Jury Awards $15M to Truck-Wreck Victim

Harry K wrote:
> richard wrote:
>
>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/155128
>>>
>>> Jury awards $15M to truck-wreck victim
>>> Punitive damages based on falsification of driver's log, disregard for
>>> public safety
>>> By Kim Smith
>>> Arizona Daily Star
>>> Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.09.2006
>>>
>>> A Bowie man who lost his leg after being hit by an 18-wheeler on
>>> Christmas Eve four years ago was awarded $15 million Wednesday by a
>>> federal jury.
>>> The jury ordered Little Bear Transport of Utah to pay 58-year-old
>>> Bruce Austin $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in
>>> punitive damages following a five-day trial in U.S. District Court in
>>> Tucson.
>>> "First and foremost, the verdict absolutely does justice to Mr.
>>> Austin, and, having talked to the jury afterward, they wanted to send
>>> a message to the trucking industry," said Austin's attorney, Richard
>>> Gonzales. "They want the trucking industry to stop playing
>>> cat-and-mouse with the public's safety."
>>> Specifically, Gonzales said the trucking industry needs to stop
>>> pushing its employees to drive longer hours than are allowed by law
>>> and falsify their log books.
>>> According to court documents, Kenneth Virgil Howard was driving a
>>> Little Bear Transport tractor-trailer rig west on Interstate 10 near
>>> Bowie, which is about 25 miles east of Willcox, when he swerved into
>>> the median and struck several vehicles involved in an earlier fatal
>>> crash that had closed one of the westbound lanes.
>>>
>> Article doesn't say if the trucker was prosecuted criminally as he
>> should have been. Prolly not. Cops usually just say "hell with it -
>> let the insurance companies sort this out."
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 80% of all crashes involving semis and cars are the result of the car driver
>> doing something wrong.
>> Source: NTSB.
>>
>> The trucker stated that the car had slowed down and he did not have time to
>> react properly before the crash.
>> A car will naturally slow down faster than a semi.
>> From what I read in the article, the lawsuit was over the fact that the car
>> driver had lost a leg in the incident.
>> Not from the fact that the trucker had committed any criminal acts. Outside
>> of falsifying his log books.
>>
>> I have seen car drivers way to many times pass me, then as soon as they get
>> around, slow down. Bad move.
>> Now with cell phones in hand, car drivers who yack while driving do not pay
>> attention to their speed. I've seen cars drop as much as 10mph while yacking
>> on the phone. During their conversation, not once looking to see what's
>> around them.
>>
>> Most truck drivers are 10 times more safety conscious than the vast majority
>> of car drivers. They have to be. Their life depends on it. Now if you would
>> apply that same practice, the roads would be a lot safer for all.
>>
>
> Unless you can show that the car passed and _then_ suddenly slowed
> (swoop and squat) your attempt at justification totally fails. You, as
> a trucker, and me, as a car driver, are both required to maintain a
> following distance such that we can stop before colliding when
> unexpected things happening in front of us . Yes, that means that
> trucks would have to maintain a 5 or 6 second (at least) following
> distance. Assuming that the car had not just passed him, the trucker
> was clearly at fault.
>
> Harry K
>
>


assuming? You're judging the trucker with few facts to go on. The fact
is that it is virtually impossible to maintain the proper following
distance in heavy traffic. Trying to maintain even a 1-second cushion
in heavy congestion is a losing proposition--leave a truck length open
to the front, I guarantee you that ten cars will rush to fill it (even
if they immediately have to hit their brakes and/or swerve back into the
lane they just left). Plus, there's the lookie-loo factor in this
incident: there had just been a traffic fatality in the westbound
lanes. You choose to ASSUME the trucker was at fault; I choose to give
the driver the benefit of the doubt, I ASSUME that the car driver
ghoulishly slammed on his brakes in order to look at some blood.

