O.K., y'all, I'm ready to get jumped on here if I'm wrong, but...is it possible this guy stopped right in the lane on a two lane highway to "check his hitch", never thinking for a moment he might get hit???Please take a look at the following link and tell me what you think:: Woman pinned under trailer body I know, I know...the woman that hit it got a ticket for "inattentive driving", but...do you see any shoulder there other than sloping, (undisturbed!) gravel??? The trailer/truck themselves are in their original positions, as indicated by the orange police paint markings next to their wheels. Aren't those wheels not just on the pavement but inside the fog line?????Is this guy a contender for this year's Darwin Awards?

Yes the truck, if still in the same position after the collision, was still in the traveled way. However, anyone coming up from the rear should have seen the truck stopped in the roadway. No different than if the truck and trailer had stopped for a slow moving cow. And yes, I would not have stopped in the road to fix anything, unless physically unable to get off.

I am not second guessing the LEO that cited her, but I am thinking he probably has information we don't have, and the reason why the other party was not cited or placed at fault. It may not be the smartest thing in the world to stop in a traffic lane, and a reason why I have always told the DW and kids that unless you are completely disabled, always find a safe spot to stop. I would rather pay for some damage than have a loved one taken.

Last month we had one of our club members, in a 32 foot Pace Arrow,crest a hill on a two lane road and half way down the hill sat a class C rental across the road.No place to go at 55mph he hit them broadside, broke the seat out of the floor and sent the DW into the window, seat attached.Seems the "C" was lost and wanted to go back to the town, they tried to make a 3 point turn.Now all 4 fron the class C are in ICU Sid and Bonny are 94 and 86, they reacted and layed down 110 feet of rubber, just the week before they had the breaks replaced.

IN Michigan the term is "ability to stop in assured clear distance," which means a driver should be able to stop for any object he/she sees sitting in the car's path. So the woman was technically at fault. Laws are based on strict rules of interpretation so that Ideally they can be applied fairly to all.That said, the driver of the tow vehicle in my opinion certainly is a candidate for a Darwin Award. And how did his wife end up underneath the trailer? Was she just standing around? She deserves a nomination as well.

In railroad terms, we call it restricted speed. Able to stop in 1/2 the range of vision (not exceeding 15mph). I do the same while towing (except the not exceeding 15mph part). I want to make sure I can stop safely.

Park in the road? Get Hit! Duh... | Good Sam Community

71 Replies

lakeside013104
Explorer
Jul 30, 2013
Bobbo wrote:
lakeside013104 wrote:
The correct process is to be able to see where the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you touch the pavement. If you can't see the pavement & rear tire confluence, you are too close.

I (6'1") taught DD (5'1") this. When she took Driver's Ed, the teacher asked her why she was stopping so far back. She told him this rule. He replied that she was not as tall as me so the rule should be adjusted.

Boboo....good job teaching DD that rule even if she has to adjust somewhat she will still be at a defensive driving advantage. Thanks for sharing.

Lakeside
Bobbo
Explorer III
Jul 28, 2013
lakeside013104 wrote:
The correct process is to be able to see where the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you touch the pavement. If you can't see the pavement & rear tire confluence, you are too close.

I (6'1") taught DD (5'1") this. When she took Driver's Ed, the teacher asked her why she was stopping so far back. She told him this rule. He replied that she was not as tall as me so the rule should be adjusted.
JJBIRISH
Explorer
Jul 28, 2013
~DJ~ wrote:
WOW, times have changed since I retired 12 years ago!!! I went by the SO to get a copy of the crash report. Since I was not involved or directly connected to the accident I would have to fill out a public information request. This process takes 10 business days along with required processing fees. Then if approved, more $$ for the report.

So it's not going to happen. Sorry folks.

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort DJ…

I asked the pharmacist about my prescription and he couldn’t tell me without proof of identity… they just filled and sold it to me not 5 min before, I never left the store and still had my CC receipt stapled to the bag… glad I checked it was the wrong medication, one I didn’t recognize, not to unusual as it seems they change generic suppliers all the time… privacy… :B

Nothing new and no news updates… nothing changes…

hooligan wrote:
So: the LEO's on scene, "Texan" and "DJ" are familiar with what happened and it's different from the deductions of the well intentioned but ill informed.

