advice on suing the city for improper exit (Tigard: high school, car)

[ormari]

Originally Posted by bler144

To be fair, if you drive through 99 intersections one way with no incident, and drive through the 100th intersection the same way and the engineering/design leads to a very different outcome, you're going to be a bit surprised.

I don't know the intersection or the details of this particularly well enough to say that is/isn't what happened, but there is a point at which the system does train us to assume that in most places it is quite safe to exceed posted speed limits by 5, 10, whatever mph depending on your vehicle and skill.

That said, torts seem a pretty poor way to rely on resolving these type of outlier problems. But there are also problems with posting a sign that says "at this particular intersection posted 35 mph, we really mean 35 MPH!" and as mentioned prior, the city paying to completely re-engineer the road shifts costs from the individual/insurance system to the public, and exceeding the speed limit, even if "trained" that it's usually safe to do so, is ultimately a personal risk incurred.

Most exits have a sign that indicates the recommended speed for taking the exit (not a limit per se), and I believe it is normalized for all vehicles or perhaps specified for the lowest common denominator. Even still, I'd be willing to bet it is not applicable for all weather conditions, i.e. traveling at 35 mph on an exit marked such is likely to be unsafe if the roadway is covered in a sheet of ice. That's one scenario where the Basic Rule comes into play.

Whatever speed you are capable of driving without incident on that particular exit, with whatever particular vehicle you have, should not liberate you to add an offset to each posted speed, whether it is a governing limit or a mere suggestion. That's not the way I learned it in driver's ed. The purpose of the system is not to train the driver, it is to govern the day to day operations on the road. Driver training is supposed to be a pre-requisite to use the system. It's not on the job training.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by ormari

Driver training is supposed to be a pre-requisite to use the system. It's not on the job training.

I totally agree that's the theory, but I think in practice we all settle into a series of assumptions based on experience. We assume a constancy in engineering (both of the car and the road), as well as the behavior of other drivers and cops.

For example, prior experience has led me to assume that it's highly unlikely a cop will ticket me for going 7 over on the interstate. If I don't keep in mind that's only an assumption I'll inevitably surprised when that assumption proves false. If I remember it's merely an assumption and not a rule, it's easier to accept as my own dang fault and move on.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by bler144

I totally agree that's the theory, but I think in practice we all settle into a series of assumptions based on experience. We assume a constancy in engineering (both of the car and the road), as well as the behavior of other drivers and cops.

I am happy to agree that an unfounded expectation of a predictable driving condition leads to accidents. Vehicles wear out, weather conditions change, animals enter upon roadways, other road users appear and act in both predictable and unpredictable ways. Add in other vehicular distractions such as passengers, cell phones, and entertainment systems, and you have a pretty compelling case for driverless vehicles if they can be made more reliable than humans.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by ormari

Add in other vehicular distractions such as passengers, cell phones, and entertainment systems, and you have a pretty compelling case for driverless vehicles if they can be made more reliable than humans.

Agree, though that's a pretty big "If"

Still, one might say the key weakness of driverless vehicles (inability to adapt to unfamiliar conditions and features) isn't really all that different from one of the key weaknesses often exhibited with real drivers.

Plunk a new stoplight in overnight and a lot of drivers will simply miss it because they're on mental cruise control, even if in theory they have the capability to see, process, and react accordingly. Most current iterations of driverless cars miss it because it simply doesn't exist on their internal mapping.

Likewise, a real driver's first experience with a traffic circle is often hairy, even if they've been warned about it in advance. I haven't seen anything on how driverless cars cope with the same road feature, though I'd be interested.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by bler144

Agree, though that's a pretty big "If"

Still, one might say the key weakness of driverless vehicles (inability to adapt to unfamiliar conditions and features) isn't really all that different from one of the key weaknesses often exhibited with real drivers.

Plunk a new stoplight in overnight and a lot of drivers will simply miss it because they're on mental cruise control, even if in theory they have the capability to see, process, and react accordingly. Most current iterations of driverless cars miss it because it simply doesn't exist on their internal mapping.

Likewise, a real driver's first experience with a traffic circle is often hairy, even if they've been warned about it in advance. I haven't seen anything on how driverless cars cope with the same road feature, though I'd be interested.

