Tiger woods in very serious car crash

[Dinsdale]

@Broomstick

Would first responders/ER personnel necessarily recognize Tiger Woods?

How many people do you think are MORE recognizable than Eldrick? When driving a clearly labelled golf tournament courtesy car? (I also STR that one of the linked articles suggested the dispatchers knew it was Tiger, but I may misremember.)

I have no idea how to do such a thing, but I wonder how many celebs have had more news mentions over as long a time as Tiger.

@Broomstick

Um… yes, actually all those alternatives you name are, in fact, possibilities. Some more likely than others.

Boy, you are really stretching here. Which do you think more likely? Negligence, or any/all other factor(s)? How much more likely? Very few car accidents occur because the driver was driving perfectly and paying perfect attention. Especially on low traffic on dry roads in clear weather early in the morning.

[Broomstick]

@Dinsdale

How many people do you think are MORE recognizable than Eldrick? When driving a clearly labelled golf tournament courtesy car? (

Frankly, even if he IS in a “clearly labelled golf tournament courtesy car” I’m not sure I’d recognize Tiger Woods. Not everyone follows golf.

There are a lot of celebrities I wouldn’t, personally recognize, or at least not without prompting. Especially after an accident where they’re bloodied up and not looking camera-ready.

Sure, sometimes celebrities in an accident are recognized. Sometimes they’re not.

@Dinsdale

Boy, you are really stretching here. Which do you think more likely? Negligence, or any/all other factor(s)? How much more likely?

I don’t know - by which I mean, I don’t have the information to make that determination.

Having been in circumstances where something mechanical malfunctioned with the vehicle I was operating - engine quits, electrical failures, loss of all the rubber on a wheel, brake failures - I am quite aware that mechanical problems do happen, even if I never myself wound up in an accident due to these problems. I have, on occasion, lost control due to weather problems (usually ice) and, again, while nothing serious happened to me I can see where Horrible Accidents can arise from such situations (although I’m pretty sure ice was not a factor for the accident we’re focusing on). I have, on occasion, driven too fast like just about everyone from time to time. I have driven while angry, while tired, while grieving, and last October while having a 103 degree fever and covid. I have never ever driven while impaired with alcohol due to a long ago personal choice. I did once have a bad issue with prescribed medication, but realized it before I reached the end of the driveway, stopped the car, went inside, and had my spouse drive me to work and back until it wore off, then read the riot act to the doctor who hadn’t warned me that was a possibility.

You are correct, very few accidents occur in good conditions with a driver driving “perfectly”, but all of us who have been driving any significant length of time have from time to time driven less than perfectly and we’re all damn lucky that not EVERY instance of less than perfect results in a terrible crash.

I do think that because Tiger Woods is a dick and has had problems in the past people are quickly jumping to conclusions here. I would agree that the possibility of driver impairment should be looked into, absolutely, but I would also argue that all other possibilities should also be considered. It is in fact possible Woods was absolutely sober up to this crash. That doesn’t rule out him being negligent for other reasons.

[Procrustus]

@Dinsdale

How many people do you think are MORE recognizable than Eldrick?

I may or may not have recognized him, but I had no idea until googling that his actual first name was Eldrick.

[TriPolar]

Who is Eldrick? Is he a friend of Tiger’s?

[needscoffee]

Seems to me that if your judgment is telling you that driving at such a high rate of speed that you cross a median and two lanes of traffic and run off the road down a hillside, your judgment is poor enough that there would be a reasonable suspicion of chemical impairment.

The fact that the police did or didn’t note bloodshot eyes or slurring of words is irrelevant, as those often don’t occur at alcohol levels at which you’re still legally over the limit. I see no conflict with Woods’ civil rights in testing his blood levels in this matter.

[PackerMan2]

If a CDL carrying driver while driving a commercial vehicle were in an accident of the same nature, they would be mandated by Federal Law to be tested for drugs and alcohol. I know he doesn’t fall into this criteria, but to say that it would be unconstitutional or illegal is just plainly ridiculous. It happens every day.

The emergency responders claim that there were no signs of impairment. And how would one be able to make that determination on someone who was just in a serious accident, pinned inside the vehicle with multiple compound fractures?

[Broomstick]

@needscoffee

Seems to me that if your judgment is telling you that driving at such a high rate of speed that you cross a median and two lanes of traffic and run off the road down a hillside, your judgment is poor enough that there would be a reasonable suspicion of chemical impairment.

It would be extremely rare that anyone intentionally speeds to that degree, but I suspect the average driver woefully underestimates just how easy it is to lose control on a road. By the time he crossed the median I suspect Mr. Woods was no longer a driver but a passenger of physics. You lose control before you depart your lane.

People are too ready to suspect chemical impairment when all that’s required is over-confidence and human fallibility.

@needscoffee

I see no conflict with Woods’ civil rights in testing his blood levels in this matter.

I don’t either - but that’s not what was done. It’s certainly not legally required for the authorities to make such tests routinely. Mandating them for all would remove the element of possible favoritism and perhaps uncover many more instances of impaired driving than we currently do.

@PackerMan2

The emergency responders claim that there were no signs of impairment. And how would one be able to make that determination on someone who was just in a serious accident, pinned inside the vehicle with multiple compound fractures?

You’re talking about obvious signs, like the smell of alcohol, slurring of words, and so forth. Apparently, despite being seriously injured, Woods was speaking coherently and was conscious and aware of where he was and what happened.

Of course, as many have pointed out, by the time impairment is obvious you’re way past “impaired”. The reduction of capability kicks in before that point.

