Tragic -- even more so because it was likely preventible. This area has a culture that fosters incompetent and irresponsible drivers who flout the law in tunnel-visioned satisfaction of selfishness on the road. Ultimately, reckless driving -- if that turns out to be the cause of this catastrophe -- is both morally wrong and un-American, since it betrays a blatent disregard of basic obligations to other persons, who also happen to be one's fellow citizens.

There could be another reason. Think we should hold off on judgement. Not fair to the families who lost a loved one.

Very tragic, especially this time of the year. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and families at this sad time.

Ditto To Jen , Joyce and Maureen. I was about to puke after reading all of that blather in the first post. Sure hope it is not a " portent" of more hot air to come.

It's so cozy to post from behind a pseudonym, isn't it?

You know nothing of the details of this particular crash except that a family has lost s loved one. Why is this deemed time for "argument", be it rational argument or otherwise. I actually don't disagree with the sentiments of your original post, but I grossly protest their timing and inappropriateness on this story, at this time. A little sensitivity to those who are suffering might not be mandated by the 1st amendment, but it would certainly reflect some decency and compassion.

I couldn't agree more with Kimberly.

I just removed many comments for violations to the TOS, especially personal attacks. Please keep in mind and be sensitive to the victims' families during this time of tragedy.

Clearly most responders to my original post cannot read between the lines. Contrary to their interpretations, it was my deep compassion and sympathy for the crash victims, families and friends of this and many similar, horrible accidents that prompted my original comment. While we don't know all the facts, we do know plenty about the general driving behavior in this area, which also animates my passion to help change, if only marginally, the mindset underlying that behavior and might help reduce the continuing slaughter of innocents, perpetrators and those who share responsibility.

So naturally I'm judgmental. What we need in this region are more people with the gumption to be judgmental and proactive, rather than passive -- 24/7 -- regarding bad drivers, so we can start taming the mayhem on our roads. Regardless of the cause of this particular accident, my comments apply generally to the wanton disregard of human lives -- including, most ironically, many bad drivers' own -- on the roads in RI/MA. While many are justifiably stirred up over impending tolls on the Sakonnet Bridge, the human toll caused by widespread, reckless driving, especially unnecessary speeding, drunkenness, failure to signal, abrupt lane changes, texting, tailgating, and other driving diversions, are my concern. Prayers are not going to prevent more tragedies. But the sober recognition that driving is a privilege -- not a right -- that has moral and practical consequences, is a good start.

Why did you remove mine when you left out the originator of the worst one. Agree with Renee.

The comments from Renee and sda1956 contained personal attacks against a user, which are not allowed under the TOS.

Sandy if you are any kind of journalist you would take all of them down. This is a tragic event being clouded by ridiculous comments that are inappropriate.

Karen, I agree, and must say that this is the worst post ever placed on Patch. A family has lost a loved one and we are commenting on it. Wipe it clean. My sorrow goes out to the family.

Some Patch's' moderators lack of a clear understanding between website 'moderation' and website 'censorship'. In an effort to assist Patch moderators I have sent a recent entry that Ms. McGee has deemed a violation of the Patch's "Terms of Use" [sic: Terms of Service] onto Patch's parent company AOL. In an effort to 'find' how my entry violates anything. Simply telling a member that their post will not be published because it somehow violates an intentionally vaguely worded TOS agreement without specifically telling the member exactly which TOS tenant the member is in violation of is absurd. Enclosing a copy of the TOS along with the notice that a member's comment will not be published is equally absurd. Somehow the intention behind sending a copy of the TOS with the notice that a comment will not be published is supposed to 'cover' as a sufficient answer as to why a comment will not be published..... it does not. Why not? If a member writes an entry he or she believes that what they're writing is not in violation of any TOS/'TOU'. When said member receives a communication from a Patch moderator that states their entry will not be published because it violates a tenant(s) of the TOS it would seem incumbent upon the moderator who's holding up the TOS as a reason for the comment being excluded from being published to site precisely which TOS tenant(s) the member has violated otherwise the TOS becomes an arbitrary censorship tool and not the member guideline it's meant to be.

This subject doe's not belong on patch. It is the worst post I have read since I have been commenting. Erase, this, for it very inapropriate. It's down right sickening. There is a family greaving, for a loved one. Let them grieve in peace. My sorrow goes out to all family members.

This subject doe's not belong on patch. It is the worst post I have read since I have been commenting. Erase, this, for it very inapropriate. It's down right sickening. There is a family greaving, for a loved one. Let them grieve in peace. My sorrow goes out to all family members.

I have lived on the island for 75 years and honestly I don't remember an automobile fatality on this bridge. Speed and distraction on the Jamestown and Newport but
I can't recall a vehicle death.
It is scary approaching Bristol with the narrow lanes especially at night.
My sympathy to the family.

Yet sandy isn't taking anything down. This is a tragic thing that has happened and if she was any kind of journalist or even more importantly an editor this would have been taken down earlier. This is do disgraceful to the families involved! Sadly not the first time this kind of situation has happened on this Patch. Sandy please take this all down and start being the editor you proudly call yourself!

Dr. D was looking out for his good friends and colleagues and from the other side shielded them from greater harm in this tragic accident.

I think a little common sense is needed by this editor. Perhaps leave comments closed on articles she feels need to be respected for the sake of the family. I'm sorry, but if you're so concerned about the them, then don't leave comments open.

Please remove all posts immediately

I emphatically endorse Rio Sakonnet's robust defense of our fundamental right of free speech in this country. Never is this right more precious, urgent and in need of protection than during times of duress and contention, whether on a national scale, e.g., involving war, or on a local level that we are now experiencing as a community as families grieve and cope with death and injury to loved ones. While the accident remains a private tragedy for these families, it became a public issue -- and news -- because it occurred in a public place, and hence is open to and appropriate for public comment.

The Editor and some members on this blog should be wary of compounding personal tragedy with what could become a Constitutional tragedy of weakening everyone's free speech, albeit out of well-intentioned concern for not offending the aggrieved parties. The great value of free speech in this country, of which Rhode Island's founder Roger Williams was a pivotal figure, derives from the fact that we do not limit it according to historical, political, partisan or religious, etc. notions of what is deemed 'inappropriate' (except for personal attacks that are irrelevant to the content of issues under discussion). But even short of outright censorship, condemning others as 'delusional' for trying to 'impose' their views is silly and dangerous, and reveals a lack of self-esteem and self-confidence to engage in serious discussion of very real, practical social problems.

This is not a free speech issue, people. Patch is not the government. Patch is a privately owned service.

It is a bit of a pet peeve of mine that people talk about censorship and free speech rights when the government in not involved. The Constitution only protects you from government censorship. The Constitution doesn't grant you any right to post comments on a privately owned commercial website.

Patch can decide what they want to allow as user comments. The ToU reads, "Patch will make the sole determination as to whether Content is acceptable for the Service." The Terms of Use are not mere guidelines. The ToU is a binding contract. The ToU reads, "By using the Service, you are agreeing to be bound by these Terms of Use. ... If you do not accept these Terms of Use ... you may not use the Service."

Get it?

Government regulation of speech = 1st Amendment rights violation.

Patch regulation of comments = too bad, it's their site and their rules.

So, Patch should only post "Good" news? What color is the sky in your world, people?

Grow up, bad things happen. And good reporters, report them.

I was informed by a mutual friend that this man had a heart attack at the wheel. Everyone should just stop their ranting and be thankful that no one else was killed.