Trailer comes unhitched, kills 1.

TNGW1500SE wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
OK people lets use some common sense here! (quote) ".....the crash involved a truck pulling a camper, and a car." I read that as it was a truck pulling a camper which broke away and then hit a car. no need to be nit picky of the article and the reporters lack of RV knowledge. a person died, n need to argue about how the article was written!

I disagree. Don't you want to know the cause? The "news" is how people get their information. If a towing mistake was made, people can learn from the mistake. When the reporters get the terms that wrong, then nobody learns anything. It was poor reporting.

Yes I do, and I stated that in a previous post. But arguing about calling an RV a "camper" or "trailer" or whatever is not getting any answers. I want to know how and why the trailer became disconnected. Not the definition of various RV's.

He should not have been pulling a camper and a car.....:B

I think we all feel bad. I think the "bs" is because we can't figure out what happened (and learn from it) because of the terrible use of the English language. This thread could have been short and to the point, but...

Feel bad for those involved in the crash, but yeah 5 pages of bs picking apart the possible sequence of events which NOONE has a clue about or compliaining about grammar is ridiculous.....

WTP-GC wrote:
4 pages of this junk is why this forum really sucks sometimes. I'd rather see a political post than see an endless thread debating over syntax of a news article or the particulars of a situation that we have no details for.

Heck, far as we know, a tiny meteor came hurling from the sky, striking the coupler and chains, causing a failure. Naturally, the heat of the meteor shorted out the emergency breaking system. The trailer tongue fell on an old caster that was laying in the road, then had a blowout on a road-side tire, causing it to easily veer into oncoming traffic. I challenge anyone to dispute this series of events based on the known information.

People are commenting on the lack of professionalism in the journalist field these days. Not only do they rarely get the story correct, but now they can't even string words together into comprehensible sentences.

If you don't like certain posts or this forum as a whole, just skip the posts you don't like or find another forum.

As to "the crash involved a truck pulling a camper and a car"...I had to read it twice as I first thought the camper was pulling a car. When I read the next sentence, which stated the camper then hit a car, I realized the camper was not pulling a car. As Bobbo stated, saying the crash involved a car & a truck pulling a camper makes much more sense.

Journalists should know how to write sensibly. That's their job. So, no excuses for this reporter. It was worded poorly.

Still, a very sad occurrence.

4 pages of this junk is why this forum really sucks sometimes. I'd rather see a political post than see an endless thread debating over syntax of a news article or the particulars of a situation that we have no details for.

Heck, far as we know, a tiny meteor came hurling from the sky, striking the coupler and chains, causing a failure. Naturally, the heat of the meteor shorted out the emergency breaking system. The trailer tongue fell on an old caster that was laying in the road, then had a blowout on a road-side tire, causing it to easily veer into oncoming traffic. I challenge anyone to dispute this series of events based on the known information.

dodge guy wrote:
OK people lets use some common sense here! (quote) ".....the crash involved a truck pulling a camper, and a car." I read that as it was a truck pulling a camper which broke away and then hit a car. no need to be nit picky of the article and the reporters lack of RV knowledge. a person died, n need to argue about how the article was written!

I disagree. Don't you want to know the cause? The "news" is how people get their information. If a towing mistake was made, people can learn from the mistake. When the reporters get the terms that wrong, then nobody learns anything. It was poor reporting.

OK people lets use some common sense here! (quote) ".....the crash involved a truck pulling a camper, and a car." I read that as it was a truck pulling a camper which broke away and then hit a car. no need to be nit picky of the article and the reporters lack of RV knowledge. a person died, n need to argue about how the article was written!

turbojimmy wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
The plot thickens.........

".....the crash involved a truck pulling a camper and a car."

Yet there is no hitch visible on the back of the camper and no toad visible.

Maybe this?

".....the crash involved a truck pulling a camper, and a car."

Entirely possible, I was basing my comments on the fact that the deceased was the driver of the SUV on the far left in the picture.

From the original story;

"Sheriff Curt Folger says a truck hauling a camper was driving eastbound on U.S. 150 when the camper came loose and went into the westbound lanes, hitting an SUV head-on."