--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

Harry K wrote:
> realitytrucker wrote:
>
>> Harry K wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you can show that the car passed and _then_ suddenly slowed
>>> (swoop and squat) your attempt at justification totally fails. You, as
>>> a trucker, and me, as a car driver, are both required to maintain a
>>> following distance such that we can stop before colliding when
>>> unexpected things happening in front of us . Yes, that means that
>>> trucks would have to maintain a 5 or 6 second (at least) following
>>> distance. Assuming that the car had not just passed him, the trucker
>>> was clearly at fault.
>>>
>>> Harry K
>>>
>> I use the 6 second rule because I know how long it takes for a truck to
>> stop. But how can you maintain that space when car drivers seem to
>> think that, as long as there is room, no matter how little room, to get
>> their car in front of that truck it's their God given right to put it
>> there.
>> I have seen car drivers squeeze in between me and the vehicle in front
>> of me when there has been, literally, just inches to spare.
>> Class A CDL holders are trained, professional drivers. I am not saying
>> that all act like professionals. Truckers are as human as anyone else.
>> We have to be extensivly trained and tested to operate our vehicles.
>> Car drivers are required to pass a very simple written and driving test
>> and then are set loose upon the nations highways.
>> Part of the solution is more education for car drivers and more
>> extensive training before licenses are issued. Does the average car
>> driver know how long it takes a loaded tractor trailer traveling 55 mph
>> to come to a complete stop? Do you? FYI about 255 feet. That's
>> nearly the length of a football field.
>> What about grandpa who, after never having driven anything larger than
>> his 4 door Buick all of his life, buys himself a 45 foot motorhome and
>> doesn't have to have anything more than a simple car driver's license
>> to drive it?
>> I drive a truck but I am not defending bad truck drivers. And believe
>> me, I know there are some bad ones out there. Nothing ****es me off
>> more than to see a big truck tailgating a car about 2 feet off of their
>> rear bumper. But there are just far more bad car drivers. And it
>> seems that most of them are wannabe NASCAR drivers.
>>
>
> You are correct in all points. What ****es me off is things like the
> report above where the trucker is using the exuse that the car 'slowed
> suddenly and I couldn't stop" That is the purest BS and he is guilty
> of tailgating. People cutting in? No different for trucks than cars,
> someone cuts into my comfort zone (about 3 sec), I back off.
>
> Harry K
>
>

Sometimes you will be backing all the way to the place you just left.
Lookit, the fact is that some damned fools drive 40 mph or slower on
interstates--until they get off the phone or finish the dripping burger,
then suddenly speed up to 90 again. At work you are on a schedule,
right? you have to get that project finished or else? Truckers are on a
schedule too; they can't rest till the load gets delivered (if it
doesn't, you or your boss will be on the horn, screaming about the
whatever it is you need to do YOUR job). It's called "just in time
delivery", it minimizes warehousing needs but puts a helluva strain on
the transportation industry...it doesn't allow for delays to due to
accidents and road construction and icy roads.

You don't like tailgating? Then write your congressman, demand that
truck lane restrictions be lifted. The right lane is used for ingress
and egress, the middle lane of a 3-lane the primary travel lane. When
thru trucks are not permitted to travel in the faster moving outside
"thru traffic lane," they will tailgate to get the 40 mph grannies to
move to the right out of their only legal passing lane--which the
grannies invariably are reluctant to do. To all with eyes and a brain,
it ought to be obvious that such restrictions creates tailgating by less
than perfect truckers. Here's a universal truth: no human is perfect.



--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

In article >, gringo wrote:
> then suddenly speed up to 90 again. At work you are on a schedule,
> right? you have to get that project finished or else? Truckers are on a
> schedule too; they can't rest till the load gets delivered (if it
> doesn't, you or your boss will be on the horn, screaming about the
> whatever it is you need to do YOUR job).

Poor baby, we all have places to be and things to get done, not just you.

> You don't like tailgating? Then write your congressman, demand that
> truck lane restrictions be lifted.

As if the truck lane restrictions are obeyed as it is. The lane
restrictions are there to keep truckers from clogging up the road with
micropassing and pure 'me first **** you' behavior.

> The right lane is used for ingress and egress, the middle lane of a
> 3-lane the primary travel lane.

This is not the case. All lanes are travel lanes. If you want to argue
the point produce some vehicle code to support your argument.

> When
> thru trucks are not permitted to travel in the faster moving outside
> "thru traffic lane," they will tailgate to get the 40 mph grannies to
> move to the right out of their only legal passing lane--which the
> grannies invariably are reluctant to do.

