U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Woburn, MA / W. Hartford, CT
2,110 posts, read 2,397,708 times
Reputation: 957

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
I always roll my eyes when I read that people are skeptical of police departments in 2019 “covering for their own”. I don’t think you realize how hard it is, especially in high profile incidents such as this one, to “cover” anything up. Cameras, witnesses, logs, etc. It’s nearly impossible in a thorough investigation, which includes dozens of third party, non-biased witnesses and investigators, to successfully cover anything up. Phone records and Mobile Data Terminal records were negative.

Further, the independent investigation revealed that because the truck driver was traveling at 5 MPH, a crash at the speed limit still would have occurred. You should read the witness statements claiming how other motorists had to brake hard due to the truck’s maneuvering just prior to the trooper entering the highway and the crash occurring.

It’s clear you didn’t take the time to read the report. Before you make such audacious claims, you probably should.
Not wanting to argue. But blaming "limits of human capabilities" when clearly other humans would be and were capable of avoiding the truck, is disingenuous at best.

 
Old Yesterday, 12:51 PM
 
12,767 posts, read 6,669,873 times
Reputation: 23529
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post

Further, the independent investigation revealed that because the truck driver was traveling at 5 MPH, a crash at the speed limit still would have occurred. You should read the witness statements claiming how other motorists had to brake hard due to the truck’s maneuvering just prior to the trooper entering the highway and the crash occurring.



This is nonsense. If I rear-end something going 82 MPH and don't die, I'm getting at least a negligent operation citation and probably reckless driving. It doesn't matter what I hit. I'm way over the speed limit and clearly not in control of my car.
 
Old Yesterday, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by htfdcolt View Post
Not wanting to argue. But blaming "limits of human capabilities" when clearly other humans would be and were capable of avoiding the truck, is disingenuous at best.
Those other humans were able to avoid the truck as he decelerated from 40 to 30. This caused several vehicles to have to slam on their brakes and swerve out of the way. The trooper was the first vehicle to approach the truck as he was decelerating from 20 to about 5 MPH, since the truck just moved into the right lane (without signals or flashers) and rapidly almost came to a complete stop.

Again, before commenting further, I encourage you to read the released investigation. You’re making assertions from all different angles and all of them just show you skimmed the media release, at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
This is nonsense. If I rear-end something going 82 MPH and don't die, I'm getting at least a negligent operation citation and probably reckless driving. It doesn't matter what I hit. I'm way over the speed limit and clearly not in control of my car.
You must know little about CT motor vehicle law, because there’s nothing called “negligent operation” and as stated earlier, reckless driving is either 85 MPH (which the officer was not doing) or more than 20 below the minimum (which the trucker was doing). Legally, driving 5 MPH in a 65 zone is far more reckless than 82 in a 65 zone. CT state motor vehicle law agrees. Hardly “nonsense”.

My guess is if this were a random family on vacation that slammed into the back of this truck at nearly a standstill in the interstate lanes (after knowingly operating a faulty truck on CT’s highways), all those vilifying the trooper would be taking on a much different stance. It’s sad, really.

Last edited by kidyankee764; Yesterday at 01:02 PM..
 
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM
 
244 posts, read 88,520 times
Reputation: 408
I support the police generally speaking. My brother-in-law is a State Trooper. This is a terrible accident but we can still call it that without making lame excuses about why going more 80 and not wearing a seat belt is not a problem. I highly doubt this trooper would be very forgiving of a civilian doing the same thing.

"well officer, I have traveling that fast because we both know that the speed limit should be higher and going 80 isn't any less safe than going 65. Am I right?"
 
Old Yesterday, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHL10 View Post
I support the police generally speaking. My brother-in-law is a State Trooper. This is a terrible accident but we can still call it that without making lame excuses about why going more 80 and not wearing a seat belt is not a problem. I highly doubt this trooper would be very forgiving of a civilian doing the same thing.

"well officer, I have traveling that fast because we both know that the speed limit should be higher and going 80 isn't any less safe than going 65. Am I right?"
I don’t think having a discussion on the low speed limits in rural areas is lame. It’s been a discussion on this forum before. The interstates have been largely modernized, meaning today’s vehicles can safely travel much faster, while speed limits haven’t progressed.

And really, CT has among the lowest interstate traffic enforcement rates in the country due to budget issues and trooper understaffing, so you have no clue how this trooper conducted his enforcement prior to his death.
 
Old Yesterday, 01:38 PM
 
244 posts, read 88,520 times
Reputation: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
I don’t think having a discussion on the low speed limits in rural areas is lame. It’s been a discussion on this forum before.
I'm not defending the truck driver but you are certainly firing off defenses like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
82 MPH is not reckless and, especially on that rural stretch of highway, is hardly considered too fast for conditions. IMO, the speed limit up there should be about 80, as 65 is wildly slow.
 
Old Yesterday, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHL10 View Post
I'm not defending the truck driver but you are certainly firing off defenses like this:
What I noted was factual. The trooper was not, by CT state statute, driving in a reckless manner. Period.

If inserting my opinion that the speed limits should be higher irked you, so be it. Move along.
 
Old Yesterday, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Birch Mt - CT
236 posts, read 190,289 times
Reputation: 207
The report faults the trooper for not realizing the hazard in front of him.
 
Old Yesterday, 02:40 PM
 
12,767 posts, read 6,669,873 times
Reputation: 23529
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post



You must know little about CT motor vehicle law, because there’s nothing called “negligent operation” and as stated earlier, reckless driving is either 85 MPH (which the officer was not doing) or more than 20 below the minimum (which the trucker was doing). Legally, driving 5 MPH in a 65 zone is far more reckless than 82 in a 65 zone. CT state motor vehicle law agrees. Hardly “nonsense”.

My guess is if this were a random family on vacation that slammed into the back of this truck at nearly a standstill in the interstate lanes (after knowingly operating a faulty truck on CT’s highways), all those vilifying the trooper would be taking on a much different stance. It’s sad, really.

One of the Connecticut reckless driving clauses is:

Quote:
driving at a speed that endangers the life of any person other than the vehicle driver



If you rear-end something at 82 mph, you're endangering other people.


I'm not vilifying the trooper. I'm stating the obvious. If you rear-end something at 82 mph, that's an at-fault accident and you're going to get a citation. If you live and someone else dies in the accident, you're facing a homicide/manslaughter charge of some sort. Of course, a cop isn't going to see any of that.
 
Old Yesterday, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
One of the Connecticut reckless driving clauses is:

[/font]


If you rear-end something at 82 mph, you're endangering other people.


I'm not vilifying the trooper. I'm stating the obvious. If you rear-end something at 82 mph, that's an at-fault accident and you're going to get a citation. If you live and someone else dies in the accident, you're facing a homicide/manslaughter charge of some sort. Of course, a cop isn't going to see any of that.
...and in order for that clause to be met on a limited access highway in the state of CT, that speed must be 85 mph or greater.

Sorry to be blunt, but regarding CT motor vehicle law and accident investigations in the state, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Last edited by kidyankee764; Yesterday at 03:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top