I've just realized I don't know how to go to a particular thread other than to search each page. Even Advanced Search just shows Darwin entered into the posts.



The phone was still in the driver's hand. Not sure where his hand was.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/PpruNe/578677_358578150879265_2005839681_n.jpg

"Dawin"???, see title, on a Darwin thread?? ----sp LR. change it quick and I'll delete my post!



.

That's strange - I didn't imagine a specific Darwin Awards thread did I? All I came up with:

Darwin "mea culpa" sub division award


by filtering to tread titles.

Perhaps filtering "thread titles" might help.

Whatever the reason, I'd get the drivers next of kin to sue the ass off the truck company. Truck rear and side guards to prevent underriding have been available for years (http://www.autosafetyexpert.com/defect_truckunderride.php).

Well, rather depends if they are mandatory in whichever country (USA ? )that is. I see that the truck doesn't even have wheel-guards to prevent spray - a huge danger blinding other drivers - which certainly come before under-run protectors in the normal evolution of truck safety.

It would in any case only be a minor contributory factor IMO as the gross negligence of the car driver and speed (?) might have killed him anyway.

ORAC, forgive me if I have missed your sarcasm. Are you suggesting the truck driver should be responsible for preventing a dip stick running under his truck because he is otherwise occupied on the phone? (Notwithstanding any prosecution re laws applicable to said accessories). It looks to me that there would have been a good chance the outcome would have been the same even if they had been fitted.

BB

Looking at the picture I'd say the truck was probably stopped on the shoulder given it looks like the USA?

HTC

ORAC, forgive me if I have missed your sarcasm. Are you suggesting the truck driver should be responsible for preventing a dip stick running under his truck because he is otherwise occupied on the phone? Yes, it's a duty of care, even if it's not mandatory. Same way a company can get sued if someone trespasses and gets injured on unsafe equipment.

Knowing that the risk exists if someone runs into their trucks, knowing that a means of mitigation exists, and electing not to implement it opens them up to being sued. e.g. from a US law firm site.

Potential Liability

As a matter of law, truckers and trucking companies owe a duty to use reasonable care in operating their vehicles. This duty extends to incorporating proper safety equipment onto their vehicles and ensuring that they follow safety regulations. If they fail to use such care, they can face liability based on their knowledge of what should be safe based on industry practices and current safety specifications.

Well, rather depends if they are mandatory in whichever country (USA ? )that is. I see that the truck doesn't even have wheel-guards to prevent spray - a huge danger blinding other drivers - which certainly come before under-run protectors in the normal evolution of truck safety.

Spray guards are not mandatory in the US, however, mud flaps are (which this trailer has). Given the speed restrictions there, absolutely adequate. From the photograph, it seems that the Corvette (body made mainly from fibreglass and carbon) might actually have been sliced horizontally by the rear guard.

Yes, it's a duty of care, even if it's not mandatory. Same way a company can get sued if someone trespasses and gets injured on unsafe equipment.

Knowing that the risk exists if someone runs into their trucks, knowing that a means of mitigation exists, and electing not to implement it opens them up to being sued. e.g. from a US law firm site.

It flabergasts me that your initial reaction is to sue the ass of a n other, ignoring the drivers actions.:ugh:

Sums up much of today's issues!:rolleyes:

BB

If you look closely ORAC you'll see the remains of the car catcher on the back of the truck immediately above the car's rear wheel. I suspect the car was going so fast it just took the crossbar with it, or as said above, acted like a cheese cutting wire..

There's a spray guard fitted behind the rear left wheel.

There's a spray guard fitted behind the rear left wheel

Of course, there is. It's mandatory, although the type used in the US is commonly referred to as a "mud flap" in Europe. AlpineSkier was obviously lamenting the absence of the type of guards used in Europe which enclose around 180 degrees of the wheel circumference and are often lined with a brush-like surface - totally superfluous in the US with its speed limits.

