If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if hedoesn't?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/13/2014 6:58 PM, Steve W. wrote: > >>> Those needs different calculations. Driver said speed was too high >>> meaning he was going over the speed limit? From there accident happened. >>> That is criminal. Also did he check the brakes B4 heading down the hill? >>> That is a requirement for big trucks. >>> >> Wrong. The driver said he had too much speed and weight to stop in the >> available distance. That doesn't mean he was speeding. >> >> What it means is that for the amount of room he did have the truck >> couldn't have been stopped. >> > > That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in > control at all times. So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were driving "too fast for conditions" ? ALL drivers are required to be in control, regardless of vehicle. Still have thousands of accidents every day. That will change when the "fully autonomous vehicles" are on the road... (SURE it will, just like the computer made paperwork obsolete) -- Steve W. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if hedoesn't?
On 7/14/2014 11:27 PM, Steve W. wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> On 7/13/2014 6:58 PM, Steve W. wrote: >> >>>> Those needs different calculations. Driver said speed was too high >>>> meaning he was going over the speed limit? From there accident >>>> happened. >>>> That is criminal. Also did he check the brakes B4 heading down the >>>> hill? >>>> That is a requirement for big trucks. >>>> >>> Wrong. The driver said he had too much speed and weight to stop in the >>> available distance. That doesn't mean he was speeding. >>> >>> What it means is that for the amount of room he did have the truck >>> couldn't have been stopped. >>> >> >> That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in >> control at all times. > > So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover > that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were > driving "too fast for conditions" ? Ah, yes, pretty much the case. The following, taken from the web promo of an attorney, details the law in Illinois. Many may not agree with it, but it's the law and the way it works in Illinois and most other states. This is a very basic concept in traffic law. I apologize for the length but given the way this thread has run on forever, it's not that bad.<g> Failure to Reduce Speed to Avoid an Accident (625 ILCS 5/11-601(a) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving Too Fast for Conditions (625 ILCS 5/11-601(a) If you are ticketed for Failure to Reduce Speed to Avoid an Accident or Driving Too Fast for Conditions, you may need legal representation. Both offenses are petty offenses punishable by a fine of up to $1000. Convictions for these offenses could have serious consequences for both your driver’s license and your insurance. Failure to Reduce Speed to Avoid an Accident is the most common ticket issued when a traffic accident has occurred. Usually, they are issued by a police officer who arrives on the scene of the accident after it has already occurred and then makes a determination of fault with in minutes of arrival. Very seldom are traffic accidents actually witnessed by a police officer. Sometimes, an officer will, in addition to speaking with the people involved in the accident, talk to other witnesses who were not involved in the accident, but saw it occur. However, this is not always the case, and often the officer will not obtain information that identifies who these third party witnesses are so they may be called to testify in court. To prove a charge of failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident the State must prove: 1. That you were driving a vehicle on a public highway; 2. That you collided with a person or a vehicle on that highway, and; 3. That you did so in violation of your duty to use “due care”. With the most typical failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident ticket, the first two requirements are usually easy for the State to establish. It is the third requirement that is the most difficult. Was the accident unavoidable? Was the other party to the accident the person who was not exercising due care? Were there road conditions or unusual obstacles that caused the accident? Were there equipment issues with your vehicle that caused the accident? The duty of due care is a nebulous concept, and an experienced traffic attorney can use this subjective standard to your advantage. Driving Too Fast for Conditions is a less common violation than failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident and is often issued in the case of a one vehicle accident in which a car slides off the road due to snow, ice, rain, fog, road surface or other environmental condition. It is not limited to this situation, however. Just like a failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident ticket, these are seldom witnessed by a police officer. In fact, there are often no other witnesses to the accident other than the driver who went off the road. The officer just sees the accident, looks