Seat Belts: What's the Problem?

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>I agree with you that John Corzine is a human being and

>deserves our sympathy and wishes for a speedy recovery.

>However, that being said,

 

It was never said to begin with. That is why I added it.

 

>one's sympathy is tempered by the

>fact that he took an unnecessary risk with his safety and

>suffered the consequences.

 

I guess dispensing sympathy, and allowing to do so at certain "levels" due to an action, is a matter of perception and upbringing I guess. My initial sympathy of hearing he suffered awful injuries is not lowered because he broke a law. I allow the courts to judge him. I allow myself to have sympathy unfettered.

 

I also hope they find the person that hit Governor Corzine and charge him/her appropriately. Many crimes occurred at that accident. The accident wasn't caused by Governor Corzine. His injuries, however, are what they are due to his lack of seatbelt. However, my sympathy level doesn't drop 35% because of that.

 

>The cases that elicit my unreserved sympathy are those

>innocent victims such as the victims of drunk drivers who have

>no business being on the road.

 

I totally agree, though totally different from this accident.

 

>Or someone such as that woman

>who was killed in a rear-end collision by that singer in her

>SUV who was not paying attention. These victims have

>absolutely no responsibility for their fate other than being

>in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that could happen to

>any of us.

 

An excellent definition of life.

[Luv2play]

>

>I guess dispensing sympathy, and allowing to do so at certain

>"levels" due to an action, is a matter of perception and

>upbringing I guess. My initial sympathy of hearing he

>suffered awful injuries is not lowered because he broke a law.

> I allow the courts to judge him. I allow myself to have

>sympathy unfettered.

 

I didn't say I had less sympathy for him because he broke the law but rather that he put himself at unnecessary risk. I think there are many cases where people feel that when someone does something foolish and suffers an ill consequence, they will think "well, they left themselves open to that".

>

>I also hope they find the person that hit Governor Corzine and

>charge him/her appropriately. Many crimes occurred at that

>accident. The accident wasn't caused by Governor Corzine.

>His injuries, however, are what they are due to his lack of

>seatbelt.

 

I understand that they found the red truck and the driver had not realized he had caused an accident. He had apparently overcorrected after his right tires left the road. The white truck beside him swerved in an evasive action and hit Corzine's SUV, which then lost control. No-one other than Corzine is going to be charged with any crime.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>I understand that they found the red truck and the driver had

>not realized he had caused an accident. He had apparently

>overcorrected after his right tires left the road. The white

>truck beside him swerved in an evasive action and hit

>Corzine's SUV, which then lost control. No-one other than

>Corzine is going to be charged with any crime.

 

I didn't know all of this. Thanks for the info (sometimes this message center IS better than CNN! ). Do they know why the tires left the road (driving while sleepy, etc.) or was it just a fluke thing?

[Luv2play]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

The New York Times reports today that the Governor's car had its emergency lights on when the accident happened. It is also rumoured that the vehicle was travelling at speeds up to 90mph, apparently in the rush to get to the meeting with Don Imus.

 

In the initial press conference, the authorities responded to a question about how fast the car was going and responded "at normal speeds". This now appears it could be a cover-up. Now that it has emerged that the emergency lights were on, questions are being asked what the protocol is for using the lights.

 

It should be easy to determine what speed the car was going when the accident happened as I understand there are now "black boxes" that record this type of info. I'm not an expert but I've read of other cases where this info was presented in court to determine if reckless driving was involved.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>The New York Times reports today that the Governor's car had

>its emergency lights on when the accident happened. It is also

>rumoured that the vehicle was travelling at speeds up to

>90mph, apparently in the rush to get to the meeting with Don

>Imus.

 

 

No one knows how fast he was going. And his car didn't have a black box (nor did it have wings or a flight attendant). I am sure many people who dislike this Governor will make this his complete and total fault (with the assistance of rumors).

 

From AP.....

 

"State Police Col. Joseph Fuentes said a small red truck that had been driving erratically, narrowly missed hitting a berm that was along the shoulder of the road, and cut left into the path of a white truck that had been driving just ahead of the governor's motorcade. The driver of the governor's vehicle, Trooper Rasinski tried to avoid the white truck that had been cut off and in the process spun the governor's vehicle into a guardrail and smashing the entire passenger side of the vehicle including the front windshield."

