After the initial shock and grief of loosing one of their own, about now would be a good time for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to remind us how dangerous it is to attempt a turnaround on an interstate highway, and that even the most experienced can make mistakes.
"The family of an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper killed in an accident Sunday says he died while trying to turn around on the Will Rogers Turnpike. Trooper William McClendon's family says he was headed for an emergency call when he was notified the call was canceled. His sister-in-law says McClendon was trying to turn around through a concrete barrier opening when his vehicle collided with the semi. McClendon died at the scene."
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=112035
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2006/061002_A1_Accid398_a1crash24.jpg)
Despite the trooper's family being briefed on the details, the accident investigation remains open in the hopes that someone may come forward with another story. Little has been said about the truck driver also killed in the tragedy, other than being blamed for not wearing a seatbelt.
Out of the three or four photos published in the TW yesterday, I didn't see the patrol car anywhere in the photos. No one has said so far that I've heard where it landed. That looks like a bumper from it near the guard rail...sheesh that must have been awful to have to work the wreck of a fallen comrade.
Looks like it's on the side of the road, below the tow truck in the picture.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2006/061002_A1_Accid398_a1crash2.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I didn't see the patrol car anywhere in the photos.
Under the truck.
(http://www.officer.com/article/photos/1159801733243_trooperlodd2.jpg)
Officially, state police aren't saying or aren't sure what caused the accident, although the U-turn theory seems to have a lot of legs.
Makes me think the cop didn't see the truck because of a blind spot in the car, or he just didn't look behind thoroughly enough.
I'm guessing under the blue tarp. What a tragedy.
My daughter drove up on the wreck just after it happened and his siren was still blaring although somewhat muffled. Lots of people stopping, on cell phones and trying to pull him out of his car. She didn't stop as she had her 7-year old son with her. She was sure he didn't survive.
Did your daughter call the OHP, Downtowner? The state police have been begging for witnesses to the accident to call.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Did your daughter call the OHP, Downtowner? The state police have been begging for witnesses to the accident to call.
Yes, she did.
Good.
The uturn theory is something I thought of when I saw the photos too. All of the OHP cars that I have seen do the Uturn through those gaps have done it fairly safe. But I had a claim a few years ago with a person that hit a ambulance that did a uturn.
This whole thing is really sad not only because it was an OHP trooper, but the truck driver was only 25 or something.
I know of two wreckers that have been hit making u-turns on the Turner in the last 15 years, one of which ended in a fatality and the other left the driver of the wrecker disabled.
I preach to my wrecker contractors all the time not to do turnarounds, even though it costs me more money to go to the next gate.
I would guess the OHP is not under that restriction. It's a tough deal. We all make mistakes. Unfortunately, this one had graver consequenses.
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
I know of two wreckers that have been hit making u-turns on the Turner in the last 15 years, one of which ended in a fatality and the other left the driver of the wrecker disabled.
The breaches in the Jersey barriers were supposed to be for emergencies only, if I recall.
Restricting casual use seems a small price to pay, given the consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
I know of two wreckers that have been hit making u-turns on the Turner in the last 15 years, one of which ended in a fatality and the other left the driver of the wrecker disabled.
The breaches in the Jersey barriers were supposed to be for emergencies only, if I recall.
Restricting casual use seems a small price to pay, given the consequences.
I was writing a report today. U turns not only cause lots of accidents, the exact amount is not quantified, but a U turn accident is twice as likely to be serious or fatal than a usual crash at simular speeds. I really think that U turns should be sealed, unless there are no alternative routes.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
I know of two wreckers that have been hit making u-turns on the Turner in the last 15 years, one of which ended in a fatality and the other left the driver of the wrecker disabled.
The breaches in the Jersey barriers were supposed to be for emergencies only, if I recall.
Restricting casual use seems a small price to pay, given the consequences.
I was writing a report today. U turns not only cause lots of accidents, the exact amount is not quantified, but a U turn accident is twice as likely to be serious or fatal than a usual crash at simular speeds. I really think that U turns should be sealed, unless there are no alternative routes.
SI- the problem is, the Will Rogers and Turner Turnpikes have barriers in the median for their full lengths. If there is an emergency, an officer might have to drive 15 miles or more to reach an exit to turn around, then go back in the opposite direction.
I'm not trying to diminish your point about U-turns.
I'd want to see the numbers, but I'm sure there have been more lives saved by limiting the number of head-on collisions along both these turnpikes since barriers have been installed than lives lost due to U-turns. Often there are trade-offs when it comes to safety.
One of the points is that while it may be quicker in emergencies, by allowing people to use them they infact create emergencies. Typically 15% of accidents are serious or fatal, using a U turn not only is one of the most risky manoveres you can try as a driver, but when a crash occurs the chace of it being serious or fatal jumps to 30%. Interstates should be limited access, allowing through traffic to travel long distances across the USA. By allowing U turns you increase the amount of cars using these roads, which should really be using more localised roads.
The data is based on UK traffic counts and accident data I have used in my work, which is not avaliable online. While it is UK data the only real difference I see is that any traffic movements would be mirrored.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
One of the points is that while it may be quicker in emergencies, by allowing people to use them they infact create emergencies. Typically 15% of accidents are serious or fatal, using a U turn not only is one of the most risky manoveres you can try as a driver, but when a crash occurs the chace of it being serious or fatal jumps to 30%. Interstates should be limited access, allowing through traffic to travel long distances across the USA. By allowing U turns you increase the amount of cars using these roads, which should really be using more localised roads.
The data is based on UK traffic counts and accident data I have used in my work, which is not avaliable online. While it is UK data the only real difference I see is that any traffic movements would be mirrored.
Points well-taken. Only emergency personnel, who ostensibly have been trained on the proper use of the gaps for U-turns, are supposed to use them on Oklahoma Turnpikes.