Instead, our EU bureaucrats have - all in the interest of road safety, of course - limited the wheel base on semi-trailers (i.e. the distance between the fifth wheel and the rear wheel arrangement. As a result, European semi-trailers have a relatively short wheelbase and are less stable. They literally do not trail as well as e.g. American or Australian trailers. It also doesn't help the road surfaces that they are on single-wheel axles.

I didn't look that closely for guards, I took ORAC's observation as accurate.

It puts his 'sue the ass off......' comment in an even poorer light, in that his gut reaction is to apportion blame elsewhere without being sure his grounds for said action are accurate, whilst still ignoring the car drivers actions:D

I despair.:confused:

BB

Green Granite, I'll refer you to the link I provided. The truck was fitted with an ICC bumber, not a rear guard. To quote:

....Rear guards on trucks and trailers were initially required in 1953, and are known as ICC bumpers (Interstate Commerce Commission), but such rear bumper devices are typically defective.... too high above the road, too narrow across the truck's rear, and too weak to prevent the underride hazard.

A safer rear guard is lower, full-width, and stronger. The guard should be about 16 inches above the road, to engage the frontal structures of even the smallest cars, and wide enough across the entire rear of the truck, and strong enough so it won't break away, with supports at the rear corners of the trailer.......

OK, ORAC, I will ask you directly to offer your views on the car driver?

I'm intrigued that such an OP results in multiple references to US laws and in depth technical explanations on guards, whislt ignoring the car drivers actions.

I would genuinely appreciate an insight in to your thought process.

BB

ORAC:

your link also clearly states that a new, improved type of rear underride barrier was introduced in 1991, which is clearly applicable to the semi-trailer in the picture.

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
Ronald Reagan

The driver was an idiot and screwed up, but lots of people make mistakes. The purpose of most safety features on vehicles to save people especially when they make mistakes. So the question is not was the driver at fault for the accident - undoubtedly yes - but to what degree was his subsequent death attributable to the trucking company not adequately equipping their vehicles with a known, recommended, preventive device to prevent injury from a known hazard.

Not everyone who goes under a truck from the rear or the side is always at fault. Trucks can pull out in front and run lights just like everyone else, if that had been the case with this truck would that have just been too bad?

In Europe they tend to make the regulations mandatory and if you break them you end up in criminal court. In the USA they tend to make them optional - in which case the victims sue and the insurance companies pressure the companies to implement them.

So, yes, sue the ass off the company, and sooner rather than later all the trucks will be fitted.

which is clearly applicable to the semi-trailer in the picture In view of the lack of end point attachments, and the obvious point that it broke, I would refute that claim.

Thanks ORAC!:ok:

So by the same token should the state sue the ass off the car driver's estate for doing what I assume(?) is illegal in the US, that is being on the phone?

BB

That will be taken into account during any case in determining culpability and damges. The degree of negligence of the driver vs the negligence of the truck company and/or the rear guard manufacturer.

And, yes, in many cases when someone sues, the other party counter-claims. The state won't get involved unless it's a criminal offence.

It's the American way. :hmm:

Is using the phone while driving not illegal in the US?

I am not so much thinking of counter claims by the truck Co as much as the needless mayhem caused by the car driver and the costs of the resources to clean it up.

BB

The is where vicarious liability comes in. Any court judging a claim will allot degrees of responsibility to the parties. My, non-judgmental, allocation on the evidence presented here would be 90% to the car driver and 10% to the trucking company!

I have previous in 'elf 'n' Safety!

In view of the next post my view is now 100% - 0%!

In view of the lack of end point attachments, and the obvious point that it broke, I would refute that claim.

ORAC: simply go to a site such as http://http://www.greatdanetrailers.com and see for yourself what regulation-type rear bumpers on trucks must look like today. The main attachments are in the centre of the trailer - lateral mounting points are not mandatory.

ThreadBaron, responsibility for what?

