Tiger Car Accident. ***All Content Subject to Moderation***

[KRAMER1997]

Not sure how credible these guys are but might give some more insight.

 

 

[KRAMER1997]

 

Good news!

[ronnbee]

new report said he never hit the brakes ? - what does that tell ya

[Socrates]

3 hours ago, ronnbee said:

new report said he never hit the brakes ? - what does that tell ya

That he didn't hit the brakes.

[VCGolfer79]

4 hours ago, ronnbee said:

new report said he never hit the brakes ? - what does that tell ya

Exactly what it looked like. No skid marks means no brakes. He was unconscious at the wheel. Either doped up or exhausted either way the guy was not awake and is extremely lucky he didn’t hit that power pole or he’d be in the ground. He should just stop driving a car. 

[FairwaysToHeaven]

he fell asleep .... 

[Ronnie Mundt]

6 hours ago, Socrates said:

That he didn't hit the brakes.

There is so much more to this story. But I don’t know if we will ever know what really happened.

[AmazinBlue]

Is it really that hard to believe that the absolute truth of what happened, who witnessed it and what details are ever released are being controlled behind the scenes?  Obviously someone had to call 9-1-1, so someone had to find him, and probably unconscious.  After the DUI incident several years ago, I'm sure Tiger's team created a plan to deal with the details so if he missteps, the details that would hurt is reputation are kept under wraps.  Remember he said after that incident "this will NEVER happen again".

 

The simple solution to all this is, Tiger should have a professional driver that takes him wherever he needs to go, ESPECIALLY IN THE MONTHS AFTER HAVING SURGERY.  Seems like a no-brainer.

[jt2gt]

14 hours ago, VCGolfer79 said:

Exactly what it looked like. No skid marks means no brakes. He was unconscious at the wheel. Either doped up or exhausted either way the guy was not awake and is extremely lucky he didn’t hit that power pole or he’d be in the ground. He should just stop driving a car. 

Or that he didn't head on crash another car or run over pedestrians on the sidewalk.  Thank god for that.

[Socrates]

9 hours ago, Ronnie Mundt said:

There is so much more to this story. But I don’t know if we will ever know what really happened.

Let's summarize it up for you:

• Driving car to golf course
• Got distracted or fell asleep
• Car didn't negotiate a turn and crashed into trees (which will likely result in a careless driving charge at some point)
• Tiger suffered severe injuries to his leg
• Tiger hospitalized and underwent several surgeries and will take many months to recover.

Don't think there is anything else to know.  The rest is just morbid speculation.

[Ferguson]

The authorities allowed him to leave the state and return home.   What does that tell you?   No charges.   There were no third party injuries.  He didn't touch the brake pedal?  Who cares.  According to the digital video recreation of the accident, that car was out of control pretty quickly.   Perhaps he had no time to react.  

 

[brew4eagle]

2 hours ago, Ferguson said:

The authorities allowed him to leave the state and return home.   What does that tell you?   No charges.   There were no third party injuries.  He didn't touch the brake pedal?  Who cares.  According to the digital video recreation of the accident, that car was out of control pretty quickly.   Perhaps he had no time to react.  

 

Being allowed to leave the state does not mean no future charges

[Ferguson]

20 hours ago, brew4eagle said:

Being allowed to leave the state does not mean no future charges

 

His car accident wasn't criminal.   Point being, if it was serious enough with injuries to others, for example - they would have held him. Worst case he's gets a traffic ticket for excessive speed or reckless with a fine.  However, no ticket now probably means no ticket later.   

[brew4eagle]

1 hour ago, Ferguson said:

 

His car accident wasn't criminal.   Point being, if it was serious enough with injuries to others, for example - they would have held him. Worst case he's gets a traffic ticket for excessive speed or reckless with a fine.  However, no ticket now probably means no ticket later.   

It could still very well result in criminal charges, but only time will tell.  Regardless, those potential charges wouldn't prevent him from being allowed to go to the location that is best for his recovery.  In other words, being 'allowed' to go home tells us nothing about the investigation.

[farmer]

Tiger is not the focus of some criminal investigation.  He hurt no one, hit no other car, caused no property damage, there is no basis for criminal charges.  IF he was going 60 mph, spilled coffee in his lap, at 90 feet per second, things happen so quickly that he may not have had time to react.

[jgonz69]

54 minutes ago, farmer said:

Tiger is not the focus of some criminal investigation.  He hurt no one, hit no other car, caused no property damage, there is no basis for criminal charges.  IF he was going 60 mph, spilled coffee in his lap, at 90 feet per second, things happen so quickly that he may not have had time to react.

What do you call driving 60 mph in a posted 45 mph zone?

Caused no property damage? What is a vehicle considered?

 

 

[brew4eagle]

3 hours ago, farmer said:

Tiger is not the focus of some criminal investigation.  He hurt no one, hit no other car, caused no property damage, there is no basis for criminal charges.  IF he was going 60 mph, spilled coffee in his lap, at 90 feet per second, things happen so quickly that he may not have had time to react.

