Should R. Čačić just step down from politics already?

granitemarlin77 said:I'm not even gonna touch that.

He took two lives with his car—that’s not just some everyday thing. Killing two people? That isn't "normal" to me. To my way of thinking, Čačić is no different than that tycoon’s kid from the suburbs—it’s only a matter of time before someone gets killed, and well, he finally did it. Maybe you and Čačić think this is all just business as usual, but it sure as hell isn't to me.☕

swiftwalker43 said:I'll just offer an unofficial opinion here—from a traffic cop with 15 years under his belt, a degree in traffic studies, and plenty of accident scene experience. I asked him what he thought, assuming the driver of the struck vehicle was telling the truth when she said she was doing at least 100-68 miles mph. Based on the rear-end damage and what was visible, he thinks that if Čačić hit the car in front of him at least 60-44 miles mph faster than the lead vehicle, it means Čačić was traveling somewhere between 160 and 112 miles mph at the moment of impact. He concluded it’s most likely Čačić fell asleep or was distracted by something else, failing to even see the car ahead until the collision occurred; you can tell because both cars stayed in the same lane and collided perfectly parallel.

briskbison55 said:He’s guilty either way, I mean, come on. You can't just go around shooting people from the shadows without being at fault. And you definitely can't kill two people and walk away clean. It's just... it's a given. I guess the only real question left is how much a massive payout might actually keep him out of a cell.

briskbison55 said:I mean, obviously he was going way faster than he claimed. Honestly, anyone who finished middle school and actually paid attention in physics class knows that much.

Adam Collins4 said:Honestly, it’s exactly because of posts like this that we even have a court system...

It is incredibly difficult to remain objective when emotions are running high, which is precisely why the courts exist—to follow the law while maintaining enough distance to reach a fair verdict...

And yeah, sure, anyone could have been in an accident... it falls under the category of "unforeseen circumstances" rather than intentional harm...

But that doesn't mean we're defending Čačić, nor does it mean the judge will view "accidents happen" as a valid legal defense when handing down a sentence...

Roger Hughes14 said:Of course, kamikazes in air traffic are intentional; they mean to end their flight with fatal results. But the way R. Čačić was driving just massively increased the odds of what actually happened.

bluerider63 said:Look, I never said losing two people was common, I was talking about something else entirely, but whatever. Comparing some drunk Žužić tearing through a narrow alleyway to Čačić causing an accident in terrible weather conditions is honestly just a malicious reach.

bluerider63 said:Look, I never said losing two people was common, I was talking about something else entirely, but whatever. Comparing some drunk Žužić tearing through a narrow alleyway to Čačić causing an accident in terrible weather conditions is honestly just a malicious reach.

Adam Collins4 said:If I recall correctly, they don't exactly cover that kind of stuff in a standard middle school science curriculum...

Thomas Roberts2 said:Why?

1. Žužić drove under the influence and caused one fatality by speeding.

2. Čačić wasn't drinking, but he consciously failed to adjust his speed to the road conditions, which resulted in two deaths.

In my view, the level of negligence is identical. Furthermore, both Žužić and Čačić share the exact same mindset when it comes to driving: irresponsible and arrogant, behaviors for which innocent people paid the ultimate price.

briskbison55 said:So, look, you have one object moving at speed A and another at speed B—that's basically seventh-grade math. I mean, if you aren't really into the whole physics thing, you could always just run your own little experiment. You know, maybe take your car and slam into a parked vehicle at the exact difference between the speed R. Čačić mentioned and whatever speed that driver from the Canadian car claimed. Then, I guess, you can decide for yourself who's actually telling the truth.

Adam Collins4 said:Look, Žužić was driving under the influence in a vehicle he shouldn't have even been operating in the first place...

That just doesn't put him in the same category as this other guy—because the second guy was actually driving a car he had a legal right to operate...

Plus, he's got a prior record for driving without a license, DUI, and speeding...

You claim Čačić made a conscious choice... well, Žužić made a conscious choice too, knowing damn well he was drunk and getting into a car he had no business touching...

Thomas Roberts2 said:If he was intoxicated, he couldn't have possessed full awareness; his culpability would be diminished compared to Čačić, who made the conscious decision to exceed the speed limit given the road conditions.

Roger Hughes14 said:Survivor testimony indicates he was speeding—she was doing somewhere between 100 and 68 miles mph—which just wasn't safe for those road conditions. He didn't deny it either.(NU2)

Adam Collins4 said:Others mentioned Žužić and are trying to draw parallels there... which is a massive stretch...

Besides, how would you even know who's at fault for those minor collisions?

I'm sure you never speed, always maintain a safe following distance, and all that... just like every other average American...

darkfox5 said:...If someone is driving at speeds that aren't adjusted for "totally terrible weather," that’s just reckless driving to me, too...☕

Adam Collins4 said:And what about the law of conservation of energy?

Where are the friction coefficients and the formulas for calculating braking distance?

Did you even bother to account for the fact that the vehicle's mass was nearly double? Or does that just not matter to you?

What about friction and all those formulas for calculating stopping distance?

Did you even consider that the vehicle mass is almost double? Or does that not matter to you?

Charles Martin2 said:

Why should I care what anyone else mentioned?
Stop trying to lecture me, you're straight up lying!!!

So, is he the one at fault for the pileup, or is it the road in your opinion
that caused him to fly off it!!!!!????

I never drive too fast. I respect every single sign on the road
And I assume regular Americans do too, since they're pretty rare
when it comes to hiding pileups and causing deaths on the highway!!
I only had one accident once, back in Columbus
snow started coming down and I couldn't brake in time
hit the car in front of me, damage was minimal
but I still took the blame and paid the fine!!!

How many pileups have you caused? How many people have you killed?!?!?
You're alive, so shut it!!

Adam Collins4 said:Yeah, and then she goes in this one interview and tries to guess exactly how fast the vehicle coming up behind her was traveling...

Which is just impossible...

I mean, look—human beings don't just have this built-in speedometer in their heads... if that's even how you want to put it...