homicidal parking lot driver gets what he deserves!

[LillFilly]

The housemate went to a big box hardware store for supplies. As he was pushing his cart out the door and into the crosswalk to get to the parking lot, a car speed by so fast that he had to jump back with the cart to avoid being street crepe. He screamed at the jackass who turned and looked like he was about to exit the car and confront housemate, then saw that housemate is HUGE and crazy looking, and took-off again, speeding through a couple of stop signs on his way out of the parking lot.

Housemate loaded his car and left the parking lot heading to the highway. He had to move over with traffic to avoid a big accident with several police cars. What did he see? Jackass had rear-ended a tractor trailer while trying to get onto the highway; Jackass was now minus the front half of his car, but apparently was out, up and now talking to the friendly police officers!

[wolfie]

Please have your housemate contact the police (and, if they caught the name on the side of the tractor - NOT the trailer, since it's common to pull "foreign" trailers - the safety department of the trucking company) to let them know about the jackass stunt the guy pulled. Probably won't get anywhere with the cops (hearsay evidence), but if the safety director gets an independent report that the guy who hit the truck was involved in reckless driving earlier in the day it could swing his judgement between "preventable" and "non-preventable".

[eltf177]

That is excellent advise, although I hope the cops would look into that as well.

[otakuneko]

if the safety director gets an independent report that the guy who hit the truck was involved in reckless driving earlier in the day it could swing his judgement between "preventable" and "non-preventable".

Wouldn't being rear-ended, particularly on an on ramp, kind of be automatically non-preventable? After all, trucks aren't very good at accelerating, especially while climbing....something I'm reminded of all too often >.<

[Chromatix]

Both on- and off-ramps can be either uphill or downhill, depending on whether the junction is arranged above or below the main road. AFAIK, putting the junction above is usually preferred, because that assists acceleration and deceleration in the right ways.

[mathnerd]

Wouldn't being rear-ended, particularly on an on ramp, kind of be automatically non-preventable? After all, trucks aren't very good at accelerating, especially while climbing....something I'm reminded of all too often >.<

Not necessarily. " Not At Fault" and "non-preventable" are two different things. The DOT can classify an accident as not at fault, but still rule it as preventable (on the part of the trucker).

[dalesys]

...but still rule it as preventable ...

with the level of omniscience and precognition mandated by regulations...

[An Haddock]

"...and the villagers rejoiced." I believe was the next line...

[LillFilly]

The ramp Housemate was taking would have been taking is an uphill curve going about 25-30mph, merging into a 55mph area; the trucks can't move very fast through that. The state I live in pretty much defines if you hit someone from the rear, you're automatically at fault.

[wolfie]

Wouldn't being rear-ended, particularly on an on ramp, kind of be automatically non-preventable? After all, trucks aren't very good at accelerating, especially while climbing....something I'm reminded of all too often >.<

Preventable/Non-preventable is a higher standard than at fault/not at fault, and applies only to commercial drivers (used to determine whether or not disciplinary action is to be taken). To use this situation as an example:

Since the truck was rear-ended, he's not at fault (i.e. the car's insurance pays for all damage to both vehicles). On the other hand, if the left lane had been clear (without impartial witnesses and/or surveilance footage, there's no way to prove it one way or the other, so the safety department is likely to assume that the driver had the option), he could have changed into the left lane on seeing the car speeding up the on-ramp, and therefore prevented the collision. On the other hand, if he HAD changed lanes and the car speeding up the on-ramp had immediately gone into the "fast" lane (and therefore rear-ended the truck), it would still be a preventable collision, since if he'd stayed in the "slow" lane, the car would have got into the "fast" lane before it caught up to him, and therefore no collision.

Similarly, imagine a secondary highway in a rural area with "local" roads having level intersections (stop signs on the local roads, so highway traffic has the right of way). A truck is traveling down the highway when a car runs a stop sign. Truck can't stop/slow down in time, and hits the car. This is a not-at-fault collision for the truck (other vehicle ran a stop sign), but if the visibility at the intersection is good enough that the trucker could have seen that the car wasn't slowing down for the stop sign, it would be a preventable collision - based on what he could see of the car's behaviour, he should have anticipated that it would run the stop sign, and slow down or stop in order to yield the road to the car (even though it had a stop sign and he didn't), rather than waiting for the car to actually run the stop sign, at which point he no longer had enough time to take action to avoid a collision.

[Chromatix]

"Doesn't steam give way to sail?"
"Not when sail can go anywhere on the river, while steam has to stay in the deep-water channel."

This being the 21st century, rather than the 1930s, a similar principle should apply on the roads. A HGV is considerably less manoeuvrable than a car...

[LillFilly]

Wolfie,

The on ramp is on the right and is a single lane that curves in an 'S' until you hit the highway, where there is a non-existent acceleration lane. The car rear-ended the truck at the entrance to the on ramp; there was no place for the truck to go. The car driver was probably speeding and/or didn't realize the truck was slowing to make the curves.

[wolfie]

Didn't know the geometry of the situation. I had assumed that the truck was already on the highway but moving slowly (e.g. uphill), the car had entered from a standard on-ramp, and after accelerating to more than the truck's speed had rear-ended it. Of course, you know what happens when you ass/u/me something.

[otakuneko]

Wolfie,

The on ramp is on the right and is a single lane that curves in an 'S' until you hit the highway, where there is a non-existent acceleration lane.

So how many wannabe racers go off the road there trying to get up it as fast as they can? That sounds like just the sort of road that would attract that sort of thing.

he should have anticipated that it would run the stop sign, and slow down or stop in order to yield the road to the car (even though it had a stop sign and he didn't), rather than waiting for the car to actually run the stop sign, at which point he no longer had enough time to take action to avoid a collision.

At which point he gets rear-ended by the car behind him on the highway.

You weren't kidding about being expected to be psychic... talk about impossible standards.

[mhkohne]

You weren't kidding about being expected to be psychic... talk about impossible standards.

I'm told the FAA is the same way with planes - they always note how the pilot could have responded to whatever failure is in play. Not fun.