The accident happening must be the car drivers alone, irrespective on what was fitted. Whilst the consequences of the accident with and without guards will be more difficult to ascertain.

BB

BB

The truck may have been illegaly parked, hence sharing liability. Breaking down and waiting on th hard shoulder of a uk m'way is legal; parking up for a rest is not.

CG

Breaking down and waiting on th hard shoulder of a uk m'way is legal; parking up for a rest is not.

And - as opposed to almost every other civilized country - the official advice in the UK is to never place a warning triangle to warn other motorists when you are stopped on the emergency lane of a motorway :ugh:

And - as opposed to almost every other civilized country - the official advice in the UK is to never place a warning triangle to warn other motorists when you are stopped on the emergency lane of a motorway

Tht's because there is a higher chance of being killed trying to place a warning triangle than a vehicle running into the stationary one.

The main attachments are in the centre of the trailer - lateral mounting points are not mandatory Which is one of the points I'm making.

The fact that the llower portion of the car is substantially intact until the point it impacted the rear axle, and that it managed to underride the truck, shows that either the recommended best practice was not implemented, or that the design or installation was faulty.

The fact that the best practice is only mandatory for vehicles manufactured after 1998 would be taken into consideration in any civil action - but the company might still be held to have a degree of cuplability in not modifying their vehicles to the same standard.

Fareastdriver:

Interesting. Means that most countries are ignoring statistical evidence then :confused:

The fact that the llower portion of the car is substantially intact until the point it impacted the rear axle, and that it managed to underride the truck, shows that either the recommended best practice was not implemented, or that the design or installation was faulty.

ORAC: there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the design of the rear bumper on that semi-trailer, despite your obvious efforts to demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps you are not reading other contributors' postings, so let's recapitulate.

The first factor is the type of car involved: it's a Corvette, which has a low waistline and is not representative of most passenger vehicles on the road.

Second, Corvettes have bodies made from mainly carbon and fibreglass. Its crash behaviour is (again) different from most passenger cars on the road.

Third, we have the (unknown) factor of speed. Or perhaps you know more than anyone else does on this thread and can tell us what the impact speed was?

In any case, the underride bumper on the semi-trailer seems to be largely intact in the picture. It has, however, almost sliced the Corvette in half. Would you prefer the underride bumper to collapse (and let any impacting vehicle slide under the trailer)? Probably no, as this would be the opposite of what the rear bumper on a truck or trailer should be doing.

I don't think I am alone here in wondering what point (exactly) it is you are trying to make here? You complain that the bumper has sliced a car, yet at the same time you seem to advocate that the bumper should have been stronger????:confused:

A safer rear guard is lower, full-width, and stronger. The guard should be about 16 inches above the road, to engage the frontal structures of even the smallest cars, and wide enough across the entire rear of the truck, and strong enough so it won't break away, with supports at the rear corners of the trailer.......

If the trailer had such a rear guard installed, the remains of the car would be 8" long instead of 8" tall. How exactly is that an improvement?

If the trailer had such a rear guard installed, the remains of the car would be 8" long instead of 8" tall. How exactly is that an improvement?

I think that pretty well sums this up. Same outcome really, just that the remains of the Corvette would be shaped a bit different. :p

You can't protect people from being stupid.

Not necessarily, c-p.

With a "regular" car, then I would agree. But when the body of said car is made of something which is rather frangible then the stronger rear guard will just carve through it in the way we see, same as the Dutch guy who ran up the ass of a truck whilst driving a Trabant (yes, an actual Trabant and not a L and Rover) here in Belgium recently went under the trailer despite all the safety measures mentioned in this thread.

I've got no doubt speed played a factor in what happened to the 'Vette, but not as big a factor as gabbing on the phone whilst driving.........

I've got no doubt speed played a factor in what happened to the 'Vette, but not as big a factor as gabbing on the phone whilst driving.........

