Who ran over principal Kathleen Hwang?

I don't know but...I bet she's got that RUN DOWN feeling.

But the 18-year-old male driver who hit her

Good write up on how and where she was hit here:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/16860/loudoun-principal-meets-deadly-crash-and-double-standard/

After seeing the photos of where the incident was I have little doubt the driver was not paying attention.

The police report claims the driver was driving the speed limit. How you could hit someone at that location going 35 mph and not being distracted I have no idea.

She had head phones on and was not in a cross walk. I feel bad about the whole thing but the driver will live for the rest of his life that he killed someone.


Sad all around. Shit happens.

She wad Hwang up.

It was splatterific!

496 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was splatterific!

Ah yes...good to see you, 496. It does appear that the principal has indeed lost...her...PRINCIPLES.

This thread is a..well, shit thread, as are most of the posters (minus a few). Very loved Principal is hit by a car driven by a teenager, who the police have concluded was not at fault. She was a loved Principal/person, who maybe, like we all do, made a mistake. Possible crossing a road while not in a crosswalk while wearing headphones. Really sad situation all around. Why all shit talk? Go to her funeral...pray for the teen that hit her. It was not his fault and he was not charged. A poster or two, who I normally respect, fricked up on this one. Come on guys....be nice. Sorry for no paragraphs. Late night.

@JoeFriday: Welcome Joe...this is Fairfax Underground. I like the blue font in your handle. It adds so much..."credibility" to your remarks. Flaming the dead is what we do here. We do it unilaterally and we do not apologize for it. The rules are simple...if you die and your death is reported in this forum, regardless of the circumstances, your memory is flamed. And honestly...who the fuck are YOU really to pass judgement on what other people do on an Internet forum?

An inconsiderate asshole once said, "Their job is to die...our job is to flame their corpses. Without their deaths we do not exist. Without our flames they do not exist."

In closing, the best that you can hope for is to tell all of YOUR loved ones to not discuss the event of your death here on FairfaxUnderground. I'm no lawyer but, perhaps tasking the executor (great word, no?) of your will to monitor your online remembrances and if he/she reads something they disapprove of here, then they could communicate with the forum's mod Cary and he can then delete it.

Was Kathleen hot?

To curious:

The writer of the article you linked, respectfully, is a dumbshit. Crosswalks are at intersections for a reason, not in the middle of a road. For one, there are no stop signs in the middle of the road between intersections. Secondly, it benefits society that drivers and pedestrians can establish a mutual expectation of where a pedestrian might be when the pedestrians use the crosswalk. We all know where a truck might be, but pedestrians are unpredictable when they are walking into the road willy-nilly.

The writer should have considered the opposite argument, that vehicles should be able to leave and enter the road at will (over yards, sidewalks, etc). Now wouldn't that seem stupid and a dangerous thing to propose? Same for walkers entering/leaving the road.

35mph goes by quick, you can't post a still pic and have that represent the driver's POV. All pictures show a curve leading to where the pedestrian was struck. The driver may not have seen the pedestrian and be able to stop in time because at the speed limit that area comes up quick and a pedestrian shouldn't be there. Ever hear stories of skateboarders who fly out into the road from behind parked cars and get hit? A walker blundering into the road on a turn creates a similar situation.

When you are walking around with headphones on you cut your situational awareness down significantly. The surefire way to prevent pedestrian/vehicular collisions is for pedestrians not to be in the road when a vehicle is there. It is guaranteed to work. She may have heard the truck approaching and not stepped into unmarked road if she wasn't cutting off one of her senses with an ipod.

The "oh you blame the pedestrian when they aren't in the crosswalk!!" complaint? Yeah, we do. Trimming a minute of walking time at risk of one's life for the "saved time" isn't a trade I personally want to take, it is sad she did. In a civilized society, benefit of the doubt needs to go to those who were following laws and rules. Driver going speed limit vs pedestrian wearing headphones and not using a crosswalk? Come on.

vdot_guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To curious:
>
> The writer of the article you linked,
> respectfully, is a dumbshit. Crosswalks are at
> intersections for a reason, not in the middle of a
> road. For one, there are no stop signs in the
> middle of the road between intersections.
> Secondly, it benefits society that drivers and
> pedestrians can establish a mutual expectation of
> where a pedestrian might be when the pedestrians
> use the crosswalk. We all know where a truck
> might be, but pedestrians are unpredictable when
> they are walking into the road willy-nilly.
>
> The writer should have considered the opposite
> argument, that vehicles should be able to leave
> and enter the road at will (over yards, sidewalks,
> etc). Now wouldn't that seem stupid and a
> dangerous thing to propose? Same for walkers
> entering/leaving the road.
>
> 35mph goes by quick, you can't post a still pic
> and have that represent the driver's POV. All
> pictures show a curve leading to where the
> pedestrian was struck. The driver may not have
> seen the pedestrian and be able to stop in time
> because at the speed limit that area comes up
> quick and a pedestrian shouldn't be there. Ever
> hear stories of skateboarders who fly out into the
> road from behind parked cars and get hit? A
> walker blundering into the road on a turn creates
> a similar situation.
>
> When you are walking around with headphones on you
> cut your situational awareness down significantly.
> The surefire way to prevent pedestrian/vehicular
> collisions is for pedestrians not to be in the
> road when a vehicle is there. It is guaranteed to
> work. She may have heard the truck approaching
> and not stepped into unmarked road if she wasn't
> cutting off one of her senses with an ipod.
>
> The "oh you blame the pedestrian when they aren't
> in the crosswalk!!" complaint? Yeah, we do.
> Trimming a minute of walking time at risk of one's
> life for the "saved time" isn't a trade I
> personally want to take, it is sad she did. In a
> civilized society, benefit of the doubt needs to
> go to those who were following laws and rules.
> Driver going speed limit vs pedestrian wearing
> headphones and not using a crosswalk? Come on.


