http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=174198&catid=3
QuoteWestside Woman Grateful to Survive Crash With JSO Officer
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- As her truck was airborne, Linda Horne said she remembers still trying to pump the brakes.
But the only thing that would stop her was the brick and glass front of an empty building.
"I knew I was dead, I knew I was dead, but I looked, my airbag had deployed and it popped my seatbelt loose somehow," said Horne.
Horne survived but she wouldn't be walking away from the crash, she couldn't move her leg and later found out she had a fractured knee.
And she said she also started to realize it was a JSO officer's patrol car that had knocked her off the road.
"It was probably the most terrifying thing I've been through in a long, long time."
Horne said she was driving Eastbound on 103rd Street Saturday morning when the officer pulled out from California Avenue to also go East on 103rd.
She said somehow the officer clipped her truck.
Horne said she ramped up the median, going airborne across three lanes and landing halfway into an empty store front.
Our news partner the Florida Times-Union quotes investigators at the scene as confirming the officer violated the right-of-way.
"I just wish people would drive so much more carefully. There's so many accidents out there," said Horne.
Horne said she will need surgery on her knee and she is getting around slowly, but after her crash landing, she's grateful for even that.
We asked JSO about the crash but so far have not heard back.
©2010 First Coast News
And of course the T-U never heard back from JSO, that's only natural when their communications officer got arrested earlier this week for welfare fraud;
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-30/story/jacksonville-sheriffs-office-employee-charged-food-stamp-fraud
From what I'm reading, the officer simply made a mistake. Good thing for the lady that is WAS a plice officer and not some uninsured motirist drunk off their ass.
The officer made the mistake of properly failing to yield.
There's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit! How fast was she going to get airborne?
I actually saw the accident scene just after it happened on my way to play golf. The truck didn't look that bad really. The building was a decrepit shack and looked like you could crash through that store front with a Barbie jeep.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck WestsiderThere's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit! How fast was she going to get airborne?
That's really irrelevant, since the officer was the one who failed to properly yield and struck her vehicle. The officer is the one at fault, not the victim.
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck WestsiderThere's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit! How fast was she going to get airborne?
That's really irrelevant, since the officer was the one who failed to properly yield and struck her vehicle. The officer is the one at fault, not the victim.
I'm not assigning faults, just laws of physics. One vehicle making a 90 deg right-hand turn, clipping another vehicle going 45 mph, causing it to hit a 6" curb and go airborne.......
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck WestsiderThere's a raised median (i.e. a curb) and a 45 mph speed limit! How fast was she going to get airborne?
That's really irrelevant, since the officer was the one who failed to properly yield and struck her vehicle. The officer is the one at fault, not the victim.
I'm not assigning faults, just laws of physics. One vehicle making a 90 deg right-hand turn, clipping another vehicle going 45 mph, causing it to hit a 6" curb and go airborne.......
45mph is plenty of speed to get airborne, especially because the woman was driving a truck, that vehicle has a lot of mass, once it hit the curb it was unlikely to just stop at 45mph. And that's irrelevant anyway, as the accident would never have happened if the officer had not improperly violated her right of way.
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 10:09:49 AM
The officer made the mistake of properly failing to yield.
COPs always jump out like that. My radar tells they are around before I actaully see them. Is this a JSO hate thread?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 02, 2010, 01:53:29 PM
45mph is plenty of speed to get airborne, especially because the woman was driving a truck, that vehicle has a lot of mass, once it hit the curb it was unlikely to just stop at 45mph.
What part of this makes sense? 45mph is plenty of speed to get airborne if you drive off of a cliff, but we don't have many of those in J'ville. A lot of mass = more weight = more likely to stay on the ground. 15" tires (fairly standard), 12" of travel in the shocks (once again, fairly standard) would more likely roll right over a curb and crack a rim -not jettison the vehicle into a low orbit.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 02, 2010, 01:53:29 PM
And that's irrelevant anyway, as the accident would never have happened if the officer had not improperly violated her right of way.
