Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: pbish on November 15, 2013, 10:17:34 AM
-
I heard a report this morning there was a 17 Vehicle Accident on the Hwy 1 Vedder Canal Bridge possibly caused by smoke from a fisherman's fire below the bridge. Anyone else heard anything?
-
http://www.news1130.com/2013/11/15/massive-pileup-closes-highway-1-in-chilliwack/
Hope the fuel don't leak into the Vedder and contaminate the canal.
-
Really!? A bon fire under a highway bridge. Some people....
-
Smart fishermen under the bridge .....thought that through all the way did ya boys . Another good reason to avoid the Vedder gong show how stunned can people be.
-
Things happen when driving, be prepared. Ignoring the big fire to stay warm and dry, people shouldn't tailgate, should be alert and aware. Bad drivers being bad.
-
Regardless where the fire was, a 17 car pile-up is a result of drivers not keeping a safe distance between each other. There'll always be unexpected distractions, that's why you leave enough distance to avoid a crash during these encounters.
-
vedder is stuffed, so many coho. Gotta hae a fire though
-
the #1 Vedder Canal Bridge is a frequent point for serious & often fatal accidents. It's even known by Highways and the Media that the bridge design was seriously flawed at the get go. The bridge and highway was designed for traffic conditions of 40 to 50 years ago. It's a death trap. Vehicles today are faster, more responsive and there are several times more on the road at any given time than when the highway was opened. For close to 30 years the political dogma in BC was we need to spend less on road improvements so transit could be improved and extended. As a result with the typical political will in BC we got neither. Anyone know you could take a train to fish the Chilliwack River until the late 50s?
Seventeen vehicles at random is a pretty good sample as anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics would know. So most everyone is driving inappropriately in the face of risks. People drive the way they do for a variety of reasons beyond simple undo attention. Problem drivers constitute those who drive without sufficient care (too fast too close) and those who don't follow basic common sense & rules of the road - keep with the flow in your lane, stay to the right if you can't. First generation drivers (PC for immigrants) are recognized within the auto insurance industry as a major source of traffic accidents and industries. For the rest of us we are inculcated into North American driving patterns by spending 15 or more years driving in the company of our parents. My frequent experience on the #1 is there are 2 speeds - too fast or too slow for the conditions - happening simultaneously. You leave enough room between your car and the one in front and some speed demon will slip in there and viola you are tailgating. Same problem with passers moving from the right lane to the left and not accelerating to the speed in the left lane. The change in the safe driving habits of very large commercial vehicles over the last 20 years is shocking. That has been driven by economics as driver pay has been linked to time constraints - they lose pay for being late.
Overall I'd say that better than half of the safety issues on our highways is systemic.
-
Never seen bonfires at the Veeder. Strange to just blame it on "anglers" since most of the serious anglers I know would rather fish than stay warm next to a fire...
Regardless where the fire was, a 17 car pile-up is a result of drivers not keeping a safe distance between each other. There'll always be unexpected distractions, that's why you leave enough distance to avoid a crash during these encounters.
Don't venture out there other than to fish and I find myself driving at 110kmh just to keep up with the slow traffic. Idiots drivers driving 30+ over the speed limit all the while tailgating (what's happened to a minimum of 3 car lengths going over 100?)… all just to get to their destination a couple minutes faster. Add in slick conditions, low visibility and I amazed that there aren't more accidents in the Valley.
-
Don't venture out there other than to fish and I find myself driving at 110kmh just to keep up with the slow traffic. Idiots drivers driving 30+ over the speed limit all the while tailgating (what's happened to a minimum of 3 car lengths going over 100?)… all just to get to their destination a couple minutes faster. Add in slick conditions, low visibility and I amazed that there aren't more accidents in the Valley.
The worse are the big pickups that insist on switching in and out of lanes to tailgate you...when it's pouring rain.. there are cars in front of me as far as the eye can see, where do you suggest I go. DB. Some seriously sketchy drivers on that highway and it's not the slow "inexperienced" drivers I'm worried about.
-
Regardless where the fire was, a 17 car pile-up is a result of drivers not keeping a safe distance between each other. There'll always be unexpected distractions, that's why you leave enough distance to avoid a crash during these encounters.
