How long does it take a truck to stop & is it criminal if he doesn't?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/13/2014 6:58 PM, Steve W. wrote:
>
>>> Those needs different calculations. Driver said speed was too high
>>> meaning he was going over the speed limit? From there accident happened.
>>> That is criminal. Also did he check the brakes B4 heading down the hill?
>>> That is a requirement for big trucks.
>>>
>> Wrong. The driver said he had too much speed and weight to stop in the
>> available distance. That doesn't mean he was speeding.
>>
>> What it means is that for the amount of room he did have the truck
>> couldn't have been stopped.
>>
>
> That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in
> control at all times.

So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover
that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were
driving "too fast for conditions" ?

ALL drivers are required to be in control, regardless of vehicle. Still
have thousands of accidents every day. That will change when the "fully
autonomous vehicles" are on the road... (SURE it will, just like the
computer made paperwork obsolete)

--
Steve W.

On 7/14/2014 11:27 PM, Steve W. wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 7/13/2014 6:58 PM, Steve W. wrote:
>>
>>>> Those needs different calculations. Driver said speed was too high
>>>> meaning he was going over the speed limit? From there accident
>>>> happened.
>>>> That is criminal. Also did he check the brakes B4 heading down the
>>>> hill?
>>>> That is a requirement for big trucks.
>>>>
>>> Wrong. The driver said he had too much speed and weight to stop in the
>>> available distance. That doesn't mean he was speeding.
>>>
>>> What it means is that for the amount of room he did have the truck
>>> couldn't have been stopped.
>>>
>>
>> That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in
>> control at all times.
>
> So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover
> that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were
> driving "too fast for conditions" ?

Ah, yes, pretty much the case.

The following, taken from the web promo of an attorney, details the law
in Illinois. Many may not agree with it, but it's the law and the way
it works in Illinois and most other states. This is a very basic
concept in traffic law.

I apologize for the length but given the way this thread has run on
forever, it's not that bad.<g>

Failure to Reduce Speed to Avoid an Accident (625 ILCS 5/11-601(a)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Driving Too Fast for Conditions (625 ILCS 5/11-601(a)

If you are ticketed for Failure to Reduce Speed to Avoid an Accident or
Driving Too Fast for Conditions, you may need legal representation.
Both offenses are petty offenses punishable by a fine of up to $1000.
Convictions for these offenses could have serious consequences for both
your driver’s license and your insurance.

Failure to Reduce Speed to Avoid an Accident is the most common ticket
issued when a traffic accident has occurred. Usually, they are issued
by a police officer who arrives on the scene of the accident after it
has already occurred and then makes a determination of fault with in
minutes of arrival. Very seldom are traffic accidents actually
witnessed by a police officer. Sometimes, an officer will, in addition
to speaking with the people involved in the accident, talk to other
witnesses who were not involved in the accident, but saw it occur.
However, this is not always the case, and often the officer will not
obtain information that identifies who these third party witnesses are
so they may be called to testify in court.

To prove a charge of failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident the
State must prove: 1. That you were driving a vehicle on a public
highway; 2. That you collided with a person or a vehicle on that
highway, and; 3. That you did so in violation of your duty to use “due
care”. With the most typical failure to reduce speed to avoid an
accident ticket, the first two requirements are usually easy for the
State to establish. It is the third requirement that is the most
difficult. Was the accident unavoidable? Was the other party to the
accident the person who was not exercising due care? Were there road
conditions or unusual obstacles that caused the accident? Were there
equipment issues with your vehicle that caused the accident? The duty
of due care is a nebulous concept, and an experienced traffic attorney
can use this subjective standard to your advantage.

Driving Too Fast for Conditions is a less common violation than failure
to reduce speed to avoid an accident and is often issued in the case of
a one vehicle accident in which a car slides off the road due to snow,
ice, rain, fog, road surface or other environmental condition. It is
not limited to this situation, however. Just like a failure to reduce
speed to avoid an accident ticket, these are seldom witnessed by a
police officer. In fact, there are often no other witnesses to the
accident other than the driver who went off the road. The officer just
sees the accident, looks at the road conditions, and concludes that the
driver was going to fast, and that is why he/she went off the road.

