I saw that story.  I always assume when someone "swerves" to miss a "deer" and hits a tree they are full of shit.  If they are bening honest then they are very bad drivers.

APIAD wrote:

I saw that story.  I always assume when someone "swerves" to miss a "deer" and hits a tree they are full of shit.  If they are bening honest then they are very bad drivers.

I think it is a real phenomenon, AP, one that needs training.  And even then, like a solider coming under fire, it's not possible to predict with 100% accuracy what one will do. 

My wife did not learn to drive until adulthood, and knew nothing of driving in the USA until 4 years ago.  We have shitloads of deer here (the herd in my neighbors yard has grown to nine, I counted them as they walked by my window yesterday) and she must drive at night on her way home from work.  I taught her over and over again: people don't die from crashing into a deer, they die from swerving to miss a deer and hitting something else (previous GF crashed her then-brand new Beemer that way).  We practiced and rehearsed the drill over and over again.  One night she was coming home and a big dog stepped onto the highway, she swerved, lost control, spun around, and fortunately didn't hit anything.  God, "tapped her on the shoulder:, as she likes to say, and now she says she thinks she understands it.  We'll see.

Just hit the fucking dog if that is what you have to do. 

As I said, Ive hit a couple and missed a hundred.  Ive never thought leaving the roadway was a good idea to miss a deer.  Now to hit a cat, you might have to leave the roadway.  I understand that.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/freese-unhurt-after-crashing-suv/article_0afea6cb-093a-5888-b48c-bcfacbba19a6.html

that is a big crunch

I hope didnt fuck up his ankles either. 

Looking at the truck there is no more proof needed to understand why you should just hit the deer, assume there was a deer.  That little tree sure did alot of damage.

Max wrote:

That article is a masterpiece of understated journalism.  Reminds me of living in Indonesia before Suharto fell; the press would try to tell what they suspected was the real story without saying it.

I'd say it's more about documenting Freese's mistakes behind the wheel than implying he was driving drunk at 2:30 in the afternoon.

tkihshbt wrote:

Max wrote:

That article is a masterpiece of understated journalism.  Reminds me of living in Indonesia before Suharto fell; the press would try to tell what they suspected was the real story without saying it.

I'd say it's more about documenting Freese's mistakes behind the wheel than implying he was driving drunk at 2:30 in the afternoon.

I think he is a shitty driver and I agree doubt he was drunk mid afternoon.  That also reduces the chance that there was a deer involved.  He just doesnt know how to drive.

Max, you're reading a lot into this. First, just because the speed limit is 30 mph doesn't mean Freese was traveling 30 mph. People tend to drive fast on road with which they're familiar. We have a 30 mph street by our house that people often drive at 50 mph.

Another thing is that modern vehicle aren't built as sturdy as older cars. There's a lot more fiberglass and plastic than metal. It helps absorb energy in a crash, but the car sustains a lot more damage.

Also, in Missouri, police dispatchers use 3 codes when they broadcast an accident: no injury, possible injury or possible fatality. This info usually comes from a passerby who may or may not stop, but who calls the police. As much as anything, it's a guess on the part of the caller and the dispatcher and when in doubt, they will guess that there is an injury. If there's an injury, officers will get to the scene with more urgency. If the call is put out "no injury," then the responding officers are required to obey all traffic laws in responding for liability reasons. When in doubt, dispatchers will say there's a possible injury and let the officer on the scene reclassify it. I personally probably reclassified over 50 accidents a year in similar circumstances. It's very normal.

I agree the fact it's mid-afternoon doesn't necessarily mean he was sober. But I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in the reporting. If anything, the skid marks (not pictured) should support (or refute) his deer story.

tkihshbt wrote:

Missouri had a 7 percent increase in deer-related accidents this year. Wildwood is located in one of the most deer-heavy parts of St. Louis, so much so that, again, one city is hiring a sniper to kill them. I suppose Freese, drunk off his ass at 2:30 p.m., had the ability to consider all these and put together a plausible story while disguising the smell of alcohol on his breath. This makes him nearly as diabolic as Bill DeWitt deciding three years ago that he was going to engineer a large-scale campaign to smear Albert Pujols.

If nothing else, members of the Cardinals organization have some incredible foresight.

Wreck.  (wink)

forsberg_us wrote:

Max, you're reading a lot into this.

No argument.  I am used to reading into the news.  And in a town where negative press on the Cards is frowned upon, I think it makes sense to keep ones eyes and mind open.

forsberg_us wrote:

First, just because the speed limit is 30 mph doesn't mean Freese was traveling 30 mph. People tend to drive fast on road with which they're familiar. We have a 30 mph street by our house that people often drive at 50 mph.