Precisely. Amazing what drivers do to save a few minutes.
-
Precisely. Amazing what drivers do to save a few minutes.
At the cost of more fuel nonetheless. ICBC should have fun trying to determine who stopped in time and got rear ended and who was tailgating/speeding. I imagine they could tell from what end of vehicles have most damage.
/shrug and the insurance premiums rise.
-
Regardless where the fire was, a 17 car pile-up is a result of drivers not keeping a safe distance between each other. There'll always be unexpected distractions, that's why you leave enough distance to avoid a crash during these encounters.
^ this!
If people were paying attention and driving accordingly, this would not have happened.
-
(what's happened to a minimum of 3 car lengths going over 100?)…
there's your problem - all you smart guys who say it's due to people tailgating, how meters do you need between a car and the car in front of it if the speed is 100km? I bet no one can get the answer right without going to some source via google.
Hint - Rustybee you must have a very very long car.
-
there's your problem - all you smart guys who say it's due to people tailgating, how meters do you need between a car and the car in front of it if the speed is 100km? I bet no one can get the answer right without going to some source via google.
Hint - Rustybee you must have a very very long car.
It's 3 second gap in good conditions now (whether that's what he meant or not is unclear), however 4-5 in rain like this is a better bet.
Aside from that, biggest pet peeve of mine is "Keep right except to pass". I rage like no other to you coastal folk that do this. Stop it.
Quit.
No. Enough.
-
there's your problem - all you smart guys who say it's due to people tailgating, how meters do you need between a car and the car in front of it if the speed is 100km? I bet no one can get the answer right without going to some source via google.
Hint - Rustybee you must have a very very long car.
I think the 3 second rule accurate. So at 100 km/hr, you travel 100,000 metres in an hour, 1667 metres in a minute or 28 metres a second. So if you apply the 3second rule, would need 84 metres of separation between cars travelling at 100 km/hr
With that distance, 3 cars would pull in between!
-
If you run in the the back of someone it's always your fault . You are either tailgating or distracted or both. Most people who drive today tailgate. There have been lots of accidents on the bridge and they'll be a lot more.
-
There was a big collision on the Second Narrows bridge yesterday afternoon. Had traffic backed up to Hastings.
-
If you run in the the back of someone it's always your fault . You are either tailgating or distracted or both. Most people who drive today tailgate. There have been lots of accidents on the bridge and they'll be a lot more.
However, it's common on the coast for people to cut you off and purposely slam on their brakes for insurance coverage for whiplash. Witnesses are so important these days for this crap. I hope one day every car has a dash cam recording when the engine is on; when an accident occurs all footage is locked out until ICBC can review it.
-
However, it's common on the coast for people to cut you off and purposely slam on their brakes for insurance coverage for whiplash. Witnesses are so important these days for this crap. I hope one day every car has a dash cam recording when the engine is on; when an accident occurs all footage is locked out until ICBC can review it.
Only in a perfect world...
-
Reports on BCTV news said the visibility was so poor on the bridge due to the smoke that one vehichle actually came to a complete stop on the bridge deck. What followed was inevitable, tailgating or not. Every year you hear of multiple vehichle pileups, usually due to dense fog. IMHO coming to a complete stop on a highway with a 100kph speed limit in thick smoke is lunacy!
-
That bridge should be wider with paved shoulders & railings. It's narrow & cars are funnelled thru.
Tail gating is a big problem. Guess we need air bags on our rear bumpers as well as inside the car.
Thank goodness no one was killed.
Highways are 10x more dangerous than city roadways because of the higher speeds.
What gets me is some drivers go the posted roadside speed & in whatever road conditions,snow,black ice,heavy rain ,fog ...
-
That bridge should be wider with paved shoulders & railings. It's narrow & cars are funnelled thru.
Tail gating is a big problem. Guess we need air bags on our rear bumpers as well as inside the car.
Thank goodness no one was killed.
Highways are 10x more dangerous than city roadways because of the higher speeds.
What gets me is some drivers go the posted roadside speed & in whatever road conditions,snow,black ice,heavy rain ,fog ...
And there is talk about increasing the speed limit.
-
With that distance, 3 cars would pull in between!