To prove a charge of driving too fast for conditions the State must
prove: 1. That you were driving a vehicle on a public highway; 2. That
you did so at a speed that was greater than what was “reasonable and
proper” when accounting for highway conditions such as traffic, weather,
and road surface, or: 3. you endangered the safety of any person or
property. Much like the “due care” standard, “reasonable and proper” is
a broad definition that can vary widely depending on the subjective
opinion of the officer issuing the ticket. In many ways, it is even
more subjective, and, therefore, even more difficult for the State to
prove. A traffic attorney with years of experience can ensure that the
State meets their burden to prove every element of the ticket against
you beyond a reasonable doubt.

For both offenses, the fact that you did not exceed the posted speed
limit at the time of the accident is generally not a valid defense.
This is a very common misconception about accident tickets. Not
exceeding the speed limit can be a factor to be explored when cross
examining the state’s witnesses about whether or not you used “due care”
or were traveling at a speed that was “reasonable and proper”, but this
is a very complex argument to make, and is best accomplished by an
attorney with the experience to ask the right questions.

Both tickets are also eligible for Court Supervision, which is sometimes
referred to as earned dismissal. This means that as long as certain
requirements are followed (usually a payment of fines and no tickets for
3 to 6 months after the term of supervision begins) the ticket will not
be placed on your driving record as conviction by the Secretary of
State, and will not place any points against your license. A common
misconception about Court Supervision is that the record of the ticket
just “goes away”. It does not mean that the record of the ticket
disappears entirely, it can still be seen by law enforcement and the
court system, but it is not accessible to other parties. Even if you
don’t want to challenge the ticket in court by making the State prove
all the elements against you, an attorney can negotiate a disposition of
Court Supervision with the prosecutor, and, in some counties, do so
without you ever having to go to court. This can be very advantageous
to those with busy schedules.



Below is the precise statute published in the Illinois Compiled Statutes.

(625 ILCS 5/11-601) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-601)

Sec. 11-601. General speed restrictions.

(a) No vehicle may be driven upon any highway of this State at a speed
which is greater than is reasonable and proper with regard to traffic
conditions and the use of the highway, or endangers the safety of any
person or property. The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed
the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the
duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection,
approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest,
when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, or when special
hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason
of weather or highway conditions. Speed must be decreased as may be
necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on or entering
the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all
persons to use due care.

(Source: P.A. 97-202, eff. 1-1-12; 98-511, eff. 1-1-14.)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:27:10 -0400, "Steve W." >
wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 7/13/2014 6:58 PM, Steve W. wrote:
>>
>>>> Those needs different calculations. Driver said speed was too high
>>>> meaning he was going over the speed limit? From there accident happened.
>>>> That is criminal. Also did he check the brakes B4 heading down the hill?
>>>> That is a requirement for big trucks.
>>>>
>>> Wrong. The driver said he had too much speed and weight to stop in the
>>> available distance. That doesn't mean he was speeding.
>>>
>>> What it means is that for the amount of room he did have the truck
>>> couldn't have been stopped.
>>>
>>
>> That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in
>> control at all times.
>
>So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover
>that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were
>driving "too fast for conditions" ?

Yes. If you can't see around a corner you should slow down-
particularly if you have 8 axles under you and 20 or more tons behind
you.
>
>ALL drivers are required to be in control, regardless of vehicle. Still
>have thousands of accidents every day. That will change when the "fully
>autonomous vehicles" are on the road... (SURE it will, just like the
>computer made paperwork obsolete)

On 7/15/2014 12:27 AM, Steve W. wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:


>>
>> That is called "Too fast for conditions" Driver is required to be in
>> control at all times.
>
> So if you are driving along at 55 mph, come around a curve and discover
> that the road is blocked in 50 feet for whatever reason. You were
> driving "too fast for conditions" ?

Yes. Recently a driver on the highway near me wrecked his car trying to
avoid a deer. Car was totaled, driver sustained some injury and was
cited for "too fast for conditions"

"Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/12/2014 7:31 AM, Sherlock.Homes wrote:
> > "Stormin Mormon" > wrote in message
> >>> The vehicle weight (actually its mass) makes no difference as Galileo
> >>> showed when he dropped a Mack truck and a VW beetle from the Leaning
> >>> Tower of Pisa.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I thought he was Italian. Wouldn't it been Italian
> >> cars? VW is German.
> >
> > The truck would have stopped faster. It has air brakes.
> >
> > SH
>
> Brilliant deduction!
>
>
> --
> .
> Christopher A. Watson

Elementary Watson!