Do you work for VDOT?

Anyone who walks around with headphones on and then crosses the street by not using the crosswalk, deserves to be killed. How does a school principal die this way? What a horrible example to her students...

@vdot guy - you sure as shit are NOT VDOT

YES , there are crosswalks not near intersections. Rt 1 near South County Center, 123 between Braddock and University, 50 in front of Loehmans Plaza. And I guess your dumbass has NO IDEA what the letters W&OD stand for, right?

I specifically said no crosswalks where there is no signage. At those locations there is signage and traffic signals at Loehmans. I know what W&OD is, and there is yield signage at those points. Please identify the signage where this lady entered the roadway.

Also provide a better example than an arterial. We're obviously talking about local primary and local secondary streets in this thread. Show me an example of a crosswalk not at an intersection and having no signage on a secondary and I will certainly concede they exist.

@vdot_guy: Dude, GordonBlvd has been making me butt-hurt for 3 years but you can't drop "arterial" and expect to add to your dismal credibility quotient. Ms. Hwang? She dead.

vdot_guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also provide a better example than an arterial.
> We're obviously talking about local primary and
> local secondary streets in this thread. Show me
> an example of a crosswalk not at an intersection
> and having no signage on a secondary and I will
> certainly concede they exist.

Get your ass off the computer and get to fixing our streets you fucking bums.

how many gordon blvd posts can you see?

To vdot_guy:

Pedestrians don't just "appear" in front of drivers if they are paying attention.

As cited in the article, there is no law that requires walkers to use a marked crossing. Furthermore, 35 mph is not fast- try driving and slamming down your brake at 35 mph, you will stop much more quickly than you seem to assume.

It seems to me that the driver was either #1, distracted, or #2, distracted.

The fact that the pedestrian was wearing headphones is irrelevant. If the driver had hit an incapacitated, stationary car in the lane, he would have been ticketed. If you hit anything in Virginia, you are at fault.

Hitting a pedestrian should be no different.

-2¢

curious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To vdot_guy:
>
> Pedestrians don't just "appear" in front of
> drivers if they are paying attention.
>
> The fact that the pedestrian was wearing
> headphones is irrelevant.

I fully agree with your first statement and that is not in question, if pedestrians pay attention they do not appear in front of moving vehicles. At least everyone can thankfully agree on that regardless of who you believe is to blame.

Your second arguments defies logic and science, runs counter to pedestrian safety recommendations, and is dangerous and irresponsible to suggest on a public forum. If God blessed you with good ears and you effectively turn them off, you are eliminating a major resource from keeping yourself safe from cars, animals and other wildlife, approaching weather, and countless other things that you can react to if you hear them.

When pedestrians aren't in the road where and when a vehicle is in the only place it lawfully can be (the road), pedestrians don't get struck. That simple. Even if you are correct and the driver was distracted and Mrs. Hwang wasn't in the road because she stopped at a crosswalk or heard the driver coming, the driver would have passed on by and Mrs. Hwang would not have been struck. These are basic tenants of pedestrian responsibility as they apply to the physics of vehicle-pedestrian contact, just like bike riders on the road are supposed to obey the same stop signs drivers must as a matter of sensible roadway co-existence.

I haven't read the article, but if it states in some way that jaywalking is legal it is incorrect. Virginia law: "pedestrians shall not carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles" and carries a fine. This is another example of irresponsible statements on a public forum, and I don't know if it is the article author who does so or your interpretation of it, I'll leave that to others.

This driver didn't hit a disabled person or another vehicle, he hit a pedestrian that wasn't in a crosswalk and was self-handicapped by removal of the hearing sense. A sad event but a preventable one.

My best to all of her student family and biological family as well as to the driver and his family.

lawman who sees real accidents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> curious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To vdot_guy:
> >
> > Pedestrians don't just "appear" in front of
> > drivers if they are paying attention.
> >
> > The fact that the pedestrian was wearing
> > headphones is irrelevant.
>
> I fully agree with your first statement and that
> is not in question, if pedestrians pay attention
> they do not appear in front of moving vehicles.
> At least everyone can thankfully agree on that
> regardless of who you believe is to blame.
>
> Your second arguments defies logic and science,
> runs counter to pedestrian safety recommendations,
> and is dangerous and irresponsible to suggest on a
> public forum. If God blessed you with good ears
> and you effectively turn them off, you are
> eliminating a major resource from keeping yourself
> safe from cars, animals and other wildlife,
> approaching weather, and countless other things
> that you can react to if you hear them.
>


Yes, because deaf people walk out into traffic all the time. Fuck reading the rest of your jibberish.

