeing, and I was able to try to do something, my speed of advance left me with one of two choices as stopping was out of the question. I could run over the carcass with two tires, and probably trash my suspension, or I could take the carcass down the middle of the car and lose the exhaust. I chose the later and tore out most of my exhaust from the H-pipe back.

Now, was this an accident? Nope. The collision was a result of my going too fast for conditions, and the fault of the person who hit the deer leaving it in the road (especially just outside a bend.) The deer was completely innocent, just as the ice was completely innocent in the case discussed by Trevor.

Much like a neutered dog... you're just not getting it. :blahblah: Rule number 1 of driving at night (this is assuming that you are driving at night, as you could see the deer coming during the day), is that you should drive at a speed that will allow you to safely slow and stop within the distance illuminated by your headlights. If this speed is too slow for you, that's fine... drive faster. But realize that a collision that results because you were going too fast to react to the deer is a result of you taking an incorrect course of action, which means it's not an accident, it's a collision.

I would think that having the deer run into you, which isn't a very frequent occurance, would fall under the meteor example originally posted. Much more common is an accident involving someone striking the deer. Most deer collisons occur because people are driving too fast for conditions, or they are not watching the road properly. But here is another unusual situation: I was driving down US 17 in Virginia one Sunday night, about 10:00PM. There are no streetlights, and illumination of the road was solely from my headlights. I was driving at 68 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. At 55 MPH, I could safely stop within the illumination of my headlights, but at 68 I could not. I came around a bend (which even at 55 MPH I couldn't stop within the illuminated area, and found that someone had hit a doe and left her to die in the middle of the highway. By the time my headlights lit her up, my mind recognized what I was seeing, and I was able to try to do something, my speed of advance left me with one of two choices as stopping was out of the question. I could run over the carcass with two tires, and probably trash my suspension, or I could take the carcass down the middle of the car and lose the exhaust. I chose the later and tore out most of my exhaust from the H-pipe back.

Now, was this an accident? Nope. The collision was a result of my going too fast for conditions, and the fault of the person who hit the deer leaving it in the road (especially just outside a bend.) The deer was completely innocent, just as the ice was completely innocent in the case discussed by Trevor.

oh so sad you are my friend...........

Textbook Type A......thanks for playing.............

Anytime, and you're welcome.

Bruzilla synopsis-

"Mr. Rosignol is 100% correct in his reporting."
"During my 12 years of driving up and down RT 5.."

Rossignol's right? Why, because you have 12 years experience driving on Rt. 5?

Y.G.B.S.M.....

You showed your stripes when you said:

"The cause of the accident was the poor driving habits of CDR Tri."

How the F... do you know about his (Dennis Tri's) drving habits? Oh- wait a minute...you have 12 years experience driving on Rt 5........BFD.



BAD BOB

Failed attempts at "rationalization" from people like 'Bruzilla' are the reason I've kept the same New Year's resolution for the past two years. It's a personal affront to a thinker like Burke that he would quote him in his byline.

As I stated clearly in my current column, Rossignol's 'reporting' is anything but correct b/c he neglected (read: chose) to ignore the weather conditions which caused the ice on the roadway. It is not the responsibility of reporters to speculate on the front page about what causes accidents, especially when the police dept. plainly noted the cause. That he left out the most important element of the cause - "responsibility" aside - is an intentional distortion of events which sensationalizes an otherwise honest story.

Trevor

Gee... somehow I just knew that this would the example that someone would use to try to discount the opinion that there are no accidents... thank you likitysplit for being Mr./Ms. Predictable for today. You get a gold star. :yay:

No, a deer running out in front of you and you striking it is generally not an accident. Why? First, most people who live alongside deer know that the deer are out there, and that you should expect one to jump out at you at any time. Second, I think that most people who live around deer know that the Spring and the Fall are the most likely times when a deer will be in a position to become a hood ornament, and should increase their attention to the road. Lastly, every good driver that I know understands the rule for never driving faster than your headlights can illuminate an area.


Just to clear something up: Several weeks ago, I hit a deer while driving on Route 4 North just past the Food Lion shopping center in Lusby. I was driving when I noticed a small doe standing on the side of the road. I slowed down, knowing that if there is one deer present, there are often more. One second later (literally), a giantic buck ran out of woods. I braked (nobody around me, it was late at night) in an attempt to avoid it, but the buck's head hit my side mirror, making it rip off and slightly denting my front side passenger door. The buck ran into the woods, obviously injured, and I called the police. The officer then filed an "informal police report" and I was on my way home.

Since the deer ran into the side of my vehicle, I received all necessary repairs free of cost (no deductible, either). The insurance company stated that since the deer ran into my side, I was not at fault. However, if I had hit the deer with the front of my car, I would have been considered at fault.

I'm not trying to argue, this is just what the insurance company says. It's all very weird to me. :confused:

One second later (literally), a giantic buck ran out of woods. I braked (nobody around me, it was late at night) in an attempt to avoid it, but the buck's head hit my side mirror, making it rip off and slightly denting my front side passenger door.

