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.
The one thing which needs to be taken into account with Google Street View is that the cameras are mounted approximately 8' up in the air.
While this is true, I've driven SUVs since I was 16. You can see plenty despite other cars at the same height, especially if they're not even in the lane ahead of you. The real visual issues are when you're driving a normal passenger car and can't see around SUVs/minivans/pickups, THAT ARE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU (or if you're both stopped side-by-side and can't see over them). When they aren't directly in front of you, it's not such a huge problem in determining traffic hazards. It's not like pickup guy was matching speeds with the Jeep in the turning lane diagonal to him. There was PLENTY of opportunity for him to realize what's possibly going to happen in front (defensive driving). That's undoubtedly a long stretch of open road there.
I am NOT arguing right of way or anything like that. I'm saying he was very likely impaired beyond the ability to make ANY evasive maneuvers that quite possibly could've prevented 4 deaths. Is anyone doubting this? If not, then it's fair to say alcohol could have played a role, not in the collision, but the deaths. It's NOT right people dismiss his responsibility just because "he couldn't have avoided a collision".
I am NOT arguing right of way or anything like that. I'm saying he was very likely impaired beyond the ability to make ANY evasive maneuvers that quite possibly could've prevented 4 deaths. Is anyone doubting this? If not, then it's fair to say alcohol could have played a role, not in the collision, but the deaths. It's NOT right people dismiss his responsibility just because "he couldn't have avoided a collision".
He had (supposedly by the DA) about 200 feet, 15 car lengths to react and at least slow down. Plenty of time for a better outcome than what happened, IMO... people drive 1-3 car lengths from the car in front of them at highway speeds on the parkway, and somehow manage to react to unexpected situations like this.
You have to take into account the distance the vehicle has moved from the time the driver first sees the obstruction to the time he starts braking and then add that to the actual time it takes to slow the vehicle down.
Stricter laws do reduce crime. This isn't like murder, rape, terrorism etc. where the offender does it no matter what. There's plenty of "elasticity" in the reduction of DWIs through stricter laws. Proof of this is looking at the last 30-40 years of DWI stats and laws.
I agree with this.
Both drivers are being held accountable. The pick up driver isn't getting away scotfree.
While this is true, I've driven SUVs since I was 16. You can see plenty despite other cars at the same height, especially if they're not even in the lane ahead of you. The real visual issues are when you're driving a normal passenger car and can't see around SUVs/minivans/pickups, THAT ARE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU (or if you're both stopped side-by-side and can't see over them). When they aren't directly in front of you, it's not such a huge problem in determining traffic hazards. It's not like pickup guy was matching speeds with the Jeep in the turning lane diagonal to him. There was PLENTY of opportunity for him to realize what's possibly going to happen in front (defensive driving). That's undoubtedly a long stretch of open road there.
I am NOT arguing right of way or anything like that. I'm saying he was very likely impaired beyond the ability to make ANY evasive maneuvers that quite possibly could've prevented 4 deaths. Is anyone doubting this? If not, then it's fair to say alcohol could have played a role, not in the collision, but the deaths. It's NOT right people dismiss his responsibility just because "he couldn't have avoided a collision".
I've been driving radically lifted Broncos and F series trucks for decades, along with SUVs, Wranglers, and a Town Car. Height does play into visibility. Whether it was a bush, a cow, or a Jeep Liberty in the eastbound turning lane, it was a solid object in the field of vision. Add distance, highway speed, and the curve into it and there is a visibility issue. The road east of the intersection is not straight. I've been on it countless times. As you come around the bend by the self storage place, your view is limited. Add to that any other cars on the road, position of the sun -- heading westbound in the later part of the day you get a lot of glare.
I feel both drivers had visibility issues. I'm not saying the pick up driver is innocent, but I do feel the limo driver who did not yield the ROW to westbound traffic will be facing the appropriate charges.
I've been driving radically lifted Broncos and F series trucks for decades, along with SUVs, Wranglers, and a Town Car. Height does play into visibility. Whether it was a bush, a cow, or a Jeep Liberty in the eastbound turning lane, it was a solid object in the field of vision. Add distance, highway speed, and the curve into it and there is a visibility issue. The road east of the intersection is not straight. I've been on it countless times. As you come around the bend by the self storage place, your view is limited. Add to that any other cars on the road, position of the sun -- heading westbound in the later part of the day you get a lot of glare.