I can't disagree with this, but how fast could he have possibly been going to make a 90 deg corner? 25-35 mph at the most?
Something doesn't add up.
Quote from: CoolyfettQuote from: SpringfielderThe officer made the mistake of properly failing to yield.
COPs always jump out like that. My radar tells they are around before I actaully see them. Is this a JSO hate thread?
Not as far as I'm concerned; I am not a JSO hater, in fact, I am more of a supporter, but wrong is wrong, and in this situation, the officer was wrong for failing to properly yield.
Non-RedNeck Westsider, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter the speed of either vehicle, the facts remain: the officer failed to properly yield and struck the womans truck, causing the accident. So unless someone here is trained in accident reconstruction with all of the exact details as gathered by the authorities, speed remains irrelevant and does not change the fact that the officer was at fault.
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 02:22:15 PM
Non-RedNeck Westsider, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter the speed of either vehicle, the facts remain: the officer failed to properly yield and struck the womans truck, causing the accident. So unless someone here is trained in accident reconstruction with all of the exact details as gathered by the authorities, speed remains irrelevant and does not change the fact that the officer was at fault.
Speed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?
Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot. That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph. I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck WestsiderSpeed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?
Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot. That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph. I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.
Hello...
violating the right of way, and that's not an indication of fault? Of which is a violation of the traffic code
Visibility: clear
The speed of the car hit does not play into the factor, as she was the one hit while driving legally in a proper lane.
Why should she have slowed down, the officer came out of a side street and clipped her in the rear of the truck. Had she slowed down, he probably would've broad-sided the truck
There's no report that the officer had emergency lights/siren, therefore, there was nothing for her to yield to, she had the right of way.
The officer turned left from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the truck which was heading eastbound.
So you can try all you want to shift the blame onto the woman in the truck, but it does not change the facts. I also seriously doubt that the review board will find the officer without fault.
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 03:21:52 PM
Hello...violating the right of way, and that's not an indication of fault? Of which is a violation of the traffic code
Visibility: clear
The speed of the car hit does not play into the factor, as she was the one hit while driving legally in a proper lane.
Why should she have slowed down, the officer came out of a side street and clipped her in the rear of the truck. Had she slowed down, he probably would've broad-sided the truck
There's no report that the officer had emergency lights/siren, therefore, there was nothing for her to yield to, she had the right of way.
The officer turned left from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the truck which was heading eastbound.
So you can try all you want to shift the blame onto the woman in the truck, but it does not change the facts. I also seriously doubt that the review board will find the officer without fault.
You're making an impassioned argument, while I keep asking relevant questions. I haven't laid blame either way, but find it highly unlikely that she was paying a whole lot of attention while driving. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but if he did turn from the direction you said he did, then why didn't she see him coming across 3 lanes of traffic and a median, especially if he had lights or siren on (which we don't know)? And if she did see him, why couldn't she manuever away from him without flipping the truck? 45 mph is not very fast. There should have been plenty of time to do
something.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 02:22:15 PM
Non-RedNeck Westsider, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter the speed of either vehicle, the facts remain: the officer failed to properly yield and struck the womans truck, causing the accident. So unless someone here is trained in accident reconstruction with all of the exact details as gathered by the authorities, speed remains irrelevant and does not change the fact that the officer was at fault.
Speed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?
Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot. That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph. I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.
You make no sense. The cop violated the other driver's ROW. End of story. At fault.
Did you read your driver's handbook?
Emergency Vehicles
Pedestrians and drivers must yield the right-of-way to law enforcement cars, fire engines and other emergency vehicles using sirens and/or flashing lights. Pull over to the closest edge of the roadway immediately and stop until the emergency vehicle has passed. Do not block intersections.
What hasn't come up yet is whether he had his lights or sirens on at the time of the accident.
Next story....
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 03:51:18 PM
Did you read your driver's handbook?
Emergency Vehicles
Pedestrians and drivers must yield the right-of-way to law enforcement cars, fire engines and other emergency vehicles using sirens and/or flashing lights. Pull over to the closest edge of the roadway immediately and stop until the emergency vehicle has passed. Do not block intersections.
