'Preventable' means something different to Law Enforcement

OK. Now I see where you're going with this. You are correct with that. As CMV drivers, we are , fairly or not, held to a greater degree of responsibility for our actions. Speeding, even by only 8 MPH is serious if someone dies. But that still does not excuse people from doing stupid things like pulling out in front of a vehicle that any sensible person would know is going to hit them. A truck driver might have been charged, but with any witnesses, would have been not guilty.

 

I noticed that too. I've never seen or heard of anyone being pulled over for it but it's a pet peeve of mine. During my CDL test that's one thing the instructor was big on....he said before we left to make sure I don't do that or drive with a hand on the shifter. lol For some reason I've always kept the lane switching as a big deal...but not the shifter. lol

I watched the video....I do think he was going a lot faster than other traffic but the car was just sitting in his lane, it looked like. It sure didn't look like he slowed down. Even if he would have stomped on his brakes, I don't think he could have avoided the accident.

I do agree with what was said earlier....police should be held to a higher standard, just as we are. But they aren't. Only those of us who drive CMVs. And I agree, we should be but we should also be treated fairly. Which I don't really think is the case.

 

12:30 am, think my cop was fishing for a drunk.

 

I grabbed the video, loaded into one of my programs, and slowed it way down. As it was noted, the car was visible early enough for the officer to start some type of evasive maneuver, IF he was paying attention, and not distracted. LEOs are trained very well in this regard. In this case, since the white car was headed to the left, a proper, more logical maneuver would be to hard stab the brakes, getting the weight transfer to the front/steering, then a sharp/hard right steer, to go around the rear of the white car. It appears that the officer continued in a straight line. The video seems to reflect this, using the white traffic lines on the roadway. Only in the last frame or two, does it seem like there is a very slight deviation to the left. Wrong way in my opinion. Steering to the left, will place you into opposing traffic.

I also noticed the violations committed prior to the wreck. These do not have any bearing on the wreck itself, however does provide lawyers with plenty of ammo to use in attacking this officer's driving abilities.

The officer exceeding the speed limit should have played a role in this wreck. Years ago it was made policy by most LEO agencies that if you are exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 mph, (with some they have up to 15 mph) you must be using your emergency lights AND/OR siren. In statues this is worded as giving visual and audible warning. Kansas allows for lights OR siren. It does not require both.

Another thing worth noting is that they should have called in an outside agency to investigate the wreck. It is never, ever good policy to investigate your own department's incidents. This alleviates any bias, and cover-up accusations.

Now with all that said, the white car, is clearly the primary cause of the accident. The woman turning left, or entering/crossing the roadway must do so only when the way is clear, and can be completed safely without colliding with another vehicle.

I fully agree that this officer is in for a big civil fight. Lawyers will use all those little things the officer done, and did not do, or attempt to do, against him. More than likely the agency will try to distance themselves from the officer to minimize their losses. They may have failed, since it appears they took no action against the officer for exceeding the speed limit.

 

That's what I thought at first, too....but upon further inspection, you see the lights for the cross traffic changing to red as he approaches the intersection. His light probably turned green as he was approaching the intersection negating the need to come to a complete stop.

I paused the video the instant I could see the car blocking his path, and counted the white lines on the zipper....there were at least 4 that I could see. Considering the solid part of the line is supposed to be 10' long, with 30' between each one....IF the road is painted to federal standards, that means the car came into view at least 160' before the point of impact...which should have been plenty of time to stop (or at least significantly reduce the speed of) the cruiser.

The car was ALREADY there. It did not "pull out in front of" the cruiser. There was no traffic coming from her left when she pulled out, and it looked as though she was waiting for the car coming from her right to pass before she completed her left hand turn.

Cop should be cited for failure to reduce speed to avoid a crash, as well as speeding 53/45.

 

skip strips by DOT standard at 50 feet from start to start. So that would be 200 feet plus.

I spent too much time planning and designing the stripping last summer to forget that for a mill and overlay project for MN/DOT.

 

Yup, he ran a red light, crossed two lanes of traffic, and didnt turn into the nearest available lane after completing his turn. Thats all nitpicking stuff, and we've all done it. But, what makes it important in this instance, is just a few moments later he is involved in an accident that kills somebody.

I watched that video over and over. I would say that was a distracted driver. He is in a 4 wheeler and could #### near stop on a ####. Im not saying he should lose his job, or get in trouble. The lady was obviously where she wasnt supposed to be, but if he was scanning the road ahead as he should have been. He would have seen her in plenty of time.

Thats a double standard and no truck driver in this country would be awarded the luxury, his was given ever benefit of the doubt. Double standards...

 

The Video says a lot...He had absolute right of way especially since he was in the left lane and my "guess" would be she was focused on the traffic from the right that she had to get thru and was the distracted driver as she didn't appear to be moving fast enough to clear the occupied lanes...

 

So, failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident makes it okay for the super cop who did not use the brakes?

 

Better watch the video again. As he rolled up on the intersection, his light was red. As he entered the turn lanes, his traffic signal goes out of frame but you can see the signal directing the cross traffic changing to red. His light likely turned green at this point, meaning he didn't have to stop.