🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35C0F28A.3F5B@richmond.infi.net>, kozelsm@richmond.infi.net wrote:

> In dc.driving Gumbyy@ticnet.com (Marc) wrote:
> > 
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >In all fairness to the victim and their family, I think it is
> > >appropriate to omit the suspicion of suicide if it is only "suspected".
> > >Innocent until proven guilty.
> > 
> > What "guilt?"  Should someone feel shame over suicidal feelings?  That
> > belief would limit ones desire to get help if they were not sure about
> > their feelings.
> 
> My point was to say that a death shouldn't be labeled a suicide unless
> there is certainty.
>  
> > >Unless a suicide note is left behind, or if the person clearly tells
> > >others first that they're going to kill themselves, then I think it
> > >would be hard to prove that the "accident" was intentional.
> > 
> > Just like it is hard to prove that "speed" killed, but it gets listed
> > quite often.
> > 
> > Why the double standard?
> 
> I don't see any double standard.  An intentional car crash is very hard
> to prove, unless there is a note or a threat.
> 
> Vehicle velocity, however, can be estimated by measuring skid marks, and
> by degree of impact damage.  If the "speeding" was 5 or 10 mph over,
> that's insignificant, but if it was 40 mph or more over, it's often easy
> to verify.


Perhaps you should read up on how the NHTSA compiles its data. If ANYONE
handling the report, even if they never even saw the scene.. "thinks" it
was 
"speed related".. they simply just add it to the report.

Not to mention that if he was going below the speed limit by 1mph, it can
be 'speed related'; as well as 1mph over the speed limit!