What hasn't come up yet is whether he had his lights or sirens on at the time of the accident.
Next story....
Yes, I know the handbook quite well. and you're quote is all well and good, had the officer been responding to an emergency call using the emergency lights/sirens, but they weren't. So you can quote the handbook all you want, but it still doesn't shift the blame to the woman who was hit by the officer who failed to properly yield the right of way.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 03:51:18 PM
What hasn't come up yet is whether he had his lights or sirens on at the time of the accident.
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 04:01:25 PM
....had the officer been responding to an emergency call using the emergency lights/sirens, but they weren't.
This wasn't in the article at the time of posting - has it been updated?
This entire time, you can go back and read, I have only asked relevant questions such as the one above. Because if the officer had lights or siren on - he gets right of way. If he didn't, but was responding to a call, he will still probably be not at fault because he had to cross
3 lanes of traffic and a turning median! If he was turning the direction that you said he was (but not yet written in the article)...
QuoteQuote from: Springfielder on Today at 03:21:52 PM
The officer turned left from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the truck which was heading eastbound.
It's tough to make a point when others choose to make up some truths and omit others.
Maybe the TU should re-write their entire piece, hell, I'll do it for them just for you.
There was an unfortunate accident, earlier, when a JSO officer was throwing caution to the wind and blew through a stop sign and over 3 lanes of traffic only to hit a poor soul in a truck. The impact of the evil JSO officer caused this poor lady, who could not have been driving over the speed limit nor distracted in any way, to ramp over the median, flipping her truck which landed approximately 75 ft away in a parking lot - stopping only after slamming into the side of an empty building. FHP should have their investigation wrapped up within a few weeks, the officer involved in the accident is currently suspended without pay and housed in Duval County Jail pending the outcome of the investigation. No bond was set.
Yeah JSO has made alot of "mistakes" lately.
Just what did I make up or omit? There was no mention in any of the articles I've read that said the officer was responding to an emergency call with lights/sirens, therefore, there's absolutely no reason to assume they were. You're trying to turn it into a situation, that it was not. The article
The directions I posted that both vehicles were traveling, were stated in the article in the Times Union, you can verify that yourself.
QuotePickup crashes into Westside building; police officer at fault, investigators say
A Jacksonville police cruiser caused a collision Saturday that sent a pickup crashing into a Westside building, investigators say.
Shards of broken glass littered the sidewalk in front of Tint Specialist West in the 8500 block of 103rd Street after the crash. The nose of a battered Mazda pickup truck sat just inside the shop.
The driver and lone occupant of the pickup, who wasn't identified at the scene, was sent to Orange Park Medical Center with minor injuries, said Sgt. R.A. Harville of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. There were no other injuries.
Harville gave this account: The police cruiser was attempting to turn left at 11 a.m. from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the eastbound-heading pickup, jolting it into westbound lanes of traffic and into the tint shop.
"The police vehicle violated the right of way," Harville said.
There is no traffic signal at the intersection.
He didn't provide the identity of the police officer. The matter likely will go before the police review board, he said.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-30/story/pickup-crashes-westside-building-police-officer-fault-investigators-say (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-30/story/pickup-crashes-westside-building-police-officer-fault-investigators-say)
Quote from: stephendare on November 02, 2010, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 04:28:07 PM
Maybe the TU should re-write their entire piece, hell, I'll do it for them just for you.
There was an unfortunate accident, earlier, when a JSO officer was throwing caution to the wind and blew through a stop sign and over 3 lanes of traffic only to hit a poor soul in a truck. The impact of the evil JSO officer caused this poor lady, who could not have been driving over the speed limit nor distracted in any way, to ramp over the median, flipping her truck which landed approximately 75 ft away in a parking lot - stopping only after slamming into the side of an empty building. FHP should have their investigation wrapped up within a few weeks, the officer involved in the accident is currently suspended without pay and housed in Duval County Jail pending the outcome of the investigation. No bond was set.
Maybe the problem is that you are apparently trying to rewrite the times union piece in the first place?
