Re: N.J. Gov.'s SUV Went 91 Mph Before Crash

On Apr 22, 3:39 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
k_fl...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Arif Khokar wrote:
1) It's not all that difficult to get a driver's license. We all know
that.
It should be. Someone who is "mentally challenged" should not be
qualified to drive.
That's a matter for the people to decide. "Should be" is irrelevant to
the situation at hand. So far, we don't see fit to deny the right to
qualify for a license unless someone cannot understand and apply the
rules in a rudimentary test.

I would surmise that a 12 year old with an IQ of 130 is capable of
understanding and applying the rules for the rudimentary test, but that
person is arbitrarily denied the right to qualify for a license, as
opposed to an 18 year old with an IQ of 90.

Setting a minimum age isn't arbitrary.

He definitely should be charged, but most people are willing to excuse
incompetence and favor licensing borderline retarded people of age.

Perhaps the person behind him, who was not properly reacting either to
the emergency vehicle behind him nor the person yielding in front of
him, and whose driving actually caused the accident, ought to be
charged,

From what I have read, I think your recap is incorrect. The pickup
driver, based on the article that I saw in the Inquirer reconstructing
it, noted the approach from behind of an emergency vehicle. He moved
to the right - not out of the lane but onto the shoulder

That doesn't make sense. He's either partially or completely out of the
lane once he's on the shoulder.

Well, it does make sense then. You just said he's either partially out
of the lane or completely out of it. If it's only partially out, then
he is still in the travel lane. There is always a point at which he is
partially on the shoulder while still in the travel lane. What we
don't know is just how long he might have actually completely left the
travel lane, if he ever did. There is a paved shoulder at that
location, and he supposedly overreacted when his right side tires went
into grass, so that means he must have completely left the travel lane
at some point, but it could have been momentarily for all we know. If
the driver behind him was following too closely, that would be a
highly contributing factor. The second driver should have been
prepared and reacting to a car in front of him pulling onto the
shoulder at high speed while sirens and lights are happening behind
him.

Anyway, the white vehicle was behind him in the right lane, and when
the pickup came back to the left, the white vehicle overcorrected and
swerved - that driver isn't being charged either although culpability
might be greater on his part for failure to maintain control.

He was trying to avoid a collision with someone who obviously was not
signaling their intentions. For all he knew, that person was having car
problems and was preparing to pull over, only to come close to
sideswiping the white vehicle by pulling back onto the roadway for a
dubious reason (like mile-marker signs in the middle of a paved shoulder).

We don't know the relative speeds here so it's just speculation. It
seems very likely the second driver was following to closely and was
not observing and reacting properly.

No, it was incompetence on the part of the pickup driver that started
the chain of events that led to the crash. Getting sideswiped in a
vehicle that has a high center of gravity isn't really going to be easy
to control at 65 or 90 mph.
It would be easier at 65 than at 91.

And again it seems that people are more focused on speed as opposed to
the root cause of the crash.

But it might not have happened at all if not for the high speeds of
everyone involved. That's a valid focus of analysis.

Speed is a definite factor.

But not the cause. They don't want to address the cause, but they do
want to fixate on the factor. It's like saying your cold will be
prevented by using a box of tissues, rather than addressing the fact
that you didn't wash your hands regularly enough, which was the reason
you caught the cold in the first place.

Well, by hat reasoning, neither then is the red pickup the "cause."
Everything is a "factor" and together they "caused" the accident. You
want to fixate on the factor of the pickup pulling over and then back
on, but the driver behind him should have been reacting properly to a
vehicle pulling off for an emergency vehicle approaching from behind.
It's no more valid to say the red pickup pulling off and then on was
the cause because it wouldn't have happened otherwise than it is to
say the speed was a cause because at lower speeds reactions to the red
pickup would have avoided the accident too.

The driver of the white vehicle might have been better poised to
maintain control had he been going at a lower speed. It would seem
everyone was going too fast for traffic conditions.

I doubt it. Only people who were directly affected by that red pickup
truck driver's actions crashed or were the proximate cause of one.

Those were the "everyones" that I meant. Others behind probably
already were going slower because of the emergency flashers etc. and
had time to react properly to the accident ahead of them - more
evidence that slower speeds might have prevented it entirely.

Yeah, nothing would have happened if the red pickup hadn't moved back
and forth, but in traffic, as you know, Arif, you have to drive for
what is, not what isn't.

The fact that they're letting the driver of the red pickup off scott
free says a lot.

Yeah, it says they don't think his driving caused the accident.

So yeah, if you were driving like the governor's trooper was minus the
(lights and siren of course!) you'd get a ticket.
Ah, but if traffic flows between 65 and 75 mph on that road, why should
I get a ticket for only going 5 mph (which is a fast walking pace)
faster than that? Besides, there's nothing wrong with passing on the left.
The trooper was going 91, not 80. That's substantially faster than the
flow you suggest. It wasn't the passing on the left that was the
problem, but the speed difference.

The problem was solely due to the actions of the driver of the red
pickup truck.

You're contradicting yourself. You conceded above that speed was a
factor. In that case, then there is no sole cause. All factors in an
equation lead to the conclusion.

I fail to understand why that kind of behavior is just
excused, but someone who's driving properly (not weaving, lane
splitting, etc.) is punished.

He was doig what people are taught to do - pull over to the right for
emergency vehicles.

As you and others remind us so often, it's always up to the driver to
be aware of hazards and drive in a safe and prudent manner. The
trooper was not.
As was the driver of the pickup who started the whole thing.
He had been up until then. I don't know how the state could charge him
with trying to yield ROW to an emergency vehicle.

The state should charge him with leaving the scene of a crash with
injuries and failure to maintain control of his vehicle.

He didn't leave the scene of something he didn't know about.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: N.J. Gov.s SUV Went 91 Mph Before Crash
    ... The only thing that would have prevented it entirely would be where the first driver had never pulled off the road in the first place. ... the same argument could be made for faster speeds. ... I'll check my state's drivers manual, but I'm pretty sure it says that one should move to the right lane and yield to the emergency vehicle. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Response to Brighton cyclists death
    ... The cyclist, James Danson-Hatcher, was my son. ... The motorist was an inexperienced driver (full licence for 4 ... At the inquest the motorist was unable to cite cyclists as ... Driving at speeds too fast for the road ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: OT - Power is reduced and the brakes are applied if necessary
    ... You also said WRT the lights ... "Unfortunately, the driver in front is distracted and missed it", ... You didn't bother to read what I wrote. ... excessive speeds are the one which end with funerals. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: OT - Power is reduced and the brakes are applied if necessary
    ... You also said WRT the lights ... "Unfortunately, the driver in front is distracted and missed it", ... bother to read what I wrote", then?), but yeah, that's restating the ... that for a large part of the overtake, the speeds would have been ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Thisll upset a few people.
    ... But speed limits are not just there to protect potential speeders from their ... emphasis of the initial driver training ... from keeping oneself safe to keeping everyone safe. ... It is not the roads where higher speeds are clearly ...
    (uk.rec.driving)