New PA BS law, snow on roof

[BigEasy]

... this is an example of not restricting one's freedoms via new laws, but rather having written consequences on the books in the event of wrong doing. The case example is to provide for the fines for owners/ drivers not taking the responsibility of maintaining a safe vehicle on public roads.



Snow and ice being discharged from a moving vehicle is akin to not having cargo safely secured on one's truck. Would those who disagree with the new laws be OK with a piece of cargo material damaging your truck while in transit? I seriously doubt it. Snow and Ice can be looked at in the same fashion.

I agree whole-heartedly... and I recommended the headlight/wiper bill to my representatives years ago.

 

[TowPro]

But will they enforce it? We also have a "drive right, pass left" rule in PA, but they don't enforce it. Every day I see people just doing 55 in the passing lane, then dive to the right lane just before the exit I get off.

 

[Sled Puller]

The day they will enforce that one, is when I blow past a Good Sammer whos been holding up the hammer lane for 20 miles.

 

[fkovalski]

So I am driving into work today, waiting in a line of traffic on a 1 lane each way road. There was a 4 car chain reaction fender bender ahead and the ice on the road was very slick and backed up quite a bit.



What do I see passing on the right in the break down lane... ? An idiot (to whom this law being discussed could apply) ... snow covered head lights that were barely seen... AND... the clear arc swath of the wiper on the driver's side only!! So this guy has only 1 wiper working and he or she (PC spoken here :-laf ) is so lazy as to not even clear the other side of the windshield!! Snow on the back window. There was the smallest of clearing on the driver's side door to humbly see the mirror! This idiot was a driving example of where this law could be thrown at her!

 

[Jim Smith]

too many people with too much time on their hands doing unecessary stuff. .

 

[Bill Lins]

mcoleman asked how often this happens- here ya go:





News*>*Breaking News Thursday, Feb 15, 2007



Ice flying off tractor trailer injures girl in SUV



The Associated Press



SPRING GROVE, PA -- A sheet of ice flew off the top of a tractor-trailer and struck the windshield of a sport-utility vehicle behind it, injuring a 17-year-old girl, officials said.



The accident Wednesday in North Codorus Township showed why lawmakers passed a law last May making drivers criminally responsible for serious injuries or deaths caused by snow or ice falling from their vehicles, Southwestern Regional Police Chief Greg Bean said.



"This is a perfect example of why they came up with it," Bean said. "We're hoping people take a little more responsibility to clean their vehicle before they leave their home. "



The driver of the SUV, Carolyn W. Sterner, was able to stop it safely, Bean said. The 17-year-old girl in the passenger seat was treated at the scene for facial cuts. Bean said police were looking for the truck, which did not stop.

 

[2broke2smoke]

yup ...



it's all the truckers fault . .



the suv driver wasn't responsible at all for his own safety ...



no way he could have just backed off a little more ...



and it will probably be the phone companies fault when they slide off the road and hit a telephone pole

 

[TowPro]

yup ...



it's all the truckers fault . .



the suv driver wasn't responsible at all for his own safety ...



no way he could have just backed off a little more ...

Your right! It was the truckers fault! The new law defines this.



I saw it today. 65 mph, a sheet of ice comes off a van roof and flys up into the air and starts to tumble. It took 10 seconds for that ice to drop from the level of his van to the grill of my truck. 10 seconds is 10 car lenghts. How much further do you think we should back off?

 

[mcoleman]

Ok You found 1. Is one incident reason for more laws. Do you know how many millions of tax dollars worthless politicians cost the public for each new law?

 

[Sled Puller]

Did the law prevent it from happening?

NO

Did they arrest the trucker for endangering other motorists?

NO



Good law, working flawlessly.



Id bet a years salary, that SUV drivers have killed or maimed more than any trucker, period, let alone some ice off the roof. Especially if you factor in the miles driven.



Dont even get me started on wimen and cell phones.

 

[2broke2smoke]

Your right! It was the truckers fault! The new law defines this.