We simply don't know that he isn't the subject of a criminal investigation.  For example, driving under the influence could still be part of the investigation, and could bring future criminal charges.

[soregongolfer]

6 hours ago, farmer said:

Tiger is not the focus of some criminal investigation.  He hurt no one, hit no other car, caused no property damage, there is no basis for criminal charges.  IF he was going 60 mph, spilled coffee in his lap, at 90 feet per second, things happen so quickly that he may not have had time to react.

He didn't need to hurt someone or cause property damage to be charged with reckless driving.  Reckless driving is a misdemeanor.  

[Socrates]

On 3/23/2021 at 12:40 PM, jgonz69 said:

What do you call driving 60 mph in a posted 45 mph zone?

 

In California (and most of the States) it's called driving too slow.

[Krt22]

On 3/23/2021 at 10:40 AM, jgonz69 said:

What do you call driving 60 mph in a posted 45 mph zone?

Caused no property damage? What is a vehicle considered?

 

 

An infraction that can't be assessed because it wasn't witnessed by a LEO

Crashing a car by itself is not criminal. His financial liability to replace the car has nothing to do with that.

[Krt22]

On 3/23/2021 at 3:58 PM, soregongolfer said:

He didn't need to hurt someone or cause property damage to be charged with reckless driving.  Reckless driving is a misdemeanor.  

 

"California Vehicle Code 23103 VC defines the offense of reckless driving as operating a motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of other people or property"

 

With no witnesses, it's not something that would stick. 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

21 hours ago, Socrates said:

In California (and most of the States) it's called driving too slow.

 

[bladehunter]

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

In California (and most of the States) it's called driving too slow.

Sc and I think other states have instituted laws about riding under the limit on the left lane. Get right or get fined.  And it’s a good thing in my opinion.  As many wrecks caused by slow drivers as fast.  
 

on the reckless driving thing. In SC it’s above a certain speed.  No wreck needed. I have a buddy who got charged with it for doing 112 in a 70.  On the interstate.  2 am while we were breaking in a new engine setup.  Lol.  Locked him up.  Impounded the car , and made me walk.  ( pre cell phones ).  

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

 

Nice!

 

Since about 2009 on wrx "Tiger" is one of those seven words!

[soregongolfer]

4 hours ago, Krt22 said:

 

"California Vehicle Code 23103 VC defines the offense of reckless driving as operating a motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of other people or property"

 

With no witnesses, it's not something that would stick. 

The car rolling end over end for nearly 800 feet is evidence enough.  But what would I know about this subject?  I'm just a cop.

[soregongolfer]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

 on the reckless driving thing. In SC it’s above a certain speed.  No wreck needed. I have a buddy who got charged with it for doing 112 in a 70.  On the interstate.  2 am while we were breaking in a new engine setup.  Lol.  Locked him up.  Impounded the car , and made me walk.  ( pre cell phones ).  

This is correct.  The amount of roll of the vehicle already gave them a ballpark idea as to what his speed was.  That's why they got a warrant for the black box.  They wanted to know just how fast he was going.

[brew4eagle]

4 hours ago, Krt22 said:

 

"California Vehicle Code 23103 VC defines the offense of reckless driving as operating a motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of other people or property"

 

With no witnesses, it's not something that would stick. 

What about the black box data?  Can that be used to demonstrate reckless driving or some other offense(s)?

[Krt22]

5 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Sc and I think other states have instituted laws about riding under the limit on the left lane. Get right or get fined.  And it’s a good thing in my opinion.  As many wrecks caused by slow drivers as fast.  
 

on the reckless driving thing. In SC it’s above a certain speed.  No wreck needed. I have a buddy who got charged with it for doing 112 in a 70.  On the interstate.  2 am while we were breaking in a new engine setup.  Lol.  Locked him up.  Impounded the car , and made me walk.  ( pre cell phones ).  

CA has the same law, but it's at the officer's discretion to go with reckless, it can just as easily be a citation (albeit a 2 point one with a hefty fine) 

[Krt22]

On 3/26/2021 at 3:45 PM, soregongolfer said:

The car rolling end over end for nearly 800 feet is evidence enough.  But what would I know about this subject?  I'm just a cop.

 

 

It was~400ft not 800ft IIRC. Plus it was pretty sharp turn at the end of a downhill section of road, that was known to be accident prone. Given he’s from out of town, he could have easily misjudged his speed and the severity of the turn. Combine this with potentially being distracted and he could have ran wide and hit the median before he even realized he was in trouble. That impact alone would have been incredibly disorienting, such that he didn’t have the ability to stop or steer the car. Plus 5000lbs is hard to stop when the rubber isn’t actually on the road (which it likely wasn’t), even more so when it’s going down hill. 

With all that being said, If you think the severity of the accident alone would be sufficient  to prove beyond  a reasonable doubt that he was willfully driving in a reckless manner, especially with no witnesses and given he would have top tier legal counsel, then you are entitled to your opinion. People make simple driving errors that result in speculator crashes all the time, but that doesn’t always make it criminal. 
 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Krt22

[dalehead]

At this point in time any charges resulting from the accident are the least of Tiger’s problems.