...but that is the problem, and that is why people tailgate so much...they actually care if someone pulls in front of them. You are both travelling 100km/hr so the guy in front of you is going to reach your destination a fraction of a second before you...so what. It is this mentality, that I own the road and no one should be able to pass me, that leads to many bad habits out there. I do not want any one pulling in front of me, so I pull up closer to the car in front if me. Now, no one can pass me and get in front if me. But this also means no one can get off the highway since the guy behind you has done the same thing, and the guy behind him has done the same. Nor can anyone merge onto the highway as there is not enough space to merge, so everyone had to slow down now as cars force their way into these tight lines and people get cut off, weave quickly out of traffic, etc. If everyone followed the 3 second rule (so distance between increases with speed, not decreases as is current practice), "rush hour" would not last 6 hours and people would not stress themselves out so much. If people left more space in front of them, allowed people to merge in front of them (instead of jealously guarding the space in front if their cars like it is their most valuable possession), then traffic would flow much more freely and there would be fewer accidents.
-
However, it's common on the coast for people to cut you off and purposely slam on their brakes for insurance coverage for whiplash. Witnesses are so important these days for this crap. I hope one day every car has a dash cam recording when the engine is on; when an accident occurs all footage is locked out until ICBC can review it.
???? I have driven on the coast for a few decades and this has never happened to me, so it cannot be that "common." Perhaps you need to stay off our coastal roads , so you avoid any frivolous lawsuits. If someone purposefully cuts in front of you and slams on the brakes, they are more than likely pissed off at you for something you did (ie: you dared to enter the space between them and the car in front if them a few minutes earlier).
-
I think the 3 second rule accurate. So at 100 km/hr, you travel 100,000 metres in an hour, 1667 metres in a minute or 28 metres a second. So if you apply the 3second rule, would need 84 metres of separation between cars travelling at 100 km/hr
With that distance, 3 cars would pull in between!
Still 28 meters is a very long vehicle ,size of a semi trailer truck perhaps.
Funny how every body is talking about that 3 sec rule as if they never drove in the real world.
Try to do that and you'll have 3-4 cars trying to squeeze in between. I've seen situations where the gap between cars was so tight that a compact car would have problem to fit in and yet some jerk forced his way in.
People are what they are for good or bed . In mu opinion police should increase their presence and enforce road rules. In Europe you get ticketed for not having working lights or to dirty vehicle. Not only that ,they also will not let you drive it until vehicle is fixed and inspected. Unfortunately this is not the priority of our law enforcement ,only occasionally.
On the positive side the new vehicles there are systems introduced such as active cruise control that will mitigate if not prevent such accidents.
-
Still 28 meters is a very long vehicle ,size of a semi trailer truck perhaps.
.
it's about 2x the length of the trailer.
Reports on BCTV news said the visibility was so poor on the bridge due to the smoke that one vehichle actually came to a complete stop on the bridge deck.
this is another phenomena I see fairly often - people who come to a complete stop where it is both dangerous and in-courteous ( whatever happened to courteous driving?) to do so. Many people just don't use their brain when it comes what is going on behind them
-
.. If everyone followed the 3 second rule (so distance between increases with speed, not decreases as is current practice), "rush hour" would not last 6 hours and people would not stress themselves out so much. If people left more space in front of them, allowed people to merge in front of them (instead of jealously guarding the space in front if their cars like it is their most valuable possession), then traffic would flow much more freely and there would be fewer accidents.
Actually traffic modeling and flow studies have shown rush hour bumper traffic demonstrates that the 2-3 second rule is not just a rule but more like a physical law. In stop and go traffic traffic flow slows down to match the rule.
-
What do you think the suspected fire starters did when the crash happened?
Its tough when people are so damn determined to cut in front of you and close up the space I left for safety. Gets worse every year with more congestion and poor driving skills.
-
I think I heard that Rodney and Chris were smoking salmon under the bridge when Chris knocked over the bacon fat and caused the flare up...now this is only rumor to this point according to Rodney....
-
Now that you mentioned it, I did see a small pickup truck drive down under the bridge on my way to work at around that time. On my way back I stopped to check the aftermath and there was a pile of melted bottles left behind.
