It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

Friday afternoon, 4 pm, I-5 south at Oceanside Blvd. I'm driving a
Tacoma in #4 after a long day of driving around OC, trying to get back
to my office.

I decided to stay in #4 because the asshat in front of me wasn't
holding the wheel of his light blue 80's Accord and wasn't paying ****
for attention. I don't know if he was masturbating, rolling a joint,
shooting up, or just sending text messages, but his hands were
obviously in his lap in front of him and only on the wheel after he'd
left his lane. He was slothcellerating along until he had to slam on
his brakes because traffic had stopped in front of him. For obvious
reasons, I didn't want him next to or behind me. In retrospect, it
was a great decision.

So traffic gets moving near an offramp as it always does from exiting
cars leaving, creating a gap Californians floor it to close before the
onramp, thus causing abrupt braking. Well, for most people. Blue
Accord didn't feel a need to brake this time, and gave me the perfect
view of a three car accident, after Maroon Ranger got pushed forward
into grey Eurocar.

I saw no brake lights on BBle Accord until the same time I heard the
crunching noises and saw the Ranger slide forward. The Honda wasn't
going more than 35-40 mph, but a 20 year old Accord hitting a car
that's 1000 pounds heavier and stopped still will twist some metal.

At this point it was time to get out the cell phone, call the cops,
turn on the hazard lights, and make sure people were okay. First I
asked the driver of the (now leaking water and lacking headlights)
Accord if he's okay. He looks blankly and asks, "Como?" I try "Esta
lastimado?" which gets me a "si" when I noticed there were two kids in
the first car.

I figured screw this ****up, I hope he has neck injuries and started
asking if the kids and their mother were okay, when Mr ****up Blue
Accord jumped back in his car and drove off, nearly ramming a van and
a compact trying to avoid me trying to kick in his passsenger side
window.

Right at that moment the 911 operator came on (I was on hold while all
that was going on) so I yelled the plate at them a few times, and got
some CHiPs heading over. One officer commented it was the first time
in years a witness stopped and helped, which seemed a sad commentary
on SoCal these days.

As the good news, both occupants of the Ranger, and the three
occupants of the European car in front were uninjured, and Mr ****up
Blue Accord is now a wanted man, as is the registered owner of the car
he was driving. (Oceanside + hit-n-run = an illegal with an illegal
car.) The now pretty well ****ed car that's going to attract police
attention without the plates being wanted.

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.

Dave

PS - No, I didn't take any pictures. My camera wasn't immediately
available before the guy ran, and afterwards it would have been tacky
and rather pointless since we moved the vehicles out of the roadway
after making sure everyone was okay.
---
http://www.davidphogan.com/sdroads
Amature Ass(phalt) and more!

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.

Basic Speed Law

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,
visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway,
and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or
property. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm
-----

- gpsman

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?
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? Sure sounds
like it... so HTF do you justify calling this "speed related?" 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...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

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

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

Harry K wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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):

OP posted: "He was slothcellerating along until he had to slam on
his brakes because traffic had stopped in front of him." And-

"So traffic gets moving near an offramp as it always does from exiting
cars leaving, creating a gap Californians floor it to close before the
onramp, thus causing abrupt braking. Well, for most people. Blue
Accord didn't feel a need to brake this time..."

.... leading me to deduce traffic was in a state of "stop & go". And-

"The Honda wasn't going more than 35-40 mph..." I think adds additional
credibility to my assessment.

Traffic in SoCal -might- flow at that speed if it weren't for all the
idiots changing lanes attempting to get "ahead". But they don't and it
doesn't. Traffic in OP's scenrio is "stop and go".

OP posted: "I decided to stay in #4 because the asshat in front of me
wasn't holding the wheel of his light blue 80's Accord and wasn't
paying **** for attention."

You'll notice -he- was planning a lane change himself, as if one lane
was going to have a significant advantage in that traffic during his
trip of approx. 40 miles. Just threw that in to support my allegation
that CA drivers commonly change lanes without thinking and for nothing.

>
> 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?

I would say it isn't. That's wasn't very hard, was it?

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

I think it's obvious 22350 applies to OP's scenerio. Would you like to
point out where it doesn't? Or another code that covers the scenerio
better? I think that would be more persuasive to my POV.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> He can't
> conclude the guy was following too closely, it seems he just failed to
> stop in time.

Huh? ISTR the definition (in states where there's a lot higher per
capita reserve of common sense) is: far enough back in order to STOP
before *hitting the vehicle ahead*. So how could he *not* have
violated that? Following at a *negative* distance in California isn't
illegal?

If you're in law enforcement, I fear for those you 'protect' because
you're apparently a complete moron.
--
C.R. Krieger
( )

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > He can't
> > conclude the guy was following too closely, it seems he just failed to
> > stop in time.
>
> Huh? ISTR the definition (in states where there's a lot higher per
> capita reserve of common sense) is: far enough back in order to STOP
> before *hitting the vehicle ahead*. So how could he *not* have
> violated that?

The OP stated, in part: "but a 20 year old Accord hitting a car that's
1000 pounds heavier and stopped still will twist some metal."

How does one "follow" that which is stopped? If it makes it easier for
you to understand try to follow a building the next time you have an
opportunity.

Following Too Closely http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21703.htm

21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle
more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the
speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the
roadway.

Following at a *negative* distance in California isn't illegal?
>
I don't make the laws, I just try to explain 'em to those having
difficulty.

> If you're in law enforcement, I fear for those you 'protect' because
> you're apparently a complete moron.

Du-uuhhh. I fear for your clients.

Perhaps you will educate me as to how 22350 is inapplicable.
-----

- gpsman

In article .com>,
says...
>
>
>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.

In that case all accidents are speed relate since they all involve a moving
vehicle. Had that moving vehicles speed been 0 mph, then there would have
been no accident.
-------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> In that case all accidents are speed relate since they all involve a moving
> vehicle. Had that moving vehicles speed been 0 mph, then there would have
> been no accident.

In a sense you are correct, but not the legal sense.

While you and another vehicle are operating side-by-side within the
constraints of 22350 and the driver adjacent to you suffers a heart
attack, loses control and collides with you.... speed, in the legal
sense is unrelated to the "cause" of that crash.

The law does not expect a vehicle to remain undriven or classify a
crash as speed related based solely on the fact that the vehicle is in
motion. That would be silly.
-----

- gpsman