I was in a car accident once where no one died and the injuries on both sides were not that bad - it was technically "my fault" since I was turning left, though I still maintain that they were going way too fast over a hill (my car was going about 5 mph when the two collided).

The people in the other car sued me for $1 million. Each. People are just out for all they can get.

Re: the civil rights group, they should pick a more worthy cause. I mean, someone died here. It's not like the state is thinking of suing Brandy for crossing a street or something.

A non-celebrity wouldn't have this much money. And if it were a non-celebrity they wouldn't have to deal with jokers trying to make it a civil rights issue or seeing photos of Brandy in the press laughing and smiling and moving on with her life.

The accident was Brandy's fault, and a woman was killed because of her negligence. She should be punished and having to hand over some dough when she's responsible for two kids losing their mother is the least of it. But if she were a non-celebrity, the family could have more hope that the courts would deal with it, but in L.A. and with the type of high-powered lawyer Brandy will/has, there's no chance she's going to jail or going to get anything but a slap on the wrist. Her publicist will make sure the press knows how terribly sorry Brandy is and maybe she'll take a trip to rehab as the icing on the cake. The only way she can be punished is in celebrity terms: which means hitting her in the pocketbook and in the public arena.

What's the alternative, not stopping and running them over? Pedestrians have the right of way regardless of whether they're at a crosswalk or not.

But anyway Gayheart was also yakking on her cell (as Brandy apparently was). In both cases, regardless of why the traffic in front of them was stopped a basic law of the road (and common sense) is that when the cars in front of you are stopped, it's not because they all just simultaneously decided to throw on the brake and take a nap. There's a stoplight, something in the road, an accident, or backed-up traffic or some other reason WHY they stopped. Gayheart I guess thought she was special and the cars in front of her were just having a break or something which didn't apply to her, so she swerved into the oncoming lane to pass them and killed a child.

While obviously I do not condone running people over, and I am in no way defending the actions of either of the "celebrities" in question here, I'm not sure where you live that this is the law. From the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act:

It does also state:

Obviously, you have to be especially careful of pedestrians when driving, but a pedestrian does not have the right to just randomly walk into a road where there is no crosswalk.

As a non-driver, my understanding of the law in Britain is that while pedestrians shouldn't just walk onto the road, once they've done that, they do have right of way even if the driver won't always be blamed for mowing someone down on a motorway. Just because someone is very, very stupid (and jaywalking isn't illegal here - if you only crossed at lights in London, you'd never get anywhere), isn't a justification for running them down.

But I don't drive and I'm a bit of an anti-car freak so my natural inclination is to supoort the squished pedestrian over the driver.

Once in my hometown a woman was driving 45 mph on a highway (that was the speed limit) that runs through town (lots of stoplights and stripmalls). This man tried to cross the highway at night, in a part of the highway that doesn't have street lights. She hit and killed him. It wasn't her fault because, A) it was a freaking highway, B) it was dark, and C) he didn't try to cross anywhere near a stoplight.

Here you can't drive 45mph in a built up area (though 30mph would still probably have killed him). But the fact that some pedestrians are really stupid doesn't alter the fact that you have to do your best not to run them down even if that proves impossible occasionally. And yes, some people are really, really stupid.

Topic - Gary Glitter may be freed early

Does he groom himself to look like Satan, or is that just a happy coincidence?

His sentence is only being reduced by 3 months. I would prefer that he served all of his sentence, but a 3 month reduction isn't so bad.

Sometimes it's just impossible not so see someone in the road, no matter how fast you're going, though.

And swerving to avoid the obstacle could just cause you to lose control of the car and be killed. I'm not going to go gunning for pedestrians who so much as set a foot in the road, but if I'm faced with either hitting some poor sod in the road or swerving to avoid him/her and going off the road, I'm gonna hit the guy.

In other news, the ocean remains wet.

My major prof in grad school went to high school with him, and I guess he (O'Neal) was a complete bully that used to beat up the smaller nerdier kids on a regular basis.

You know, having read the CNN version of that article, and Ryan's version of events, it seems to me that they should have arrested his son Griffin too. It seems like Griffin has a long violent past and a history of alcohol abuse. Griffin hit a pregnant woman with a poker (apparently). I'm not sure I blame Ryan for trying to fight back.

Pete Doherty charged with......zzzz....sorry, just lost the will to live ....

What on earth does the judge consider "optimistic" progress in Pete's drug problems? Is he down to only three times a day? Sticking soley to coke? Ready to hold out on overdosing until he turns 28?

Remember when being a Baldwin was a good thing? I don't think Daniel does either.

Was it really necessary to add his movie credit?