Unfortunately, I don't know if the ODOT compiles information on the number of U-turn accidents there have been since they modified the Turner and WR pikes, but you could go on further to expect the number would have dropped since it would keep anyone from turning around on the median anywhere on the road.
As said it's a trade-off, do you leave someone trapped in a car for an extra 15 to 20 minutes, or allow for the chance there might be an accident every now and then when you allow for emergency vehicles to make U-turns?
From the reports I've read, it sounds like the trooper was responding to an emergency call prior to being called off which would have been an appropriate instance to make a U-turn.
I do also see troopers make use of the U-turns for traffic enforcement which is also considered appropriate use.
quote:
As said it's a trade-off, do you leave someone trapped in a car for an extra 15 to 20 minutes, or allow for the chance there might be an accident every now and then when you allow for emergency vehicles to make U-turns?
I know it is radical, but I have seen people stop cars and walk/ run a hundered metres before. A police man does not need to drive every last yard if there is an emergency. The simple thing is that if there is U turns for emergency vehicles, unless they have gates or some other feature people will use them. Any traffic movement that involves near stationary vehicles pulling into fast moving traffic should be avoided at all costs, not matter who is attempting the move be they police or public.
Sofar OHP's public statements have dealt with what may have compounded the accident rather than what caused it, so they may be thinking ahead to the inevitable lawsuit.
If it boils down to the OHP investigating itself, they may also be looking at a substantial ethics question, as well.
The periodic gaps in the Jersey Barrier could shave valuable minutes off the response time of vehicles responding to an emergency, but I do question non-emergency casual use by tow trucks or traffic enforcement that unnecessarily increase the chances of a catastrophic incident.
At the very least, I see a policy change on the horizon, and unfortunately nothing changes policy faster than bodies in bags.
Question to anyone who knows: Was the spot where the accident occurred on the bottom of a hill?
How sad.[:(]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Question to anyone who knows: Was the spot where the accident occurred on the bottom of a hill?
It would appear so based on the photo in Patric's first post.
I'm not sure the policy (if there is one) is wrong. The Trooper made a mistake and he and another person paid the ultimate price. That doesn't mean a policy change is needed. How many turnarounds have been made safely?
As I read it the high speed chase was called off and he was to return to the Creek turnpike. This would make the turnaround a matter of convenience, not necessity. The whole thing is just too sad.
Here's why I asked the question: If the trucker is on a downhill slope, it's darned near impossible to slow down much at all, even if you see a cop car with cherries flashing ahead.
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
I'm not sure the policy (if there is one) is wrong. The Trooper made a mistake and he and another person paid the ultimate price. That doesn't mean a policy change is needed. How many turnarounds have been made safely?
As I read it the high speed chase was called off and he was to return to the Creek turnpike. This would make the turnaround a matter of convenience, not necessity. The whole thing is just too sad.
If two people dying does not justify a policy change, I don't know what would change your mind.
This accident although dramatic and tragic is not at all unique. These u turns are a real death trap. They double the chance of a serious injury or death in an accident. I can't think of many things that do that and are still allowed.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
I'm not sure the policy (if there is one) is wrong. The Trooper made a mistake and he and another person paid the ultimate price. That doesn't mean a policy change is needed. How many turnarounds have been made safely?
As I read it the high speed chase was called off and he was to return to the Creek turnpike. This would make the turnaround a matter of convenience, not necessity. The whole thing is just too sad.
If two people dying does not justify a policy change, I don't know what would change your mind.
This accident although dramatic and tragic is not at all unique. These u turns are a real death trap. They double the chance of a serious injury or death in an accident. I can't think of many things that do that and are still allowed.
True, but how many lives have been saved or will be saved by having a gap every 1.5 to 2.0 miles for a quicker emergency response so that a motorist doesn't bleed to death waiting for a first responder to go down to the next exit and double back?
If you were pinned in your car in excruciating pain and flames just starting to come out from under the car, I doubt you'd be very happy to see an ambulance or fire truck pass you by in the opposing lane, knowing they have to make a 20 mile round trip before they can get turned around and get back to you.
Cars, in general, are dangerous in the wrong hands, but the only way to stop fatality auto accidents would be to ban cars, which wouldn't happen, and I'm not an advocate of it.
My brother was killed in a head-on collision with a drunk driver just under six years ago, and I don't believe there's a need for a ban on alcohol. Accidents will happen, people will make poor decisions at times, and knee-jerk reactions as a result aren't always a good idea.
Look, I'm not here to lampoon you, but a fair assessment would have to be made as far as how many accidents have happened as a result of U-turns through Jersey barriers vs. all other accidents on the turnpikes. I'd be willing to bet it's a very, very small number.
I'm with Conan on this. It's OK for authorized vehciles to use those angled holes. Just be damned careful when you do so.
As I've said before. An Ambulance could stop, paramedic run over to the burning wreck and pull the guy out while the driver does the loop. People do have legs.
I'll try and find data for a wide variety of roads as to the percentage of crashes that involve U turn facilities, but the data I have will be limited to the UK. I've looked at one road in particular in my work. In it 5 of the U turn facilities have closed and lead to a drop in casualties on the road. Although the statistical impact is hard to assess as you typically need long periods of time to allow for the acumulation of data to allow for proper comparison as a fatal car crash is a relatively rare occurance.
The rough data on the road I looked at did see that U turns played a large role 50%+ in crashes on the small stretch the U turn effected. Be it people looking to make sure the car didn't attempt the move infront of them and get distracted, to incidents where cars meet directly and where cars have to swerve to avoid ill timed moves. Of course it could be more it is after hard for transport planners to interview the dead to see what they were actually doing and some people lie and claim it was sun and such like.
If you took your idea to one conclusion, then why have a barrier at all, what if I only had 15 seconds to live and he had to drive an extra half mile to the U turn. You can't create transport policy on what ifs and compelling stories about people you know. It has to be based on the best judgement of proffessionals using the best data they have to hand, because if they screw up people die plain and simple.