I suppose youve pegged Springfielder as another one of the leftists who hates cops, right?
+1
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 02:52:01 PM
Speed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?
Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot. That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph. I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.
I still stand by this statement. Springfielder, I haven't called or labeled you as anything, nor have I faulted either driver in this accident. Is it too much to ask a few questions before jumping to conclusions? Not one of my questions above was answered in the article written. Springfielder, you brought 'facts' to the table that have not been verified yet anywhere but from your posts:
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 03:21:52 PM
Visibility: clear
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 03:21:52 PM
The speed of the car hit does not play into the factor, as she was the one hit while driving legally in a proper lane.
Why should she have slowed down, the officer came out of a side street and clipped her in the rear of the truck. Had she slowed down, he probably would've broad-sided the truck
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 03:21:52 PMThe officer turned left from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the truck which was heading eastbound.
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 03:21:52 PM
There's no report that the officer had emergency lights/siren, therefore, there was nothing for her to yield to, she had the right of way.
The statement DIRECTLY above means that we don't know who had ROW yet, AND THE REST OF THE QUOTES FROM YOU ARE A COMPLETE FABRICATION based on the article that I read.
:D
Maybe they should re-write this because there's no way (without a strategically placed Evil Knievil ramp) you could launch a pick-up truck off a median, across 3 lanes & commercial driveway and land half way through the building as reported...
QuoteHorne said she ramped up the median, going airborne across three lanes and landing halfway into an empty store front.
Quote from: Shwaz on November 02, 2010, 04:57:33 PM
:D
Maybe they should re-write this because there's no way (without strategically placed Evil Knievil ramp) you could launch a pick-up truck off a median, across 3 lanes & commercial driveway and land half way through the building as reported...
QuoteHorne said she ramped up the median, going airborne across three lanes and landing halfway into an empty store front.
Holy Shi+, someone without a bleeding heart looking at the facts presented. +1,000
Quote from: duvaldude08 on November 02, 2010, 04:29:15 PM
Yeah JSO has made alot of "mistakes" lately.
Yea....JSO is like the Evil Empire & the uptowners are the rebelion lol. Did someone get raided or something?? Let me in on this "I hate JSO" campaign....
We must be reading completely different articles of accidents that happened in completely different cities. For I went as far as to quote the article for you, which states the direction, and it quotes the investigator as saying the officer failed to properly yield the right of way...and since all you have to do is look at the photo from the accident and you can see the weather's clear....wasn't raining, wasn't snowing, no fog...looks like sunshine to me.
There's nowhere in any of the articles that even suggests the officer was on an emergency call, so why would anyone make that assumption, other than with an attempt to sway the fault onto the woman who was hit. The woman, irregardless of the speed in which she was traveling, although I believe she said was 45mph, which is a pretty good clip...and given that she was hit by another vehicle (who did not state their speed), it would most certainly be easy enough to have caused her vehicle to pop over that median and slam into the wall.
So where are the fabrications? You are the one trying to alter the reported facts of the incident into this reckless woman hurling down the road and an officer with lights/siren on a dire emergency trying to work their way out onto the road and hit this truck going faster than the speed of light...and it was her fault....Hmmm, I seemed to have missed all those real facts in the article.
How does a deployed airbag cause a seatbelt to become unbuckled? I don't see how this is possible.
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 02, 2010, 05:05:26 PM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on November 02, 2010, 04:29:15 PM
Yeah JSO has made alot of "mistakes" lately.
Yea....JSO is like the Evil Empire & the uptowners are the rebelion lol. Did someone get raided or something?? Let me in on this "I hate JSO" campaign....
who is claiming they hate JSO? Never came from my posts, in fact, I stated that I support JSO.
Quote from: Live_Oak on November 02, 2010, 05:08:33 PM
How does a deployed airbag cause a seatbelt to become unbuckled? I don't see how this is possible.
