cool story bros- witness to a bizarre accident tonight... caused by a police car? - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Flabbibulin · 12-12-2011, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

The person behind the police car didn't rear end anyone, the person behind the car behind the police car, and the car behind the car behind the car behind the police car, were following too close.

And I swerved out of the way like Batman!

Cheerio · 12-13-2011, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

No, eastbound- it must have been a little after 6 then... maybe 615ish. Westbound is always a mess at that time with congestion, but eastbound was completely buggered after this

Oh okay, Glenmore was fata'd tonight then. I had to drop my brother off for dryland up by the Blackfoot Inn at 6. I went to get on Glenmore Westbound at Blackfoot Trail and I saw how backed-up it was, and there was a sign saying accident @ Sarcee, expect delays. So I said screw it I'll just go to Chinook and kill time and do some Christmas shopping until it all gets cleared up.

/Cool Story Bro

4X4 · 12-13-2011, 06:38 AM

One day I was driving the WB at that same area and saw a guy in a little hatchback slam on his brakes to flip a Uey there - right in front of a semi. That guy is seriously lucky he didn't get himself killed or neck broken that day.

This cop may be allowed to do stuff like this, but I would hope that our "specially trained at driving" (which is why they're capable of talking on a phone and operating a computer while driving) would have the sense to give a bit of warning if he's going to go slamming on the brakes on a thoroughfare in rush hour. Tap the brakes a few times as he's approaching, perhaps?

Come on, cop! You see a gazillion accidents every shift, and you're going around slamming on brakes and flipping Ueys on fricken Glenmore trail, in rush hour, in the goddamn winter. Thanks, dick.

I feel bad for all the people whose cars are now crunched up because one of our specially trained professional drivers forgot to check his rearview mirror before pulling a dangerous manouvre. I guess it's a lesson. Doesn't matter who you're following, always assume that they're ######ed.

GreatWhiteEbola · 12-13-2011, 06:58 AM

No one rear ended the officer, not sure how the officer is at fault. The cars following too close during rush hour in winter are to blame. The key to this is who is driving in the middle car...

Quote:

in this case, one of the cars was completely un-driveable and the young girl behind the wheel wasn't even able to get out of the car....

4X4 · 12-13-2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

No one rear ended the officer, not sure how the officer is at fault. The cars following too close during rush hour in winter are to blame. The key to this is who is driving in the middle car...

If everyone left a two second gap in rush hour, rush hour would last all day.

Seriously, it's not the cop's fault. I know that. But what he did was completely unexpected and unnecessary. It's really no smarter than people that STOP! on deerfoot to change lanes.

sclitheroe · 12-13-2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4X4

If everyone left a two second gap in rush hour, rush hour would last all day.

If by rush hour you mean smooth, consistent, at speed traffic flow, yes it would last all day. Lack of space between vehicles is the number one cause of traffic issues during rush hour. There are only about six billion studies and simulations on this topic.

zamler · 12-13-2011, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Lack of space between vehicles is the number one cause of traffic issues during rush hour. There are only about six billion studies and simulations on this topic.

Link to one of them? I'd like to read about this.

GreatWhiteEbola · 12-13-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamler

Link to one of them? I'd like to read about this.

Three-phase traffic theory.

Flabbibulin · 12-13-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

No one rear ended the officer, not sure how the officer is at fault. The cars following too close during rush hour in winter are to blame. The key to this is who is driving in the middle car...

Yuh, I cant speak for the others, but I know for sure that I was wasnt technically following too close- I had enough time to see what was happening and maneuver out of the way, but there is no way I would have been able to stop in time had I stayed in the lane, and Im in a 4x4 with winter tires... I dont know how much further I should have been following to make it completely safe, cause I was a few car lengths back. If I recall correctly, that section of glenmore is in pretty decent condition, but perhaps mildly slippery. Either the cop, or the car behind him stopped too fast, and the cars behind were probably following a bit too close for the conditions.

Russic · 12-13-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4X4

If everyone left a two second gap in rush hour, rush hour would last all day.

Seriously, it's not the cop's fault. I know that. But what he did was completely unexpected and unnecessary. It's really no smarter than people that STOP! on deerfoot to change lanes.

I have no proof to back this up, but I have to call straight BS on this. One single accident on the Deerfoot can be the difference between a 30 minute commute and a 2 hour commute.