The reason Jersey barriers were placed on the Turner and Will Rogers is they are on I-44 which is a major travel corridor through Oklahoma. They were deemed necessary to cut down on a high rate of head-on collisions that were happening from drivers falling asleep at the wheel, hydro-planing on wet roads, and sliding across on ice or snow. The medians were "peaked" which kept water from collecting in the middle and flooding the road. This had an effect of launching vehicles when they went over the median.
In doing accident research you should have discovered by now that a direct-impact head-on collision where both vehicles are travelling at highway speeds of 55+ MPH is rarely surviveable. IOW- the Jersey barrier has proven it's worth in cutting down on the least surviveable of collisions.
There is often a trade-off when it comes to safety. You try to eliminate the most predominantly fatal dangers with the knowledge that there is still a much smaller chance for fatalities with whatever the changes are that you impliment.
If you have a crash and your car winds up stopped on the shoulder of say the west-bound lane of a highway, without a U-turn lane, first responders would be forced to either park on the shoulder of the east-bound lane and cross two lanes of traffic, scale a 2.5 or 3 ft. high barrier with heavy equipment and a stretcher and dodge another two lanes of traffic. Or they stop in the inside lane, put more east-bound vehicles in danger and cross two more lanes of traffic on foot. They would be required to keep running back and forth to make sure they had all the equipment they needed to extract you, stabilize you, and finally transport you. Not safe or expedient at all.
This accident was a very, very rare occurance on Oklahoma roads. Accidents are usually a combination and culmination of multiple factors happening at the same time...an unfortunate chain of events.
I believe I've read or heard that it's now believed that the truck driver swerved into the left lane. It's possible he saw the lights on the OHP car slowing and saw the car moving toward the right preparing to make the U-turn. It's possible he didn't see a blinker for the confusion of the emergency lights, and assumed the patrolman was pulling off to the shoulder and he was doing what you should do when cars pull toward the shoulder and that's get in the left lane. It's possible the patrolman had a blind spot and couldn't see the truck. If the truck driver did swerve left as an evasive maneuver, it's possible that if he would have held his line in the right lane, we might not be having this conversation now.
It was an unfortunate chain of events that caused this, moreso than having U-turn cut-outs in a Jersey barrier.
This is going to be really short as I'm away for the weekend very soon.
Interstates and limited access roads are on the whole extremely safe. The most dangerous part of the interstate is the junction where cars join and leave. Apart from that you are very unlikely to have an accident on one.
However unsignalised U turns on medians have on average 0.42 crashes a year. 30% of which are fatal or serious. (This is not US data). While the U turn may save time in a rare emergency it is much more likely to cause them than save them. Compare this 30% to 15% fatal/ serious for non U turn crashes.
I understand your arguement, but you are mistaken. I would recommend reading suburban nation, which looks at road design. In it, it shows that roads designed for fire trucks to go down quickly cause accidents due to them allow other road users to speed. The concept is roughly the same when applied to the U turn example, while designing a road to speed up the rescue of people you may be actually creating a much more dangerous road.
PS from your previous post cars almost never catch fire when they crash. That would be highly unusual.
troopers use those turn arounds to go give tickets all the time. I see it a lot. hardly emergnecy use IMO. Unless the speeder is running people off the road its hardly worth the risk to U turn to go after him. I see these guys parked near a turn around A LOT using their radar both directions to try and catch speeders. fortunately all the times I've seen them try to get someone in the opposite direction, the oncoming traffic prevents them from getting a chance to turn around. just as well.
BTW, i'm glad the BA and 169 has barriers all along it and NO turnarounds. keeps people honest.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If you have a crash and your car winds up stopped on the shoulder of say the west-bound lane of a highway, without a U-turn lane, first responders would be forced to either park on the shoulder of the east-bound lane and cross two lanes of traffic, scale a 2.5 or 3 ft. high barrier with heavy equipment and a stretcher and dodge another two lanes of traffic. Or they stop in the inside lane, put more east-bound vehicles in danger and cross two more lanes of traffic on foot. They would be required to keep running back and forth to make sure they had all the equipment they needed to extract you, stabilize you, and finally transport you. Not safe or expedient at all.
In my experience traffic would barely be moving (if at all), and u-turn gap or not it does make sense to immediately deploy at last one medic with a crash kit on foot while the driver stages the ambulance to a more serviceable position. It's still dangerous, but it's not 80mph traffic in both directions.
quote:
I believe I've read or heard that it's now believed that the truck driver swerved into the left lane. It's possible he saw the lights on the OHP car slowing and saw the car moving toward the right preparing to make the U-turn. It's possible he didn't see a blinker for the confusion of the emergency lights, and assumed the patrolman was pulling off to the shoulder and he was doing what you should do when cars pull toward the shoulder and that's get in the left lane.
The
Whirled quoted an OHP spokesperson saying the truck "swerved into the left lane 'For an unknown reason'" after the trooper activated his lights near the outside lane.
Page 6 of their own Driver's Manual might help solve some of this mystery:
"You must move to the left lane on a 4-lane road
when there is an emergency vehicle on the right shoulder."
Back to your point SI as to whether or not two deaths warrant a policy change, IMO- No. That would be a knee-jerk reaction. Does the OHP need to review their procedure for using U-turns on interstates? Very likely.
That's two deaths out of the average 600 to 700 that will die on Oklahoma roads every year.
At least a third of all fatality crashes are alcohol or drug-related and are the far easiest to prevent, yet they still happen.
The latest Oklahoma compilation is from 2004:
http://www.dps.state.ok.us/ohso/ind_dl_2004.htm
They don't list U-turns as a specific action their report, so short of sifting through all the reports to see if a U-turn is considered an improper action, reckless driving, or improper turn, it would be hard to gather anything useful on U-turns out of the Oklahoma stats. They must do a more comprehensive job of breaking things out over in the UK.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Back to your point SI as to whether or not two deaths warrant a policy change, IMO- No. That would be a knee-jerk reaction. Does the OHP need to review their procedure for using U-turns on interstates? Very likely.
