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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 07:10 AM |