It's not Speed, it's Not Stopping

In article >, SD Dave wrote:

> I admit I follow pretty closely, but not so closely I can't safely
> stop in time. I also had my stereo stolen a few weeks ago in my own
> car, so I've been driving in silence nearly always for about 25 days
> now. It's led to me actively watching the roads and other drivers
> much closer.

That's why I insist the people who don't see the things that a number of
people in r.a.d including myself do is because they are not paying enough
attention to be seeing them. They are too busy driving and doing
something else.

Goofs like the one you are responding to will blather on that it never
happens. Hell, a couple weeks ago I was behind someone on the dan ryan
who was watching TV while driving. LCD TV mounted on top of the dash
right in the center so the driver could watch. It was on and he was
clearly watching it.

> It, along with thousands of other bull****ly-catagorized crashes will
> be catagorized as speed related, and spewed forth by those who oppose
> any speed limit increase.

Fundamentally too many people in the USA believe that driving should be
a secondary or lower task and thusly want to force everyone to go so slow
as to be able to read a book and drive so when they eventually hit
something it won't hurt too bad.

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, SD Dave wrote:
>
> > I admit I follow pretty closely, but not so closely I can't safely
> > stop in time. I also had my stereo stolen a few weeks ago in my own
> > car, so I've been driving in silence nearly always for about 25 days
> > now. It's led to me actively watching the roads and other drivers
> > much closer.
>
> That's why I insist the people who don't see the things that a number of
> people in r.a.d including myself do is because they are not paying enough
> attention to be seeing them. They are too busy driving and doing
> something else.
>
> Goofs like the one you are responding to will blather on that it never
> happens. Hell, a couple weeks ago I was behind someone on the dan ryan
> who was watching TV while driving. LCD TV mounted on top of the dash
> right in the center so the driver could watch. It was on and he was
> clearly watching it.
>
> > It, along with thousands of other bull****ly-catagorized crashes will
> > be catagorized as speed related, and spewed forth by those who oppose
> > any speed limit increase.
>
> Fundamentally too many people in the USA believe that driving should be
> a secondary or lower task and thusly want to force everyone to go so slow
> as to be able to read a book and drive so when they eventually hit
> something it won't hurt too bad.

Its the automotive industry that promotes this philosophy. There have
been a few NHTSA studies that have concluded that speed is a minor
factor in whether an accident occurs. Speed does affect the severity
(and cost) of an accident.

The individual driver would prefer that accidents not occur at all, but
the auto industry (insurance in particular) seeks to minimize the total
cost of all accidents while maintaining its revenue stream. This can be
done in two ways: 1) minimize the accident frequency or 2) minimize the
cost per accident.

Number 1 might require eliminating incompetent drivers from the
roadways. This has a negative impact on revenue (less customers). In
fact, if not killed, these are some of the auto industries' best
customers, always having to return for new product when the old one is
damaged.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The beauty of a chainsaw is that you don't have to start it. Just
show up with it." - Joe Walsh, on checking in to hotels

gpsman wrote:
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

As I said, other states with more common sense (Ohio, Wisconsin) use
"following too closely" quite routinely to cite drivers who run into
the rear end of other cars ahead of them. That you have talked
yourselves into a logical conundrum such that you can't is not my
concern. What do you do if the front vehicle is in the process of
stopping and you can't decide whether it was totally stopped or not?
Charge both? Neither?

As for my clients, how would you feel if I stipulated your entire
speeding case and still beat you? Been there; *done that*.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Not a fictitious nameless cybercharacter)

Motorhead Lawyer wrote: <brevity snip>

> As I said, other states with more common sense (Ohio, Wisconsin) use
> "following too closely" quite routinely to cite drivers who run into
> the rear end of other cars ahead of them. That you have talked
> yourselves into a logical conundrum such that you can't is not my
> concern. What do you do if the front vehicle is in the process of
> stopping and you can't decide whether it was totally stopped or not?
> Charge both? Neither?

As we're so fond of saying where I come from: You're not where -you-
come from at the present moment.

Crashes are subject to the laws in the state where they occured. What
they do elsewhere isn't very relevant.

>
> As for my clients, how would you feel if I stipulated your entire
> speeding case and still beat you? Been there; *done that*.

Chagrined. But, as you know... anything can happen in court.

My legal training is informal... but I'm a winner in every case. Kinda
like Nancy Grace but without all the lying and cheating and perjured
testimony.

I settled a PI case on my own for a little more than 10 times what
Chesley's office said it was worth. So maybe I got a big head but... I
-do- know that I don't know nearly enough about criminal law to be
considered anywhere near competent in court.

But I -can- read and think I have the experience to interpret something
as simple as the case in question and determine which is and which is
not the applicable law... *according to the OP's description* anyway.
-----

- gpsman

"gpsman" > wrote
> But I -can- read and think I have the experience to interpret something
> as simple as the case in question and determine which is and which is
> not the applicable law... *according to the OP's description* anyway.

This is not completely apparent.

