Quantcast
Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Silver Lake accident leaves one woman injured

Photos by Bich Ngoc Cao

One woman was injured in Silver Lake last night when her car swerved off Sunset Boulevard and smashed into a telephone pole near Lucile Avenue, according to a neighborhood resident. Bich Ngoc Cao, who snapped photos of the accident scene, provided more details about the midnight crash:

A police officer at the scene said that the driver was lucky to be alive when she was taken away by ambulance, though he said he wasn’t sure if she would survive the accident. He described that she was bleeding out of her ears, nose and mouth and was unconscious when found.  I’m glad no one else was hurt, and I hope the driver is healing.

The Eastsider is checking with LAPD’s Central Traffic Bureau for additional information.



Eastsider Advertising

26 comments

  1. wow… that’s horrific. i can’t even tell what kind of car it is.

  2. My friend did that once. She was drunk!

  3. It is horrible…It looks like a PT Cruiser.

  4. If the driver was unconscious and no field sobriety test could be administered, I’m very curious as to how the officer on the scene (according to the photographer) arrived at such a definitive conclusion that alcohol was involved in the cause of the crash.

    Not only should law enforcement and rescue personnel keep such preliminary presumptions like that to themselves, but I’d humbly suggest the Eastsider should think twice before printing such hearsay, or at least not until it can be confirmed by an appropriate authority.

  5. The car is, was, a PT Cruiser. No love lost there. She hit the telephone poll so hard the entire car accordioned to some degree. I sure hope she faired better than her car.

  6. The driver might of been unconscious, but that means you’re still breathing. You can smell alcohol on the breath of someone who’s past the legal limit (I sure can, ‘cos I have portable breathalyzers and let me tell you, .08 is very drunk and easy to smell on a person). Also, many cops have latent breathalyzers that can p/u alcohol fumes w/o blowing into them. On sobriety check points they sometimes (or always?) have them built into special flashlights which can p/u alcohol fumes as they bring the flashlight close to your face.

  7. Fleaman, I understand the officer wouldn’t have alleged the driver to be drunk had he not ascertained some sort of preliminary evidence that she had allegedly been driving under the influence of alcohol. You offer several legit hypotheticals, but I’m still curious how the attending officer came to that conclusion.

    But whether the answer was a sniff test or, a latent breathalyzer, or the injured woman had an empty bottle of Jack Daniels clutched in her hand, for the officer to reportedly have so informally released such an assessment to a bystander is bad form on his part; and for Eastsider to print it without confirmation is bad form on its part.

  8. True, but the driver wasn’t named, and no lic plate is visible in the pic, so it seems like a no harm no foul situation.

    If the driver was named, that would be totally different for sure.

  9. Will Campbell, you are actually on the mark about the reporting. This news site often does quite poor reporting, not up to professional standards. That is always most obvious on any police reporting.

    For instance, on this one, the hospital should have been called to get the condition of the person, or at least the Fire Department to find what the paramedics had to say. Instead, they say they are waiting for a call back from Central Traffic Bureau, clearly planning to get their medical info from non-medical people who don’t really know but are plenty willing to talk. They probably would go a reprint a police press release as “news,” rather than double checking and questioning into whatever is said — and I can tell you, those press releases are anything but accurate.

    About the officer’s comments about drunk driving — you are right about using mere hearsay to make such statements. Gee, I wouldn’t even be surprised if the officer actually said something more like, “Oh, it was probably drunk driving,” but through hearsay we’re being told he said it was drunk driving.

    We can spread rumors ourselves. We look to the news media for facts.

  10. @ Will Campbell. Sorry for not being able to provide a more complete picture and context about what happened last night. I have discovered that trying to track down the details of a non-fatal accident can be challenging given the volume of incidents the officers and detectives have to handle. I will delete the part of the post you referred to for now until we can get more details about the accident. All I have to add now is that a Central Traffic watch commander said today that he was unaware of any traffic fatalities that took place last night.

  11. Why are you censoring and deleting part of a post of your article because of criticism constructive or not ?
    Seriously ?
    Who is Will Campbell anyway ?
    Have him start his own blog and do his own thing.
    Im just happy he does not use the word “vitriol” over and over in his posts anymore.