 

Driving erratically? It sounds like this driver, who is an employee at an Atlantic City Casino, wasn't driving carefully. His actions started the chain of events that caused this accident. And how do you not know you caused an accident that occurs seconds after you are done swerving?

 

According to NJ law the Governor's seatbelt should have been on. However, the dynamics of this accident seemed like they would have caused serious injury regardless if the seatbelt was on or not. A seatbelt can't protect you if a dashboard rams into you chest.

[Luv2play]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>No one knows how fast he was going. And his car didn't have a

>black box (nor did it have wings or a flight attendant).

 

You might laugh but I don't know where you get your info. Even downmarket cars like the Pontiac Sunboird have black boxes which record certain data that can be used in an accident investigation. There was a case here several years ago where the driver maintained he was driving his Sunbird within the limits in the city 30mph zone and the black box revealed that he was driving in excess of 60mph when he collided with another car. The case stands out in my mind because the court admitted the blackbox evidence, the first time this had happened in our jurisdiction.

>

>From AP.....

>

>"State Police Col. Joseph Fuentes said a small red truck that

>had been driving erratically, narrowly missed hitting a berm

>that was along the shoulder of the road, and cut left into the

>path of a white truck that had been driving just ahead of the

>governor's motorcade. The driver of the governor's vehicle,

>Trooper Rasinski tried to avoid the white truck that had been

>cut off and in the process spun the governor's vehicle into a

>guardrail and smashing the entire passenger side of the

>vehicle including the front windshield."

>

>Driving erratically? It sounds like this driver, who is an

>employee at an Atlantic City Casino, wasn't driving carefully.

 

This was the initial report but it was subsequently amended when they found the driver of the red truck. As I said earlier, he had a rational explanation of what happened to him and he faces no charges.

 

 

> His actions started the chain of events that caused this

>accident. And how do you not know you caused an accident that

>occurs seconds after you are done swerving?

 

He did not hit anyone and the accident happened behind him. He had struggled to get his truck under control and was not looking in the rearview mirror. Many accidents are caused because the person following is too close, especially when they are speeding. If you are behind another car and cannot stop or avoid him it means you are too close. You are supposed to leave enought room (two car lengths at 60mph) to take evasive action. The Governor's driver was too close obviously or he could have taken evasive action too.

[KMEM]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

Accidents are almost always a subject for remorse, regardless of the character of the persons involved. Fault is always a judgement call.

 

However, I do wish to comment upon a technical aspect of these posts. I think the rule of thumb is to remain 1 car length per 10 miles per hour behind a car that you are following. I know that seems entirely silly and entirely impossible with today's roads and traffic but anything less will not guarantee room to stop or avoid problems that develop in front of you. 120 feet behind another car also doing 60 MPH is the distance that will work. What you do about the car or cars that jump into the intervening space is unknown to this author.

 

Sorry to over explain this point.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>You might laugh but I don't know where you get your info.

 

The Internet and the "voices" I hear.

 

>when they found the driver of the red truck. As I said

>earlier, he had a rational explanation of what happened to him

>and he faces no charges.

 

What was his explanation? A deer? Carol Channing?

 

>He did not hit anyone and the accident happened behind him.

 

I know he didn't hit anyone. I didn't say he did. His actions caused the accident. My car comes with mirrors that allow me to see what happens behind me. I am sure his car was also equipped with such mirrors and, I am sure, he saw the accident happen as it wasn't a little fender bender.

 

Well, this is why they are called "accidents" and not "purposes". Hopefully the Governor will fully recover, pay his fine, remind people to buckle-up and remind people not to leave the scene of accidents they cause.

[Luv2play]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

I was probably too conservative in stating two car lengths at 60mph, probably four is ideal but then when you leave that much space people will inevitably jump in during busy traffic conditions. I just hate it when someone sits on my bumper when I am doing 60. Especially when it's a Mack truck!