FloydR

Floyd Rogers wrote:
> "gpsman" > wrote
> > But I -can- read and think I have the experience to interpret something
> > as simple as the case in question and determine which is and which is
> > not the applicable law... *according to the OP's description* anyway.
>
> This is not completely apparent.

Maybe not. Opinions are sure to vary.

Reported relevant (to me) "facts":

Vehicle #1 stopped in stop and go traffic.

Vehicle # 2 strikes vehicle #1 from rear.

Cause: Undeterminable without driver of #1. [His car could have
stalled reducing the effectiveness of his power brakes *for all we
know*. The brake light switch may be worn as well and so required
excessive pedal movement to actuate the brake lights *for all we
know*.]

Cop on scene: vehicle #1 and driver unavailable.

Cop concludes vehicle #1 was *obviously* going faster than #2 and
collided with same. [Witness reports driver #1 was not tailgating.]
That's all the cop "knows".

Cop concludes "speed related" sans any other *presumable* cause. Cop
has done the best he can with the information at hand and without
factoring any driver's immigration status [or other emotional claptrap]
into the "cause".

IMO. YMMV.
-----

- gpsman

Floyd Rogers wrote:
> "gpsman" > wrote
> > But I -can- read and think I have the experience to interpret something
> > as simple as the case in question and determine which is and which is
> > not the applicable law... *according to the OP's description* anyway.
>
> This is not completely apparent.
>

Maybe not. Opinions are sure to vary.

Reported relevant (to me) "facts":

Vehicle #1 stopped in stop and go traffic.

Vehicle #2 strikes vehicle #1 from rear.

Cause: Undeterminable without driver of #2. [His car could have
stalled reducing the effectiveness of his power brakes *for all we
know*. The brake light switch may be worn as well and so required
excessive pedal movement to actuate the brake lights *for all we
know*.]

Cop on scene: vehicle #2 and driver unavailable.

Cop concludes vehicle #2 was *obviously* going faster than #1 and
collided with same. [Witness reports driver #2 was not tailgating.]
That's all the cop "knows".

Cop concludes "speed related" sans any other *presumable* cause. Cop
has done the best he can with the information at hand and without
factoring any driver's immigration status [or other emotional claptrap]
into the "cause".

IMO. YMMV.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Floyd Rogers wrote:
> > "gpsman" > wrote
> > > But I -can- read and think I have the experience to interpret something
> > > as simple as the case in question and determine which is and which is
> > > not the applicable law... *according to the OP's description* anyway.
> >
> > This is not completely apparent.
> >
>
> Maybe not. Opinions are sure to vary.
>
> Reported relevant (to me) "facts":
>
> Vehicle #1 stopped in stop and go traffic.
>
> Vehicle #2 strikes vehicle #1 from rear.
>
> Cause: Undeterminable without driver of #2. [His car could have
> stalled reducing the effectiveness of his power brakes *for all we
> know*. The brake light switch may be worn as well and so required
> excessive pedal movement to actuate the brake lights *for all we
> know*.]
>
> Cop on scene: vehicle #2 and driver unavailable.
>
> Cop concludes vehicle #2 was *obviously* going faster than #1 and
> collided with same. [Witness reports driver #2 was not tailgating.]
> That's all the cop "knows".
>
> Cop concludes "speed related" sans any other *presumable* cause. Cop
> has done the best he can with the information at hand and without
> factoring any driver's immigration status [or other emotional claptrap]
> into the "cause".
>
> IMO. YMMV.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

The fact that tons of people find themselves in the same situation at
the same speed and don't wreck every single day doesn't have any
bearing whatsoever on your decision, obviously.

nate

N8N wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Floyd Rogers wrote:
> > > "gpsman" > wrote
> > > > But I -can- read and think I have the experience to interpret something
> > > > as simple as the case in question and determine which is and which is
> > > > not the applicable law... *according to the OP's description* anyway.
> > >
> > > This is not completely apparent.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe not. Opinions are sure to vary.
> >
> > Reported relevant (to me) "facts":
> >
> > Vehicle #1 stopped in stop and go traffic.
> >
> > Vehicle #2 strikes vehicle #1 from rear.
> >
> > Cause: Undeterminable without driver of #2. [His car could have
> > stalled reducing the effectiveness of his power brakes *for all we
> > know*. The brake light switch may be worn as well and so required
> > excessive pedal movement to actuate the brake lights *for all we
> > know*.]
> >
> > Cop on scene: vehicle #2 and driver unavailable.
> >
> > Cop concludes vehicle #2 was *obviously* going faster than #1 and
> > collided with same. [Witness reports driver #2 was not tailgating.]
> > That's all the cop "knows".
> >
> > Cop concludes "speed related" sans any other *presumable* cause. Cop
> > has done the best he can with the information at hand and without
> > factoring any driver's immigration status [or other emotional claptrap]
> > into the "cause".
> >
> > IMO. YMMV.
> > -----
> >
> > - gpsman
>
> The fact that tons of people find themselves in the same situation at
> the same speed and don't wreck every single day doesn't have any
> bearing whatsoever on your decision, obviously.

