[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

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.

Originally Posted by GeoffD

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.

[PHL10]

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?"

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by PHL10

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.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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:

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by PHL10

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.

[markfromct]

The report faults the trooper for not realizing the hazard in front of him.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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:

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.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

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.