|
Post by ljp on Jan 29, 2007 15:04:04 GMT -4
ok just when I was about to write the same thing Rich said that it was an 'accident' which means 'not on purpose' I read that...
is this a fear that you have Mike?
:::shuddering at the thought of that movie::: I used to live on a road like that in NC. It was a country road and I was afraid to cross the street to get my mail!
It's like all of the sudden there would be an 18 wheeler out of nowhere! I used to peel wheel out of my driveway every day just to make sure I got out of 'it's' ( whatever 'it's' was) way.
|
|
|
Post by Ann on Jan 29, 2007 15:14:46 GMT -4
Hmmm i don't know....slitting ankles,18 wheelers outa nowhere-jeez you guys-everybody else gets spaceship posts or nasty retorts when they express THEIR feelings about UFO's and ghosts-it's only silly when it's something you don't believe in right??
|
|
|
Post by Rich Fisher on Jan 29, 2007 15:18:01 GMT -4
Ann, It's just a reference to the movie. Up by Bay City it can be quite a challange pulling out onto Route 8. It's also a rediculously noisy road, between the trucks (I never can figure out where those tractor trailors are going on Route 8), Harley's, loud car stereos, emergency vehicles, and those folks that do up Honda Civics with mufflers that sound like loud blenders. Bzzzzzzzzz! I really don't get that one
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 29, 2007 15:29:24 GMT -4
Yes, it was an accident, but could have been prevented by slowing down! When you hit KI Estates, the entrances to the community are on both sides of the road, 200' apart. Cars turn left and right through his section of Rt 8. Plus, kids cross the road all along this stretch. Thats why there is no passing on this section of road.
I noticed the thread on painting lines down Rt 8 and calling it a "Bike trail" has been pretty quite. This accident happened as the kids were getting out of school. Ten minutes later, there would have been kids right where the accident happened walking home from the bus stop.
|
|
|
Post by Ann on Jan 29, 2007 17:31:31 GMT -4
Rich- I know!! I got what you were saying. My comments weren't directed towards you-just the few who make fun of others. Rt 8 is unfortunately one way in one way out for the TONS who live that way-
|
|
|
Post by ljp on Jan 29, 2007 18:52:38 GMT -4
ljp -- yes that is a big fear. Any movie with the ankles getting slit etc flips me out. Sometimes I have a hard time being around kids in fear they might slit them... *shudder* that reminds me of that move "Children Under The Stairs" I still have problems going down open stairs!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 29, 2007 21:41:26 GMT -4
People Under the Stairs?
|
|
|
Post by shoregirl on Jan 29, 2007 23:24:19 GMT -4
All the fun and games aside, here's my say. Maybe if the Commissioners got off their duffs and provided the bucks to support law enforcement in this County and provide the means and wherefore to provide adequate safety and protection to the citizens, for which we pay taxes, maybe there wouldn't be a 30-40 minute wait in response time to people requiring assistance in Romancoke. Maybe the officers wouldn't have to speed like this to get to their call designation. Maybe vehicles and lives would be spared. About five years ago, I became aware it cost approximately $50,000 to put one officer on the road. That's from training to outfitting and providing a car. All this County is successful in doing is throwing $50,000/officer of taxpayers money down the drain long enough to put these guys and gals, who I do highly respect and admire, on the our roads to protect us, long enough for too many of them to get some experience under their belt, then off they go to Howard County, Anne Arundel County, et cetera. The way of the dinosaur thinking went out in the '50s, 60s, or whenever. Today it is imperative that we are provided the protection we expect and deserve. There will always be bad apples somewhere or everywhere -- whether they're cops or not -- that is human nature. But if blame is to be cast, then shame on our government offficials for failing the citizens year after year after year. There is no excuse whatsoever for any Sheriff to stand before elected officials and practically have to beg for more money to obtain more officers -- especially AFTER this same county government spent thousands of dollars to obtain a report that told them exactly how many officers were required to adequately protect this County -- THEN chose to ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by Ann on Jan 29, 2007 23:43:45 GMT -4
Nicely put SG-thank's for getting this thread back on track-
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Jan 29, 2007 23:56:51 GMT -4
An elected official told me that Sheriff Hofmann started painting his name on the side of patrol cars, so money is being wasted on that and will be wasted repainting after he is out of office.