Bring_Back_Shantz · 12-13-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Yuh, I cant speak for the others, but I know for sure that I was wasnt technically following too close- I had enough time to see what was happening and maneuver out of the way, but there is no way I would have been able to stop in time had I stayed in the lane, and Im in a 4x4 with winter tires... I dont know how much further I should have been following to make it completely safe, cause I was a few car lengths back. If I recall correctly, that section of glenmore is in pretty decent condition, but perhaps mildly slippery. Either the cop, or the car behind him stopped too fast, and the cars behind were probably following a bit too close for the conditions.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

If you can't stop in time, you're following too close, it's as simple as that.
You had to swerve into the center median, well if there hadn't been one, you'd have either had to swereve into oncoming traffic or hit the car in front of you. How exactly is that not following too close?

Flabbibulin · 12-13-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

If you can't stop in time, you're following too close, it's as simple as that.
You had to swerve into the center median, well if there hadn't been one, you'd have either had to swereve into oncoming traffic or hit the car in front of you. How exactly is that not following too close?

No, they arent mutually exclusive- I was "technically" following at an approptiate distance (even greater) according to what is commonly accepted and recommended... My point is that the recommended space between vehicles does not always guarentee that a collision will not occur. Following at an appropriate distance doesnt mean anything if a vehicle has awful tires or if the driver is late to react to a situation.

I know I mentioned swerving out of the way saved me from a collision, but this was instinctive and I suppose I cant say with 100% certainty that I would have hit the vehicle otherwise- I eased up on the brakes when I realized that I was in the clear, and the amount of space I cleared past the last vehicle in the pile-up might have been over emphasized. Had swerving out of the way not been an option, it is possible that my brakes alone would have done the job, but I'll never know. And its not like I hit the curb at 80km- i braked for a decent amount of time, and took the corner at a reduced speed to be safe.

Knut · 12-13-2011, 10:18 AM

On glenmore though. If you leave a two car length gap. Two cars will try and fill that gap. You would be really backing up traffic continually having people come in and having to slow down again to follow further back.

Besides, that place is clearly marked with no turning. I do not think there would have been an issue if the cop had turned onhis lights 100m before that spot as people would have been more aware that he would do something like that.

Rathji · 12-13-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesla

On glenmore though. If you leave a two car length gap. Two cars will try and fill that gap. You would be really backing up traffic continually having people come in and having to slow down again to follow further back.

The assumption that everyone leaves enough following distance, and having traffic flow better, assumes that no one fills that gap.

The general idea is the time lost when people hard break, and how that time amplifies as it ripples through traffic, is far worst for commute times than if people didn't drive in a manner which causes more hard breaking.

Knut · 12-13-2011, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathji

The assumption that everyone leaves enough following distance, and having traffic flow better, assumes that no one fills that gap.

The general idea is the time lost when people hard break, and how that time amplifies as it ripples through traffic, is far worst for commute times than if people didn't drive in a manner which causes more hard breaking.

It's all well and good If everyone on the road is on board with that. Once there is a gap in Calgary traffic someone is jumping into it.

Flabbibulin · 12-13-2011, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

I seem to remember it is actually defined as that.

The appropriate distance is the distance required to fully stop (no matter how sudden) in whatever the conditions of the road and vehicle at the time. If that means 1 km behind then so be it. I don't think anyone actually does this at all times, except for my mom, but there it is.

Mind you, the government of Alberta actually specifies the two second rule, then makes it vague for non-normal conditions. Maybe my definition is not the one. I thought rules were pretty prescriptive?
Damn lawyers.

Yup, probably true. I think if everyone followed at the perfect distance, there would be a lot more space between cars...

GreatWhiteEbola · 12-13-2011, 10:35 AM

Brake.

My Glenmore experience, which is daily, doesn't have many drivers occupying my 2 second gap.

Locke · 12-13-2011, 10:42 AM

Guys, whether you left a 2 second gap to stop in case the car in front of you goes insane is totally irrelevant.

Hammering on your brakes to come to a complete stop on Glenmore trail going around 80km/hr just means that you're going to turn an entire lane of traffic into a vehicle accordion.

All about predictability, the cop is certainly wrong on this one, if he pulls a U-ie out of nowhere and vehicles have to hammer their brakes to accomodate then hes done something unpredictable and therefore dangerous. Even if a car manages to stop and not get into an accident, ALL the cars have to stop without causing an accident.

For instance, if Flabbibulin there was doing everything right and manages to stop rather than swerve, what about the car behind him? What about the car behind that one? What about the 10, 20, 30 cars behind them? Someone isnt going to be leaving enough room or paying enough attention.

GreatWhiteEbola · 12-13-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

Come on. Whats the worst that can happen in a car accident?

You could break something when you don't brake?

sclitheroe · 12-13-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesla

On glenmore though. If you leave a two car length gap. Two cars will try and fill that gap. You would be really backing up traffic continually having people come in and having to slow down again to follow further back.

If everyone worked to slow slightly and re-establish their forward gap when cars merge in front of them, traffic would continue flowing with almost no loss of average speed, though.