Slow Driver at Fault?

[rustled]

^^^ I understand what you're saying, and yes there certainly are times where we need to cut some slack, but one of the places I've noted this is bridge hill, where it was far worse when it was just two lanes, but I'd driven it enough to observe that it was often the same, or same type of trucks.

I simply felt that given how steep the hill is, and the fact that they drove it repeatedly, the lights should have gone off and clued them in. It's not like they'd have built up much momentum coming off the bridge.

That's a weird one, isn't it. Nobody knows who's doing 60 because they are trying to be law abiding, and who's doing it because they can't push it any faster! But again, I'd just point out that we don't know what's under the hood or in the trailer. "Same type" doesn't mean same engine, same tuning, same load weight.

At any rate, I just wanted to point out it's hardly appropriate to fine semis for being slow on Larson.

Not sure how I feel about fining the camper. Guess it depends on when the driver pulled into the left lane (that is, whether or not she pulled into the left lane when it was obviously unsafe to do so)?

I get that the suburban was speeding, but when someone's coming up hell-bent for leather on my tail, I sure wouldn't pull into the left lane ahead of them. But I do know drivers who would claim it's their right to do so. IF that's what happened here, the judgement made sense.

[goatboy]

I think it's reasonable to say that in the totality of the situation, her slow speed in the far left hand lane warrants 10% of the blame. Of course in the world of ICBC, 10% of the blame equates to the exact same increase in your insurance as 100% of the blame would so the only winner here is ICBC. Two parties will now see their premiums possibly increase.

[FreeRights]

^^^ I understand what you're saying, and yes there certainly are times where we need to cut some slack, but one of the places I've noted this is bridge hill, where it was far worse when it was just two lanes, but I'd driven it enough to observe that it was often the same, or same type of trucks.

I simply felt that given how steep the hill is, and the fact that they drove it repeatedly, the lights should have gone off and clued them in. It's not like they'd have built up much momentum coming off the bridge.

Alleged lack of professionalism, though, doesn't mean what they did is illegal or in any way negligent.

[LoneWolf_53]

Obstructing traffic is an issue, and a courteous professional would err on the side of caution, and not just hope he can pass a second slow rig.

I noted that one of the trucks was a chip truck. I swear it seems those rigs are in more accidents than any other vehicle type in BC.

Might be time they look into actually running motors big enough to move those chip trains at a reasonable speed, or better yet unhook one of the trailers. Give them a bigger motor and we'll just have twice as many chip trucks laying on their side up by 8 mile ranch. LOL

[rustled]

Obstructing traffic is an issue, and a courteous professional would err on the side of caution, and not just hope he can pass a second slow rig.

I noted that one of the trucks was a chip truck. I swear it seems those rigs are in more accidents than any other vehicle type in BC.

Might be time they look into actually running motors big enough to move those chip trains at a reasonable speed, or better yet unhook one of the trailers. Give them a bigger motor and we'll just have twice as many chip trucks laying on their side up by 8 mile ranch. LOL

It's difficult to understand why you would consider it obstructing traffic when there was a third lane available? And again, I think if you did a ride-along in a fully loaded truck (maybe through Kelowna traffic and then over the Coq?), you'd come away with a much better understanding of the realities these drivers must deal with all day, every day.

[Hassel99]

I think it's reasonable to say that in the totality of the situation, her slow speed in the far left hand lane warrants 10% of the blame. Of course in the world of ICBC, 10% of the blame equates to the exact same increase in your insurance as 100% of the blame would so the only winner here is ICBC. Two parties will now see their premiums possibly increase.

icbc is gong to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions on this accident and you think the few extra hundred dollars a year they will recive from two negligent parties makes them the "winner?"

[Smurf]

Actually in the end we are all loosers. This is the kind of thing that causes premium increases.

[LoneWolf_53]

It's difficult to understand why you would consider it obstructing traffic when there was a third lane available?

Sorry I wasn't clear enough there, but that was a response to the previous poster, not this specific accident. :)

[rustled]

^^Oops! My apologies.

[goatboy]

icbc is gong to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions on this accident and you think the few extra hundred dollars a year they will recive from two negligent parties makes them the "winner?"

Yes, good point, not really what I was trying to say.

[I Think]

The judge called her a timid driver,

The judge is off his rocker. The speed limit is not the recommended speed, it is the maximum speed allowed under good driving conditions. Driving a loaded semi is a different ball of wax than driving a car, if a semi is forced to slow down on a hill, the driver will have to shift to a lower gear and may not be able to get back into a higher gear, this may mean as much as 30 mins longer on the hill, causing more traffic interference than passing the slower truck. Perhaps the camper was not the sharpest knife, but was completely legal, tho' you do see some boobs driving camper trucks.

[MattJ]

The RV should have stayed in the middle lane until the semi completed his pass. Then that one completed his pass, he would then get into the far right lane, and the RV could then pass in the middle lane. This would have kept the far left lane clear for people who can actually do 120. Instead, he chose to try to drag race both of them, and block everybody, following the typical "ME FIRST" rule most people seem to practice on the roads. Darn right he should be held accountable. There are two right lanes for slower traffic, and absolutely no reason for him to have been in the left lane.

[Always Sunny]

The rules of the road aren't exactly black and white.

Sometimes it comes down to wrong...wronger...wrongest...

Case and point. Simply because someone isn't the obvious cause/issue doesn't mean their actions are correct.

[Dizzy1]

The judge is off his rocker. The speed limit is not the recommended speed, it is the maximum speed allowed under good driving conditions. Driving a loaded semi is a different ball of wax than driving a car, if a semi is forced to slow down on a hill, the driver will have to shift to a lower gear and may not be able to get back into a higher gear, this may mean as much as 30 mins longer on the hill, causing more traffic interference than passing the slower truck. Perhaps the camper was not the sharpest knife, but was completely legal, tho' you do see some boobs driving camper trucks.

The camper wasn't driving a semi. Just because the maximum limit is "recommended" doesn't mean you can drive in the left lane at a speed considerably less than the "recommended" speed especially if there are 3 lanes of traffic. This is where defensive driving comes into play - if 2 lanes of traffic are moving slowly and you are travelling slowly as well - moving into the left lane to hold up the traffic that has every right to pass you at the "recommended" speed is simply a boneheaded move and illegal in almost every country I've ever driven in.

Also, I accidentally gave you a like for your post - trying to fix it. Sorry.

[Dizzy1]

The RV should have stayed in the middle lane until the semi completed his pass. Then that one completed his pass, he would then get into the far right lane, and the RV could then pass in the middle lane. This would have kept the far left lane clear for people who can actually do 120. Instead, he chose to try to drag race both of them, and block everybody, following the typical "ME FIRST" rule most people seem to practice on the roads. Darn right he should be held accountable. There are two right lanes for slower traffic, and absolutely no reason for him to have been in the left lane.

The "me first" attitude seems to be fine and dandy for some on these boards as long as you aren't driving more than the speed limit.