SAD, SAD, News today

Daveinet wrote:
What is missing is that there seems to be a belief that writing a law will somehow change behavior. What I am stating is that for various reasons it doesn't. Think about it. Those who are able and willing to change lanes, and/or slow down are not the ones that are going to be involved in an accident with a stopped vehicle along the side of the road. The retired Sargent went through a grocery list of reasons why these accidents happen, none of which are changed by a law or by blocking lanes. The nature of traffic flow is what it is. I spent a lot of years driving through Chicago traffic for about 3 hours a day. It doesn't take much to observe the nature of traffic flow and how it responds to an obstruction. It is pretty easy to judge what can be seen and what can not be seen and how traffic will respond to various situations.

I find it interesting that 2 near misses are ignored as part of the discussion. Apparently having an accident or 2 happen right next to you is just not that big of deal.

Dave, forgive me if I gave the impression that a new or existing law would have made a difference in this particular case, it would not. What was lacking in this situation was the application of some common sense. I believe that sometimes people get so caught up in the moment of "moving forward", particularly on an interstate, that we disregard the fact that we also have the ability to slow down and stop as well. I was merely trying to point out that this incident need not have happened, not because of any law, but because of human misjudgement.

Also, to suggest that 2 near misses are somehow a justification for your assertion that this incident was inevitiable is flawed, because it ignores the fact that there were probably dozens of non-near misses that also occurred because most drivers were driving sensibly. Two idiots causing a near miss does not strengthen your argument.

Finally, the blocking of the lane was necessary in this case because of the obstruction in the road caused by the overturned vehicle that they were trying to protect, so I'm not really sure what you think they could have done differently here.

I suspect that nothing will ever change your mind on this, and so be it. I still wish you the best my friend. Drive safely.

Daveinet wrote:
What is missing is that there seems to be a belief that writing a law will somehow change behavior. What I am stating is that for various reasons it doesn't. Think about it. Those who are able and willing to change lanes, and/or slow down are not the ones that are going to be involved in an accident with a stopped vehicle along the side of the road. The retired Sargent went through a grocery list of reasons why these accidents happen, none of which are changed by a law or by blocking lanes. The nature of traffic flow is what it is. I spent a lot of years driving through Chicago traffic for about 3 hours a day. It doesn't take much to observe the nature of traffic flow and how it responds to an obstruction. It is pretty easy to judge what can be seen and what can not be seen and how traffic will respond to various situations.

I find it interesting that 2 near misses are ignored as part of the discussion. Apparently having an accident or 2 happen right next to you is just not that big of deal.

You are making an assumption that every law is ignored by EVERY driver, which is not the case. As we all experienced, when the speed limit was LOWERED to 55 on the interstates, SOME drivers obeyed the new limit and SOME did not. In any case, ALL drivers did not ignore the law. If a new laws is enacted, and the public is informed about it, SOME people will comply, and some will not. Just the fact that SOME, no matter how few comply, means that the law did work. If the number of law abiding citizens exceeds the number of law breakers, than we have a different problem, or we live in Chicago. :B

What is missing is that there seems to be a belief that writing a law will somehow change behavior. What I am stating is that for various reasons it doesn't. Think about it. Those who are able and willing to change lanes, and/or slow down are not the ones that are going to be involved in an accident with a stopped vehicle along the side of the road. The retired Sargent went through a grocery list of reasons why these accidents happen, none of which are changed by a law or by blocking lanes. The nature of traffic flow is what it is. I spent a lot of years driving through Chicago traffic for about 3 hours a day. It doesn't take much to observe the nature of traffic flow and how it responds to an obstruction. It is pretty easy to judge what can be seen and what can not be seen and how traffic will respond to various situations.

I find it interesting that 2 near misses are ignored as part of the discussion. Apparently having an accident or 2 happen right next to you is just not that big of deal.

Rollnhome wrote:

BobGed wrote:

Rollnhome wrote:
In very simplistic terms this is a rear end collision. In any rear end collision the law is pretty clear.

That is not necessarily always true and the reason I have a dash camera mounted on the windshield recording whenever I'm moving.

Could you please give me one example or why this circumstance would differ.

In heavy city traffic it's not uncommon for some one trying to make an exit to cut in front of you at the last second, and then slam on their brakes. If the rear ending vehicle can prove that's what happened, they stand an excellent chance of not being held liable.

Here's a video clip of a close call while I was in my regular car. Lady made an illegal lane change and I had to get on the brakes pretty hard to avoid hitting her. Nothing happened, but if it had I believe I would not have been held responsible.

Close call

"blind curve" on the Interstate? I have over 1.5 million miles in a big rig. Can't remember a blind curve so bad on IS that one can not see far enough ahead to stop.

Been thru Nashville number of times. No "blind curve" so bad that one could not stop in time.

Also, most, if not all, of the laws that say to move over a lane for cops, also say OR SLOW DOWN if you cannot. They give you an option if you cannot move over.

Do you think the Hotel billboard located in the curve contributed to the OP ability to see the blockage ahead.

pops

I have been apprehensive when sighting the flashing lights. Here's why;

1) I don't know if the lane is blocked, all of it, some of it, or none of it.

2) number one causes me to slow down.

3) this causes the cars behind me to whip out and pass

4) the result is the passing lane speed is 70 mph and the shoulder lane is 40 mph
5) this causes more cars to whip out at 40mph into 70 mph traffic

6) now i'm stopped at the scene as I can not maneuver quickly or get up enough speed to safely get into the passing lane. (just anticipating getting rear ended)

therefore I would inquire to the vast experience here, why both lanes are not enforced to slow to say 40 mph when lights ahead are flashing. Lunch Surfer made this point too.

Many of us are just plain ******* when we slow for merges and one lane or the other seems oblivious to traffic patterns ahead and or flashing lights from police cars or other safety vehicles at work. In over 40 years of driving I have never seen any of these jerks nailed for driving without due care or attention. Tell me I'm wrong.

And yes, it is a sad day when this happens, for all involved, especially those that were just doing right for others.

Not fond of driving Nashville's curve filled Interstates in my rig.

Sorry Daveinet,
While looking at previous post I see sixty years of Law Enforcement and I have 22 years of Law Enforcement. You seem to have it all worked out for officer's on the job, I have to wonder what experience you have in traffic control? I can tell you that besides having to worry about why your out on a traffic stop you have to worry about the people driving by that aren't paying attention to what's going on around them. All too often driver's that are rubber necking at the fist accident cause another accident using more resource's that just aren't around. This accident could of and should of been avoided no matter where the original accident took place. As for all of a sudden these types of accident are occurring I disagree. They have been happening since I started in Law Enforcement and I too have lost a friend due to someone not paying attention and running them over. It will be a sad situation for all involved that is for sure.

Donnie
Retired 2/01/14

BobGed wrote:

Rollnhome wrote:
In very simplistic terms this is a rear end collision. In any rear end collision the law is pretty clear.

That is not necessarily always true and the reason I have a dash camera mounted on the windshield recording whenever I'm moving.

Could you please give me one example or why this circumstance would differ.