That's two deaths out of the average 600 to 700 that will die on Oklahoma roads every year.
At least a third of all fatality crashes are alcohol or drug-related and are the far easiest to prevent, yet they still happen.
The latest Oklahoma compilation is from 2004:
http://www.dps.state.ok.us/ohso/ind_dl_2004.htm
They don't list U-turns as a specific action their report, so short of sifting through all the reports to see if a U-turn is considered an improper action, reckless driving, or improper turn, it would be hard to gather anything useful on U-turns out of the Oklahoma stats. They must do a more comprehensive job of breaking things out over in the UK.
It really isn't a knee jerk reaction. Quite independently of this crash my company has come to this conclusion along with the Highways authority within the UK and from what I can gather a lot of other states in the US and other countries.
My point is that that this is not rare and the U turn is likely to be a contributory factor in other crashes. It is after all a distraction when driving along, people are forced to think 'will he pull out in front of me?' and sometimes that's is all it takes to cause an accident. The data shows that U turns have a high chance of an accident, 0.42, each year. To claim it only causes 2 deaths a year would be the silly as to think that the only people who burn to death each year is that cute family who have the story covered in detail by KOTV. While this case has gained our attention, it is unfortunately not unique and neither are a lot of near misses and smaller accidents that occur.
I'm sure there will be a review of the T'pike U-turn holes as a result of this crash. No one, including myself, would dispute there aren't more than two people killed each year in Okla. due to U-turns. I'm under the assumption that if it were a big enough problem, the ODOT would have already closed them off.
By far, it appears from the 2004 stats I linked to that our turnpikes are the safest roads in the state.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm sure there will be a review of the T'pike U-turn holes as a result of this crash. No one, including myself, would dispute there aren't more than two people killed each year in Okla. due to U-turns. I'm under the assumption that if it were a big enough problem, the ODOT would have already closed them off.
By far, it appears from the 2004 stats I linked to that our turnpikes are the safest roads in the state.
Turnpikes are very safe for the same reason U turns are unsafe. Its hard to crash on a normal turnpike when compared to the hazards that you face on a normal street. All the traffic is going at one speed in the same direction at relatively similar speeds and hopefully reasonable gaps.
U turns are not safe and make what should be a very safe road less safe. Unfortunately it takes this kind of accident to draw attention to what proffessionals already knew.
Well the Tulsa World finally put a face to the name of the trucker who died. An African immigrant working hard trying to bring his family here. Sad. what a tragic loss for his children and I'm sorry it took so long for the World to tell his story after doing more than one story about the trooper.
They had trouble locating the family of the truck driver...
I'm starting to get the impression ohp is looking for a scapegoat. The fact the brakes were old, the driver young, whether lights were on or off and how recently the truck changed lanes do not seem to be of any real importance to the accident. The basic facts of the storyseem to point to driver error on the part of the officer and I think that while we mourn for the trooper, we should also recognize that his mistake cost the family in africa dearly as well instead of trying to shift blame around. Maybe someone should start a collection for the trucker's family. Maybe they should at least see where he's buried.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I'm starting to get the impression ohp is looking for a scapegoat. The fact the brakes were old, the driver young, whether lights were on or off and how recently the truck changed lanes do not seem to be of any real importance to the accident. The basic facts of the storyseem to point to driver error on the part of the officer and I think that while we mourn for the trooper, we should also recognize that his mistake cost the family in africa dearly as well instead of trying to shift blame around. Maybe someone should start a collection for the trucker's family. Maybe they should at least see where he's buried.
There are way too many problems with truckers. Sitting in one of those for the hours they have to, with nothing but XM to listen to and keep them awake, along with the fact that they frequently do not pay close attention, means they are an accident waiting to happen. OTOH, the trooper was a professional driver too, and I'm certain he had had numberous encounters with truckers in the past. He should have allowed for the trucker not paying attention. An extra few seconds before pulling into traffic will not impede anything but the giving of a ticket.
You are not going to have truckers changing the way they are driving, and with NAFTA in place, chances are the south of the border truckers are going to make matters worse.
What is going to have to occur is that emergency vehicles will have to adjust their policies. Perhaps a warning light that can be remote controlled from the crusier/EMT to alert oncoming traffic would help. But to me this is a matter of two people, neither of them paying all that much attention, each making a mistake that created the accident. But as the officer was the one entering the flow of traffic, it was his responsiblity to ensure his entrance was safe, regardless of the trffic situation. If the traffic was that heavy, he should have gone to the nearest exit.
quote:
Originally posted by Goodpasture
But to me this is a matter of two people, neither of them paying all that much attention, each making a mistake that created the accident.
What mistake did the truck driver make that caused the accident?
Im doubtful that adding traffic signals to the barrier breaches would do anything but imply that they are for everyone's use (which could be disastrous).
A follow up:
"Another motorist has died while trying to make a U-turn through a median divider on an Oklahoma highway."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061019_Ne_A8_Colli25738
"Clarencetta J. Franks, 62, of Tulsa was killed Wednesday when a wrecker struck her 2004 Lincoln Town Car in the driver's door as she attempted to turn across the Keystone Expressway's westbound lanes from the shoulder toward the median divider, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol reported.
On two consecutive days in August 2005, three people were killed in crashes that occurred under identical circumstances in the same spot on the Turner Turnpike.
In both of those crashes, drivers had tried to make U-turns through an opening in a turnpike median divider in Oklahoma County, and their cars were struck by oncoming vehicles."
I know the driver of the wrecker. He is obviously pretty shaken up. In this case, the Lincoln pulled on to the shoulder going the same direction as the wrecker. The wrecker moved to the left lane. The Lincoln then turned hard left right in front of him. He was driving a two ton wrecker. That should not have been that hard to see.
