Bexar County, TX — September 6, 2024, Felipe Zamora and two teenagers were injured due to a car accident just after 12:00 midnight on Martin Luther King Drive.

According to authorities, 23-year-old Felipe Exander Zamora was traveling in a southbound Ford Fusion on Gevers turning left to head eastbound on Martin Luther King Drive when the accident took place.

The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. Officials indicate that, for as yet unknown reasons, the Fusion was involved in a collision with a westbound Chrysler 300 occupied by a 19-year-old man and an 18-year-old woman. After the initial impact, the Chrysler apparently veered to the right, coming to a stop after crashing into a building. It is unclear which vehicle had the right of way at the time of the wreck due to differing statements, authorities state.

Zamora and the woman from the Chrysler each sustained minor injuries over the course of the accident; the man who had been behind the wheel of the Chrysler, however, received serious injuries. Additional details pertaining to this incident are not available at this point in time.

Commentary

When two cars collide in the middle of a signal-controlled intersection, and one ends up crashing into a building, the immediate concern often becomes who had the green light. But that question alone doesn’t tell the full story—especially when injuries are involved and witness accounts conflict.

1. Did the authorities thoroughly investigate the crash?

In crashes where signal timing is in dispute, a proper investigation demands more than basic statements. Did officials pull timing logs from the traffic signal system? Were any nearby cameras—either traffic or private security—reviewed to determine the vehicle positions and movement? Investigators should have diagrammed the point of impact, measured skid marks or debris spread, and verified each driver’s field of view approaching the intersection. If that level of analysis wasn’t done, then questions about who had the right of way remain unresolved.

2. Has anyone looked into the possibility that a vehicle defect caused the crash?

When one vehicle continues moving after impact and hits a structure, it’s worth asking whether the driver lost control due to more than just the collision. Did the Chrysler 300 suffer a mechanical failure—like locked steering, a jammed throttle, or brake loss—that prevented the driver from stopping? Vehicles involved in severe directional shifts post-impact should be inspected to rule out system malfunctions. Overlooking that step could miss a contributing factor.

3. Has all the electronic data relating to the crash been collected?

Both vehicles likely contain event data recorders that capture speed, throttle use, braking, and even seat belt status at the time of impact. Paired with location data or footage from dashcams or street cameras, this information could clarify vehicle paths and timing down to the second. If authorities didn’t request or retrieve that data promptly, a key opportunity to resolve the differing statements may have already passed.

Intersections don’t just involve drivers—they involve systems, mechanics, and seconds that matter. Without looking at every one of those elements, it’s easy to build a picture that’s only halfway complete.

Key Takeaways:

• Signal-controlled intersection crashes require confirmation of light timing and vehicle movement.
• Vehicle inspections are necessary when a car continues into a structure after initial impact.
• Onboard data and video evidence can clarify timing and resolve conflicting witness accounts.