preventable?

paullud

Veteran Expediter
He was approaching an intersection and should have been looking straight ahead to watch for hazards like a bus or another truck making a turn that would need his lane.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
This from FMCSA:

Objective: To prevent accidents by trying to anticipate hazardous situations and adjusting driver behavior to compensate.

Description: The defensive driver tries to recognize potentially hazardous situations sufficiently in advance to allow time to safely maneuver past them. The defensive driver assumes that other drivers may make mistakes and is on guard in the event an error is made. The defensive driver searches ahead of what is immediately in front, to have advance warning of approaching hazards.

When approaching an intersection the drivers primary area of attention should be ahead to assess the possible hazards at the intersection and beyond.
That said, a side mirror scan should also be performed every 5 seconds.
The woman in the Porsche could have easily pulled around and passed a 40ft. Straight truck in less than 5 seconds so assuming that the truck driver was performing his scan in the correct time frame he still would not be responsible for seeing the car.
It could easily be argued that if the truck driver was performing his scans with the frequency needed to see this Porsche then his attention was NOT directed ahead at the intersection.
This accident was not reasonably preventable by the truck driver.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
With the way the court system works the truck driver is wrong. Why? Because he/she was there. Rest of it matters little.
 

jimby82

Veteran Expediter
Woman should have been cited for at least 2, possibly 3 offenses: Passing on right, failure to control, and probably speeding.

How can you possibly hold anyone responsible, when the other person breaks the law. Oh, I see it now, Truck Driver = always at fault :mad:
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
It is this type of garbage that just compounds the impact unnecessary regulations have. This doesn't cause the bad drivers to leave because they don't care, the good ones are feeling the pressure and are deciding to leave.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Did any of you guys read comment #2?...the part where the driver should have filed a counter charge....but probably didn't....because well you know truckers just whine about things and shrug their shoulders...

J.I.C...
Who gives a flip about fault, it is the biggest liar in the civil court that wins.

Driver Doe needs to be proactive here, file suit against the lady for aggressive driving, speeding, improper lane change/usage, failure to maintain control, and willfully endangering his safety and work career. If video is available, add failing to signal intent.

Too often, those in this industry sit on their hands and hope no litigation will happen after incidents. Strike fast, strike first, and don't allow a shyster to give her false hope. The first story told is the one with the most standing, all other versions have to be proved. (told to me by a fellow who freely admits being an ambulance chaser)
 
Last edited:

paullud

Veteran Expediter
It doesn't show comments on the mobile version of the site so I didn't see it. Certainly drivers do to much complaining instead of taking action.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
It doesn't show comments on the mobile version of the site so I didn't see it. Certainly drivers do to much complaining instead of taking action.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

my last post at end I copied it....the JIC....
 
Top