Towing above 65

Huntindog wrote:

coolbreeze01 wrote:
Closest town/route would help find the official report.

You don't really think that will be provided, do you?

It doesn't matter what the subject of debate is around here. Someone will invariably post a picture without any traceable info, and claim whatever to make their opinion seem to be more valuable then the others.

They are depending on the shock value of the pic.

I had a friend who knew someone that had a teacher that had a uncle that was an investigator....... Too funny, but knda sad at the same time.

So, you think whats his name is scamming us?

"For Immediate Release: 4/21/15 at 2:40 p.m.

MERIDIAN - An Idaho State Police trooper was involved in a crash on his 2009 Kawasaki Concourse patrol motorcycle at approximately 12:30 p.m. this afternoon while responding to another crash. Trooper Ben Comorosky was traveling eastbound on I-84 near the Cole Road 50B exit when he crashed at milepost 51. He suffered some injuries but none are believed to be life threatening. He was transported by ground ambulance to St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise.

The Boise Police Department responded to the crash and is leading the investigation.

The left two lanes of eastbound I-84 between Cole Road and Orchard Street exits were blocked for approximately two hours."

Wish the trooper a full recovery. Seems to be a lot of crashes in Idaho.

dodge guy wrote:
I agree that no one should tow over 65!

You are just too old at that point and your reaction time drops to that of a vegetable!

HEY!!! I take exception to that!!! I hope that I am healthy enough and have enough money to continue RVing at that age. For that to happen though, I will be retired and therefore not as rushed for vacation time as I am now.

Oops! Double post.

dodge guy wrote:
I agree that no one should tow over 65!

You are just too old at that point and your reaction time drops to that of a vegetable!

Do you have substantial proof of that? (laughing)

I agree that no one should tow over 65!

You are just too old at that point and your reaction time drops to that of a vegetable!

jaycocreek wrote:
My point is, you guys are second guessing from thousands of miles away just from a picture I posted and the fact my son is a firefighter first responder/extraction cannot in anyway know what happened living and working with "everyone involved" ... I find this
hilarious but common on the Internet.

I'm reading books with my daughter, didn't notice this until just now.

I am no longer a patrol officer, I investigate rapes. My wife is not qualified to give an educated opinion about the psyche of a rape victim, or about the dynamics of an investigation and she LIVES with me. Just because your son is friends with the local cops means that he is privy to the entire investigation... and therefore by proxy YOU are privy to the entire investigation? And, after a full and complete methodical investigation it was determined that speed was the one and only contributing factor to the collision...? That is what you represented by your post, unless I am completely misunderstanding what you wrote.

I don't understand your point about "second guessing" from thousands of miles away.

You didn't offer any details or substantive fact about what happened. I am not "second guessing", because there hasn't been offered PROOF of what happened. All I am doing is trying to let you see that there are substantially more things to consider than simply speed alone.

I clearly stated that speed is quite possibly involved... but it is simply one piece of the puzzle. That isn't second guessing, that is clarifying an ignorant assumption that speed was the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

See the difference?

Tvov wrote:
I am not sure I would consider it an "uninformed opinion". He said his son is a first responder who talked to the people who actually investigated the accident. I've been to a few accidents, most are "solved" at the scene with the interviews, vehicle positions, damage, etc. What takes days or weeks is the paperwork. Maybe your department had enough personnel to spend weeks solving MVAs, my local PD doesn't have that many people, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if it is just a case of different SOPs.

Again... fatal collisions are rarely "solved" at the scene. Standard operating procedures be damned, this is simple basic collision investigation. Did they call a mechanic to the scene and throw the pickup truck on a lift and determine that all mechanical functions worked correctly? Did they pull the car computer out and determine what functions (brake, turn signal, airbags, stability control) were activated at the time of collision? There is a LOT that goes into fatal vehicle collisions.

I'm not talking a simple MVA (motor vehicle accident for those wondering), I am talking a FATAL collision. If your local jurisdiction doesn't spend more than 30 minutes investigating a fatal collision, then something is SERIOUSLY wrong.

FYI, turns out his son is a firefighter, not a trained collision investigator. I have been on many house fire calls... I have very little more information about what is happening on an active fire ground than the average Joe Citizen watching from his porch. That doesn't give me the knowledge to make an educated decision about what caused the fire, nor the best method to attack the fire.

Hopefully this clarifies some of my comments.

jaycocreek wrote:
Spoon

Yours is an opinion based on where you were a patrol officer. In our little community there is only one stop light in the whole town. The fire department/ems/police department and sheriff's are a very close nit crowd. They hunt together fish together etc etc. This is more of a Mayberry atmosphere than a LAPD or DC.

Mine is an EDUCATED opinion based upon years of training and experience. Just because this collision happened in a simple town doesn't mean that any of the things I said are untrue. All that it may imply is that your little town doesn't do as thorough of a job investigating a fatal collision as my county does. If anything, that further goes to my point that you don't have any concrete proof that SPEED was the mitigating factor.

Look, there is no doubt in my mind that the guy could have been speeding. However, we don't know WHAT ELSE happened.

Look, if you are doing 2 mph and not paying attention and hit a tree you are going to have minor damage to your car and walk away. Did the speed cause the collision, or did the distraction to the driver cause the collision?

The difference is that sudden changes in direction are traumatic to the human body. If you are doing 80 mph and crash into a guardrail and slide along the guardrail, you will likely survive (assuming seatbelts and airbags deployed). The force on your body isn't substantial (again... assuming good health otherwise) from this type of collision because even though you are at a high rate of speed, the method of collision allowed your impact to be absorbed by the vehicle and guardrail, rather than your body absorbing that impact.

Then again you can be doing 40 mph and get into a head on collision with a OTR truck and suffer catastrophic injuries. Your pickup truck won't absorb much of that speed, the semi definitely won't absorb that much speed... that leaves YOU to absorb that speed and that sudden and violent change of direction. The simple shear factor is enough to rip major arteries in your body and cause severe and sudden internal damage. But... both vehicles were UNDER the speed limit and under this magical 60 mph number that so many here believe is gospel.

Again... many, many, many, many factors to safety and damage to the human body. Speed is one of MANY factors. Reaction, distance, comprehension of traffic conditions, tire gripping ability and vehicle stability in a sudden change are other (amongst many) factors. Speed is not the end all, be all that people thing. I find it moderately amusing that we are seriously arguing the difference between 65 mph and 70 mph. The difference in terms of reaction and potential for damage are miniscule. Its arbitrary and ignorant to think that one speed is radically better than the other.

65 is safer than 70
60 is safer than 65
55 is safer than 60...

But you can still die in a 40 mph collision. Hell, I've been on scene of a collision that we believe the old man was driving slower than 15 mph. Old guy in a retirement home in an old Cadillac. He misjudged the turn (too fast for conditions, even though he was likely only going 15 mph) and hit a large cement wall. The Caddy didn't have any crumple zones. The cement wall didn't have any crumple zones. The old man wasn't wearing his seatbelt, hit the steering wheel and suffered a fatal internal injury. Speed didn't kill him... a combination of many factors killed him.