[needscoffee]

@Broomstick

It would be extremely rare that anyone intentionally speeds to that degree, but I suspect the average driver woefully underestimates just how easy it is to lose control on a road. By the time he crossed the median I suspect Mr. Woods was no longer a driver but a passenger of physics. You lose control before you depart your lane.

People are too ready to suspect chemical impairment when all that’s required is over-confidence and human fallibility.

People stagger due to other causes than being drunk, too. We still test.

[wolfpup]

@Omniscient

I’ve been in an accident before, I don’t drink and drive, had they tried to draw blood from me there would have been a fight. People are very frivolous with their rights these days.

A fight with the police is always a good way to move things along.

Where I live (and where we have a Charter of Rights similar to the Bill of Rights) refusing a breathalyzer or blood test when requested by police is an offense equivalent to a DUI, as it should be. Anyone who thinks this concession to public safety somehow opens the door to warrantless search and seizure inside your house is just setting up a ridiculous straw man and playing games. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you don’t want to be bothered verifying that right, say, by having to present documentation on demand, or having your possible impairment checked out, then don’t drive. The rights you have when in your home, or when peacefully walking on a public street, are not the same as the rights you have – and don’t have – when behind the wheel of a car.

[Atamasama]

The TMZ article quoted a witness who stated that Tiger seemed agitated when he left the hotel. He almost hit a vehicle while speeding out of the parking lot.

When I was young I was warned to never “drive angry”. Here is an article discussing the dangers of aggressive driving (not necessarily road rage, just driving while emotional):

Driving While Angry

Tiger didn’t have to be under the influence of any substances to be impaired while driving. Just being pissed off would be enough to potentially cause the accident. It can lead to speeding and other errors of judgment. My personal WAG here is that something set him off enough that he drove in a dangerous manner and that led directly to the crash.

[BippityBoppityBoo]

@Riemann

Why should your prior bad acts not be reasonable grounds to suspect you of a crime?

Parents do it all the time.

[N9IWP]

I’m no lawyer, but does implied consent apply?

Implied consent

@wiki

n 2016, People v. Arredondo , the California Courts of appeals debated whether authorities could seize an unwarranted blood sample from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence without offending the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches or seizures. The court ruled that the defendant "consented to such a search in advance solely by operation of the statute in California, which declares that anyone who drives a vehicle in this state is “deemed to have given his or her consent” to blood alcohol testing under specified conditions

@wiki

In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States in Schmerber v. California held that a warrantless blood sample is justified under the Fourth Amendment’s pressing circumstances because alcohol in one’s blood would be diminished by the body’s natural metabolic system if officers were to wait for a warrant

(I offer no opinion)

Brian

[Omniscient]

The operative phrase is “suspected of driving under the influence”. Tiger was not.

Others are arguing that simply being in an accident is in and of itself an indication of impairment which I find absurd and is a easy position take from the comfort of your couch.

[carrps]

@filmore

. On the news they said that the hills and curves on this road contribute to a lot of accidents.

I’ve driven this particular road a lot of times. When I heard some guy on TV talking about steep hills and hairpin curves, I just laughed. It’s on a hill, but it’s a very well engineered road (and it’s in a wealthy area, so it’s well maintained). There’s one small section that’s relatively steep, but this is not the area where Tiger lost control. Also, the curves are big and wide, no hairpins, for sure.

It’s a fun road to drive on…I think that’s more likely why there are more accidents than usual…but road conditions were good, so my guess Tiger was simply driving too fast and possibly texting to the people he was supposed to be meeting and lost control.

[Riemann]

@Omniscient

Others are arguing that simply being in an accident is in and of itself an indication of impairment which I find absurd and is a easy position take from the comfort of your couch.

Disregarding the rights of other road users to protection from dangerous drivers would be something more aptly described as “an easy position to take from the comfort of your couch”.

[BippityBoppityBoo]

@Broomstick

then read the riot act to the doctor who hadn’t warned me that was a possibility.

If this happens again, also read that riot act to the pharmacist who dispensed that drug. It is as much the pharmacist’s responsibility to inform you of possible side effects and interactions.

[Omniscient]

The other people are hypothetical. Tigers a real person with actual rights.

Any person can drive impaired at any time. Not just from booze or drugs, but distraction and exhaustion too. Blanket testing of everyone is, in other words the presumption of guilt, is not a free society.

But Tiger’s a dick so fuck him I guess.

[BippityBoppityBoo]

@Omniscient

Blanket testing of everyone is, in other words the presumption of guilt, is not a free society.

Blanket testing is not presumption of guilt. I want a drivers license? I’ve given consent to be tested. Not to be found guilty but I have agreed to be tested.

[Atamasama]

Am I wrong in thinking that if an accident occurs due solely to the way a person is driving (and not due to mechanical failure, or bad road conditions, or anything else beyond the driver’s control) then that is by definition reckless driving? Reckless driving is driving in a dangerous manner, disregarding safety, which can lead to a collision. In the case that a collision occurs then obviously that applies. And if a person was driving recklessly, is that not a violation that police should investigate?

(I am posing this as a question not just as a rhetorical device but also because I’m really not certain.)

[JRDelirious]

@BippityBoppityBoo

Blanket testing is not presumption of guilt. I want a drivers license? I’ve given consent to be tested.

Yes. But, meanwhile, nobody has legislated a mandate that everyone who wrecks under any circumstance be tested. Commercial drivers are under such mandate. People involved in causing damages or injury to others are in many jurisdictions under such a mandate. And police may decide for reasons that they want to test you and if you are in a jurisdiction where implicit consent is the law, you will be punished for refusing. But it appears that at least in California this particular incident does not per se trigger a test mandate.