A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 28th 06, 02:30 AM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!
Ads
  #2  
Old March 28th 06, 05:25 AM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

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

  #3  
Old March 28th 06, 05:27 AM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:11:15 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:30:25 GMT, SD Dave >
>wrote:
>
>>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.

>
>I must say I'm disappointed. I was looking foward to putting the word
>"PWNED" in big red letters over the picture of a crumpled-up Honda
>Accordion.


If the Dumb**** Cause (aka Blue Accord) had still been there I'd have
taken pictures, but I was trying to calm down the mother and her
children from the frontmost car more than capture a moment I'm certain
she won't want to remember.

The damage to the other two cars was barely noticable, but the
Accordian was destroyed. If the average California TailGator had been
behind them the Illegal would have probably been crushed.

I plan to call the CHP tomorrow to see if I can find out if they
caught anyone yet, or to find out how I can stay informed as to what's
going on. At the very least I hope none of the involved parties are
blamed for the crash. That, and I figure it might not hurt if I tell
them where the asshat entered I-5.

I didn't think to tell them that when I gave the first report, and I'm
pretty sure I know what year ****box Honda was now. With a complete
plate, and a description of the driver it's unlikely they won't find
him though, unless he hides in TJ eating BBQ'd iguana.

Oh, and for the sake of the complete story I was trained and licensed
as an EMT, so I make sure people are okay before I'm a photographer.
I'd rather help people than capture their misery forever.

Dave
---
http://www.davidphogan.com/sdroads
Amature Ass(phalt) and more!
  #4  
Old March 28th 06, 06:19 AM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

In article >, SD Dave wrote:

> 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.


Of course. Mr. Blue accord was moving, so it's 'speed related'.

I don't think he could have gotten far with a busted radiator like that.


  #5  
Old March 28th 06, 12:25 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

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
  #6  
Old March 28th 06, 03:10 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

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

  #7  
Old March 28th 06, 03:56 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping


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

  #8  
Old March 28th 06, 04:59 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

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

  #9  
Old March 28th 06, 05:58 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

On 28 Mar 2006 07:59:25 -0800, "gpsman" >
wrote:

>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".


Stop and go with a top speed of about 40-45 mph. He wasn't ever
keeping up with traffic, he just would slam on his brakes at the last
second every time to "catch up." Everyone stops at every onramp, and
then speeds up until they have to stop at the next one. Don't tell me
in your millions of miles of driving you've never seen this happen?

>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.


The #4 lane is usually the worst to be in, becuase of all the
entering/exiting traffic. People need to actually get into that lane,
and by default you start up in it, so it makes sense that about 3/4
entering vehicles should leave #4. Nice attempt at a generalization
about me, but there's plenty of reason not to sit in #4 with no
reason.

>> 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?


How about that I could see the driver's hands were definitely not on
the wheel? Does that count for anything? How about that he didn't
brake until about the same moment I heard the impact? Everyone else
managed to find their brake pedals in time and stop easily, he just
didn't stop. He didn't go faster than anyone else on the road, he
just never stopped.

>> 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.


I think it doesn't. I'm not certain how California's neglegent
driving laws are written, but I'd assume that not holding the wheel
and driving into another car without trying to stop would probably be
covered elsewhere.

Dave
---
http://www.davidphogan.com/sdroads
Amature Ass(phalt) and more!
  #10  
Old March 28th 06, 06:49 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

SD Dave wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman wrote:
> Stop and go with a top speed of about 40-45 mph. He wasn't ever
> keeping up with traffic, he just would slam on his brakes at the last
> second every time to "catch up." Everyone stops at every onramp, and
> then speeds up until they have to stop at the next one. Don't tell me
> in your millions of miles of driving you've never seen this happen?


Uh, I think I was the one who deduced the "stop and go" state.

> How about that I could see the driver's hands were definitely not on
> the wheel? Does that count for anything?


Sure. If you have any evidence...

You're absolutely certain he didn't have one hand in his lap and the
other on the wheel at 6 o'clock? It wouldn't surprise me that you
would conclude same even tho you never so much as drew abreast of him.

You got the x-ray vision just like some other numbnuts here think they
have the power to read minds and can predict who, what, when and in
what manner all other drivers are going to proceed at all times?

> How about that he didn't
> brake until about the same moment I heard the impact?


Same as above.

> >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.

>
> I think it doesn't. I'm not certain how California's neglegent
> driving laws are written, but I'd assume that not holding the wheel
> and driving into another car without trying to stop would probably be
> covered elsewhere.


Well, you think wrong. You didn't opine the guy was following too
closely. Obviously, he wasn't. You can't follow stopped traffic.

You even said : "He was slothcellerating along until he had to slam on
his brakes..." leading me to deduce that he wasn't keeping up with the
normal over-acceleration of other traffic in those stop and go
conditions. You did indicate he wasn't maintaining his lane, but said
he didn't hit anything in that process.

AFAIKT... there isn't even a CA traffic code that specifies you can't
collide with someone... as long as no damage to body or property occur.
Have a look for yourself.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm
-----

- gpsman

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LIDAR Trial this Week [email protected] Driving 17 April 9th 06 02:44 AM
Speed Bumps Ineffective at Slowing Street Traffic Scott en Aztlán Driving 7 September 3rd 05 03:48 AM
Cruise Control Problem? John Gregory Chrysler 4 July 24th 05 02:12 PM
What exactly is "left lane blocking"? Magnulus Driving 406 April 8th 05 03:49 AM
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info [email protected] Driving 40 January 3rd 05 08:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.