OHP's investigation of itself concludes that the truck the trooper pulled in front of "was speeding, failed to yield to an emergency vehicle and was operating a vehicle with unsafe brakes."
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=114455
They did however concede that the precipitating u-turn itself was "improper".
Sorry if that truck was "speeding" then why did the trooper not pull him over....Not to mention the fact....Why would he pull in front of the truck then stop and turn in front of it....
so they basically ruled it as both at fault....I bet the insurance companies will have fun with this one.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
so they basically ruled it as both at fault....I bet the insurance companies will have fun with this one.
No Doubt. The
Whirled cited an OHP spokesperson attributing their 'speeding' claim was due to the area being technically a "construction zone," but the accident photos dont seem to indicate any of the usual construction markings.
I can't imagine it's truely a dual fault situation. If you get rear-ended by a drunk driver, you don't have to pay your own way because your right taillight was out.
If there can be any levity in this tragic situation it's "failed to yield to an emergency vehicle."
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
If there can be any levity in this tragic situation it's "failed to yield to an emergency vehicle."
How exactly do you yield to an emergency vehicle on an interstate......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
If there can be any levity in this tragic situation it's "failed to yield to an emergency vehicle."
How exactly do you yield to an emergency vehicle on an interstate......
Same as you do on a city road, pull to the right and stop.
OHP can try to sugarcoat this all they want, but the fact remains that this accident started because of the trooper's stupid action.
but don't you know, law enforcement is NEVER wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
If there can be any levity in this tragic situation it's "failed to yield to an emergency vehicle."
How exactly do you yield to an emergency vehicle on an interstate......
Same as you do on a city road, pull to the right and stop.
...and if the emergency vehicle has pulled to the right and stopped, the drivers manual says pull into the inside lane to pass... which is exactly what the truck driver did.
Couldnt find any procedure outlining what the truck should have legally done afterward when the trooper failed to yield to oncoming traffic and attempted a left turn from the right shoulder/lane...
...but It's some newly-released witness statements reported in the
Whirled that really speak volumes as to the integrity of the OHP investigation:
'A former Claremore resident, Bennett said he was in the right lane behind the tractor-trailer when the OHP vehicle passed him on the left and went in front of the truck.
"The next thing I saw was the truck driver applying his brakes and smoke coming off his wheels," said Bennett, who was heading to Joplin to visit antique shops. "The rear end swung to my left, and it tipped over. My thought was, 'Where did the trooper go?' because I couldn't see him."
Traveling to Missouri with a friend, Jones said he was in the right lane about 200 yards behind Osman's rig when the trooper's vehicle overtook him.
"We were just coming down a hill, and by the time we were getting ready to top this other hill, he just passed us like we were sitting," Jones said. "Sirens going, lights, everything . . . he was just hauling butt."' http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061117_Ne_A1_Fourr6296
All this in a supposed "construction zone"?
..and one final technicality to deflect responsibility:
'An inspection of Osman's trailer by the troopers' motor vehicle enforcement unit indicated that the brakes "weren't functioning at 100 percent efficiency."'
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
How exactly do you yield to an emergency vehicle on an interstate......
[/quote]
I'm not sure but my point is that the laws of the State of Oklahoma are trumped by the laws of Physics. When you pull your leagally protected and identified patrol car right our in front of a big rig travelling at highway speed, it's a little hard to yeild even if you want to.
I'm as much against poorly maintained big rigs driven by unqualified drivers as anyone. It just looks like the state is looking for a scapegoat. Why can't they just say that this was a fine trooper who made a mistake and he and the truck driver paid for it? Would that be so hard?
I don't think anyone should be allowed to make a U-Turn on any freeway, not even a cop, or emergency vehicle..A wreck will just cause another emergency. it's just as dangerous for a cop as it is for a regular Joe making a illegal freeway U-Turn. I doubt the cop was on a emergency run, I offten have seen cops bust thru a red light at 2am, they flick on the flashers and cross the intersection then turn off the flashers. I'd say the cop was going after a speeder in this case- just my guess. The result was tragic. That's the reason U-Turns are not allowed on freeways it's too dangerous, it's dangerous for emergency vehicles too.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
OHP can try to sugarcoat this all they want, but the fact remains that this accident started because of the trooper's stupid action.
My point exactly....Over-zealous trooper in a vehicle thats really a poor choice for that type of service....I'm not against law enforcement at all...But they should take full responsibility for what happened....
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I don't think anyone should be allowed to make a U-Turn on any freeway, not even a cop, or emergency vehicle..A wreck will just cause another emergency. it's just as dangerous for a cop as it is for a regular Joe making a illegal freeway U-Turn. I doubt the cop was on a emergency run, I offten have seen cops bust thru a red light at 2am, they flick on the flashers and cross the intersection then turn off the flashers. I'd say the cop was going after a speeder in this case- just my guess. The result was tragic. That's the reason U-Turns are not allowed on freeways it's too dangerous, it's dangerous for emergency vehicles too.
I was reading my local transport today. (What fun!) They were advertising a median that could be opened up in about two minutes that would allow U turns. This would allow in a catastrophic emergency, think multiple casualties/ very large fire with both lanes closed for cars to be diverted off the freeway via the other lane or multiple emergency vehicles to gain access if the road ahead was blocked and cars were stuck behind. Maybe it's an alternative worth looking at?
quote:
Originally posted by mspivey
It just looks like the state is looking for a scapegoat. Why can't they just say that this was a fine trooper who made a mistake and he and the truck driver paid for it? Would that be so hard?
I hate to say it, but The Pope admits to more mistakes than some departments, which seems to be part of a larger pass-the-buck trend.
For instance: Didnt we just last month sign into law a measure that essentially relieves officers of the consequences for any deaths arising from high-speed pursuits?
The new Dragus-Whetsel law is named in part for the wife and daughter of the Oklahoma County Sheriff, who were killed when their car was hit by an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman during a high-speed pursuit.
Fate is an ironic and cruel mistress.