We're still trying to figure out how you can jump over 3 lanes of traffic by hitting a curb. Don't confuse us. ;D
Since we're all guessing what happened here's my take; JSO did accidently (and at fault) hit the truck, the driver lost control and in the confusion hit the gas instead of the brake exacerbating a would be fender-bender into negligence-gate.
now that's something I'm inclined to agree with what happened
45mph is 66 ft per second so you would only have to be airborne for less than a second to cross 3 lanes.
People don't realize how fast 45mph really is.
Who would have thought you could flip a over a car traveling less than 5mph...?
http://www.youtube.com/v/2Xz2r3Un9CE?fs=1&hl=en_US
thanks, that's exactly why I had said, about speculating and not being an accident reconstruction expert, and that 45 mph is quite a clip to be traveling at.
Quote from: Lunican on November 03, 2010, 09:33:17 AM
45mph is 66 ft per second so you would only have to be airborne for less than a second to cross 3 lanes.
People don't realize how fast 45mph really is.
Who would have thought you could flip a over a car traveling less than 5mph...?
http://www.youtube.com/v/2Xz2r3Un9CE?fs=1&hl=en_US
They ran a front-wheel drive car up a wall (you can see the gearbox on the bottom of the car)? We didn't see what was actually hit.
Look, all I'm saying is that to cover that much distance without a ramp doesn't seem very likely.
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-03/leap-faith
The link above has a car travelling about half the speed and covering approx 10m (30ft) in the air off a 17 deg ramp that appears to already be 18"-24" off the ground. A curb is 6" and vertical. Physics, plain and simple.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 03, 2010, 10:47:25 AM
Quote from: Lunican on November 03, 2010, 09:33:17 AM
45mph is 66 ft per second so you would only have to be airborne for less than a second to cross 3 lanes.
People don't realize how fast 45mph really is.
Who would have thought you could flip a over a car traveling less than 5mph...?
http://www.youtube.com/v/2Xz2r3Un9CE?fs=1&hl=en_US
They ran a front-wheel drive car up a wall (you can see the gearbox on the bottom of the car)? We didn't see what was actually hit.
Look, all I'm saying is that to cover that much distance without a ramp doesn't seem very likely.
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-03/leap-faith
The link above has a car travelling about half the speed and covering approx 10m (30ft) in the air off a 17 deg ramp that appears to already be 18"-24" off the ground. A curb is 6" and vertical. Physics, plain and simple.
Are you an accident reconstruction expert?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 03, 2010, 10:59:18 AM
Are you an accident reconstruction expert?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 02:22:15 PM
Non-RedNeck Westsider, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter the speed of either vehicle, the facts remain: the officer failed to properly yield and struck the womans truck, causing the accident. So unless someone here is trained in accident reconstruction with all of the exact details as gathered by the authorities, speed remains irrelevant and does not change the fact that the officer was at fault.
Speed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?
Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot. That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph. I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.
Anyone who think you can launch a car airborne over 200 yards (at any speed) off a median should automatically be disqualified from this conversation.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 03, 2010, 11:09:39 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 03, 2010, 10:59:18 AM
Are you an accident reconstruction expert?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 02, 2010, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: Springfielder on November 02, 2010, 02:22:15 PM
Non-RedNeck Westsider, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter the speed of either vehicle, the facts remain: the officer failed to properly yield and struck the womans truck, causing the accident. So unless someone here is trained in accident reconstruction with all of the exact details as gathered by the authorities, speed remains irrelevant and does not change the fact that the officer was at fault.
Speed is quite relevant, as are other facts that aren't in the story:
Did cop have lights/siren? - Should she have noticed him before he made it to the intersection?
Which side of California Ave was he turning from? - Did he travel across 3 lanes and a median before hitting her?
What time of day did the accident occur? - How was the visiblity?
How fast was she driving? - Why didn't she start slowing before the collision?
Did she get clipped in the front or the back?
Nowhere in the story that I read does it say that the officer is at fault but rather 'violated ROW', but the article did say the lady hit the median and landed halfway in a parking lot. That tells me, with zero traffic-accident-reconstruction-background, that she was going a lot faster than 45mph. I will stand by my comments and will be willing to bet that the officer won't be found at fault and the lady will get a too fast for conditions / failure to yeild to emergency vehicle sort of ticket.