-
If you run in the the back of someone it's always your fault . You are either tailgating or distracted or both. Most people who drive today tailgate. There have been lots of accidents on the bridge and they'll be a lot more.
I call bull on you assumption. Is it your fault when someone cuts you off and then slams on the brake ?
-
I think I heard that Rodney and Chris were smoking salmon under the bridge when Chris knocked over the bacon fat and caused the flare up...now this is only rumor to this point according to Rodney....
Was it salmon or something else ? Anyway now it can't be proved
-
Just throwing this out there - have the persons who had the fire going been positively identified as being anglers? Could have been just some "party goers" after an all nighter, whoever it was they did not stick around. Could very well see dyke access limited just like the Abbotsford side. Abby closed theirs due to motorbikes, quads and 4X4's driving up and down the sides of the dyke therefore weakening them, also the garbage, stolen vehicles and parties.
-
I call bull on you assumption. Is it your fault when someone cuts you off and then slams on the brake ?
Unless you can show some sort of evidence that you were cut off and they slammed on the brakes, you are going to be at fault.
With any accidents involving a rear-ending, the back vehicle is always at fault unless they can prove otherwise. I have both been on the receiving end of a rear-ender, and done the rear-ending myself. If your really lucky, Cops will show up and give you a ticket for following too close too...
There was 17 vehicles involved in the accident, but I doubt you can blame ALL of them for distracted driving - its entirely possible to be rear-ended and pushed into the vehicle infront of you, leaving people stuck in the middle of that mess without ever doing anything wrong...Although if the reports are true that someone STOPPED on the bridge deck, they should be castrated and have their license revoked.
-
On my drives out to the Valley on Hwy 1, I use a 2 second rule as I was taught 50 yrs ago ... counting 1, 1000, 2, 1000. I often have drivers pull into the space ahead of me, usually immediately in front of me >:(. I simply slow down until I regain the safe distance. Of course, the next car behind me doesn't like it so they whip around immediately in front of me too. This goes on and on until traffic thins out around 264. Most of the time I find it hilarious. If I'm in a bad mood, the cutoffs bother me a little bit. I was also taught that when you're passing someone, wait until you can see their vehicle in the rear view mirror before moving back to the right lane. I wish people would abide. It's particularly astonishing when someone feels the need to move immediately in front of you when there is nobody behind them.
-
Good driving advice Firebird. I use those same rules and they are great (except for the people always cutting in between you and the next car) >:(
-
As Tom Cruise says in Days of Thunder when driving through smoke, "Put the pedal down and hope for the best". 8) I am guessing the car that came to a complete stop on the bridge thought the bridge was out or needed a new rear bumper.
-
I call bull on you assumption. Is it your fault when someone cuts you off and then slams on the brake ?
My father had an accident like this. ICBC deemed him 100% at fault because there were no witnesses to the accident. If this ever happens to you, stop and get any witnesses asap.
-
On my drives out to the Valley on Hwy 1, I use a 2 second rule as I was taught 50 yrs ago ... counting 1, 1000, 2, 1000. I often have drivers pull into the space ahead of me, usually immediately in front of me >:(. I simply slow down until I regain the safe distance. Of course, the next car behind me doesn't like it so they whip around immediately in front of me too. This goes on and on until traffic thins out around 264. Most of the time I find it hilarious. If I'm in a bad mood, the cutoffs bother me a little bit. I was also taught that when you're passing someone, wait until you can see their vehicle in the rear view mirror before moving back to the right lane. I wish people would abide. It's particularly astonishing when someone feels the need to move immediately in front of you when there is nobody behind them.
That's how I was taught as well.
-
On my drives out to the Valley on Hwy 1, I use a 2 second rule as I was taught 50 yrs ago ... counting 1, 1000, 2, 1000. I often have drivers pull into the space ahead of me, usually immediately in front of me >:(. I simply slow down until I regain the safe distance. Of course, the next car behind me doesn't like it so they whip around immediately in front of me too. This goes on and on until traffic thins out around 264. Most of the time I find it hilarious. If I'm in a bad mood, the cutoffs bother me a little bit. I was also taught that when you're passing someone, wait until you can see their vehicle in the rear view mirror before moving back to the right lane. I wish people would abide. It's particularly astonishing when someone feels the need to move immediately in front of you when there is nobody behind them.