I agree it is a big if. Software engineering has a long way to go in this regard but it is coming, and the marketers of the technology will be looking for every argument at their disposal to make it a reality. Of course, one has to keep in mind the engineering maxim that you can't make anything idiot proof, for someone will simply come along and make a better idiot.

But the argument is bound to be made. People who shirk responsibility and try to blame someone else for the consequences of their behavior will drive efforts to take the human error out of the equation in the name of safety.

And absolutely, it is a shared Achilles heel.

[Leisesturm]

To have a driverless car you need an artificial intelligence. A strong one. I'm thinking Level 3 or better. To do it with sensors and GPS's with a resolution of only 30ft (mandated by the military) is forcing the issue. I don't think the DOT will allow it. We will be driving the old fashioned way for a very long time. Probably for the rest of our lives, so don't get invested in the concept of driverless cars. In the event that some start-up (or, more likely, one of the established makes) manages to ram their breakthrough driverless car through DOT resistance without the necessary AI breakthrough... ... run for the hills. Or don't... loiter around busy chokepoints and known traffic hot-spots and you might make history as being one of the first humans to get nailed by an outside of its performance envelope driverless car. Think of the settlement! You (or your next of kin) would be set for life.

H

[karlsch]

Originally Posted by bler144

.........
Still, one might say the key weakness of driverless vehicles (inability to adapt to unfamiliar conditions and features) isn't really all that different from one of the key weaknesses often exhibited with real drivers.
.......

When the cars are smart enough to drive themselves, they'll be smart enough to know to drive down to Cancun once the rainy winter weather starts. http://www.shuttleincancun.com/image...ncancun2_2.jpg

And then what are the people in Oregon going to do?

[CSD610]

Originally Posted by amg123456

Hello, I got into a bad wreck on Saturday. I took an exit and my car slid like it was on a water slide into the median. This was in a city near Portland.

Thing is, the guy who towed me told me that this intersection had known issues. He said that a couple of years ago, several cars slid off the road into an adjacent pond when taking the exit. So the city's resolution was to put a concrete median in the middle of the road.

I don't think the median had an orange border around it or a sign in the middle. And the median is an unusual shape and in an unusual place in the road that you wouldn't expect. I think the guy in the tow truck told me that he towed someone who had a similar accident about a month ago.

It did heavy damage to my car and I would like to hire a lawyer to do a safety analysis on the exit. I would love to get monetary compensation and it would be a public service to ensure that this exit doesn't put others at risk.

I've taken hundreds of exits in my car flawlessly with zero slippage so this was quite an anomaly. I think the city put in a "cheap fix" without adequately addressing the problem.

So can you recommend a lawyer I can call for this? They would need to perform analysis on the safety of this exit. There should be plenty of historical accident data to prove that this exit is inherently unsafe.

I wonder if the historical data will show that the drivers who have had accidents on that particular road were not driving defensively for road conditions.

I am sure if you google "Car accident/injury" attorney there will be numerous listings in your area.

[convextech]

Originally Posted by amg123456

Hello, I got into a bad wreck on Saturday. I took an exit and my car slid like it was on a water slide into the median. This was in a city near Portland.

Thing is, the guy who towed me told me that this intersection had known issues. He said that a couple of years ago, several cars slid off the road into an adjacent pond when taking the exit. So the city's resolution was to put a concrete median in the middle of the road.

I don't think the median had an orange border around it or a sign in the middle. And the median is an unusual shape and in an unusual place in the road that you wouldn't expect. I think the guy in the tow truck told me that he towed someone who had a similar accident about a month ago.

It did heavy damage to my car and I would like to hire a lawyer to do a safety analysis on the exit. I would love to get monetary compensation and it would be a public service to ensure that this exit doesn't put others at risk.

I've taken hundreds of exits in my car flawlessly with zero slippage so this was quite an anomaly. I think the city put in a "cheap fix" without adequately addressing the problem.

So can you recommend a lawyer I can call for this? They would need to perform analysis on the safety of this exit. There should be plenty of historical accident data to prove that this exit is inherently unsafe.

No lawyer will take this on unless you have extensive injuries. Thanks for the laugh.

[wanderbygrace]

Originally Posted by Sherwoody

If it is the ramp in Tigard, it is a known issue. If not adhering to the speed limit sign (which is much slower than you would think is necessary) in wet conditions, vehicles have been known to slide there.

I'm pretty sure it's not the 217 ramp in Tigard. There is no pond there.