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 03-06-2019, 04:30 PM
 
29 posts, read 6,905 times
Reputation: 41

Advertisements

https://fox61.com/2019/03/06/first-o...time-of-crash/



A few thoughts, firstly, obviously a sad story, and its sad he lost his life.

He merges onto the highway in a non-emergency at 79MPH, ok guess he's a police officer so he can go as fast as he wants.. still seems pretty aggressive though.

The article and report keep saying collided, or crashed into, he rear ended the tractor trailer, the trailer is not at fault, regardless of how slow he may have been going.

Police officers receive specialized training, and because of that training, can't get a distracted driving charge. He clearly was distracted, by either his cell phone, or something inside his car. I refuse to believe a healthy individual with no issues doesn't see an 18 wheeler in front of them.

Why oh why, did he have a huge funeral procession, shutting down the highway, and countless exits and on ramps? He was selfish when he decided to do 82mph in the right hand lane of a pretty open highway, and by his own mistake killed himself by rear ending the truck. Why does the public have to deal with his selfishness even more?

Maybe i'm an ******* and i'm being callous. I truly am sorry for his family, that's a terrible loss. I can't help but think things would be totally different if he thought of others safety first when he was got on that on-ramp and started accelerating to 82mph.

 
Old 03-06-2019, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
I’d like to make a few points to clarify the above post, which is par for the course regarding the public’s [lack of] knowledge of policing.

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. A few years back, I saw a PowerPoint study of the average speeds done by drivers in CT on given highways and 84 between Manchester had the highest average maximum speed in the state. I don’t recall the exact speed, but it wasn’t 65.

Second, just because the trooper wasn’t responding to a critical call for service doesn’t mean he wasn’t either a) responding to a routine call and was far away or, b) attempting to catch up to a reckless driver to initiate a traffic stop. B is far more likely and per CT Police Officer Standards and Training Council, a police officer is allowed to drive over the speed limit in an attempt to initiate a motor vehicle stop for a moving violation or higher. It’s common for officers to sit at an on ramp and observe traffic, and when a violation is seen, enter the highway and pursue the violating vehicle. A vehicle going 85 in the left lane would require a trooper to drive at least 90 to catch up. That’s why they go through rigorous EVOC training requiring yearly certification. This allows them to travel above the speed limit, however not recklessly (which would be above 85).

Third, roads are closed all the time for funeral processions. Literally, every day. If a procession is huge, it will be a large police presence since roads will be shut down. This is true for anyone. It seems you’re upset about it just because it was a police officer, which speaks volumes.

Fourth, and most importantly when it comes to who is actually at fault, there is a minimum speed on that stretch of CT highway, which is 40. If you go below that, it’s an infraction. If you go more than 20 MPH below that, it becomes reckless. The truck driver was recklessly traveling at 5 MPH in the right lane attempting to get to the next exit, instead of pulling off onto the shoulder. The truck was traveling at a 35 MPH difference than what’s required. The trooper was traveling at a 17 MPH difference than what is required. The trucker would have been fined $1,950 for his actions. The trooper would have been fined $196. It’s also important to note that an independent study revealed the crash still would have occurred if the trooper was traveling 65 MPH. So, who brought the most to the party?

I read something today that said “we force officers to check their humanity at the door and then we condemn them for being inhumane”. That quote couldn’t be more applicable to the OP’s vilification of this trooper.

Last edited by kidyankee764; 03-06-2019 at 05:13 PM..
 
Old 03-06-2019, 05:32 PM
 
54 posts, read 26,216 times
Reputation: 63
I remember reading recently the third party investigation stated the crash would have happened at any speed above 54 (I think?) miles per hour. You'd be surprised how quickly a car traveling at 5 miles per hour will come up on someone driving normally. Add in curves and other roadway issues the reaction time is minimal.

From the article: A post collision inspection of the truck showed it was experiencing an intermittent mechanical issue, identified as a malfunctioning EGR valve 1 which caused a loss of power/boost power of the turbo. Investigators said this issue was a contributing factor to this collision sequence.

The truck driver had experienced a power loss due to the malfunctioning valve while climbing the highway uphill. Investigators said he did not make an attempt to move his truck to a place of safety in the shoulder.

Other findings:

Tractor trailer had engine issues all day – making run from South Carolina to New Hampshire.
Tractor trailer had issues for 24 hour period, but remained on the road.
 
Old 03-06-2019, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
15,083 posts, read 18,570,409 times
Reputation: 3503
That’s a pretty normal/reasonable speed there.

Slow drivers on highways are VERY dangerous. They disrupt the flow of traffic and can literally nearly act like a stationary object in the road, like this unfortunate incident. Far more dangerous than someone traveling 80.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000fc View Post
Maybe i'm an ******* and i'm being callous.
I mean, yeah.
 
Old 03-06-2019, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylo View Post
That’s a pretty normal/reasonable speed there.

Slow drivers on highways are VERY dangerous. They disrupt the flow of traffic and can literally nearly act like a stationary object in the road, like this unfortunate incident. Far more dangerous than someone traveling 80.
Exactly. Even a driver going 60 will have people swerving out of the way. Unfortunately speed limits did not keep up with the modernizing of highways. It should be 75.

And shame on the media for their headline. Cue all the hypocrites demonizing this guy as they post from their phones while going 85 in the left lane.
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Woburn, MA / W. Hartford, CT
2,110 posts, read 2,397,708 times
Reputation: 957
State trooper and not wearing a seat belt?
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by htfdcolt View Post
State trooper and not wearing a seat belt?
A designated emergency vehicle does not require the use of a seatbelt per CT state law. Additionally, the report concluded (and any layman can see) that the use of a seatbelt would not have changed the outcome.
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
15,083 posts, read 18,570,409 times
Reputation: 3503
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
Exactly. Even a driver going 60 will have people swerving out of the way. Unfortunately speed limits did not keep up with the modernizing of highways. It should be 75.

And shame on the media for their headline. Cue all the hypocrites demonizing this guy as they post from their phones while going 85 in the left lane.
I came up on someone on 95 today doing 58MPH in the left lane, no traffic. Had to hit the brakes and it definitely was alarming. They eventually got over but most people would pass on the right to get around. I’ve encountered people doing 30-40 in slow lane. Definitely dangerous in both cases.
 
Old 03-06-2019, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
16,166 posts, read 22,574,962 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylo View Post
I came up on someone on 95 today doing 58MPH in the left lane, no traffic. Had to hit the brakes and it definitely was alarming. They eventually got over but most people would pass on the right to get around. I’ve encountered people doing 30-40 in slow lane. Definitely dangerous in both cases.
And to think this trucker was doing 5-10 MPH. Imagine that?
 
Old Yesterday, 05:13 AM
 
Location: Live in NY State, work in CT
8,953 posts, read 14,547,563 times
Reputation: 3306
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
Exactly. Even a driver going 60 will have people swerving out of the way. Unfortunately speed limits did not keep up with the modernizing of highways. It should be 75.

Actually they did, from the 50s on most states had speed limits of 65-75. Nevada and Montana had no speed limit at all, much like the Autobahn.

But in 1973 they mistakenly thought lower speed limits would save precious fuel and it appeared anecdotally to cut traffic deaths (and more people "speeding" made for more revenue anyway) so "speed limits not keeping up with the modernizing of highways" became the norm. When finally reversed in 1995, many states out West did revert back to the way things were, in the Northeast especially they did not. Montana even tried to do their old "no speed limit" rule but our modern over-litiginous "sue happy" society made that not possible and it only lasted for about 3 or 4 years.
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