Then some years ago there was a property owner charged with murder because a surveillance helicopter flew into power lines while looking for a suspected marijuana patch. As outrageous as that sounded at the time, I believe he was eventually convicted.
As I said earlier, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol brushed off a calling to remind us how dangerous it is to attempt a turnaround on an interstate highway, and that even the most experienced can make mistakes. Seizing the opportunity for such a public service might have given those tragic deaths some meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Then some years ago there was a property owner charged with murder because a surveillance helicopter flew into power lines while looking for a suspected marijuana patch. As outrageous as that sounded at the time, I believe he was eventually convicted.
I recall that case. the property owner (in Bixby if it is the one I recall) had the charges dropped. It was ruled pilot error.
And yet another incident on the AP wire:
Trooper injured in attempt of U-turn
PERRY -- A state trooper was injured Monday when his vehicle was hit from behind when he attempted to make a U-turn on the Cimarron Turnpike.
Trooper Bruce Brooks, 58, was traveling east on the turnpike about 10:45 a.m. Monday when he turned on his lights and sirens and began to make a U-turn to catch a speeding vehicle in the westbound lanes, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol reported.
As he began the U-turn, his vehicle was hit from behind by a 1999 Ford pickup driven by Darren Clonts, 24, of Blackwell.
Brooks sought treatment for a shoulder injury, but Clonts wasn't injured, the OHP reported.
The accident was similar to a crash that killed a state trooper and a truck driver on Interstate 44 near Claremore on Oct. 1.
In that crash, Trooper William McClendon was attempting to make a U-turn on the interstate when his cruiser was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Hussein Hajiege Osman, 25.
A Highway Patrol report states that the emergency lights on McClendon's patrol car were activated, but when he attempted to make the U-turn -- which it labeled "improper" -- through a gap in the concrete median
wall, his vehicle was struck in the left rear by Osman's 2002 Peterbilt.
The truck skidded about 94 feet before hitting the patrol car at 50 mph, according to the report.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061212_Ne_A17_Troop67594
OHP Reviewing U-Turn Procedures After Crashes
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=116585
TULSA, Okla. (AP) Three traffic accidents since October involving an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper making a U-turn has the OHP reviewing its U-turn procedures.
Trooper William McClendon and truck driver Hussein Osman were killed October 1st when Osman crashed into the patrol car as McClendon attempted a U-turn on I-44 near Claremore.
Troopers Jason Fox and Bruce Brooks were injured last Monday in separate crashes on U.S. 377 and on the Cimarron Turnpike.
OHP Captain Chris West says if changes are needed in the procedure they will be made.
A report on the crash that killed McClendon and Hussein says both drivers made unsafe or illegal actions but that McClendon's U-turn likely initiated the crash.
West says the accident involving Trooper Fox was primarily Fox's fault while the collision involving Brooks was due to the other driver's inattention.
...and more:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061218_Ne_A15_Crash29040
Sound familiar?
It could take a couple of weeks to finish an investigation into a double-fatality crash that involved a Rogers County sheriff's deputy, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol said.
The OHP has interviewed more than 50 witnesses in connection with the Friday collision, which killed Amanda Kelley, 20, and Doris McQueen, 45, both of Claremore.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070712_1_A7_hPrel10317
Doris McQueen, 45, was driving west on a county road as (Deputy) Batt was traveling north on Oklahoma 66, OHP reports show. Batt was on his way to assist a partner when his vehicle hit McQueen's after McQueen failed to yield at a stop sign about 10 p.m. Friday, the OHP said. Batt's vehicle caught fire and burned, the report shows.
(ed. this is not the same as "running a stop sign," which she was not accused of doing.)
It is unclear whether Batt's emergency lights and sirens were activated at the time of the collision, Randolph said.
"Part of the reason they don't know that lights and sirens were on is because the car completely burned," she said.
Determining if lights were on during a crash is something the NTSB does with ease, and under much worse conditions, automotive investigations arent that uncommon: http://www.harristechnical.com/articles/lamp.pdf
http://www.facts-1.com/whatisaccrecon.htm
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Sound familiar?
It could take a couple of weeks to finish an investigation into a double-fatality crash that involved a Rogers County sheriff's deputy, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol said.
The OHP has interviewed more than 50 witnesses in connection with the Friday collision, which killed Amanda Kelley, 20, and Doris McQueen, 45, both of Claremore.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070712_1_A7_hPrel10317
Doris McQueen, 45, was driving west on a county road as (Deputy) Batt was traveling north on Oklahoma 66, OHP reports show. Batt was on his way to assist a partner when his vehicle hit McQueen's after McQueen failed to yield at a stop sign about 10 p.m. Friday, the OHP said. Batt's vehicle caught fire and burned, the report shows.
(ed. this is not the same as "running a stop sign," which she was not accused of doing.)
It is unclear whether Batt's emergency lights and sirens were activated at the time of the collision, Randolph said.
"Part of the reason they don't know that lights and sirens were on is because the car completely burned," she said.
Determining if lights were on during a crash is something the NTSB does with ease, and under much worse conditions, automotive investigations arent that uncommon: http://www.harristechnical.com/articles/lamp.pdf
http://www.facts-1.com/whatisaccrecon.htm
While the lamp examination article is great in theory and shows brand spankin' new bulbs with no dirt or oxidation, you have to realize both those cars burned. You don't see that stuff that easy as in the article. Additionally, most of that stuff gets sent to a lab, which isn't sitting around with nothing to do waiting on stuff to come in. That stuff waits its turn, then gets examined, thus the time delay.
Also, those are old light bulbs (from the Edison days). The new police light bars and strobes are LED, which is completely different.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Also, those are old light bulbs (from the Edison days). The new police light bars and strobes are LED, which is completely different.
Im sure you know that there are incandescent light bars still in use, even by TPD. Even then, most dash indicators are still incandescent.