I saw it today. 65 mph, a sheet of ice comes off a van roof and flys up into the air and starts to tumble. It took 10 seconds for that ice to drop from the level of his van to the grill of my truck. 10 seconds is 10 car lenghts. How much further do you think we should back off?

you should be far enough back ...



to keep YOURSELF safe ...



you should be far enough back to avoid problems ...



if you couldn't avoid the snow you were too close to avoid an accident ...



what would have happened if the van had to make an emergency stop / move



you had time to count 10 seconds and still let the snow hit your grill?



yeah it was all the vans fault ...



by your way of thinking if you slide off an icy road it's the states fault because they didn't get all the snow off ... not yours for not slowing down

 

[midlife crisis]

you should be far enough back ...



to keep YOURSELF safe ...



you should be far enough back to avoid problems ...



if you couldn't avoid the snow you were too close to avoid an accident ...



what would have happened if the van had to make an emergency stop / move



you had time to count 10 seconds and still let the snow hit your grill?



yeah it was all the vans fault ...



by your way of thinking if you slide off an icy road it's the states fault because they didn't get all the snow off ... not yours for not slowing down

So I read through all that-thinking this law makes sense to me. Then I read the sarcasm. Now I am convinced that tailgating is a dumb law. Because if its going to take 10+ seconds for the ice chunk to land- I am going to be right on that truckers arse. It will miss me altogether

How does your logic factor in for people going THE OPPOSITE way and get hit?

 

[2broke2smoke]

my logic is that you should be responsible for your own safety ...

 

[midlife crisis]

I have to be. When others out there believe that trying to (possibly) prevent a needless tragedy from happening is the victims fault. . I have to be.

 

[TowPro]

I watched a couple more chunks fly off tonight. It could not have been 10 seconds. I guess its kind of like seeing your life flash in front of your eyes when your dying At 5:00am there is not many cars on the road so following distance is not that close. I always cruse the speed limit with the cruse on (too many cops out in the morning), this guy that got me darted in front of me to get off an exit.



On the news tonight they had a BMW SUV that took a sheet (she said was the size of a car) through the windshield today. She ducted and the ice, windshield, mirror, etc all ended up in the back seat. then they had someone else that took a shot in the grill of his jeep, it took out the plastic grill and cracked the windshield. Yesterday there was a 17 year old passanger hit by a chunk, they are looking for the truck.



I didn't realize how much of it goes on after a storm until the new law brought it to my attention. There are chunks all over the place.



They did say that you are responsible if it results in injury or death with finds from $200-$1000. Nothing about being responsible for damage.

 

[midlife crisis]

my logic is that you should be responsible for your own safety ...

What if the victim is another trucker? What if the other trucker is a tanker hauling chemicals? I guess we will see because it just happened in Pa.

 

[Sled Puller]

WERE ANY OF THEM ARRESTED???????



Good law!!!

 

[2broke2smoke]

What if the victim is another trucker? What if the other trucker is a tanker hauling chemicals? I guess we will see because it just happened in Pa.

once again ... if a trucker is hauling 80k lbs of chemicals close enough to have ice hit him than he is too close to the first truck for a safe stop in an emergency ...



i guess the main difference between you and i is that you believe it is the governments responsiblility to protect you ...



and i believe it is my responsibility to protect myself ...

 

[RustyJC]

i guess the main difference between you and i is that you believe it is the governments responsiblility to protect you ...



and i believe it is my responsibility to protect myself ...

Actually, I believe it is the responsibility of each driver to ensure that his/her vehicle is safe before entering the roadway. This is no different than the responsibility of a trucker to make sure his/her load is secured. All this law does is address those drivers who create a hazard for their fellow motorists.



Rusty

 

[rbattelle]

Actually, I believe it is the responsibility of each driver to ensure that his/her vehicle is safe before entering the roadway.

If you fail to service the brakes on your vehicle and injure someone as a result, whose fault is it?



Is it the person who was hit, for not being responsible for their own safety and assuming you had no brakes?



Or is it the person who neglected having their brakes properly serviced?



Personally, I agree with Rusty - it is up to each of us to ensure we are operating a safe vehicle, for the safety of everyone on the road.



I guess there are two sides of the argument here, and both are legitimate and entitled to their viewpoint. It's either "every man for himself" or "sacrifice for the greater good".



Ryan