at the road conditions, and concludes that the driver was going to fast, and that is why he/she went off the road. To prove a charge of driving too fast for conditions the State must prove: 1. That you were driving a vehicle on a public highway; 2. That you did so at a speed that was greater than what was “reasonable and proper” when accounting for highway conditions such as traffic, weather, and road surface, or: 3. you endangered the safety of any person or property. Much like the “due care” standard, “reasonable and proper” is a broad definition that can vary widely depending on the subjective opinion of the officer issuing the ticket. In many ways, it is even more subjective, and, therefore, even more difficult for the State to prove. A traffic attorney with years of experience can ensure that the State meets their burden to prove every element of the ticket against you beyond a reasonable doubt. For both offenses, the fact that you did not exceed the posted speed limit at the time of the accident is generally not a valid defense. This is a very common misconception about accident tickets. Not exceeding the speed limit can be a factor to be explored when cross examining the state’s witnesses about whether or not you used “due care” or were traveling at a speed that was “reasonable and proper”, but this is a very complex argument to make, and is best accomplished by an attorney with the experience to ask the right questions. Both tickets are also eligible for Court Supervision, which is sometimes referred to as earned dismissal. This means that as long as certain requirements are followed (usually a payment of fines and no tickets for 3 to 6 months after the term of supervision begins) the ticket will not be placed on your driving record as conviction by the Secretary of State, and will not place any points against your license. A common misconception about Court Supervision is that the record of the ticket just “goes away”. It does not mean that the record of the ticket disappears entirely, it can still be seen by law enforcement and the court system, but it is not accessible to other parties. Even if you don’t want to challenge the ticket in court by making the State prove all the elements against you, an attorney can negotiate a disposition of Court Supervision with the prosecutor, and, in some counties, do so without you ever having to go to court. This can be very advantageous to those with busy schedules. Below is the precise statute published in the Illinois Compiled Statutes. (625 ILCS 5/11-601) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-601) Sec. 11-601. General speed restrictions. (a) No vehicle may be driven upon any highway of this State at a speed which is greater than is reasonable and proper with regard to traffic conditions and the use of the highway, or endangers the safety of any person or property. The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection, approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, or when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. (Source: P.A. 97-202, eff. 1-1-12; 98-511, eff. 1-1-14.) |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if he doesn't?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:27:10 -0400, "Steve W." >
wrote: >Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> On 7/13/2014 6:58 PM, Steve W. wrote: >> >>>> Those needs different calculations. Driver said speed was too high >>>> meaning he was going over the speed limit? From there accident happened. >>>> That is criminal. Also did he check the brakes B4 heading down the hill? >>>> That is a requirement for big trucks. >>>> >>> Wrong. The driver said he had too much speed and weight to stop in the >>> available distance. That doesn't mean he was speeding. >>> >>> What it means is that for the amount of room he did have the truck >>> couldn't have been stopped. >>> >> >> That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in >> control at all times. > >So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover >that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were >driving "too fast for conditions" ? Yes. If you can't see around a corner you should slow down- particularly if you have 8 axles under you and 20 or more tons behind you. > >ALL drivers are required to be in control, regardless of vehicle. Still >have thousands of accidents every day. That will change when the "fully >autonomous vehicles" are on the road... (SURE it will, just like the >computer made paperwork obsolete) |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if hedoesn't?
On 7/15/2014 12:27 AM, Steve W. wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> >> That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in >> control at all times. > > So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover > that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were > driving "too fast for conditions" ? Yes. Recently a driver on the highway near me wrecked his car trying to avoid a deer. Car was totaled, driver sustained some injury and was cited for "too fast for conditions" |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if he doesn't?
"Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message
... > On 7/12/2014 7:31 AM, Sherlock.Homes wrote: > > "Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message > >>> The vehicle weight (actually its mass) makes no difference as Galileo > >>> showed when he dropped a Mack truck and a VW beetle from the Leaning > >>> Tower of Pisa. > >>> > >> > >> I thought he was Italian. Wouldn't it been Italian > >> cars? VW is German. > > > > The truck would have stopped faster. It has air brakes. > > > > SH > > Brilliant deduction! > > > -- > . > Christopher A. Watson Elementary Watson! SH |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if he doesn't?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:25:56 -0500, deadrat > wrote:
>On 7/11/14 2:33 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote: >> What distance does a sand truck take to slow down on a 6% grade? > >d = V^2/(2*g*(f + G)) I haven't read all 98 posts, but this doesn't seem right. If G increases, that is, a steeper hill, d increases, and that is fine. But if f increases, the formula shows that d also increases, and that seems clearly wrong. The higher the coefficient of friction, that is, the more friction there is between the road and the tires**, the sooner the truck stops. A very low f would be like melting ice. A very high f would be like a road made of big rocks, maybe. At any rate f and G are parellel in the formula, even though high values of each have the opposite effect. Maybe there should be a negative sign somewhere. **And what about between the brake pads and the rotors? Or are we assuming the wheels are locked up? I didn't think that was the case. >Whe >d = Braking Distance (ft) >g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2) >G = Roadway grade as a percentage >V = Initial vehicle speed (ft/sec) >f = Coefficient of friction between the tires and the roadway > >So if the truck were going 55mph, that would be about 80 feet per second. > >The coefficient of friction for treaded tires is about .7 on dry roads. > >d = (80*80)/(2*32*(.7+.06)) > >or about 132 feet (from the time the driver hits the brakes). Assuming >a lot of things, like the brakes don't burn out. > >> If it can't stop in that distance, is it criminal? > >Of course not. The driver must have been doing something recklessly >negligent before it's criminal. > ><snip/> |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if he doesn't?
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 18:12:24 -0400, micky >
wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:25:56 -0500, deadrat > wrote: > >>On 7/11/14 2:33 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote: >>> What distance does a sand truck take to slow down on a 6% grade? >> >>d = V^2/(2*g*(f + G)) > >I haven't read all 98 posts, but this doesn't seem right. If G >increases, that is, a steeper hill, d increases, and that is fine. > You are correct. I pointed that out in one of the other posts in this thread. I don't blame you for not reading them all. >But if f increases, the formula shows that d also increases, and that >seems clearly wrong. The higher the coefficient of friction, that is, >the more friction there is between the road and the tires**, the sooner >the truck stops. A very low f would be like melting ice. A very high >f would be like a road made of big rocks, maybe. > >At any rate f and G are parellel in the formula, even though high values >of each have the opposite effect. Maybe there should be a negative >sign somewhere. > The use of the formula relies on the user understanding that the correct sign must be used for GRADE. >**And what about between the brake pads and the rotors? The formula only deals with the friction, f, at the tire/road interface. The formula can be used to solve for any of it's variables based on knowing the other variables and plugging them in to get a solution. It also needs to be kept in mind that the way it's often used, and how its being used here, one simply makes an assumption that is said to be the f for the road. That's a bit simplistic because there is no "f' for the road. f only has meaning relative to what ever material is the other half of the interface. In this case it's a tire. And different tires can produce different f's, sometimes significantly different. Also, as you mention, there is the issue of whether the brakes are locked. If they are locked and the tires skidding you have a different f value then what you would get/use if the tires were not skidding. F also varies with the speed of the things moving against each other at the interface, so the f value is an average of all the f's as the speed goes from the starting speed down to zero. Or are we >assuming the wheels are locked up? I didn't think that was the case. > >>Whe >>d = Braking Distance (ft) >>g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2) >>G = Roadway grade as a percentage >>V = Initial vehicle speed (ft/sec) >>f = Coefficient of friction between the tires and the roadway >> >>So if the truck were going 55mph, that would be about 80 feet per second. >> >>The coefficient of friction for treaded tires is about .7 on dry roads. >> >>d = (80*80)/(2*32*(.7+.06)) >> >>or about 132 feet (from the time the driver hits the brakes). Assuming >>a lot of things, like the brakes don't burn out. >> >>> If it can't stop in that distance, is it criminal? >> >>Of course not. The driver must have been doing something recklessly >>negligent before it's criminal. >> >><snip/> |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bus Driver Who Crashed and Killed 8 - Criminal Driving Record a Mile Long | Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS[_1_] | Driving | 3 | October 8th 08 09:25 PM |
STOP what you’re doing - It doesn’t work! R4LG | WindsorFox[SS] | Ford Mustang | 0 | July 30th 06 06:14 PM |
YAY - Chicago treating criminal bicyclists same as criminal drivers | Garth Almgren | Driving | 1 | July 26th 05 10:04 PM |
Incredibly Stupid & Criminal Pedestrian (Long) | bosk | Driving | 63 | July 14th 05 10:44 PM |
painting truck ?'s please read (long) | [email protected] | Technology | 2 | June 1st 05 07:53 PM |