I80E between Laramie and Cheyenne

Strikes me that IF someone is suddenly struck from behind, they would be disoriented to some extent.

Just seems that something could have happened that through him out of synch so too speak and he slowed down.


There is no reason that anyone should have struck another vehicle in the rear. A professional driver should be practicing rate of closure to any object. It is taught to emergency drivers who drive ambulances and fire trucks.

But it appears, that most, are just plainly going to blame a rookie and a mill for any reason.

 

There are so many details that we aren't aware of that could explain either driver's behavior. The new driver could have had a mini-stroke while driving, that could explain the erratic driving and the disorientation, but yet not have been major enough for witnesses to readily observe and differentiate from normal confusion after a major accident.

 

Let's take a look at points in this article:

No statement is made attesting to where this information came from...whether the CRST driver made the statement to WHP, or if the Trooper was "assuming" this to be the case. In accident investigations it isn't always "here driver, fill out this form", but more often the LEO is asking very leading questions to the driver of the vehicle. If this were the case, the driver, especially figuring his probable state of mind when you figure "I was just involved in somebodies death"....any response could easily be prompted by leading questions from the authority figure of WHP. I will bet that when this comes to court...this approach will be high on the CRST attorney's plan.

This is a very contorted statement...covering 4 separate issues.
1. "Up an incline when he wasn't"...again where did this come from?
2. "second gear traveling at 5 mph"...in the previous section the article said WHP stated the "truck was bogging down"...in second gear at 5 mph the truck would be taching 1000 rpm's...not bogging down. Obviously a "cover statement" by LEO for the media.
3. "dry and visibility clear"...still this has no bearing on this scenario...if snow or fog or wind/dust were a factor this statement would fit into this picture. This is a statement from the officers report...a selected statement to add to the local media story...nothing more.

A 10 mph window of "possible speeds"...if the officer doesn't know the exact speed...why not say the FCC truck was not exceeding the speed limit...simple, because they don't want to give the press any specific information. I doubt they even knew the speed when the interview was conducted...the investigation was still in the beginning phases.

This whole section of the article conflicts on itself...when did the explosion occur....THEY DON'T KNOW!....this is media hype to make the story a little more gruesome for the public digestion.

It also shows the officer is not positive about the absolute facts of the case...he makes two different statements of the same thing...in other words, he made the first statement and was given time to re-think and then "adjusted" his first statement to give more leeway to the actual end results and covering his first statement.

Everybody is so quick to "blame the rookie"....GIVE IT A REST and let the facts answer the questions through the investigation and civil hearings.

This is from FLATBED, post #18 in the linked thread from this forum.

If this driver passed FCC doing 74mph, then shortly went around CRST (SAFELY AND WITHOUT INCIDENT)...how is it that FCC didn't? This driver saw the CRST truck and managed to get around...why didn't FCC react to CRST in a defensive manner?

This is what I am talking about....you drivers question and argue the LEO's information and giving you a ticket, yet in this case you are prepared and defend the statements from one officer and take for gospel this info the "trooper" gave the media is correct and that the media got it 100% right on the mark...another possibility...did the media misrepresent any part of their article for the sake of notoriety?

 

Would you take a rookie on your truck and make the same miles as you do solo?

How much should the companies pay the trainer for "sitting there" and "monitoring" the new driver? How much will make it worth his while to teach this new driver?

 

All gr8t points( iwas thinking the same as i read all the replys),one other thing i could think of is an obvious one,maybe he just pulled out into traffic from the breakdown lane(i.e.pitstop) and just pulled in front of FCC(just seems FCC would have noticed this slow moving truck),,IDK just tragic when its all said and done

 

I don't really have much sympathy for the CRST driver... No matter what he should have NOT been in the driving lane (yes he was in the driving lane) of a 75mph interstate doing 5-10mph. I DO know for a fact that the area that the accident occurred has very wide shoulders and on top of that he passed a pull off not 1 mile before the accident site. If you are that tired, inexperienced, breaking down... whatever... GET OFF THE ROAD!

It is unfortunate that someone had to lose a life because of this.

 

Well. At some point, a trainee needs to be turned loose to drive without a babysitter. After conducting a truck down the road for a week, a trainer has observed the student in almost every road condition and been able to make a judgment call as to suitability of the student. My trainer and I teamed after the second day I was on his truck. He figured out after that first run that I kind of had a clue, was (still am) a responsible adult and not prone to taking risks. Mine was a special case. (That old short-bus thing, I guess)

I'm not privy to CRST's methods and therefore cannot judge any statements made from outside the company from "mega-fleet" haters. If this student was disoriented, as the officer claims, perhaps it was because he was tired. His judgment was obviously lacking if he didn't pull over somewhere and ask for assistance from his trainer....or holler back to the sleeper berth that he was in trouble. He knew he was in trouble. He was putzing along at a very slow speed with his 4-ways flashing. (Actual speed may have been quite a bit faster. A truck traveling 74mph and passing a truck going 20mph will seem like the slower truck is not moving at all. (Speed estimates may have come from the witness driver.)

The FCC driver. Why did he miss what the other driver saw and had time to avoid? I'm guessing fatigue, but, as some have eloquently pointed out, I was not there. However, "old schoolers" have it ingrained in them that the load goes through and arrives on time no matter what and can easily overestimate their abilities similar to the 90-year-old who ran into the tree that has been on that same corner for all the 58 years the oldster has lived on that street...and who has never had an accident in the 70-plus years of driving. I am 43 years old in June. I can see my reaction time is not what it was when I was 23. This crash happened at just after 5:30 in the morning. Our veteran may have been driving all night to make that tight load, been tired, fell into a micro-sleep and did not have time to react...although, by the skid marks, he tried to. Too little, too late.

Which brings me to our witness truck, blasting across Buford and Vedauwoo at, he claims, 74mph. My guess? Probably closer to 85. Reason? No idea of the man's age, but whenever the gendarmes get involved in anything, none of us are going to admit wrongdoing...or we will minimize it as much as possible. Skid marks tell a long story. Often, an experienced crash investigator can tell within 5mph how fast a vehicle was traveling before and at impact. Officer says FCC was going between 65 and 74(?) mph. Witness truck passed FCC and then CRST. Not that his speed is really relevant, BUT!!! This driver says nothing as to whether he tried to warn the FCC driver of the slow-moving CRST. If he had, he would have said so. "I tried to raise him on the radio, but...." We all want to seem like the good guy, helpful as we can be. Yet, he is silent on this point. Therefore, he did nothing. No flasher warning, no radio call, no nothing. He just flew on by. Had it been me, I would have tried the other driver on the radio. Failing that, flash my 4-ways a few times and then my turn signal on the side the problem is on...rinse, repeat. While this driver bears no direct responsibility in this, I believe he holds some moral responsibility. That's between him and his Higher Power. In the eyes of man's law, he did nothing wrong.

And that is my take on this whole mess after reading all the links, comments in the links and this entire thread. But, as said before, not having been there.

 

You would think the kingpin on the rear ended trailer would snap off causing the trailer to go through the cab.

 

The kingpin would hold the tractor, like in a hanging off a bridge scenario. In a rear end collision the trailer folds and crushes up, the kingpin is strong.

You bet your bottom dollar I would. Schneider and Stevens do not allow the trainer to be in the sleeper while the trainee is driving. They are compensated by training pay. You train because your a teacher, you either are or you aren't.

This wreck might not have happened had the trainer been awake.