Finally Getting Serious

Company I work for won't benefit from a rear end at another.

We have a 10 year waiting period for ALL drivers involved in a rear end collision.

 

And some of them are buying time . I see plenty of them speeding , tailgating , and changing from lane to lane .
Thursday a.m. I was coming South on I-75 doing the 55 m.p.h. speed limit in the center lane when a UPS Freight came flying by me in the right lane .
Yeah , Teamsters are all about safety pushing for a 10 hour drive limit .

 

Great should be a standard everywhere

 

I guess I am in 100% disagreement with your opinion. I don't see any situation where the driver of a CMV is guiltless after rear ending a vehicle in front of them. If the traffic is such that you can't maintain a safe following distance, then slow down to such a speed where you can maintain total 100% control of your rig. It's a royal pain in the butt to do, but I have done it many times. To my way of thinking it's simple, when you get behind the controls of a CMV you take on the added responsibility of understanding your vehicle is both larger and heaver then most of the traffic that is around it. It's my opinion that if you rear end a vehicle in front of you, you have shown that you can not maintain control of your vehicle in ALL situations, and yes you should at a minimum have some follow up training on driving in traffic, and if this fails you should be fired.

 

...just because he knows how to drive doesn't mean you have to rag on him

 

Why would you do 55 in the middle lane? UNLESS you were going through a city, or there were a bunch of ramps or something, then its cool......But if its wide open interstate and you are doing 55 in the middle lane....Thats a problem.

 

Technically its ok (all lanes are 55mph their are no fast lane or slow lane, 55 is 55 in all lanes) but realistically its not ok , I hate when they do it and I have to pass them in the right lane, but if I gotta go I just do what I gotta do to get by and leave them alone.

 

I'm glad that Swift is finally putting some teeth behind their usual BS safety messages on the QC. Hopefully drivers will start to take them as seriously as they seem to be intending. We've all seen CMV drivers (including Swift drivers) following too close or taking turns too quickly or changing lanes without checking, etc. These are inexcusable behaviors and should be dealt with seriously, and it seems that's going to happen. GOOD!

HOWEVER, I agree with several here who have given examples of a rear-end collision which is entirely the fault of the vehicle in front, and unavoidable by the vehicle following. Harvey's example of the pickup careening sideways from the lane next to him and right in front is perfect. Or anytime a car makes a fast change across 3 or more lanes to make a last-minute exit, they are often on the brakes and switching into your lane just feet in front of you. Or when traffic is coming to a sudden stop, and a car in the lane next to you jumps right in front to get around the semi in front of it. They can't see ahead of them until they're in your lane, and they hit their brakes as they change into your lane. You're already on the brakes hard because you saw ahead of time that traffic is stopping, but the car suddenly takes your carefully-guarded following distance, and they can stop faster than you. There's nothing you can do, or should have done - it's entirely their fault that you hit them.

So, to be fired for such instances, no questions asked, is ridiculous. No questions? Even when the officer (or court) determines it to be the fault of the car in front? Such things do happen. In that case, Swift deserves to lose that good driver they unjustly fired, and he ought to take his skills elsewhere.

Those are rare incidents, and maybe Swift decides that they can afford to lose the few percent that were driving well, because they don't want to ask questions. Fine, but don't pretend that ALL rear-ends are the fault of the following vehicle.

 

Ever notice that guy at the scene with a badge AND a gun?

Ever hear of a rear end NOT resulting in a ticket to the person in the rear most vehicle? If so, how many?

I know of 1.

And it wasn't a rear ender. But it's on the guys DAC as a rear end. He hit the rear left corner of the car, with the side of his cab.

 

Not all rear end accidents are so cut and dry.