  12. @ The Eastsider. I appreciate the response and hope you know my comments were offered with the utmost respect for this blog as a loyal and faithful reader.

    @kolin. Vitriol. Vitriol. Vitriol. Dot com.

  13. kolin’s konstruktive kriticism

  14. Central Traffic isn’t generally going to know anything that wasn’t at the scene. Thus, since you already knew the person was alive and taken to the hospital, they don’t know of any fatality. But the person might have died at the hospital or even arrived DOA – but Central Traffic wouldn’t have that info. The hospital is not going to send a medical report to Central Traffic. That’s just one of the reasons why you can’t be taking medical information for non-medical people. The source for medical information is not the police, it is the hospital, or at least the paramedics.

  15. @Fleeman – I’m not sure if it was a typo, but .08 is the legal limit, not ‘very drunk.’

  16. Sorry, Fleaman with an ‘a’!

  17. Since we are indulging in hearsay, perhaps it was attempted suicide?

  18. or maybe she just lost control while swerving to avoid hitting an unleashed dog!

  19. Okay, this may be conjecture, but I think she was probably listening to Coast To Coast am and thought she saw Mothman.

  20. I like Will and appreciate his comments. Nic is the troll here–You can throw stones at glass houses, but I seriously doubt you have even an iota of sense to know how much work and effort it takes one man to keep up this fantastic website.

  21. I understand the debate between hearsay from police/traffic, eyewitness at the scene and an official medical report from the hospital. Unfortunately all we have is what is posted here. I live 100 ft. from where this accident occurred. and i came out before the police or fire dept. arrived. We thought the driver was gone. Nobody was moving. There were no braking sounds before the accident, that’s when i knew it was going to be an unusual fender bender as almost all accidents here have the brake screech before impact. I don’t know why the police tried to get her out of the car. It is my impression that the fire dept should handle an accident victim of this caliber. When she was walked from the car to the curb she did appear tipsy, but who wouldn’t after an accident like this, so i’m not sure about being drunk just from looking at her after the crash. She then sat down on the curb until the ambulance came. I didn’t see any blood coming from her ears and if this is the case i sure hope she is all right. She was young, about 24 and dressed for a night out. She didn’t look suicidal, or crazy…. i really do hope to find out if she is ok, she was a cute girl. It would be quite a shame.

  22. @Lauren, .08 is very drunk for ‘driving’.

  23. Umm, not really. It’s the lowest legal limit. I just took a class in the psychology of drug and alcohol addiction and the professor frequently works as a consultant on court cases having to do with DUI, so we got the whole breakdown.
    Not saying it’s safe or a good idea to drive like that, but I wouldn’t define it as ‘very drunk’, when only .01 percent lower means you are within the legal limit.

  24. I know it’s the lowest legal limit. I also know it used to be .10

    Classes are one thing, and I don’t doubt that people can drive @ .08, but trust me, you’re quite impaired at that point. I have 3 breathalyzers (they tend to have a shelf life), and when I’m @ .08 I’m drunker than I thought I would be, and I hold my liquor VERY well (usually takes 5 good beers for me to get a buzz). I’ve also confirmed that on my friends .08 for them is quite impaired also, .08 is not just ‘buzzed’. I’ve also confirmed that reading against my other breathalyzers, so it was probably pretty accurate (and you have to wait 20-30 mins after the last drink before blowing to be accurate).

    And .07 isn’t ‘legal’, it only means that you can’t be charged with a DUI, but you can still get a ‘wet reckless’, which is MUCH worse than a simple traffic ticket, legally and insurance wise.

    I also thought .08 might just be ‘buzzed’, but that was before I got breathalyzers and confirmed it’s ‘drunk’ for sure, and for ‘driving’, it’s very drunk.

    My point is that if not driving, I would consider .08 just ‘drunk’. But if driving I consider it ‘very drunk’

  25. #emb

    Did you know that Iota is a town in Louisiana? Go ahead look it up.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *

*