One doesn't exclude the other. The fact that she was distracted doesn't necessarily mean the accident happened because she was distracted.

if there is proof that she wasn’t looking at the road at the time of the accident, do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking? with great representation - probably? this will be an interesting trial…

On the video you can see her look down briefly before the sound of impact, but right before and at the time of the impact she appears to be looking forwards.

She probably would not have had enough time to stop, given how recently she’d been looking at her phone. https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246...

> do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking

Presumably entirely depends on how egregious the hypothetical jaywalking was and whether or not she can prove it. i.e. if it would’ve been impossible to avoid the accident regardless of her phone use, the phone use is probably irrelevant.

>topic is literal video of a person looking at camera phone and loud thud

>HN commenter who only read the headline squabbles over correlation vs causation

its all so wearisome

I read the article and watched the video.

100ms can make a difference between life and death

If you're at the wheel of a moving car and do anything other than driving you're a piece of shit who deserves whatever comes your way (which preferably should be your sorry ass hitting a chunky tree and becoming tetraplegic)

There are 0 situation in which using a phone while driving improves your odds or the odds of other people are you.

It doesn't even matter if it's the victims fault, these people are dangerous and should not drive

source: reddit comment