A multiple-vehicle crash, including a roll-over and a head-on collision, resulted in six injuries and three hospitalizations, one of them a trauma alert, early this afternoon at Belle Terre Parkway and Whiteview Parkway in Palm Coast.
Authorities initially reported that at least four vehicles were involved, though subsequently that was reduced to three. The cause of the crash is under investigation.
The crash was reported at 1:25 p.m. One of the victims, a woman, was entrapped in the rolled-over SUV and required extrication by Palm Coast Fire Department firefighter-paramedics and Flagler County Fire Rescue firefighter-paramedics. The front windshield of the vehicle was broken to enable access.
Flagler County FireFlight, the emergency helicopter, landed on Whiteview Parkway, east of Princess Rose Drive, and flew one of the patients who had multiple fractures to Halifax hospital in Daytona Beach. Two patients were taken to AdventHealth Palm Coast with non-life-threatening injuries. Three additional patients were treated at the scene but declined transport to the local hospital.
Based on preliminary information, the vehicles involved were a 2008 red Hyundai Tiburon, a white 2009 Toyota Camry, and a 2021 Nissan Rogue.
John’s Towing of Bunnell was summoned to the scene–and that tower’s vehicle in a rare coincidence ended up breaking down on Belle Terre Parkway, and require its own tow. Roger’s Towing, also of Bunnell (the two companies are run by relatives of each other) soon was at the scene as well, and both companies worked the scene together.
According to the Palm Coast Fire Department, its Engine 21, Ladder 25, Battalion 25 and its Fire Police responded to the scene, as did Flagler County Fire Rescue’s Rescue 21, Rescue 22 and the emergency helicopter. Belle Terre Parkway northbound was cleared a little after 4 p.m.
Land of no turn signals says says
Makes me want to stay home.
C’mon man says
They need lights or something on Belleterre. There is just to much traffic to have multiple intersections and people crossing over. This is why my insurance has gone up even though I have a perfect record
Jimbo99 says
3 of these type of accidents & it’s not even July 4th yet.
Ray says
Way Too many people moving into palm coast. Good luck to the victims
bill says
I don’t think speed was involved. Everyone does 45 mph in Belle Terre. This city is a melting pot different traffic and driving habits from over the country. My car insurance went up $165 through the farmers insurance not one accident in 30 years no speeding tickets nothing in my car has 380,000 miles on it, so who am I paying for, these idiots that just had the accident of Bill Terre
David Schaefer says
Our insurance went up too but everyone goes over the 45mph posted speed more like 60 and above…..
Denali says
“Everyone does 45 mph in Belle Terre.” What dream world do you live in? Even if you are doing 50 on that roadway you are likely to get run over by some maniac who is driving even faster and weaving in and out of traffic. I would rater take my chances on I-95 than drive on Belle Terre.
TR says
Yep I’m the same. Insurance of any kind is nothing more than a rip off business if you ask me. They force everyone to have it or they take away your rights.
John says
These are dramatic photos clearly indicating the extent of the accident and the resulting physical injuries.
Once again, this indicates that Flagler Live is the most effective news sources in Flagler County.
FlaglerLive says
Thank you, but for the photographs with this article, the credit goes to the Palm Coast Fire Department.
Denali says
And another under-educated voice floats to the surface. Driving a vehicle on a public roadway is not a ‘right’. It is a privilege. Your “rights” are enumerated in the constitution, driving a vehicle is not mentioned.
As for any other insurance which you feel is a rip-off, drop the policy and go without. Just do not come begging for help when the storms come ashore.
FlaglerLive says
Actually, as the often overlooked Ninth Amendment notes (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) just because a right isn’t enumerated in the Constitution does not make it less of one. And as far as driving being a privilege, a Florida judge disagrees. From a case in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida, Sultaana Lakiana Myke Freeman v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, June 6, 2003; opinion by Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe: “Although the Florida statutes use the term “driving privileges,” this does not mean that driving is a “privilege” rather than a “right.” The court recognizes that in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US 398 (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the distinction between privilege and right is not meaningful when the benefit in question, i.e., being able to drive a car and thereby conduct normal life activities, is the same. So even if driving is a “privilege,” the government may not deny Plaintiff that benefit without showing that there is a compelling state interest that overrides her right to free exercise of religion.”