Pretty much describes my driving pattern, most of the time!!
I do find it hilarious that drivers will pull out, pass, pull back in, and, slow down! WTH???
-
I do find it hilarious that drivers will pull out, pass, pull back in, and, slow down! WTH???
I think it has something to do with them wanting to be in front and nothing to do with how fast the traffic is going. Once while out for a very early morning walk I watched a car make a right turn in front of an oncoming vehicle and made that vehicle brake hard. There wasn't another vehicle in sight. I assumed the right turner just had to get out there ahead of the other guy ::)
-
In that case, it is not necessarily a problem with "driving habits"
It is a problem with the person and their thought patterns/outlook.
-
Unless you can show some sort of evidence that you were cut off and they slammed on the brakes, you are going to be at fault.
With any accidents involving a rear-ending, the back vehicle is always at fault unless they can prove otherwise. I have both been on the receiving end of a rear-ender, and done the rear-ending myself. If your really lucky, Cops will show up and give you a ticket for following too close too...
There was 17 vehicles involved in the accident, but I doubt you can blame ALL of them for distracted driving - its entirely possible to be rear-ended and pushed into the vehicle infront of you, leaving people stuck in the middle of that mess without ever doing anything wrong...Although if the reports are true that someone STOPPED on the bridge deck, they should be castrated and have their license revoked.
Actually there are cases where following scheme is used to extort money from an insurer.
There are 2 or 3 vehicles cruising on the highway ,one gets in front of unsuspecting driver ,second behind and third on the side .
First driver slams on the brakes hard and takes of , second rearends victim and third is a witness that the victim used brakes with no reason. The guy that rear ended makes injury claims and gets the money.
-
Actually there are cases where following scheme is used to extort money from an insurer.
There are 2 or 3 vehicles cruising on the highway ,one gets in front of unsuspecting driver ,second behind and third on the side .
First driver slams on the brakes hard and takes of , second rearends victim and third is a witness that the victim used brakes with no reason. The guy that rear ended makes injury claims and gets the money.
And this is why most people in Russia now have dashboard cameras - Nobody trusts anybody, especially insurance companies and people trying to scam them. (Notice how all the footage of that meteor blowing up in the sky last year was taken from dash cams?)
Besides, that probably doesn't work nearly as often as you might think. Unless the person who got rear ended cut off the person that hit them, the car that hit them would be deemed as following too close, regardless of whether the person infront of them slammed on the brakes for no reason or not.
-
I have a little different school of thought on this one as I pull on my nomex suit, lol
While I agree with most that there are a lot of awful drivers out there that way overdrive their ability and follow too closely but......some of the ownership must be put on the guy out front that for no other reason than a bit of smoke jammed on his brakes hard enough to cause this chain reaction.
No bigger peeve for me than the idiot out front continuously jamming on his brakes wreaking havoc on the flow of traffic commanding everyones 100% attention so they dont end up in his trunk.
This wasnt a case of something un-expectantly jumping out in front of him, he had to have seen the smoke before getting there, unless he was busy texting?
The news showed the wood from the fire......hardly something large enough to completely black out the highway causing zero visibility?
Did he not realize the density of the traffic behind him and what the result of jamming on his brakes would be in those conditions?
My point is its a big picture and it seems like fewer and fewer can see any of it but whats out their front windshield.
-
Was told today it was someone burning insulation off wire and noi fishers at all which does make sense as it would give off more smoke than just a fire with wood as fuel.
-
Toxic fumes
-
I have a little different school of thought on this one as I pull on my nomex suit, lol
While I agree with most that there are a lot of awful drivers out there that way overdrive their ability and follow too closely but......some of the ownership must be put on the guy out front that for no other reason than a bit of smoke jammed on his brakes hard enough to cause this chain reaction.
No bigger peeve for me than the idiot out front continuously jamming on his brakes wreaking havoc on the flow of traffic commanding everyones 100% attention so they dont end up in his trunk.
This wasnt a case of something un-expectantly jumping out in front of him, he had to have seen the smoke before getting there, unless he was busy texting?