Do you have personal knowledge as to which type of light bar was used on the deputy's car?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Also, those are old light bulbs (from the Edison days). The new police light bars and strobes are LED, which is completely different.
Im sure you know that there are incandescent light bars still in use, even by TPD. Even then, most dash indicators are still incandescent.
Do you have personal knowledge as to which type of light bar was used on the deputy's car?
I have no knowledge of the wreck other then what was in the newspaper (right along with the rest of us). I also believe, if I interpret the newspaper article correctly, that the deputy should have been blood tested in accordance with state statute. Not that I have any reason to believe he was under the influence of anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I have no knowledge of the wreck other then what was in the newspaper (right along with the rest of us). I also believe, if I interpret the newspaper article correctly, that the deputy should have been blood tested in accordance with state statute. Not that I have any reason to believe he was under the influence of anything.
The
Whirled did mention that "authorities ordered blood taken from Batt to determine whether he was driving impaired" a week after the accident, so we'll see, but I think the most obvious point is that the OHP is taking extraordinary steps in an investigation that would be normally closed in only hours.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I have no knowledge of the wreck other then what was in the newspaper (right along with the rest of us). I also believe, if I interpret the newspaper article correctly, that the deputy should have been blood tested in accordance with state statute. Not that I have any reason to believe he was under the influence of anything.
The Whirled did mention that "authorities ordered blood taken from Batt to determine whether he was driving impaired" a week after the accident, so we'll see, but I think the most obvious point is that the OHP is taking extraordinary steps in an investigation that would be normally closed in only hours.
I'm not aware of any fatality collision being "closed in only hours." Even a single car driver-fell-asleep takes 2-3 days with nothing going to the lab. Throw the lab into the mix and you are talking a couple weeks (depending on tests). Throw in the medical examiner and you add a couple more weeks (depending on tests). Throw in blood testing, that is usually a minimum of 40-days, with 6-months not unusual.
Remember, all these places where various tests are conducted post investigation aren't just sitting around with nothing to do. Many are doing various tests for all law enforcement agencies across the state (in the case of blood tests), so OHP, Tulsa and everyone else just has to wait in line along with everyone else. One agency's fatality doesn't get any more preference then anyone else's.
I thought the trooper-crossing-the-median investigation was well done, even though it took a lot of time. The investigation was very fair and unbiased.
Trucker's Estate Sues Oklahoma Highway Patrol
CLAREMORE, Okla. (AP) The estate of an Ohio truck driver killed in a crash with an Oklahoma state trooper last year is now suing the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.
The wrongful death lawsuit says Trooper William McClendon was negligent and caused the October 2006 crash that killed both him and Hussein Osman of Columbus, Ohio.
The crash occurred as McClendon was making a U-turn through the median on Interstate 44 near Claremore, Oklahoma.
An investigation found Osman was driving his semi 15 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit and failed to yield to an emergency vehicle.
But authorities have said the trooper's U-turn likely initiated the collision.
Related stories:
10/1/2006 http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=111975
10/2/2006 http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=112035
That's some hubris on OHP's part to claim the victim was speeding in a construction zone. There was one on the other side of the barrier, but reports said the trucker had been going under the posted limit on his side.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Trucker's Estate Sues Oklahoma Highway Patrol
CLAREMORE, Okla. (AP) The estate of an Ohio truck driver killed in a crash with an Oklahoma state trooper last year is now suing the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.
The wrongful death lawsuit says Trooper William McClendon was negligent and caused the October 2006 crash that killed both him and Hussein Osman of Columbus, Ohio.
The crash occurred as McClendon was making a U-turn through the median on Interstate 44 near Claremore, Oklahoma.
An investigation found Osman was driving his semi 15 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit and failed to yield to an emergency vehicle.
But authorities have said the trooper's U-turn likely initiated the collision.
Related stories:
10/1/2006 http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=111975
10/2/2006 http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=112035
That's some hubris on OHP's part to claim the victim was speeding in a construction zone. There was one on the other side of the barrier, but reports said the trucker had been going under the posted limit on his side.
Being able to determine speed at the scene of a crash is simply a matter of physics. Vehicles will travel so far to their point of rest based on their weight and based on their speed prior to the wreck. Police can take measurements from the scene and use simple software to determine speeds. Plus, many vehicles and trucks have black boxes that will record speeds, which police can download and read.
Police don't determine FAULT at a wreck. They report who committed what traffic violations, whether it be one driver of both drivers (which they have done here). It is up to insurance companies to determine fault, then pay out based on that fault.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Police don't determine FAULT at a wreck. They report who committed what traffic violations, whether it be one driver of both drivers (which they have done here). It is up to insurance companies to determine fault
If this wreck were summed up as "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" it would provide a pretty distorted view of the facts, wouldnt it?
You missed the point that the OHP claim of this occurring inside a construction zone was false. They really hurt their credibility on this case, rather than use it as something everyone could learn from.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Police don't determine FAULT at a wreck. They report who committed what traffic violations, whether it be one driver of both drivers (which they have done here). It is up to insurance companies to determine fault
If this wreck were summed up as "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" it would provide a pretty distorted view of the facts, wouldnt it?
You missed the point that the OHP claim of this occurring inside a construction zone was false. They really hurt their credibility on this case, rather than use it as something everyone could learn from.
I've not seen the report, so I don't know about the construction zone. Needless to say, ODOT determines construction zones, not OHP, and I've often wondered why some places are designated that way. ODOT could surely confirm or deny the construction zone portion.
quote:
If this wreck were summed up as "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" it would provide a pretty distorted view of the facts, wouldnt it?
I'm not sure what you mean. I thought the quote by OHP that their trooper was ultimately the cause of the crash put the responsibility on them. But, they were also correct in identifying other violations, mainly the brakes on the truck.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Police don't determine FAULT at a wreck. They report who committed what traffic violations, whether it be one driver of both drivers (which they have done here). It is up to insurance companies to determine fault
If this wreck were summed up as "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" it would provide a pretty distorted view of the facts, wouldnt it?
