Terrible Crash ...Indiana

That's just awful

 

It sure doesn't seem like he saw them. But why didn't he?

They estimate impact at 60 to 65 mph.

The vehicles came to rest 600' past point of impact.

Sun was down.

Visibility listed as 10 miles.

Pretty straight stretch of road.

So we have a truck hitting a large object on a straight stretch of road with good visibility while traveling at or near governed speed. Even with it's lights off I can't come up with a good reason to not see something as large as a minivan in time to atleast slow down a whole lot.

 

You're kidding me right?

The Roehl driver must not have had his night vision glasses on!

 

It was dark out and you think visibility was 10 miles? Are you really this dumb?

 

I have seen two posts, one from a local who has stated it was in a dark area and after the van hit the deer, the lights on the vehicle went out.

It appears the truck driver saw the vehicle at a near point and tried to avoid the accident. If it had no lights, not hard to see why. God forbid if the trucker would have made a choice to avoid the accident and caused another by not checking the mirror before changing lanes.

Seems to me the van should have moved from the roadway.

Why, I wonder, is that even truck drivers, on this forum, quickly blame the truck driver for something that they have no clue as to whether the vehicle was able to be seen, or the speed of the truck or any other info.

Sad to see that we in this profession will hang one of our own at the drop of the hat.

 

Have you ever heard them refer to visibility when reporting weather conditions? What I stated is that the weather conditions at the time listed visibility at 10 miles. The point of that is that there were no adverse weather conditions that would have limited visibility at the time. That doesn't mean you would see a dark object ten miles away in the darkness.

 

I'd say there's blame to go around. 10 people in a vehicle that seats 7, none of them properly restrained.

I have a pretty good clue on the speed and road conditions, unless all the news reports are not true. I also know that on the darkest of nights I see the abandoned cars on the shoulder before I get to them. A vehicle directly in your path should be seen sooner.

Was this unavoidable on the part of the truck, maybe, but he didn't even slow down. If the reports were that he wasn't able to stop in time and hit the van at a reduced speed I'd be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Let's play devils advocate.

Change the places.

Truck hits the deer and loses the lights.

Is immediately struck by a van loaded down.

Who is at fault now?

Trucker?

 

That one's easy. Truck is bigger, has reflective tape, much easier to see. Anyone who doesn't see that definitely isn't paying attention.

The lawyers would probably disagree though.

 

There is much to this that makes one wonder.

I am sure you have noticed that alot of the cars on the tollway seem to change lanes back in front of a truck trying to see how close they can do it.

What if they did this in front of the truck, hit the deer, and there was little time involved?

May not have happened.

May have been following too close.

Me, I am going to wait and see what the investigators find out.