The news showed the wood from the fire......hardly something large enough to completely black out the highway causing zero visibility?
Did he not realize the density of the traffic behind him and what the result of jamming on his brakes would be in those conditions?
My point is its a big picture and it seems like fewer and fewer can see any of it but whats out their front windshield.
You have to drive defensively. Assuming that the guy ahead of you is going to drive correctly is putting way too much faith in the average driver, especially in the Lower Mainland.
And what if a deer jumped out in front of the lead driver? Or he had a medical emergency?
-
You didnt read my post, I said this wasnt the case.............
I also said people were driving too closely, my point is everyone needs to own some of this.
A defensive driver wouldnt have jammed on his brakes hard enough to cause this chain reaction......
-
I heard that it was wire thieves as well, that they had put the wire on top of a mattress to make burn better .The 1st driver couldnt see a thing crossing the bridge ,he stopped and the Greyhound bus rear ended him.Who expects traffic to be at a dead stop on that part of Hwy #1?
Thats a tricky stop @ 100 kmh depending on your vehicle,driving ability,etc.
Fortunate no one was injured.
Too bad the Rcmp said on the news it was a fisherman . :(
-
Perhaps it was wire thieving fishermen.
-
Too bad the Rcmp said on the news it was a fisherman . :(
Couldn't agree more. No real fisherman would have made a fire like that in a place like that. Can't fish while building a fire!
-
I can't see a fisherman getting to the river at first light and deciding to start the day off with a huge fire.
Fisherman would be making about 20,000 cast for some chrome. Forget to eat his snacks. Realize at lunch that they pissed themselves because they were too busy casting to take a piss.
Found their lunch soaking wet at 4.00 PM squished and wet in a back pocket...... when they realize they were too busy casting to bother eating.
Time to go home.. Great day on the river. Who says fishing is addictive ?
-
I drive for a living and see things that you wouldn't believe. Don't point the finger at lower mainland drivers specifically. Just about any metropolitan area I travel through has it's share of idiots. South and north of the border east and west, it seems to be the same. At 100kph it takes about 540' to stop a standard 18 wheeler. At 120kph that distance increases to over 700'. Trucks pulling multiple trailers the distance increases even more. Thats under ideal conditions! Keep your distance is the answer! Time the distance between you and the vehicle in front of you using a stationary object at the side of the road. Adjust accordingly.
-
Was told today it was someone burning insulation off wire and noi fishers at all which does make sense as it would give off more smoke than just a fire with wood as fuel.
Yes, a fellow I work with told me his neighbors work trailer (electrical contractor) was stolen the other day, apparently it showed up in Greendale at a rental house, and the thieves had just finished burning the casing off the wire under the bridge, and were in the middle of pulling the decaling off the trailer, and selling off the tools.
Nothing to do with fisherman at all, just a couple jerks stripping wire, and stealing some poor guys ability to make a living.
-
Not fishermen, someone burning insulation off of copper wire. http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/smoke-blinded-drivers-1.701563
-
"RCMP were unavailable for comment on the fire before press time."
Baffling really. ::)
-
I frequently drive this bridge when it is so foggy there is less than 30 ft vis. and i have yet to see a pile up due to that. So i find it really difficult to belive some fire and some smoke caused a 17 car pile up. It has nothing to do with the anglers who lit a fire nor the smoke as a result . Careless driving causes incidents, and speed also effects the magnitude of the incident. to combine speed with lookielous and just plain bad driving skills on a bridge that is already a problem is a recipie for disaster. im glad i went to the bahamas or i would have been one of those anglers under the bridge trying to keep warm. and facing ridiculous acusations such as this.
-
I frequently drive this bridge when it is so foggy there is less than 30 ft vis. and i have yet to see a pile up due to that. So i find it really difficult to belive some fire and some smoke caused a 17 car pile up. It has nothing to do with the anglers who lit a fire nor the smoke as a result . Careless driving causes incidents, and speed also effects the magnitude of the incident. to combine speed with lookielous and just plain bad driving skills on a bridge that is already a problem is a recipie for disaster. im glad i went to the bahamas or i would have been one of those anglers under the bridge trying to keep warm. and facing ridiculous acusations such as this.