You missed the point that the OHP claim of this occurring inside a construction zone was false. They really hurt their credibility on this case, rather than use it as something everyone could learn from.
I've not seen the report, so I don't know about the construction zone. Needless to say, ODOT determines construction zones, not OHP, and I've often wondered why some places are designated that way. ODOT could surely confirm or deny the construction zone portion.
quote:
If this wreck were summed up as "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" it would provide a pretty distorted view of the facts, wouldnt it?
I'm not sure what you mean. I thought the quote by OHP that their trooper was ultimately the cause of the crash put the responsibility on them. But, they were also correct in identifying other violations, mainly the brakes on the truck.
Wilbur, just being curious. Are you a transport planner?
He's wit da po-po 5-0
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
He's wit da po-po 5-0
You know, that means nothing to me. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Police don't determine FAULT at a wreck. They report who committed what traffic violations, whether it be one driver of both drivers (which they have done here). It is up to insurance companies to determine fault
If this wreck were summed up as "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" it would provide a pretty distorted view of the facts, wouldnt it?
You missed the point that the OHP claim of this occurring inside a construction zone was false. They really hurt their credibility on this case, rather than use it as something everyone could learn from.
I've not seen the report, so I don't know about the construction zone. Needless to say, ODOT determines construction zones, not OHP, and I've often wondered why some places are designated that way. ODOT could surely confirm or deny the construction zone portion.
quote:
If this wreck were summed up as "Failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" it would provide a pretty distorted view of the facts, wouldnt it?
I'm not sure what you mean. I thought the quote by OHP that their trooper was ultimately the cause of the crash put the responsibility on them. But, they were also correct in identifying other violations, mainly the brakes on the truck.
hes saying that if the report identified the violation of "failure to yield to an emergency vehicle" that would be distorted. The insurance would look at that and more times then not immediately put the truck driver at fault. There are two sides to every story, I think sometimes people forget that.
Also, I think a solution to the turnpikes is to replace the concrete barriers with the steel cable type system they recently put up on parts of I44 and also along the southbound ramp to 169 from 51E.
I think this would alleviate some of the problem of having a blind spot, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
He's wit da po-po 5-0
You know, that means nothing to me. [8D]
The filth!
I get it now.
It's got to be painful for the family and friends of the killed truck driver to see this:
(http://www.fox23.com/media/lib/13/a/f/3/af30597c-89b0-475c-ba78-20c4858b5230/Original.jpg)
Quote from: patric on October 27, 2012, 01:17:33 PM
It's got to be painful for the family and friends of the killed truck driver to see this:
(http://www.fox23.com/media/lib/13/a/f/3/af30597c-89b0-475c-ba78-20c4858b5230/Original.jpg)
Wow.
Wouldn't you think it would be painful for the family and friends of the trooper also? I'm sure they didn't want his name to memorialize part of a turnpike he was killed in a crash on.
I have to say that's a little insensitive. I would think it would be painful for all involved.
So, just to get this straight...the OHP trooper caused a wreck by doing an improper maneuver that killed two people and gets a memorial sign posted. The driver who did nothing wrong gets blamed and no memorial consideration.
Mmmm...got it! Just wanted to understand. It's Oklahloma.
Far to many memorials for to many things now a days.....
Quote from: Hoss on October 27, 2012, 01:23:13 PM
I would think it would be painful for all involved.
Most definitely. I cant imagine what reasoning was used to convince the trooper's family this would be the best way to remember a lost loved one, but I really doubt this was for them.
The wrongful death suit was filed, http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071205_1_A13_spanc18175
but the trail goes cold from there.
The Ohio family may have ended up signing away their right to publicly speak about the wreck in exchange for some paltry settlement.
Shameful.
That news article says that the trooper was in front of the truck when he started the u-turn. I bet I have put close to 100,000 miles (seriously) on that turnpike since I started driving - starting in 1965 - 1966, and have been trying to review every time I have seen a trooper in the passing lane, with a truck OR car behind him, where the truck or car was doing 15 mph OVER the posted speed limit. Doesn't happen. If anything, people will slow down 5 to 10 mph SLOWER than the trooper they are following.
Side note - if the truck WAS doing 15 mph over through the work zone, that also means that the trooper was also doing 15 mph over, right up to the point where he made the improper u-turn left.
Just saying....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 28, 2012, 08:45:08 AM
That news article says that the trooper was in front of the truck when he started the u-turn. I bet I have put close to 100,000 miles (seriously) on that turnpike since I started driving - starting in 1965 - 1966, and have been trying to review every time I have seen a trooper in the passing lane, with a truck OR car behind him, where the truck or car was doing 15 mph OVER the posted speed limit. Doesn't happen. If anything, people will slow down 5 to 10 mph SLOWER than the trooper they are following.
Side note - if the truck WAS doing 15 mph over through the work zone, that also means that the trooper was also doing 15 mph over, right up to the point where he made the improper u-turn left.
Just saying....
The "15 mph over" was part of OHP's claim much later that the accident occurred in a work zone, otherwise, the truck driver's speed was legal.
Photos at the scene dont back up that assertion, though.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2006/061002_A1_Accid398_a6crash223.jpg)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2006/061002_A1_Accid398_a1crash2.jpg)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2006/061002_A1_Accid398_a1crash24.jpg)
Sad for everyone concerned.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 28, 2012, 04:52:51 PM
Sad for everyone concerned.
That's right. And whether our resident cop hater likes it or not (legitimate question), we lost a law enforcement asset and his family lost a loved one.
And patric, look at my avatar. The nerve of the law enforcement officer glaring at the VP.
Better switch to decaf before you use up all that raving hatred on an on-election thread.
Quote from: patric on October 28, 2012, 07:41:44 PM
Better switch to decaf before you use up all that raving hatred on an on-election thread.
Do you ever listen to yourself?