gpsman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> > gpsman wrote:
> > > SD Dave wrote: <brevity snip>
> > >
> > >>The part that bothered me is that an officer who was present when I
> > >>gave a statement referred to this as a speed related crash. It was
> > >>not at all speed related. It was a dumbass related crash, compounded
> > >>by the dumbass being an illegal immigrant.
> > >>
> > >>Chalk up another one to the "bad statistics" pile.
> > >
> > >
> > > 'Fraid not. Too fast for conditions = speed related.
> > >
> >
> > Are you deliberately being argumentative, or just having a stupid day?
>
> Just pointing out the facts. I can't help but notice you haven't
> questioned Dave's assessment that the driver's immigration status
> somehow contributed to the crash... a fact he assumes without
> sufficient evidence.
>
> > You do know that these "speed related" labels are used to justify lower
> > speed limits, right? Do you think that a lower speed limit would have
> > prevented this crash? Of course not. Do you think that another driver
> > traveling at the same speed could have avoided crashing?
>
> I don't see what another driver's skills have to do with this crash.
>
> Look at it from the LEO's perspective, coming onto a crash scene that
> he didn't witness. From the witness reports he can't determine much,
> if anything for certain. He can pretty safely conclude that the guy
> was driving too fast for conditions according to 22350, and not much
> else.
>
> He can't conclude Reckless Driving.
>
> 23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in
> willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is
> guilty of reckless driving.
>
> He has no evidence the act was willful or wanton disregard. He can't
> conclude the guy was following too closely, it seems he just failed to
> stop in time.
>
> He might agree "It was a dumbass related crash, compounded by the
> dumbass being an illegal immigrant"... but code doesn't exactly cover
> that, specifically.
>
> > Sure sounds
> > like it... so HTF do you justify calling this "speed related?"
>
> I didn't write the Basic Speed code in CA.
>
> I just happen to like it because it eliminates all the bull****
> excuses. As in "I have to exceed the SL or everyone will run over me"
> or "He wasn't going with the flow so it's his fault I crashed into him"
> or "I had to drive faster than the visibility in fog dictated was smart
> because somebody will run into me if I don't so it's his fault I ran
> into him because he doesn't know how to drive in fog", et al.
>
> > If this
> > is "speed related" than every crash is speed related, as if neither of
> > the vehicles involved were moving the crash wouldn't have happened...
>
> I'll let you come up with your own crash scenerio where 22350 isn't
> applicable... as an exercise in critical thinking. I'll bet it will
> only take a minute.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

O.K. Note that the OP said nothing at all about what speed the traffic
flow was, only that the Honda was only going about 40. So here is
where 22350 wouldn't apply (and I'll bet doesn't in most freeway
crashes in CA):

Traffic flow is well under posted, on ramp traffic pulls into too small
of a gap, driver causing is talking on CP, drinking coffee or some such
paying no attenttion to traffic. Crash. So just HTF is that speed
related?

Any cop that instantly concludes it is speed related before doing an
investigation (which is what you just did) needs remedial training.

Harry K