True, but if you get into an accident while doing 50 in a 30, you're fucked. 

forsberg_us wrote:

Another thing is that modern vehicle aren't built as sturdy as older cars. There's a lot more fiberglass and plastic than metal. It helps absorb energy in a crash, but the car sustains a lot more damage.

Valid.

forsberg_us wrote:

Also, in Missouri, police dispatchers use 3 codes when they broadcast an accident: no injury, possible injury or possible fatality. This info usually comes from a passerby who may or may not stop, but who calls the police. As much as anything, it's a guess on the part of the caller and the dispatcher and when in doubt, they will guess that there is an injury. If there's an injury, officers will get to the scene with more urgency. If the call is put out "no injury," then the responding officers are required to obey all traffic laws in responding for liability reasons. When in doubt, dispatchers will say there's a possible injury and let the officer on the scene reclassify it. I personally probably reclassified over 50 accidents a year in similar circumstances. It's very normal.

Thanks for the clarification.

forsberg_us wrote:

I agree the fact it's mid-afternoon doesn't necessarily mean he was sober. But I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in the reporting. If anything, the skid marks (not pictured) should support (or refute) his deer story.

Yes.  Freese in St. Louis is like a Hollywood star in Hollywood.  This could get swept under the carpet very easily.  Then again, maybe there is nothing there.

"Yes.  Freese in St. Louis is like a Hollywood star in Hollywood.  This could get swept under the carpet very easily.  Then again, maybe there is nothing there."

Perhaps, but keep in mind it's equally likely that the first cop on the scene could be looking to make a name for himself/herself and relish the opportunity to cite David Freese for another DWI.  Fame is a double edged sword.

"In my days of drunk driving the most dangerous condition was the 2-4 beer buzz."

One of my favorite traffic-related cop stories (there are few because I hated doing traffic-related work) with an even better post-script story.  I'm assigned to take out a radar gun.  I'm sitting in a 30 mph zone where people frequently drive 45+, and I get a car at 52.  I finally get him pulled over, and when I get up to the driver's window, I see a nearly empty fifth of gin rolling around on the floor of the backseat.  It's probably 1:30-1:45, so my first thought is it's a left-over from a previous bender, but after talking to the guy for a couple of minutes it's obvious he's smashed.  I ask him to step out of his vehicle, explain my suspicions, and explain that I'm going to have him perform a few sobriety tests.  The first will be the alphabet test.  One thing I learned after several years in U.City was to always first ask whether the person actually knows the alphabet.  The conversation went like this:

Me: Sir, before I begin I have to ask, do you know the English alphabet?

Driver: Of course officer.  I'm a high school teacher.

Me: Great.  Would you please recite the alphabet from A to Z.

Driver: Certainly.  1, 2, 3, 4...

It was everything I had to not render myself incapacitated while laughing.  A subsequent breathalyzer showed the driver to be .22 at roughly 1:30 in the afternoon...on a school day.

About 3 years later, I'm working midnights and I see a car with expired plates roll through a stop sign near the edge of U.City.  I get the car stopped and approach the driver.  When I get to the window, I see there's a passenger in the car who is either asleep or passed out (turns out it was the latter).  I ask the driver to step out of the car and to bring "her" license and proof of insurance.  The driver's door opens and the driver steps out.  The driver is built like Earl Campbell, but dressed like Naomi Campbell.  This guy is every bit of 6'2, 235 pounds, but is wearing a wig, mini skirt (not so mini) and 4-5 inch pumps.  The driver explains that "he" doesn't have a license (it turns out it had been revoked for sometime) and isn't sure about the insurance because the car belongs to the passenger who "he" just met that night.  A quick check shows that the driver had several traffic warrants, so the driver is going to jail and is cuffed without incident.

After securing the driver, I walk up to the passenger to wake him.  It turns out it's the same high school teacher from the story above.  He's passed out drunk, but I revive him with smelling salts.  As he's awakening, I asked him a couple of times to hand me "his" (the driver's) purse.  After the second or third time, the passenger finally asked me, why do you keep calling "her" a "him?"  Before I could respond, my assist responded "because that's a dude.  You couldn't tell?" 

By now you've probably pieced it together.  The teacher had picked up a hooker who turned out to be a tranny hooker.  They had gone back to the teacher's house, taken care of business, and the tranny hooker was driving back to his/her place of business when I stopped the car.

If there's ever a moment when you should realize it's time to give up booze, it's the moment you learn you just banged Lawrence Taylor in drag.  Either that or you drink a lot more and hope like hell you forget the whole evening.

"If there's ever a moment when you should realize it's time to give up booze"

Indeed.  Thanks for the stories.  Let's hope Freese comes out of this in good shape, athletically and personally.