But in keeping with the Florida tradition of never let the facts get in the way of an out-of-town lynch mob

Obviously spoken by a true Floridian…:B

I am not about to re-read the entire thread but maybe a little fact checking of available information is in order even before you get into your interesting version of events…
hooligan
Explorer
Jul 28, 2013
So: the LEO's on scene, "Texan" and "DJ" are familiar with what happened and it's different from the deductions of the well intentioned but ill informed.

But in keeping with the Florida tradition of never let the facts get in the way of an out-of-town lynch mob, here's my version.
The good Samaritan lady, cut off the lady in the car as she passed her, that lady lost control and went well off the highway and while coming back- hit the Scamp trailer which was on the shoulder. The impact knocked the trailer, the wife and the truck back on the highway, next to the "where it happened" paint.
lakeside013104
Explorer
Jul 28, 2013
Two car lengths, maybe?

The correct process is to be able to see where the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you touch the pavement. If you can't see the pavement & rear tire confluence, you are too close.

If folks followed this simple defensive driving process, when the light turns green or at other vehicle lineups, everyone in line would be able to start forward at a slow pace and increase speeds as the distance between vehicles increases. This would take the "accordion" effect out of a line of vehicles as they move forward at a green light, etc. This is just food for thought and only worth what you paid for it.

Lakeside
ve7prt
Explorer
Jul 28, 2013
chracatoa wrote:
ve7prt wrote:
In that case, the only driver to NOT get a ticket/fine was the lead driver, even though only car #18, which started the whole thing, was moving at the time of initial impact.

What the other 16 drivers did to get a ticket?

They were all ticketed for following too close. Which makes no sense as they were all stopped at a red left turn signal. But I guess if you are stopped at an intersection you're supposed to leave a couple car lengths between you and the car ahead, not that anyone really does that.:R

Cheers!
Mike
Francesca_Knowl
Explorer
Jul 19, 2013
Dang!

I was really hoping we'd get to see that. Thanks for trying, DJ!
_DJ_1
Explorer II
Jul 19, 2013
WOW, times have changed since I retired 12 years ago!!! I went by the SO to get a copy of the crash report. Since I was not involved or directly connected to the accident I would have to fill out a public information request. This process takes 10 business days along with required processing fees. Then if approved, more $$ for the report.

So it's not going to happen. Sorry folks.
chracatoa
Explorer
Jul 19, 2013
ve7prt wrote:
In that case, the only driver to NOT get a ticket/fine was the lead driver, even though only car #18, which started the whole thing, was moving at the time of initial impact.

What the other 16 drivers did to get a ticket?
ve7prt
Explorer
Jul 19, 2013
msmith1199 wrote:
In the case you described on the blind corner, the majority of fault still lies with the cars that came around the blind corner too fast. In my opinion, if somebody stops in the road without good cause and accidents result then they are all getting tickets, but the ones that hit the stopped vehicles in front of them are mostly to blame.

Normally, I would agree with you. And the law in British Columbia does state that the following vehicle is normally at fault when involved in a rear-ender. But, there are cases where that is NOT the case, as it was here. Remember, I said "blind corner". That means you CANNOT see what is around it until you traverse it. And in the case I mentioned, the M/H was in a position where it was not visible until it was too late, even at the recommended speed for that corner. All three drivers did their best to stop, but only the car was able to stop without collision; the 2 pick-ups had less space to stop in and were larger, heavier vehicles. Ergo, they could not stop in time, despite their best efforts. Luckily, no injuries.

Now, contrast that to a chain-reaction rear-ender that happened in Victoria many years ago. There was a group of 17 vehicles sitting at a left turn signal, waiting for the light. Car number 18 piles into rear-most vehicle, and causes a chain-reaction right up to the lead vehicle, pushing it into the intersection. I have no idea of the speed of vehicle #18, but it must've been significant to push the lead vehicle through 16 others! In that case, the only driver to NOT get a ticket/fine was the lead driver, even though only car #18, which started the whole thing, was moving at the time of initial impact.

Cheers!
Mike