Denali says
In Sultaana Lakiana Myke Freeman v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, June 6, 2003 the trial court supported the Department’ finding that the defendant, Freeman, was required to submit to a full face photograph (sans veil) in order to retain a previously issued Florida Driver’s License. Keep in mind that this was a post 9/11 world. Comments made by a judge during a trial if not evidenced by the findings in the case are simply random musings. Trial courts do not issue opinions; they issue findings and rulings. In 2005 Freeman appealed this decision. No where in the appeal did she rely on any opinion of the trial judge. In 2006 the Fifth Appeals Court upheld the trial courts findings stating that the public good was being served by the Department’s initial ruling. Freeman was required, with accommodations as to who would take the photo, to have a full face photo taken to reinstate her Florida Driver’s License.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US 398 (1963) dealt with a person who would not work on her Sabbath, a Saturday. In a nutshell, she was released from her job and filed for unemployment compensation. The State of South Carolina denied her claim citing her refusal to work on the Sabbath was not a justified reason for not accepting a job. SCOTUS overturned the state court rulings basically saying that it made no difference if the aggrieved were to be a Saturday or Sunday Sabbath observer and that the plaintiff was eligible for unemployment compensation. SCOTUS stated; “The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from setting unemployment benefits eligibility requirements such that a person cannot properly observe key religious principles.” SCOTUS went further to state that they were not establishing an official religion in South Carolina. Nothing was said about driving a vehicle.
In the findings of these cases there was no distinction made between a ‘right’ and a ‘privilege’. Again, opinions do not count. You stated that Florida statutes state the term ‘driving privileges’. If the courts truly wanted to blur the line between ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ they would have directed the legislature or agency to either correct the term or redefine driving to be a ‘right’.
A “right” may be exercised without any constraints imposed by the government. The freedom to own a gun, vote, worship, speak, assemble, have babies, publish articles and such, are “rights”. The government cannot control a citizens ability to exercise a “right”. These are our basic freedoms.
“Privileges” on the other hand must be earned. One must pass an examination, pay a fee and comply to certain standards before one may hunt, fish, drive a vehicle, practice medicine or the law, design buildings, et al. All are regulated by the government. These are just a few of our many ‘privileges’.
If the courts truly believed as you have stated, they would have stuck down any government imposed financial, testing or photographic requirement to driving a vehicle to align that action with other “rights”.
After the recent actions by SCOTUS flushing the ninth amendment down the toilet we cannot hang our hats on anything we once believed to be self-evident.
TR says
You didn’t understand what I was saying about insurance. But then again I didn’t expect everyone to get my point.
Dennis says
You are wrong, the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times, the right to travel on public roads in a non commercial status is a right and not a privilege which can be granted or revoked at any time. The ignorance of the amber Ian people is astounding, this being a clear example!!!
Reference the following court rulings:
Bacon Service Corp. v Huss 129 Cal. 21,248 P235
State v Karel, 180 So. 3 at 8
Supreme Court Case:
Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579
Also have a look at Title 18 USC 32
It says in part:
“ motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers or passengers and property. “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge, or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire!
Berberian v Lussier (1958) 139 A2d, 869, 872.
Schecter v killingsworth, 380 P2d, 136, 140; Ariz. 273 (1963)
So given the legal precedent presented on this post who after reading the case law I presented care to argue with me. Unlike the person who I am responding to who is completely ignorant of the law, as are most Police and Sheriffs. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In the simplest of terms, no drivers license or registration are required to transport you personal/private property (automobile) from point A to B on the public streets or highways. Any code, statute, ordinance by a city, town, county or state which is repugnant to the Constitution is to be considered null and void.
Mona says
Denali. It is my right to drive. Unless I have my kid’s school, my stores, my doctors, post office, church, etc. near by, I consider the neccesity of driving the „right”, not the privilage.