How do you know??? Were you there? Unless you were there to personally eye witness this event, then you don't know if the fire caused enough smoke to blind the drivers driving over the bridge on this day.
-
Like i said in my post, I have driven this bridge with such ristricted vis that its almost un driveable. as well, unmentioned which i thought would be unrelated but in the winter with white out conditions. I don't care how bad this breif section was with smoke there is no excuse for this to happen. careless drivers cause incidents. conditions add to the risk when carelessness takes pleace. I didn't have to be there to know that drivers caused the pile up with careless aproach to the smoke. its not like it all of a sudden happened and blocked all vision with the snap of a finger. such as a flashbang or some other ridiculous imparement. people misjudged a situation and a chain reaction was a result.
-
Like i said in my post, I have driven this bridge with such ristricted vis that its almost un driveable. as well, unmentioned which i thought would be unrelated but in the winter with white out conditions. I don't care how bad this breif section was with smoke there is no excuse for this to happen. careless drivers cause incidents. conditions add to the risk when carelessness takes pleace. I didn't have to be there to know that drivers caused the pile up with careless aproach to the smoke. its not like it all of a sudden happened and blocked all vision with the snap of a finger. such as a flashbang or some other ridiculous imparement. people misjudged a situation and a chain reaction was a result.
Once again, you were not there,and don't know what really happened. The wind could of shifted blowing the thick smoke across the bridge very rapidly. Fog and snow don't relate to this situation.
-
Once again, you were not there,and don't know what really happened. The wind could of shifted blowing the thick smoke across the bridge very rapidly. Fog and snow don't relate to this situation.
I disagree. I've driving in the worst white outs at night up north over mountains in a car with semis around, if you stop you've caused an accident and made things worse.
I'm not doubting that visibility could of been 0, even if it was, that person that made it to the bridge first and STOPPED caused a 17 car pile up. The cars before him/her didn't stop, and that PLUME of smoke would of been seen a mile away to allow that person to slow and prepare for it.
Oddly enough once you hit a straight piece of road, even if you let go of your steering wheel you will travel straight enough for a long enough period of time to probably make it past the bridge, that's with no hands and accounting for road banking for water run off.
No, god damn excuse.
-
I disagree. I've driving in the worst white outs at night up north over mountains in a car with semis around, if you stop you've caused an accident and made things worse.
I'm not doubting that visibility could of been 0, even if it was, that person that made it to the bridge first and STOPPED caused a 17 car pile up. The cars before him/her didn't stop, and that PLUME of smoke would of been seen a mile away to allow that person to slow and prepare for it.
Oddly enough once you hit a straight piece of road, even if you let go of your steering wheel you will travel straight enough for a long enough period of time to probably make it past the bridge, that's with no hands and accounting for road banking for water run off.
No, god damn excuse.
The only excuse for stopping is they thought the bridge was out and did not want to drive off it into the river (like all those people did on the Sea to Sky highway when the debris torrent wiped out a bridge years ago), or else they feared someone else may have stopped and feared running over someone. I bet many of those people driving to their deaths off that bridge into the torrent were thinking the same as you...the cars in front of me didn't stop, no god damn reason for me to stop.
While I agree the smoke should have been visible from a distance, so there was plenty of time to stop and pull over, I am a little more understanding about why they may have stopped. Obviously the person made a judgement call to continue when they first saw the smoke (their first mistake). Once they decide to proceed over the bridge, they essentially were committing to it. However, you are not legally able to keep driving when visibility is zero (if the police are criticizing people for driving too fast for the conditions), clearly (no pun intended) if the visibility is zero, your speed should be zero. Once he realized the smoke was thicker than expected and they could not see anymore, they had no legal option but to stop and, as I mentioned above, they may have felt that the bridge may be out. Really, are you actually saying you would go on and drive right off a bridge? I am no lemming. I would have stopped... but then I would have stopped before reaching the bridge.
-
Oddly enough once you hit a straight piece of road, even if you let go of your steering wheel you will travel straight enough for a long enough period of time to probably make it past the bridge, that's with no hands and accounting for road banking for water run off.
No, god damn excuse.
