livedarklions

And alcohol and marijuana are the only 2 drugs, right? If they suspect drug use or any number of things but don't think they can prove it yet, " unknown, under investigation " is exactly what they would say. Do you have any idea how stupid "unknown=texting" is as an assertion?

Oh, and I can say "if they suspect texting, they wouldn't say the cause was unknown" too. It's exactly as valid as your assertion.

homeless in ca.

Nope. Police are trained to detect signs of impairment like bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, slurred speech, etc. If they suspected the driver was under the influence of drugs they would not have said the cause of the crash was unknown.

livedarklions

You know that complete non sequitur doesn't become more convincing just because you have repeated it four times, right? The driver was taken to the hospital, which indicates that she was injured or otherwise in some sort of poor condition. Guess what, you can't evaluate for substance impairment if someone is impaired by injury or medical condition. You've been repeating the same stupid assertions in several posts now, and it's clear you have no basis for supporting them and are trying just to get the last word.

So you tell me, why is "if they suspected the driver was texting, they wouldn't have said the cause was unknown " any less valid than your assertion? Cops are also trained to look for indications of distractions, like where was her phone, for example. It certainly doesn't sound like she would've had a chance to manipulate the scene as she ran into a tree.

homeless in ca.

Sure they can. Police will look for signs that you've been drinking or using drugs even if you're injured.

livedarklions

Your own source says she was rushed to the hospital. The cops wouldn't have had the chance. Quit making stuff up, you're just full of crap.

And again, from your own source: "Brabant said officers aren’t ruling anything out and will be looking at whether speed or impaired driving may have played a role in the 11th fatal crash to occur in Montreal so far this year.". Notice which cause isn't listed? Weird,huh?

homeless in ca.

Sure they would. Ever been stopped at one of those roadside sobriety checks? Takes them just a few seconds to tell if you've been drinking or high.


Because they can't look at the phone without a warrant.

livedarklions

​​​​​​Have you ever been shoved into an ambulance at an accident scene after running your car into a tree? There's no chance they had that kind of interaction with her. They probably didn't even observe her at the scene. Again, you're just making crap up. Also, there's the cop spokesperson specifying that they're looking at impairment and not even mentioning any form of distraction. You've lost this argument and are looking increasingly silly prolonging it.

homeless in ca.

The cyclist was pedaling northbound when she was struck, and the car ended up coming to rest in a ditch.
The driver suffered non-life-threatening injuries and police investigators will meet with her to determine the cause of the collision.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...real-1.6031992

Brabant said the investigation will look at all possible explanations, including examining the woman's car for any mechanical issues and her phone to see if she was texting. Police will also try to determine if she was intoxicated, he said.

livedarklions

And here's the version you originally posted: "Brabant said officers aren’t ruling anything out and will be looking at whether speed or impaired driving may have played a role in the 11th fatal crash to occur in Montreal so far this year."

So much for ruling everything but texting out. I'll take your admission that the police haven't ruled anything out at this point.

homeless in ca.

Of course they did. That's what police do.

They also have her phone which means they probably have reasonable grounds to arrest her.

livedarklions

Or not. That "probably" is completely your invention.

And police would have observed the paramedics removing her from the car and putting her in an ambulance. They don't question her or otherwise try to evaluate whether she appears to be intoxicated. They make that assessment based on whether she appears to be mentally impaired. A collision with a tree will generally impair you as well, so that assessment would have been meaningless.

Quit making crap up. You're obviously ignorant of any relevant knowledge.

homeless in ca.

You don't know for a fact that paramedics removed her from the car. That is what you are imagining based on reports the driver hit a tree. But police are usually first to respond to an accident and are trained to look for evidence of intoxication. Especially in a homicide.

Now let's look at your tree theory.

Neither CBC, Radio-Canada, Montreal Gazette, Journal de Montreal or La Presse even mention the driver hitting a tree. Only CTV News and CityNews mention the tree. So let's look at what they reported.

According to CTV both the cyclist and the automobile were traveling north. All the other media outlets reported that the cyclist and the driver were traveling in opposite directions. Interesting.

CTV also says the accident happened near an intersection. Which is also false. It was nowhere near an intersection. The accident happened because the driver failed to navigate a curve in a long stretch of road. So much for your tree theory.

CityNews follows the same script. I can't find the original but here is what they published on Facebook.

"Failed to follow the curb" .

All the real media outlets inform us the "accident" occurred when the driver failed to navigate a curve in the road. CityNews makes it sound like the driver missed a turn and then hit a tree.

So the only mention of a tree comes from two media outlets that got all of their basic facts wrong and don't even proofread the garbage they publish. None of the real news reporters mention a tree. So how long are you going to insist that the driver ran into a tree with so much force that police were unable to examine her for signs of intoxication?

livedarklions

My "tree theory"? Post #23 on this thread--an eyewitness to the scene! The other poster who actually rode by the scene right after the crash happened said ON THIS THREAD the car hit the tree.

The initial news account YOU POSTED said that the driver was rushed to the hospital.

I have no idea what happened and have never claimed otherwise. My point is that you don't either, and your claims that you do are entirely ludicrous, and based on assumptions that are completely indefensible.

I'm entirely sick of your blather and am putting you on my ignore list. Go argue with yourself.

prj71

Livedarklions....

You just dug yourself a deep hole and you look like a fool.

livedarklions

I am shocked, shocked, that YOU would say that. A person could be bitten by a dog and you'd blame it on a driver in the next county texting.

homeless in ca.

Alcjphil also said the car was not that badly damaged despite hitting a large tree. And we know the driver's injuries were not life threatening. But you want to insist her injuries were so severe police would have been unable to examine her for signs of intoxication.


I agree you have no idea what happened. But I have a much better grip on the facts as I just demonstrated when I spotted factual errors made by CTV News and CityNews. The only media outlets that bothered to mention the tree.

You are the one making ludicrous claims. Like your theory the driver might have been attempting to illegally pass another car in the turn. You obviously missed the fact there were several witnesses and police never mentioned a second vehicle. On the contrary the police tell us the driver continued on a straight trajectory in a turn for unknown reasons.

While you make ludicrous assertations the assumption that the driver was playing with her phone is entirely within the realm of the possible. That is why the police are examining her phone. To see if she was texting.

JoeyBike

"Looks" like.

livedarklions

Don't you have a living room to cower in?

livedarklions

So I guess we're supposed to believe that it's taken nearly two months to check her phone?

homeless in ca.

How do you figure?