They will tailgate whomever and whenever they want to, not just '40mph
grannies'. I've been in a snow storm in the right lane going as fast as I
could keep traction making almost constant corrections only to have some
trucker up on my bumper. Safe drivers my ass. I've seen truckers tailgate
someone who was several vehicles back from the 'slow' driver as well.

> To all with eyes and a brain,
> it ought to be obvious that such restrictions creates tailgating by less
> than perfect truckers.

The lane restrictions are to reduce congestion by keeping some lanes free
from trucks blocking them.

> Here's a universal truth: no human is perfect.

Yet the truckers here keep acting like they are.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, richard wrote:
>
>
>> Most truck drivers are 10 times more safety conscious than the vast majority
>> of car drivers. They have to be. Their life depends on it. Now if you would
>> apply that same practice, the roads would be a lot safer for all.
>>
>
> While I share the complaints regarding the moron masses behind the wheel
> of motor vehicles, truckers need to accept the facts that there are many
> in their ranks who aren't exactly steller either.
>
> Every one of these trucker threads there are truckers trying to tell me
> to deny the reality I see everytime I drive on a chicago area interstate.
>
> Truckers in the wrong lanes, Truckers tailgating... and I mean tailgating
> as in following a car so close it would be too close for my Mustang with
> it's upgraded brakes, truckers driving in typical a 'me first, f-you'
> manner. I've even watched a trucker pull into an on ramp acceleration
> pass me and a whole line of vehicles in front of me by continuing on the
> shoulder. The trucker and his inability to accelerate then held
> everything up when things cleared. The list goes on.
>
>
>
>

The answer to that is simple: yield to the trucker trying to get on the
freeway. Seriously, do you expect him to come to a complete stop at the
end of the ramp, wait for a split second spacing, then try to accelerate
to freeway speed? Your auto will accelerate 0-60 in a few seconds; a
heavy truck can take four times as long. So which way will the trucker
create the least disruption to traffic flow? Obviously even to you, he
will create less off a ripple in traffic flow if he uses the
acceleration ramp they way it was intended--to get his speed up. Got
news for you and other short sighted 4-wheelers. Trucks are perfectly
in the right, acting properly for the benefit of those who are behind
them on the ramp and those who are 30 seconds down the road when they
force you to yield. The trucker would not have chosen to run up the
shoulder: he did so because neither you nor any of those following you
backed off and let the truck enter the highway. You don't like to share
the road with slow trucks? hell, son, we don't either. If you think
we're a problem now, just wait till the trucks are forcefully slowed
even further. The American Trucking Association has petitoned the FMCSA
to do just that. Wisely, AAA is opposing the new regulation: you should
too.


--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

In article >, gringo wrote:

> The answer to that is simple: yield to the trucker trying to get on the
> freeway.

Me first **** you attitude.

> Seriously, do you expect him to come to a complete stop at the
> end of the ramp, wait for a split second spacing, then try to accelerate
> to freeway speed?

I expect a merging to time a gap like everyone else instead of forcing his
way with might, as he does with everything.

> Your auto will accelerate 0-60 in a few seconds; a
> heavy truck can take four times as long.

Not my problem. Never had a trucker yield when I was driving an
underpowered car. In fact, they've sped up to eliminate a gap I was
aiming for so I couldn't merge.

I never once had a trucker give way for me when I am on a bicycle. I've
had them intentionally nearly kill me a couple of times though.

> So which way will the trucker
> create the least disruption to traffic flow? Obviously even to you, he
> will create less off a ripple in traffic flow if he uses the
> acceleration ramp they way it was intended--to get his speed up.

And time a gap in traffic like everyone else is supposed to.

> Got
> news for you and other short sighted 4-wheelers. Trucks are perfectly
> in the right, acting properly for the benefit of those who are behind
> them on the ramp and those who are 30 seconds down the road when they
> force you to yield.

Or when they decide to force people off the road too in your view I
suppose.

> The trucker would not have chosen to run up the
> shoulder: he did so because neither you nor any of those following you
> backed off and let the truck enter the highway.

The trucker I posted about wasn't entering the interstate. He was in the
right lane of said interstate, moved right into the acceleration lane to
PASS traffic then used the shoulder and forced his way back into traffic
up ahead when a bridge support blocked his progress on the shoulder.

> You don't like to share
> the road with slow trucks? hell, son, we don't either. If you think
> we're a problem now, just wait till the trucks are forcefully slowed
> even further. The American Trucking Association has petitoned the FMCSA
> to do just that. Wisely, AAA is opposing the new regulation: you should
> too.

I oppose subsidizing the trucking industry with my tax dollars and wear
and tear on my vehicle thanks to the damage they do the roads.

Long distance freight should move by rail or air.

Brent P wrote:

> As if the truck lane restrictions are obeyed as it is. The lane
> restrictions are there to keep truckers from clogging up the road with
> micropassing and pure 'me first **** you' behavior.
>

And this is different than your "me first **** you" attitude in what
way?

Giddy Up Gone

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> As if the truck lane restrictions are obeyed as it is. The lane
>> restrictions are there to keep truckers from clogging up the road with
>> micropassing and pure 'me first **** you' behavior.
>>
>
> And this is different than your "me first **** you" attitude in what
> way?

What behavior would that be? I keep right except to pass and don't
micropass.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:37:57 -0600, Brent P wrote:

> I oppose subsidizing the trucking industry with my tax dollars and wear
> and tear on my vehicle thanks to the damage they do the roads.

You're going to subsidize the trucking industry one way or another because
you can't live without us and we aren't going to take a pay cut. Raise
taxes to pay for that wear and tear, and we'll either get reimbursed by
the warehouses or go find other jobs that pay better. The warehouses in
turn will pass this new expense on to consumers, meaning you.

Your only alternative would be to do without us. Hope you enjoy fighting
for survival with a few hundred million other starving people while the
economy collapses around your ears. If you survive that, you won't have to
worry about the damage the roads do to your car because you'll be riding a
horse. Then even as you eat the food they bring to town, you can whine
about the damage those big ol' freight wagons do to your precious little
dirt road.

In article >, arachnid wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:37:57 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> I oppose subsidizing the trucking industry with my tax dollars and wear
>> and tear on my vehicle thanks to the damage they do the roads.
>
> You're going to subsidize the trucking industry one way or another because
> you can't live without us and we aren't going to take a pay cut.

Once the government gets the SPP going your wages are going to fall.

> Raise
> taxes to pay for that wear and tear, and we'll either get reimbursed by
> the warehouses or go find other jobs that pay better. The warehouses in
> turn will pass this new expense on to consumers, meaning you.

Fine by me. I pay a lot more in taxes than stuff I buy. Less taxes is a
net benefit to me.

> Your only alternative would be to do without us. Hope you enjoy fighting
> for survival with a few hundred million other starving people while the
> economy collapses around your ears.

The economy won't collaspe if truckers have to pay their way. You'll just
have to compete with other forms on a even basis.

> If you survive that, you won't have to
> worry about the damage the roads do to your car because you'll be riding a
> horse. Then even as you eat the food they bring to town, you can whine
> about the damage those big ol' freight wagons do to your precious little
> dirt road.

Horses are more expensive than cars and slower than my bicycle.

However trucker, since you have such an inflated view of your importance,
without my kind, you wouldn't have a truck, a road, a bridge, or even
products to haul.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, wrote:
> >
> >
> > And this is different than your "me first **** you" attitude in what
> > way?
>
> What behavior would that be? I keep right except to pass and don't
> micropass.

Your a walking talking example of the Animal House line, "some animals
are more
equal then others", you figure your more equal then they are.
They can't go as fast as you therefore they have no right to pass
someone going slower then they are, because they can't do it
as fast as you can. That would be the "me first **** you attitude"
And yet in another post you bitch about one being 3 inches off your
back bumper,
obviously he wanted to go faster than you did.
Common sense says move over and get out of the way of the 80,000 pound
truck, regardless
of whose right or wrong, because the 80,000 pound truck will squash you
like
a bug if something goes wrong (this is where your going to tell us how
much more of a superior driver
you are than he was, and your vehciel was soo much faster and more
manuverable than he and how that could never happen to you) Some how I
dont think moving over is what you did
But like the old sage Will Rogers said
"The problem with common sense is it t'aint common t'all"


Giddy Up Gone