I use that time to lift my arms off the steering wheel and protect my head, by crossing my arms in front of my face. Then peek out between my arms to see if it's OK. ::) ::) :P
-
The only excuse for stopping is they thought the bridge was out and did not want to drive off it into the river (like all those people did on the Sea to Sky highway when the debris torrent wiped out a bridge years ago), or else they feared someone else may have stopped and feared running over someone. I bet many of those people driving to their deaths off that bridge into the torrent were thinking the same as you...the cars in front of me didn't stop, no god damn reason for me to stop.
While I agree the smoke should have been visible from a distance, so there was plenty of time to stop and pull over, I am a little more understanding about why they may have stopped. Obviously the person made a judgement call to continue when they first saw the smoke (their first mistake). Once they decide to proceed over the bridge, they essentially were committing to it. However, you are not legally able to keep driving when visibility is zero (if the police are criticizing people for driving too fast for the conditions), clearly (no pun intended) if the visibility is zero, your speed should be zero. Once he realized the smoke was thicker than expected and they could not see anymore, they had no legal option but to stop and, as I mentioned above, they may have felt that the bridge may be out. Really, are you actually saying you would go on and drive right off a bridge? I am no lemming. I would have stopped... but then I would have stopped before reaching the bridge.
Finally someone who makes sense!!!!!! Thanx for this great post!
-
Grrr anger grr.
-
Look up the definition of "Pain".
-
Was anyone actually there?Did anybody see the conditions?
-
I'm sure most people here have driven in near whiteout conditions.
Ive been there on way to hunting trip is Sask going over Rogers pass in the dead of winter in the middle of the night with near zero visibility. Limited visibility means slow down, not stop in the middle of the road. Never once did I think well legally I cant really see whats going on around me. Ill stop in the middle of the road and wait for conditions to clear, what could go wrong?
Fault is on the driver that stopped. Its Common Sense to proceed forwards and find a safe place to pull over if you know people are coming up the road behind you.
-
8 days later and this is still being discussed ::)
-
8 days later and this is still being discussed ::)
Still being discussed here, while the real world has already forgotten it even happened... Except the part where they blamed fishermen!!! Wont be forgetting that any time soon...
-
I was at the canal thursday and drove under the bridge to sit and fix a reel and wait for a buddy. I thought id see a big firepit with some scorched earth. I looked around and the only firespot I could see wasnt any bigger than a 2 X 2 spot, hardly campfire sized. So it wasnt the pile of mattresses and wire I had envisioned. Obviously the materials had been cleaned up but you could clearly see the blackened earth and Im surprised it cause enough smoke to make someone stop on the freeway.
-
I was at the canal thursday and drove under the bridge to sit and fix a reel and wait for a buddy. I thought id see a big firepit with some scorched earth. I looked around and the only firespot I could see wasnt any bigger than a 2 X 2 spot, hardly campfire sized. So it wasnt the pile of mattresses and wire I had envisioned. Obviously the materials had been cleaned up but you could clearly see the blackened earth and Im surprised it cause enough smoke to make someone stop on the freeway.
If you are burning something like the plastic coating on wire, you dont need a big fire to create a big plume of smoke. It takes a lot of wood to create a huge smoke cloud because wood burns relatively clean... plastic on the other hand...
-
Still being discussed here, while the real world has already forgotten it even happened... Except the part where they blamed fishermen!!! Wont be forgetting that any time soon...
Me too, still stinging from that remark
-
As Tom Cruise says in Days of Thunder when driving through smoke, "Put the pedal down and hope for the best". 8) I am guessing the car that came to a complete stop on the bridge thought the bridge was out or needed a new rear bumper.
LOL! I drive this strech of highway all the time. I'm trying to imagine being the driver that stood on their brakes when they entered the smoke cloud. As others have said, the smoke MUST have been visible from some distance, at least enough to contemplate your next move. I suppouse you don't know for sure what's going to be on the other side of that smoke but to stand on your brakes on a highway where everyone is doing 100+km/h, and there is no room for you to pull over (on a bridge) is INSANE.
As many have said I see stupid driving ALL the time to and from work on hwy1.. from tailgating to dangerous lane changes. Mostly everyone following way too close. I too often have someone cut into the space I've left between myself and the car in front of me.