[dragnet2]

Since the victim clearly saw the driver, in fact was pointing at the driver who was approaching, and was staring right at him as he defiantly approached the vehicle and appeared to possibly yelling and pointing right at it.

In addition, the vehicle just prior to the suspects vehicle was no where near in front of the suspect vehicle, and was clearly on the inside of the track, away from the front of the suspect vehicle.

The “victim” commited suicide. Argue that

There was no argument and likely the reason why you did not dispute my comments.

It would be helpful if you would learn the difference between arguing and reviewing video evidence and interpreting it in an unbiased manner.

Again, based on the video evidence, it appears the suspect driver had full view of the victim well prior to point of impact. No argument here.

[driftdiver]

“appears” isn’t normally part of a factual statement.

[ridesthemiles]

IF you can, get a chance to sit in the seat of a WINGED sprinter.

The view to the right fore & side is severely restricted.

How many drivers do you know that are prepared to avoid a PEDESTRIAN on the track-—at night—in a dark/black driving suit?

I challenge you to go to a local track or garage & do some interviews.

IF the first driver had hit Ward, would all of this controversy be happening. ???