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

http://www.idrivesafely.com/

[Guest backbaygayguy]

As to why he wasn't wearing a seat belt (regardless of whether the driver suggested or told him to), one article (perhaps the Times) pointed out that Corzine is known to be headstrong -- definitely a person who likes to be in charge and does not take suggestions easily. As a very wealthy individual and former head of Goldman, Sachs, Corzine is used to being in charge.

 

Also, strikes me that this kind of man would be sitting in the front seat with the driver -- not the back seat with his assistant. Maybe he had unbuckled to turn around to plan the next meeting with her?

 

Accounts so far (and a map in the Times) seems to indicate a real accident, not anyone's fault but a series of reactions. Even with all the broken bones, Corzine is fortunate not to have had worse injuries (unless we haven't been told about all of them) and seemingly will fully recover.

[Luv2play]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>

>I know he didn't hit anyone. I didn't say he did.

 

Yes you did. Look at one of your previous posts. You said "I hope they catch the person who hit Corzine and charge him".

 

> I am sure, he saw the

>accident happen as it wasn't a little fender bender.

 

How can you be so sure when you weren't there. People don't drive looking in their rearview mirrors at all times. In this case he was trying to regain control of his truck and he was in the first lane. Corzine was in the outside lane coming up from behind and a white truck was between the two. It is quite possible the red truck driver never saw the Corzine SUV approaching, especially if it is established the Governor was going 90mph.

>

[KMEM]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

To additionally over explain this point: At 60 MPH one is traveling at 88 feet per second. If one is maintaining 120 feet behind the car ahead a one second interval of inattention will use up half the distance; two seconds will result in a collision.

 

I certainly am aware of modern driving habits. Open up a 120 feet gap between you and the car ahead and 3 cars will fill it. That is why bazooka's should be optional equipment on modern cars. LOL.

 

Best regards,

 

KMEM

[KMEM]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

To additionally over explain this point: At 60 MPH one is traveling at 88 feet per second. If one is maintaining 120 feet behind the car ahead a one second interval of inattention will use up half the distance; two seconds will result in a collision.

 

I certainly am aware of modern driving habits. Open up a 120 feet gap between you and the car ahead and 3 cars will fill it. That is why bazooka's should be optional equipment on modern cars. LOL.

 

Best regards,

 

KMEM

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>Yes you did. Look at one of your previous posts. You said "I

>hope they catch the person who hit Corzine and charge him".

 

So many words ... gobble gobble gobble!

 

 

>How can you be so sure when you weren't there.

 

How can YOU be so sure when you weren't there EITHER.

 

>People don't

>drive looking in their rearview mirrors at all times. In this

>case he was trying to regain control of his truck and he was

>in the first lane.

 

Why did he not have control in the first place?

 

I tend to look in my rear-view mirror when I see flashing lights in my peripheral vision and I need to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. I also look in my rear-view mirror when I see cars go off the road and merge in a twisted mess of metal.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>Yes you did. Look at one of your previous posts. You said "I

>hope they catch the person who hit Corzine and charge him".

 

So many words ... gobble gobble gobble!

 

 

>How can you be so sure when you weren't there.

 

How can YOU be so sure when you weren't there EITHER.

 

>People don't

>drive looking in their rearview mirrors at all times. In this

>case he was trying to regain control of his truck and he was

>in the first lane.

 

Why did he not have control in the first place?

 

I tend to look in my rear-view mirror when I see flashing lights in my peripheral vision and I need to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. I also look in my rear-view mirror when I see cars go off the road and merge in a twisted mess of metal.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

backbaygayguy,

 

You nicely stated the facts about the Governor, his personality type and the fact he was without seatbelt WITHOUT insulting him and you cared for the human side of this story which is his injuries. I hope other people in this thread follow your model of writing when another politician makes a poor choice and incurs physical injury.

[+ Hoover42]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>No one knows how fast he was going.

 

It was just reported on a local Washington DC NBC television station that the state trooper was driving the governor's SUV at 91 mph when it crashed.

 

I'm amazed that anyone survived that, especially anyone not wearing seat belts.