That's a fact in almost *all* crashes AFAIK... and obviously, IMO.

Tons of people find themselves driving in slick conditions, some crash,
some don't. Some slower drivers crash under those conditions when some
faster drivers don't. Thus, IMO... slick conditions are not the cause
of those crashes. They're "speed related" because "misjudgment of
driving skills set" isn't covered by law.

A person driving in excess of the velocity of their skill, attention
span, cell phone distactions... equals "speed related" regardless of
what "other" drivers do.

Anybody could probably drive 15 mph and hold a phone conversation at
the same time. Make it 70 mph and some people crash. That's one
variable- velocity. So those crashes are often cited as "speed
related". And rightly so, IMO.

Any condition under which all vehicles must operate may not be found to
be the cause of any crash unless all vehicles operating under the same
conditions -do- crash. If I can make it from A to B without crashing
you should be able to as well. If you can't... you can't fault the
conditions.
-----

- gpsman

N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman wrote:

> > Tons of people find themselves driving in slick conditions, some crash,
> > some don't. Some slower drivers crash under those conditions when some
> > faster drivers don't. Thus, IMO... slick conditions are not the cause
> > of those crashes. They're "speed related" because "misjudgment of
> > driving skills set" isn't covered by law.
> >
>
> "failure to maintain control" covers that nicely. "speed related"
> MIGHT apply if it can be shown that the driver was simply driving too
> fast for his vehicle/tire combination. "improper equipment" might also
> apply if someone was driving in a snowstorm without "M+S" rated tires,
> for instance.
>
> > A person driving in excess of the velocity of their skill, attention
> > span, cell phone distactions... equals "speed related" regardless of
> > what "other" drivers do.
>
> This is where we disagree. If an average person in an average car can
> avoid a crash but someone crashes anyway, that's not "speed related" -
> that's what we call "dumbass." (obviously you can't write that on the
> police report, but there will be some other cause that will better
> apply - often "failure to maintain control" or "failure to obey traffic
> signal" or similar.)

There's no such animal as "average" driver, AFAIK. And if there is...
it's irrelevant. There are new drivers driving their first mile and
old drivers driving their last mile and every skill set between
including people who race for a living. We can't hold them all to a
standard of "average" skills... because they ain't average.

Lop off both legs, one eye, deafen yourself and see if your skills
remain average. According to the nitwits here you should turn in your
license if you're aware your skills are below average. They never
consider the vets who left some abilities on battlefields. **** those
selfish MMFY sons of bitches. If they can't drive as fast and as well
as I can at 23, off with their useless ****ing heads.

But I digress. I think most crashes are dumbass crashes and I would
argue most are speed related. Failure to control is nice... but higher
velocities are relative to the loss of control as it reduces the margin
of allowable error. A mis-step at 45 might prove to be harmless while
at 70 it might prove catastrophic.

>
> >
> > Anybody could probably drive 15 mph and hold a phone conversation at
> > the same time. Make it 70 mph and some people crash. That's one
> > variable- velocity. So those crashes are often cited as "speed
> > related". And rightly so, IMO.
> >
>
> Why? Lots of people drive 70 MPH every day and barring unusual
> circumstances, they all get where they're going. Heck, it's perfectly
> *legal* to drive 70 MPH on some highways in WV, would you classify a
> wreck caused by inattention at 70 MPH on one of those highways as
> "speed related?"

It doesn't matter what most people do. 60 in a 75 may too fast for
some drivers on a straight, empty road. Some may be fine at 90.

>
> > Any condition under which all vehicles must operate may not be found to
> > be the cause of any crash unless all vehicles operating under the same
> > conditions -do- crash. If I can make it from A to B without crashing
> > you should be able to as well. If you can't... you can't fault the
> > conditions.
>
> exactly. That's what I was trying to say. "conditions" does include
> "speed." You can't fault the speed if an overwhelming majority of
> people seem to be able to handle it OK.

Speed is a "condition" solely controlled by the operator. He has full
and complete control over how fast he drives and where he drives that
fast and how close he drives to the vehicle to his front and when he
decides to slow. Too often crashes occur because he's driving too fast
for his following distance.

How is a cop supposed to know? Do you think people make statements
like, "I was driving too fast and following too close"? "The cause of
the crash was my failure to maintain control". **** no. They say, "I
didn't see him". Or "It was his fault, he was driving too slow, slower
than the flow". Or "He slammed on his brakes so it's the fault of the
RLC I ran into him"... and other such claptrap. It's almost -always-
the other guys fault because almost nobody is willing to take
responsibility for their errors.

People are becoming used to passing responsibility for their errors
elsewhere. They see it all the time among our politicians and see them
get away with it. They begin to believe their own bull**** and take
the giant leap to bull**** thinking in much of what they do.

Occam's Razor (abridged) - the simplest answer is usually correct.
What's the most common driving error? I'd take a WAG it's driving too
fast for conditions... per 22350.
-----

- gpsman