I feel both drivers had visibility issues. I'm not saying the pick up driver is innocent, but I do feel the limo driver who did not yield the ROW to westbound traffic will be facing the appropriate charges.
So you'd be okay with receiving negligent homicide charges if you or one of your kids or husband fails to yield the R.O.W. which causes someone else to die in an accident? Wow. I doubt most here are really okay with this....
You acknowledge that the intersection had limited sight lines when someone was in the turn lane and due to the curve (as the county acknowledges) ...
Quote:
The investigation found that Pino had “limited sight lines looking into westbound traffic” because a Jeep Liberty was positioned in the intersection waiting to turn left onto Depot Lane, Spota said in a statement.
But you're also saying the county/town have no responsibility in this, it's all the limo driver?? despite the county & town dragging their heels on a traffic light that was pleaded for a long time ago? IMO, to have a 55mph speed limit on a road like this with no traffic light is also negligent on the Town's part.
You also kind of dodged ovi8's question ...
Quote:
I am NOT arguing right of way or anything like that. I'm saying he was very likely impaired beyond the ability to make ANY evasive maneuvers that quite possibly could've prevented 4 deaths. Is anyone doubting this?
are you doubting this, or that he could've possibly slowed down enough to not kill them? What speed would the truck be at on impact if he had braked for 129 feet from a starting speed of 55mph?
Last edited by Howard Beale; 03-22-2016 at 09:02 AM..
So you'd be okay with receiving negligent homicide charges if you or one of your kids or husband fails to yield the R.O.W. which causes someone else to die in an accident? Wow. I doubt most here are really okay with this....
You acknowledge that the intersection had limited sight lines when someone was in the turn lane and due to the curve (as the county acknowledges) ...
What I don't understand is why you advocate charging Romeo with something more that DWI/DWAI when it has been made clear that alcohol was not a factor in this accident but you find it unpalatable that someone would be charged with a more serious crime for being negligent in such a manner that 4 people died.
I think the charges for the limo driver are inflated, but Spota has little choice because he needs to find a sacrificial lamb to present to the public (politically) but knows that if he pins it on Romeo, he will ultimately lose. That only leaves the limo driver holding the bag.
The pickup driver was actually found to have reacted surprisingly well, thus completely NULLIFYING any effort to find him "impaired." It was tossed out. He needed 260+ feet to react. He had less than 200. Without wishing ill on anyone, unless you've had a vehicle turn directly into your path at 55, you're talking directly out of your hind end. There is NOTHING to be done. NO way to evade, flip, twirl, launch into orbit ala the Jetsons or anything else except slam on the brakes and deal with the impact. Any motorcyclist will tell you that, if they are alive to talk about it. Physics is physics. The physics may get bent and twisted in the political, legal and PR arenas, but the facts are still the facts.
Last edited by monstermagnet; 03-22-2016 at 10:20 AM..
The pickup driver was actually found to have reacted surprisingly well, thus completely NULLIFYING any effort to find him "impaired." It was tossed out. He needed 260+ feet to react. He had less than 200. Without wishing ill on anyone, unless you've had a vehicle turn directly into your path at 55, you're talking directly out of your hind end. There is NOTHING to be done. NO way to evade, flip, twirl, launch into orbit ala the Jetsons or anything else except slam on the brakes and deal with the impact. Any motorcyclist will tell you that, if they are alive to talk about it. Physics is physics. The physics may get bent and twisted in the political, legal and PR arenas, but the facts are still the facts.
Oh, really?! Here we go with the know-it-alls coming in thinking no one else has EVER been cut off on the highway before (and this is on a bike which is much harder to pull off than a 4 wheel vehicle. looks to be about the same distance as the crash in this topic)
What I don't understand is why you advocate charging Romeo with something more that DWI/DWAI when it has been made clear that alcohol was not a factor in this accident but you find it unpalatable that someone would be charged with a more serious crime for being negligent in such a manner that 4 people died.