 

...Hoover

[Luv2play]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

The New York Times is confirming that the Governor's SUV was driving at 91mph 5 seconds before the crash. It was going 30mph at the point of impact. This would suggest the driver applied maximum braking power but it was not sufficient to avoid a crash. The speed at point of impact would also explain why the airbags did not deploy as some other poster has said that the speed has to be 35mph at least.

 

As I stated in a post yesterday, these speeds were no doubt recorded in the black box that is in all modern cars and provides indisputable evidence in accident cases. The New Jersey police are not contesting these facts. The interesting thing will be whether the state trooper is charged with reckless driving.

 

What was the emergency? A meeting with Don Imus? Give me a break!!! To put people's lives at risk so some self-important government official can keep his appointments is inexcusable.

 

Another point which the NYTimes made is that at these speeds, the governor's SUV would have been travelling the length of a football field in 2 seconds so he would have come out of nowhere when the red truck was struggling to regain control and the white truck was taking evasive action.

 

CONCLUSION: The accident was just looking for a place to happen. 91mph on a freeway is no joke, it's reckless endangerment of life and the responsible parties should be charged.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>CONCLUSION: The accident was just looking for a place to

>happen. 91mph on a freeway is no joke, it's reckless

>endangerment of life and the responsible parties should be

>charged.

 

It is no joke indeed. The Governor, as of this evening's 5PM news, still can't breathe on his own and he has a feeding tube. Once he can breathe and eat on his own he should be impeached immediately.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>It was just reported on a local Washington DC NBC television

>station that the state trooper was driving the governor's SUV

>at 91 mph when it crashed.

 

He better get a ticket.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>CONCLUSION: The accident was just looking for a place to

>happen. 91mph on a freeway is no joke, it's reckless

>endangerment of life and the responsible parties should be

>charged.

 

 

No, no - you're just being silly. I told you yesterday, rules and speed limits are just for the likes of us little people. The mucky-mucks don't have to follow them if they don't want to.

 

Will you ever get it straight !!!!!!!

[Luv2play]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

A newly published report indicates the red truck was trying to avoid the Governor's SUV which is why he temporarily lost control and hit the grassy verge before overcorrecting. The fact that it has also been established the agent was driving at 91mph when the red truck lost control would indicate the SUV was directly responsible for causing the accident driving at a speed 26mph above the limit. That should be sufficient to merit not just a ticket but criminal charges, reckless endangerment. Oh yes, and impeachment too, if you insist. :7

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

>A newly published report indicates the red truck was trying

>to avoid the Governor's SUV which is why he temporarily lost

>control and hit the grassy verge before overcorrecting. The

>fact that it has also been established the agent was driving

>at 91mph when the red truck lost control would indicate the

>SUV was directly responsible for causing the accident driving

>at a speed 26mph above the limit. That should be sufficient to

>merit not just a ticket but criminal charges, reckless

>endangerment. Oh yes, and impeachment too, if you insist. :7

 

Impeach the driver? He is not the Governor. The driver should indeed face the appropriate charges.

 

I think impeachment is too light for the Governor. Once he is done flirting with death and can breathe, eat and walk on his own his citizenship should be revoked and sent to Germany where they like to drive fast. Since he is a political figure people assume he gained the status of a deity and is not capable of human error. If he indeed did not wear his seatbelt then he deserves a ticket. Since he is a governor he is being judged differently ... very differently from a "commoner". Custodian at the National Monument, Governor of NJ, President of the United States ..... all three individuals are human. However, it seems the Governor's DNA changed once the election was over and he is being held to a different standard.

 

So, after he hopefully survives and retains his LIFE then, by all means, gather your pitchforks girls and get the ogre.

[Guest PWIT]

RE: Seat Belts: New Facts Emerge

 

Maybe seat belts is a moot point in this incident. If the guardrail came up through the floorboard as is now reported, he would have still been impaled upon it. Granted if he had a seatbelt on, there would be less force in the sense of him moving forward into the guardrail. Still, there would have been no way of escaping the path of the guardrail as it came through the floorboard.

 

Yes, as the head state government official he should have been wearing his seatbelt. But in this case, he would not have walked away with or without it.