Some cops do want to do their jobs and protect us. That doesn't give them leave to speed and put people in danger. If a cop is going to a call, they should use lights and siren. Put yourselves in the shoes of these children and their families and stop making excuses. It was an accident in that it wasn't deliberate, but whatever negligence or poor judgment there was should be acknowledged by whoever is responsible.
|
|
|
Post by shoregirl on Jan 30, 2007 0:33:52 GMT -4
Outlaw, you are absolutely correct that no officer should be speeding without lights and sirens -- actually NO ONE should ever be speeding to cause reckless endangerment to anyone. But that fact doesn't stop it, now, does it? Idiots, yes, idiots do it all the time. I hate it just as much as the next person. None of us have personal, first-hand knowledge as to why an officer may be speeding, whether on Route 8 or elsewhere. It could be for inappropriate reasons or it could very well be a life or death situation -- and if it were you or I needing help, I'm sure we would want that help as quickly as possible. Route 8 is a horribly congested, dangerous road. "Put yourselves in the shoes of these children and their families and stop making excuses" -- I'm going to assume that was not directed at my posting. I don't make excuses and I assure you I've walked in many a shoe and boot in my day.
|
|
|
Post by shoregirl on Jan 30, 2007 0:36:21 GMT -4
Ann, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 30, 2007 7:15:42 GMT -4
Let's not turn this into a condemnation of those who exceed the posted speed limit. It is very unlikely that speed was the cause of this crash.
If that section of road was unsafe at any speed greater than 50mph, we would be hearing about crashes every day! It isn't just luck that keeps problems from occuring and it isn't the great skill of drivers out there these days, it's that the road in that area is simply not unsafe at some speed greater than 50 mph.
So if I'm so smart then what caused this crash? I wasn't there so I don't know. However, no report has said that the faster driver rear-ended the slower driver. No report has said that a faster driver was unable to negotiate a corner. No report has said anything other than the witnesses claim the officer was exceeding the speed limit.
I'm willing to bet he was exceeding the speed limit. Not because the reports claimed he was responding to a call. Not because the witnesses said he was. I'm willing to bet he was exceeding the speed limit because only a handful of times in 10 years have I been in a group of cars that were not exceeding the limit. I'm not arguing that "everyone does it so it's fine" (actually, that was two paragraphs ago). What I'm saying is "everyone does it so he most likely was too."
This crash occured because two vehicles attempted to occupy the same space at the same time. "Accident" implies, to me, that it just happened somehow. It couldn't have been foreseen, it just happened and no one knows how. In this case, I don't believe it. Both drivers were in control of their vehicles, but at least one of drivers chose the wrong place to put theirs.
The reports say the officer was going around a vehicle but they did not say if he was passing on the left or the right. Is there a passing zone there anyway? If the officer put his vehicle in a place where it should not have been, or a place where an oncoming driver would not reasonably expect it to be, then that might be a reason for the crash.
What about the oncoming driver? The reports say the impact occured in the Southbound lane. If so, why was the Northbound vehicle in the Southbound lane? Perhaps the Northbound driver did in fact turn left in front of an oncoming vehicle. Maybe he wasn't paying attention or maybe he misjudged the distance. In either case, if the Northbound vehicle was in the Southbound lane at the same time a Southbound car was there then that would be a reason for the crash.
Two vehicles were in the same place at the same time. No reports have said that this happened because one of the vehicles lost control due to speed. Both drivers made choices about where to position their cars, and no reports have said that they were unsuccessful in doing so. One or both of the drivers made poor choices about what moves to make. Nothing in any of the reports I've seen has said anything that would imply that the crash would not have happened if the speed was less.
Let's be thankful that it looks like everyone involved will be OK. Let's hope that the investigation focusses honestly on what really happened. But let's not turn this into a condemnation of those who drive 53mph in that area.
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Jan 30, 2007 10:00:03 GMT -4
Read the Capital article. Despite the fact that witnesses say the cop drove into oncoming traffic, the police, who are investigating themselves, have found evidence to the contrary. Big surprise. Maybe "charges were pending" against the cop. Yeah, right.
The situation we find ourselves in is not a result of a lack of funding. It's due to apathy and fear. Many people won't stand up for what's right because if they admit there's a problem they might have to do something about it. It's easier to make excuses than to get involved. If the citizens refused to tolerate harassment and abuse of power from police, it would stop, and the bad apples would be weeded out.
If it becomes necessary, I hope that the boy driver's parents can afford to hire their own attorney and investigator. Call me a cynic, but I'm betting on the police protecting their own.
|
|
|
Post by BlueMule on Jan 30, 2007 10:18:20 GMT -4
Facing south, the skid marks on the road from the Blazer go from the south bound lane in a counter clockwise arch to the north bound lane. The skid marks from the Crown Vic go south at about a 24* angle from the center stripe into the ditch.
