Location: A Whilom nimble brain. With 31 million posts.
Age: 73
Posts: 3,381
Dawin and mobile phones AND how to go to thread
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.
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.
Last edited by AlpineSkier; 24th Jul 2012 at 07:46.
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.
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.
Last edited by Victor Inox; 24th Jul 2012 at 09:48.
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.
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..
Last edited by green granite; 24th Jul 2012 at 08:53.
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
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.
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.