This was not an accident. It's obvious that you intentionally slowed to a rate of speed that caused the buck to run into the side of your vehicle. You should have anticipated the buck running into the side of your car. Any experienced, safe driver would have.

Trevor,
re your:
"As I stated clearly in my current column, Rossignol's 'reporting' is anything but correct b/c he neglected (read: chose) to ignore the weather conditions which caused the ice on the roadway. It is not the responsibility of reporters to speculate on the front page about what causes accidents, especially when the police dept. plainly noted the cause. That he left out the most important element of the cause - "responsibility" aside - is an intentional distortion of events which sensationalizes an otherwise honest story."

You hit the nail on the head, again.

What we are P.O.'d about is St. Mary's Today's deliberate and unabashed characterization of the story/tragedy.

I say "BS walks and money talks" with folks like Rossignol. I've read his replies to the folks who tried to reason with him in "his" paper. No win situation..almost like trying to have an honest issue discussion with Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi! He isn't the kind to admit any miscalculation or error.

Don't like his "spin"? I recommend modifying "his" behavior by not soliciting his bill paying advertisers:

-Linda's Cafe

-Radio Shack - Leonardtown Center

-Blair's Jewelry

-Bell Motors - GMC Chevy Pontiac Buick Olds

-Courtesy Cab

-Solid Wood Furniture

-Carolina Furniture

-GMP Cable

-The Flower Shop

-Barb's Tools

-Charlie's Deli

Man, I really like Linda's for breakfast, too! But to make a point I'll give it up.

Bab Bob

This was not an accident. It's obvious that you intentionally slowed to a rate of speed that caused the buck to run into the side of your vehicle. You should have anticipated the buck running into the side of your car. Any experienced, safe driver would have.:yeahthat: You should take a performance driving school.

interesting how a conversation about driving too fast for the road conditions can lead to talk about objects flying out of nowhere to hit your car.

:yeahthat: You should take a performance driving school.


:lmao:

And if you were as skilled and knowledgeable as Bruzilla, the deer biologist, you'd have recognized the behavior patterns of the whitetail and could have predicted the action. Shame on you for not reading Field and Stream and brushing up on your wildlife behavior prediction theory...........

There may be just a chance that Bruzilla and Rossignol are the same person......could it be............Mr. Ken##### lurking?
:lmao:

:boxing:

:lmao:

And if you were as skilled and knowledgeable as Bruzilla, the deer biologist, you'd have recognized the behavior patterns of the whitetail and could have predicted the action. Shame on you for not reading Field and Stream and brushing up on your wildlife behavior prediction theory...........

There may be just a chance that Bruzilla and Rossignol are the same person......could it be............Mr. Ken##### lurking?
:lmao:

:boxing:

I;m such a idgit....ur right u no i shoulda gradeitated frum skol i wood half lerned abot the dear

i blam the gumervent.

:whack: :lmao:

LMFAO @ deer/car accident comments.

"The cause of the accident was the poor driving habits of CDR Tri."

How the F... do you know about his (Dennis Tri's) drving habits? Oh- wait a minute...you have 12 years experience driving on Rt 5........BFD.

Ok. Please state your reasonings for a why a healthy male drives across the lane divider and smashes into an oncoming vehicle? Short of suicide or poor driving habits, what else is there?

Before you can make the statement that Mr. Rosignol is wrong, you should have some theoretical alternative sequence of events in mind (I hope).

Trevor,
re your:
"As I stated clearly in my current column, Rossignol's 'reporting' is anything but correct b/c he neglected (read: chose) to ignore the weather conditions which caused the ice on the roadway. It is not the responsibility of reporters to speculate on the front page about what causes accidents, especially when the police dept. plainly noted the cause. That he left out the most important element of the cause - "responsibility" aside - is an intentional distortion of events which sensationalizes an otherwise honest story."

You hit the nail on the head, again.

What we are P.O.'d about is St. Mary's Today's deliberate and unabashed characterization of the story/tragedy.

Bab Bob

The fact that bad weather created ice on the road is an ancillary (at best) cause of the collision. If it were a primary cause, one would expect there to have been multiple accidents at that location, yet there weren't. Why? Because other drivers were utilizing proper driving techniques, and/or, the absence of an oncoming vehicle when control was lost - most likely the former.

When police do an AIR for any collision, they have to base the AIR on known facts. The "known" facts in this case are that the car slid on the ice and crossed over to the path of an oncoming vehicle. Again, that is what is known and that's what will be in the official AIR. Now, since we know that the ice wasn't driving the car, nor did it suddenly lift off the pavement causing the car to swerve, what can cause a car to lose traction and steering control on ice? Mechanical failure or any change in momentum or direction are the answers. Assuming that the AIR would mention any mechanical failure, that leaves change in momentum or direction, and those are factors that are 100% controlled by the driver.

I'm sure we could spend hours discussing the physics of driving on ice, but I doubt the discussion would yield any benefits as the core point you guys are really trying to make is that Mr. Rosignol is a bad reporter. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but the point is that this was a lousy example to use to make your case.