Dumbass ^ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Yes, because deaf people walk out into traffic all
> the time. Fuck reading the rest of your jibberish.


Try closing your eyes and walking around near heavy traffic. Blind people can do exactly that.

Deaf people have learned to compensate for not hearing, someone who can hear probably hasn't. A deaf person probably looks both ways because he knows he cannot hear approaching cars. Someone who can hear might be used to just walking across the street when they don't hear any cars.

It's really a lack of common sense, but the headphones deprive you of a critical sense that deaf people know enough to compensate for.

Maybe she was distracted. Why did she walk into an oncoming car? Did she not hear the car coming? If you are deaf you use more caution.

I am baffled by the argument that the driver could see this walker from plenty of distance, but then argue that the walker couldn't see the truck from the same distance. The two can only reconciled by concluding she didn't do a basic "look both ways" before crossing.

If people don't look both ways and can't hear and walk into the road bad things will eventually happen to that person. And I can't believe there are some who seriously think walking around with headphones on isn't dangerous, I hope you aren't a lone woman jogger doing that or you might be on the news next. That makes it easy to get grabbed.

She had on headphones and didn't cross at a crosswalk. Totally her fault.

You people are cruel and need help. This is not useful.

her sister Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You people are cruel and need help. This is not
> useful.


and you come onto the interwebz looking for help on this?

sounds like yr the one needs help, hun.

here, let me help you. There is only one thing you need to understand about the undeground: if you are looking for sympathy...........................
Attachments:

Seems she walked the hwang way.

Numbnut ^ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumbass ^ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Yes, because deaf people walk out into traffic
> all
> > the time. Fuck reading the rest of your
> jibberish.
>
>
> Try closing your eyes and walking around near
> heavy traffic. Blind people can do exactly that.
>
> Deaf people have learned to compensate for not
> hearing, someone who can hear probably hasn't. A
> deaf person probably looks both ways because he
> knows he cannot hear approaching cars. Someone
> who can hear might be used to just walking across
> the street when they don't hear any cars.
>
> It's really a lack of common sense, but the
> headphones deprive you of a critical sense that
> deaf people know enough to compensate for.


Because headphones are a new technology not yet mastered by us fully functional people. Stop hating on the normal, deafy.

@VDOT - whoops! forgot all about are wee lil' convo yesterday, my bad.

anywho, WTF are you talking about: The second sentence you wrote in yr orig. post says " Crosswalks are at intersections for a reason, not in the middle of a road. "

So I say your full of shit and point out a cpl examples of crosswalks not near intersections so then you respond with this bullshit?

"I specifically said no crosswalks where there is no signage."
(y'all should try saying it to yourself in a stuffy, Bushwick Country Club sorta way - it's kinda funny to imagine him saying that out loud like that LoLz)

Now, I know this is difficult for you, kiddo.......but maybe you should understand that:
a) when you write things on the interwebz, it stays there.
and
b) all of us can simply scroll up and see YOU NEVER MENTIONED THE WORD "SIGNAGE" EVEN ONCE IN YOUR POST, JACKASS!!!

All you did was say how there are no stop signs in the middle of a road And what's funny is that's wrong to since there are stop signs at crosswalks in shopping centres..........but I guess that's TOO LOCAL and not arterial enough for you? LoLz

edit: Anywho, in answer to yr question (sans your signage-whine remix since we already know a crosswalk not at and intersection MUST BE SIGNED - DUH) - I cant think of a specific street, but if you dont recognize (in McLean, Kingstowne and Reston, for sure - most definately in other places around the county too on all sorts of residential streets at crosswalks not near intersection) these thingees, then I cant help you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2012 08:51AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

I read "Crosswalks are at intersections for a reason, not in the middle of a road. For one, there are no stop signs in the middle of the road between intersections." as referring to "signage". A stop sign is "signage", right? I mean I know the words "signage" and "sign" don't have the same number of letters but even your butt-hurt Gordon Blowhard postings can demonstrate SOME kind of reading comprehension I hope.

Perspective Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read "Crosswalks are at intersections for a
> reason, not in the middle of a road. For one,
> there are no stop signs in the middle of the road
> between intersections." as referring to "signage".
> A stop sign is "signage", right? I mean I know
> the words "signage" and "sign" don't have the same
> number of letters but even your butt-hurt Gordon
> Blowhard postings can demonstrate SOME kind of
> reading comprehension I hope.

FAIL.

"I specifically said no crosswalks where there is no signage"

Stop signs have nothing to do with crosswalks. vdot_guy was referring specifically to crosswalks having a sign warning drivers that there is a crosswalk.

I'm pretty sure if you were intellectually honest, you'd know that. Instead you're doing mental gymnastics trying to find a way to proclaim GB wrong.
Attachments: