View Full Version : CHP Officer hit by car on 87
NetKila
11-29-2007, 07:22 PM
What is up with CHP officers getting injured these past few days? :wtf Glad the officer is alright and the driver was arrested.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7589439
kgklutz
11-29-2007, 07:45 PM
.. The man driving the Ford Ranger was arrested for driving on a suspended license!
Butch
11-29-2007, 07:49 PM
were they talking on a cel phone? Or drinking a latte? grrrrr.....
Watch yourselves out on the roads, people! The holiday season seems to make people more inattentive and twice as bad a driver as normal.
RolnCode3
11-29-2007, 09:28 PM
What a jackass. Thank God the officer is OK.
-Baker-
11-29-2007, 11:49 PM
VIDEO----
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=5791683
BTW It almost looks as though the CHP squad car didn't have its upper lights on....??? Talk about lucky....
Looking back here in the last couple of weeks CHP has had a few accidents with rookies Officer Miller lost his life http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=5767882 and now this on 87.... I need to call my Officer friends and tell them I am honored to have them as a friend because you never know. Be safe everyone ....watch for them cagers on cell phones!!!!
Mortifer
11-29-2007, 11:54 PM
I drove past that at 730. the freeway was closed and they were loading up 2 cars. but a few cars still came up the capitol on-ramp right onto the crash scene right in front of some unhappy officers, they were stopped immediately.:mad
Hope the officer heals up quick, sad he got hit by a careless cager.:(
-Baker-
11-30-2007, 12:06 AM
Hope the officer heals up quick, sad he got hit by a careless cager.:(
CORRECTION:
sad he got hit by a careless cager WITHOUT A LICENSE and likely on a CELL PHONE
He, the Officer, is fine. He'll take a couple of days off the road and get back when he can. That's about as close to getting your ticket punched as it gets.
Everyone, (riders, LEO's, cages, peds) everyone needs to be safe this holiday season.
silverbelt
11-30-2007, 11:24 AM
Close call. Glad to hear he is alright.
masameet
11-30-2007, 01:26 PM
He, the Officer, is fine. He'll take a couple of days off the road and get back when he can. That's about as close to getting your ticket punched as it gets.
Everyone, (riders, LEO's, cages, peds) everyone needs to be safe this holiday season.
Good to read that he just got banged up some and no broken bones or worse.
And yup. As riders we gotta be defensive drivers all the time.
A good thread to give out this reminder of the law that went into effect on the first of this year. And yes, I cite for it!
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21809.htm
Stationary Emergency Vehicle or Tow Truck
21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency lights, or a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber warning lights, shall approach with due caution and, before passing in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck, absent any other direction by a peace officer, proceed to do one of the following:
(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions.
(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is an infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50).
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2010, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2010, deletes or extends that date.
Added Sec. 2, Ch. 375, Stats. 2006. Effective January 1, 2007.
CHICKenstrip
11-30-2007, 01:43 PM
(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is an infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50).
:( $50?! It's good they enacted the law, but hopefully, they will make the penalty more stringent on reenactment in 2010.
I'd still also like to see a stipulation of things like talking on a cell phone at the time of an accident or commission of an infraction doubling or tripling the fine...such as higher fines in construction zones.
Glad to hear the officer will be okay.
Watching the video, I was stunned. Crazy. He made a rookie mistake, and it almost cost him completely.
Dumbass in the truck. I don't care if he was on the cell phone, drinking a *$s, shaving, or had his hands at 10 & 2 (which should really be 9 & 3, btw). It's apparent that his head was stuck completely up his ass.
VERY glad to hear the LEO will be OK. I guarantee he'll be more cautious in the future.
Papi-C
11-30-2007, 03:17 PM
.. The man driving the Ford Ranger was arrested for driving on a suspended license!
Ford ranger? Shit I'm shocked he had a license!
Did they tase him? Should have.
Watching the video, I was stunned. Crazy. He made a rookie mistake, and it almost cost him completely.
Dumbass in the truck. I don't care if he was on the cell phone, drinking a *$s, shaving, or had his hands at 10 & 2 (which should really be 9 & 3, btw). It's apparent that his head was stuck completely up his ass.
VERY glad to hear the LEO will be OK. I guarantee he'll be more cautious in the future.
Why do you think that the Officer made a mistake?
Did they tase him? Should have.
We don't have Tazers.
Junkie
12-01-2007, 11:58 AM
:( $50?! It's good they enacted the law, but hopefully, they will make the penalty more stringent on reenactment in 2010.
I'd still also like to see a stipulation of things like talking on a cell phone at the time of an accident or commission of an infraction doubling or tripling the fine...such as higher fines in construction zones.
Glad to hear the officer will be okay.it's a point, which will matter more to most people than the money.
and I didn't realize that CA had a move-over law now... I wonder what the courts will decide is reasonable and prudent.
Razel
12-02-2007, 11:15 AM
...and I didn't realize that CA had a move-over law now... I wonder what the courts will decide is reasonable and prudent.
Usually interpreted as officer descretion...or as soon as a reasonable driver sees the flashing lights.
It's called the Slow Down / Move over law. As soon as someone observes the flashing emergency lights, (ambulance, fire), or flashing tow truck lights, the driver SHALL move over one lane, or slow down to a safe speed.
I've been stopped at scenes, waiting for them to clear, when some asshat rockets by us....
If it's safe, and I can, I'll stop that person and give them a nice fat ticket.
Why do you think that the Officer made a mistake?
It looked to me like he exposed himself to danger by placing his vehicle, and therefore himself farther into potential traffic than *looked* necessary for the event. Now, there may have been a good reason, but I don't know what that was. The LEOs I've met have told me they always tried to keep as clear of potential traffic as possible.
Still, exposing himself - as it appeared to me - is NEVER an excuse for asshattery behind the wheel of a car.
It looked to me like he exposed himself to danger by placing his vehicle, and therefore himself farther into potential traffic than *looked* necessary for the event. Now, there may have been a good reason, but I don't know what that was. The LEOs I've met have told me they always tried to keep as clear of potential traffic as possible.
To quote you: "Now, there may have been a good reason, but I don't know what it was." That's right, you don't.
What you don't see is this: There is a flare pattern, a closed ramp, and traffic cones closing off the lane. The officer was parked in a CLOSED area, providing protection for the others (Fire, tow trucks, and LEO's).
The officer was reaching into the patrol vehicle to change the light bar pattern from "all on" to "lane closed". In order to do this, one must reach in and hit a button in the center of the dash.
The vehicle that struck the patrol car, was being driven by an unlicensed driver. (Actually, suspended driving status) The driver crossed the flare pattern, the cone pattern, and was driving in a closed lane having no regard for the safety of anyone.
If you don't know the details, I would suggest that you ask first, then post comments.
To quote you: "Now, there may have been a good reason, but I don't know what it was." That's right, you don't.
What you don't see is this: There is a flare pattern, a closed ramp, and traffic cones closing off the lane. The officer was parked in a CLOSED area, providing protection for the others (Fire, tow trucks, and LEO's).
The officer was reaching into the patrol vehicle to change the light bar pattern from "all on" to "lane closed". In order to do this, one must reach in and hit a button in the center of the dash.
The vehicle that struck the patrol car, was being driven by an unlicensed driver. (Actually, suspended driving status) The driver crossed the flare pattern, the cone pattern, and was driving in a closed lane having no regard for the safety of anyone.
If you don't know the details, I would suggest that you ask first, then post comments.
<dick mode>
From how it looked in the video, the area was obviously NOT closed or offering protection. Flare pattern, cones, or not, there was obvious vehicular access to that lane. It's been my experience that the ONLY thing that will prohibit idiots, licensed or not, from entering an area is concrete, at least 2 feet high.
And if he had to hit a button on the center of the dash, could he not have done it from the passenger side of the car, reducing his exposure to risk?
The person who struck the officer is completely irrelevant from this part of the discussion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the person was a completely licensed driver who was paying attention. Because of some hazard in the roadway, their right front tire blew out at 50 mph, instantaneously pulling the car into contact with the police vehicle. Had the officer been on the other side of the car, he would not have been directly struck by the other vehicle.
I've NEVER assumed that anyone besides ME had any responsibility whatsoever for my immediate safety, regardless of traffic lanes or lights or otherwise. My deduction is that the LEO will take the same outlook from here on out.
</dick mode>
I'm not trying to show a lack of respect for the officer. On the contrary. I didn't call him anything derogatory. I said he made a mistake. Compounded with the complete lack of attentiveness and irresponsibility by the driver of the pickup, it is very lucky that the officer was not seriously injured.
<dick mode>
From how it looked in the video, the area was obviously NOT closed or offering protection. Flare pattern, cones, or not, there was obvious vehicular access to that lane. It's been my experience that the ONLY thing that will prohibit idiots, licensed or not, from entering an area is concrete, at least 2 feet high.
And if he had to hit a button on the center of the dash, could he not have done it from the passenger side of the car, reducing his exposure to risk?
The person who struck the officer is completely irrelevant from this part of the discussion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the person was a completely licensed driver who was paying attention. Because of some hazard in the roadway, their right front tire blew out at 50 mph, instantaneously pulling the car into contact with the police vehicle. Had the officer been on the other side of the car, he would not have been directly struck by the other vehicle.
I've NEVER assumed that anyone besides ME had any responsibility whatsoever for my immediate safety, regardless of traffic lanes or lights or otherwise. My deduction is that the LEO will take the same outlook from here on out..
Video of scene: Was only a snap shot of that area. The closure was half a mile.
Concrete barrier? Yeah, that won't happen at a crash scene.
From the passenger side? We don't like having our back to traffic, and we try to have an escape route. The tow truck would have prevented that.
Licensed driver: would not normally cross a flare patter, cone pattern, and drive in the closed lane.
Video of scene: Was only a snap shot of that area. The closure was half a mile.
Concrete barrier? Yeah, that won't happen at a crash scene.
From the passenger side? We don't like having our back to traffic, and we try to have an escape route. The tow truck would have prevented that.
Licensed driver: would not normally cross a flare pattern, cone pattern, and drive in the closed lane.
I understand all of that. My example of the blowout was simply to show that the situation could have taken place even with a civilian driver who wasn't a complete fuktard.
The concrete barrier comment was to make a point about how clueless/careless people are.
Please understand that I'm in no way trying to absolve any of the guilt on the part of the truck driver. When my wife called me that morning and said, you might want to delay your departure, a police officer got hit while @ an accident scene on 87 and they're diverting traffic..., my first thought was "what kind fvking idiot runs into a cop?!?!"
Honestly, I wish they (you too, if you're a LEO as well) could crack down on people who drive like morons and that the Licensing requirements for MV operation in the state, and country were far more stringent. Still, that doesn't really help us from the lawless :(
Honestly, I wish they (you too, if you're a LEO as well) could crack down on people who drive like morons and that the Licensing requirements for MV operation in the state, and country were far more stringent. Still, that doesn't really help us from the lawless :(
We do what we can do, but you can do more by passing laws that give LEO's more power to get, and keep, unlicensed drivers off of the road.
Manimal
12-03-2007, 09:39 AM
Glad to read that the officer is okay :angel
:thumbup about the move-over law. Fwiw, to me, it's common sense, and I have always moved a lane over or reduced speed when approaching the scenerio.
Wish all you LEO's a safe Holiday.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.