Back in my misguided youth, I managed a group of gas stations. One night I received a phone call from one of my station managers, at about 03:00 in the morning. Seems that there had been an accident.

When I got to the station in question the first thing I noticed was that the big sign that was in front of the station was missing, well the top half anyway. Some how the 18 year old kid driving a Corvette at a very high speed managed to hit something, become airborne and cut the top of the sign off, six feet above the ground.

They were still trying to extract what was left of kid driving the Corvette when I arrived on the scene. Later it was estimated that the car was traveling in excess of 120 mph. This was on a city street by the way.

Oh, no mobile phones back it those days. But being stupid was available.

So yeah, I'll go with speed being a major factor.

Hey, perhaps the Corvette driver's family will sue the Corvette manufacturer for not placing warning notices on the dashboard advising against driving into the rear of very large, stationary vehicles! :ok:

Had a buddy do the speeding corvette into the back of a truck trick. For the most part he's OK, except he's lost an eye and has more nervous tics than a Beirut Parking Attendant.

Hey, perhaps the Corvette driver's family will sue

The parents of the family of the Corvette driver that killed himself at our station did sue the company. Judge threw the case out.

About a week later we replaced the sign. I was there as the sign company was installing the new poll and sign, some girl, about 18, stopped and started screaming at me because we were installing a new sign so soon after this drunken kid had killed himself. I just stood there and took the abuse, not much I could do or say really.

Shoot, we had waited a week. Must admit it was mostly because the sign company was busy. Didn't really think about it actually, until she showed up and started screaming at me.

con,

So yeah, I'll go with speed being a major factor.

I'd go with stupid as the major factor and speed as a side affect.

I'd go with stupid as the major factor and speed as a side affect.

Yep, add booze and you got it, the perfect combination for Darwin. :ok:

Looks to me like the truck backed into the car while the guy was parked making a phone call

I'm available for expert testimony for a paltry fee

A bit surprised this has not turned into "plastic" versus a "aluminium" body arguement!! ie Boeing versus Airbus :E

Looks to me like the truck backed into the car while the guy was parked making a phone call

I'm available for expert testimony for a paltry fee
That comment alone is worth the price of admission :ok:

It probably happened in a state where it's illegal to talk on a mobile while driving, so instead of looking up and foward while yakking he was instead looking down trying to sneak off a text, typing with the phone hidden in his lap....

"Hey baby I'll be there in.."

splat

In terms of the original post - I never use the native search engine for searching here. I always use Google - much better. Just restrict the Google search by stating with the "site:pprune.org" term :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477043-darwin-award-semi-finalists.html
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/475221-darwin-award-early-candidate-2012-a.html
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/458081-darwin-award.html
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/466253-new-zealand-darwin-award.html
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/464848-definite-darwin-award-methinks.html
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/488574-darwin-mea-culpa-sub-division-award.html
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/419113-mass-darwin-award.html
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/425900-darwin-award-failure-nominee.html

etc etc

Checkerboard:

No surprises, if you use "Darwin", but the OP apparently used "Dawin" (see thread title).:suspect:

OK, this doesn't qualify for a Darwin, as the wrong part of his anatomy was offered as a treat to the beast, but since it was in the USA, can he sue the pants off someone?

Man Charged After Alligator Eats His Hand (http://news.sky.com/story/966796/man-charged-after-alligator-eats-his-hand)

A Florida airboat captain whose hand was bitten off by an alligator is facing charges over his attempt to feed the animal.

"Hey baby I'll be there in.."

.. pieces?

The is where vicarious liability comes in. Any court judging a claim will allot degrees of responsibility to the parties. My, non-judgmental, allocation on the evidence presented here would be 90% to the car driver and 10% to the trucking company!

Nope, yer wrong. 38% driver, 2% trucking company and truck driver, 30% each for the cellphone manufacturer and network provider for making a device he could use whilst driving. ;)