What's puzzling is two points:
1. the skid marks refute what eye witnesses have stated. 2. accident investigators didn't mark the road surface to identify the skid marks and the final positions of the vehicles.
Only reason I know whose is whose is from the WJZ fly-over.
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Jan 30, 2007 10:29:53 GMT -4
Thanks, BlueMule, that's an interesting point. Technical stuff including math is not my strong point, but I was told that the cop hit the SUV so hard head on that it spun around and he hit the back as well. Don't know if that sheds any light on the skid mark issue.
|
|
|
Post by BlueMule on Jan 30, 2007 10:36:17 GMT -4
The Crown Vic's skid marks can't be much longer than 8-10 feet.
To the best of my recollection, there was little if any damage to the rear of the Blazer.
It's going to be nasty and we'll probably never hear about the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 30, 2007 11:07:22 GMT -4
The Crown Vic has anti-lock brakes. The tires don't lock up and skid. The only time it will leave marks is when the tires are sliding to the side. The Blazer didn't travel far from the point of impact which indicates he was stopped or moving slow. The best description should come from the driver of the car the officer was passing.
|
|
|
Post by BlueMule on Jan 30, 2007 11:16:21 GMT -4
Crushed components against a tire will cause a skid mark. There is a single skid mark from the Crown Vic that runs across the shoulder on the south bound side and into the ditch. Anti-lock brakes or not, it's there.
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Jan 30, 2007 11:33:36 GMT -4
Seem to be hearing alot of kneejerk reactions to how the accident occurred and who, if anyone, will be found at fault. I doubt anyone on this forum has had extensive training as accident reconstruction investigators - there's more that comes into play than skidmarks. Hopefully, a thorough investigation is performed and the truth is made public to eliminate all the guessing. Also seems to be alot of b**ching and moaning about cops making traffic stops and issuing tickets - its part of their job - chances are if you do the speed limit, you'll never have to deal with them. I probably speed, to an extent, 90% of the time - I make a decision and take my chances knowing what the penalty could be. I don't recall seeing a cop sitting in one spot monitoring traffic for a major part of their shift?
|
|
|
Post by Ann on Jan 30, 2007 14:11:21 GMT -4
i'm glad i keep checking this-another intelligent comment shadow-you are so right-we know what the rules are-if we choose to break them-so be it-you take your chances-it's like the conversation i keep having with my br-in-law-the one about how it's ridiculous to be given a dui over one or two beers-my standard response-it's against the law to drink and drive-
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Jan 30, 2007 18:36:59 GMT -4
The only kneejerk reaction I know of was from the police who apparently told the Capital the witnesses were wrong.
Bah, bah to all the sheeple out there. Don't ask any questions; just follow along and hope you don't get slaughtered.
|
|
|
Post by shoreman on Jan 30, 2007 23:00:27 GMT -4
I think an important thing to remember is that the State Police accident reconstruction team is investigating this accident, not the sheriff's department. Yes it is unfortunate that this occurred and hopefully everyone is ok but the police are legally bound to use emergency equipment when responding to a call. As for the new Sheriff using tax money to put his name on cars, that is a fact. As for officers leaving for other departments, these officers make good money when you consider that they get the use of a 25,000 dollar vehicle anytime they want to when off duty, gas is free and get to use that same vehicle for secondary jobs. Along with available overtime and other benefits, they make darn good money. I think the old "they are leaving for more money" excuse in really getting old. In the past the flood of deputies leaving was due to the terrible administrations that was in place which unfortunately has been partially re-hired by the new sheriff...go figure, the old Chief Deputy was rehired As for taking so long for officers to get to a call, maybe, just maybe if all of the police departments worked together, we might just get our money's worth for our law enforcement dollar. From what I've seen so far since the election, that ain't happening!!! Just my 2c
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Jan 31, 2007 9:48:59 GMT -4
Greetings sheeple and independent-minded people. Has anyone read the article on page 3 of "Bay Times?" Very different from the "Capital" article. No mention is made of witnesses saying the officer tried to pass a vehicle in front of him, but it does state that the boy tried to turn in front of the oncoming police car. I'm sure the "Bay Times" did its usual unbiased job of reporting...not.
I think I hear the train coming.
|
|
|
Post by baycitydan on Jan 31, 2007 10:40:08 GMT -4
Why do you even bother to read The Bay Times? The writing is horrible, the news is old, and it only comes out once a week. While it's better than the Update, at least the Update is free. They don't even have a web site for what should be daily news and/or breaking news. I can't even remember the last time that I read that paper. Topix.net and The Capital, with a little wtop.com will get you everything going on, and all the info is free online.
|
|