I think the charges for the limo driver are inflated, but Spota has little choice because he needs to find a sacrificial lamb to present to the public (politically) but knows that if he pins it on Romeo, he will ultimately lose. That only leaves the limo driver holding the bag.
What I don't understand is why you and a few others think that alcohol had absolutely no effect on the severity of the accident when it is proven to substantially delay thinking + reaction time (even at as low as .02 BAC).
I think the limo driver should get reckless driving, do some time, traffic violations, loss of license, plus civil liabilities. Romeo should get more than just a simple DWI. I also think the county & the town should be held liable for their negligence.
Stricter laws do reduce crime. This isn't like murder, rape, terrorism etc. where the offender does it no matter what. There's plenty of "elasticity" in the reduction of DWIs through stricter laws. Proof of this is looking at the last 30-40 years of DWI stats and laws.
How so? There are strict laws on DD, yet the offenders do it no matter what. If they could prove the driver's BAL was over the limit here, you can bet they would have had him up on homicide charge along with the limo diver - hardly elastic.
Plenty of crime statistics have decreases in the last 30-40 years. My money is on better education which has led to a lower incidence of DUI. The witch hunt that has surrounded this case from the beginning also points to a strong "peer pressure" factor as well. Forty years ago, DUI didn't have the stigma it does now. Education always has more impact than laws.
But here's the thing that gets me... Everyone on this thread goes on to find a way to vilify the pickup driver. Theories are concocted to find some way to force the blame to Romeo's BAL. Yet those who have all the facts and "experts" at their disposal have concluded that his BAL had no effect on the outcome.
By your theory, stricter laws would have prevented this accident. I disagree. If the driver was indeed drunk, he would be facing manslaughter charges. He knew that before he got behind the wheel and it apparently didn't stop him. He knew that he could be pulled over and arrested for simply driving. He knew that drinking and driving could result in someone's death for which he would be held accountable. You are looking at is as a past event... he had no idea how the day would turn out when he started the engine.
What no one wants to talk about is how this could have been prevented. I submit two ideas which would have potentially had a much bigger impact on the outcome than "stricter laws":
1. Better standards for commercial driver licenses. Currently there is NO qualification standard. The limo driver simply paid a small fee to DMV. No test, no nothing. Pay and drive. If you want to drive others for money, you should be able to demonstrate some level of skill and knowledge. A single road test when you are 17 years old doesn't cut it in my book.
2. Better standards for limos. This limo was hit in the weak spot. Stretch limos are inherently dangerous. There is no standard for construction and this type of accident shows just how dangerous these things are. Cut a car open, make it longer and put it back together... hope it doesn't fall apart. Stretch limos are death traps just waiting for an accident like this to happen. They fold like a piece of paper.
If you want to second guess, I will bet that had either of the above two suggestions been implemented, at least some of these passengers would be alive today. I think you are all arguing the wrong point.
The pickup driver was actually found to have reacted surprisingly well, thus completely NULLIFYING any effort to find him "impaired." It was tossed out. He needed 260+ feet to react. He had less than 200. Without wishing ill on anyone, unless you've had a vehicle turn directly into your path at 55, you're talking directly out of your hind end. There is NOTHING to be done. NO way to evade, flip, twirl, launch into orbit ala the Jetsons or anything else except slam on the brakes and deal with the impact. Any motorcyclist will tell you that, if they are alive to talk about it. Physics is physics. The physics may get bent and twisted in the political, legal and PR arenas, but the facts are still the facts.
I don't recall every fact so maybe I'm missing something but if you say he had less than 200 feet to react - can't even attempt to evade, look at this chart with regard to pickup truck stopping distances. Stopping from 60-0mph is ~3 seconds... yet you claim no time to react at all?
Obviously you have to consider reaction time...
Quote:
The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus.
No doubt affected by alcohol...
IMO with the ~2+ secs (already accounting for reaction time), he could've done SOMETHING had he not been inhibited. People do it all the time in an emergency. And I'm curious as to the estimated speed upon impact... someone said he impacted at 55mph... which would mean 1) he was speeding quite a bit before or 2) made zero attempt to hit the brake over 2+ seconds (which we know covers 160ft+ going 55mph).
Last edited by ovi8; 03-22-2016 at 11:39 AM..
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.
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.