SH

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:25:56 -0500, deadrat > wrote:

>On 7/11/14 2:33 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
>> What distance does a sand truck take to slow down on a 6% grade?
>
>d = V^2/(2*g*(f + G))

I haven't read all 98 posts, but this doesn't seem right. If G
increases, that is, a steeper hill, d increases, and that is fine.

But if f increases, the formula shows that d also increases, and that
seems clearly wrong. The higher the coefficient of friction, that is,
the more friction there is between the road and the tires**, the sooner
the truck stops. A very low f would be like melting ice. A very high
f would be like a road made of big rocks, maybe.

At any rate f and G are parellel in the formula, even though high values
of each have the opposite effect. Maybe there should be a negative
sign somewhere.

**And what about between the brake pads and the rotors? Or are we
assuming the wheels are locked up? I didn't think that was the case.

>Whe
>d = Braking Distance (ft)
>g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
>G = Roadway grade as a percentage
>V = Initial vehicle speed (ft/sec)
>f = Coefficient of friction between the tires and the roadway
>
>So if the truck were going 55mph, that would be about 80 feet per second.
>
>The coefficient of friction for treaded tires is about .7 on dry roads.
>
>d = (80*80)/(2*32*(.7+.06))
>
>or about 132 feet (from the time the driver hits the brakes). Assuming
>a lot of things, like the brakes don't burn out.
>
>> If it can't stop in that distance, is it criminal?
>
>Of course not. The driver must have been doing something recklessly
>negligent before it's criminal.
>
><snip/>

On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 18:12:24 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:25:56 -0500, deadrat > wrote:
>
>>On 7/11/14 2:33 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
>>> What distance does a sand truck take to slow down on a 6% grade?
>>
>>d = V^2/(2*g*(f + G))
>
>I haven't read all 98 posts, but this doesn't seem right. If G
>increases, that is, a steeper hill, d increases, and that is fine.
>

You are correct. I pointed that out in one of the other posts in this
thread. I don't blame you for not reading them all.

>But if f increases, the formula shows that d also increases, and that
>seems clearly wrong. The higher the coefficient of friction, that is,
>the more friction there is between the road and the tires**, the sooner
>the truck stops. A very low f would be like melting ice. A very high
>f would be like a road made of big rocks, maybe.
>
>At any rate f and G are parellel in the formula, even though high values
>of each have the opposite effect. Maybe there should be a negative
>sign somewhere.
>

The use of the formula relies on the user understanding that the
correct sign must be used for GRADE.

>**And what about between the brake pads and the rotors?

The formula only deals with the friction, f, at the tire/road
interface. The formula can be used to solve for any of it's variables
based on knowing the other variables and plugging them in to get a
solution. It also needs to be kept in mind that the way it's often
used, and how its being used here, one simply makes an assumption that
is said to be the f for the road. That's a bit simplistic because
there is no "f' for the road. f only has meaning relative to what
ever material is the other half of the interface. In this case it's a
tire. And different tires can produce different f's, sometimes
significantly different. Also, as you mention, there is the issue of
whether the brakes are locked. If they are locked and the tires
skidding you have a different f value then what you would get/use if
the tires were not skidding. F also varies with the speed of the
things moving against each other at the interface, so the f value is
an average of all the f's as the speed goes from the starting speed
down to zero.



Or are we
>assuming the wheels are locked up? I didn't think that was the case.
>
>>Whe
>>d = Braking Distance (ft)
>>g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
>>G = Roadway grade as a percentage
>>V = Initial vehicle speed (ft/sec)
>>f = Coefficient of friction between the tires and the roadway
>>
>>So if the truck were going 55mph, that would be about 80 feet per second.
>>
>>The coefficient of friction for treaded tires is about .7 on dry roads.
>>
>>d = (80*80)/(2*32*(.7+.06))
>>
>>or about 132 feet (from the time the driver hits the brakes). Assuming
>>a lot of things, like the brakes don't burn out.
>>
>>> If it can't stop in that distance, is it criminal?
>>
>>Of course not. The driver must have been doing something recklessly
>>negligent before it's criminal.
>>
>><snip/>