Then with all due respect, you have no clue what you're talking about.
JSO stated to the news reporter that their own officer had caused the accident by violating the other driver's right of way. That was JSO's own finding. Why don't you call them and take this argument up directly with the accident investigators who are actually trained in this field, and who already disagreed with you, then?
Quote from: Shwaz on November 03, 2010, 11:15:19 AM
Anyone who think you can launch a car airborne over 200 yards (at any speed) off a median should automatically be disqualified from this conversation.
Are you an accident reconstruction expert? Or a physicist?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 02, 2010, 07:34:51 AM
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=174198&catid=3
Our news partner the Florida Times-Union quotes investigators at the scene as confirming the officer violated the right-of-way.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 02, 2010, 07:34:51 AM
We asked JSO about the crash but so far have not heard back.
So which article were you reading? Or did you just
assume that the investigators were JSO investigators and not insurance investigators? Because from what I read, there were just 'investigators' on the scene and the FTU didn't get any comment from JSO.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 03, 2010, 11:28:35 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 02, 2010, 07:34:51 AM
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=174198&catid=3
Our news partner the Florida Times-Union quotes investigators at the scene as confirming the officer violated the right-of-way.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 02, 2010, 07:34:51 AM
We asked JSO about the crash but so far have not heard back.
So which article were you reading? Or did you just assume that the investigators were JSO investigators and not insurance investigators? Because from what I read, there were just 'investigators' on the scene and the FTU didn't get any comment from JSO.
When they refer to JSO, they are talking about the communications office.
When they referred to investigators, they are referring to JSO investigators. JSO is self-insured. Duh.
Again you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck WestsiderSo which article were you reading? Or did you just assume that the investigators were JSO investigators and not insurance investigators? Because from what I read, there were just 'investigators' on the scene and the FTU didn't get any comment from JSO.
Right from the article in the Times Union
QuoteSgt. R.A. Harville of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. Harville gave this account: The police cruiser was attempting to turn left at 11 a.m. from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the eastbound-heading pickup, jolting it into westbound lanes of traffic and into the tint shop. "The police vehicle violated the right of way," Harville said.
How much more clear can it be made for you?
Quote from: Springfielder on November 03, 2010, 11:35:43 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck WestsiderSo which article were you reading? Or did you just assume that the investigators were JSO investigators and not insurance investigators? Because from what I read, there were just 'investigators' on the scene and the FTU didn't get any comment from JSO.
Right from the article in the Times Union QuoteSgt. R.A. Harville of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. Harville gave this account: The police cruiser was attempting to turn left at 11 a.m. from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the eastbound-heading pickup, jolting it into westbound lanes of traffic and into the tint shop. "The police vehicle violated the right of way," Harville said.
How much more clear can it be made for you?
Welp, that about does it. The next day the facts are revealed and I can redact most of my comments. Thanks all.
Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2010, 11:23:15 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 03, 2010, 11:21:02 AM
Quote from: Shwaz on November 03, 2010, 11:15:19 AM
Anyone who think you can launch a car airborne over 200 yards (at any speed) off a median should automatically be disqualified from this conversation.
Are you an accident reconstruction expert? Or a physicist?
Or something else altogether?
You're right. I suggest you both attempt this magnificent stunt on your own so we can once and for all have a final answer ;)
New facts were presented from a 'reliable' source, not just another poster, so it's time to let it concede.
I still would like to know how fast the other truck was going to clear 3 lanes of traffic if the officer only jolted the other vehicle.
Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2010, 11:42:28 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 03, 2010, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Springfielder on November 03, 2010, 11:35:43 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck WestsiderSo which article were you reading? Or did you just assume that the investigators were JSO investigators and not insurance investigators? Because from what I read, there were just 'investigators' on the scene and the FTU didn't get any comment from JSO.
Right from the article in the Times Union QuoteSgt. R.A. Harville of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. Harville gave this account: The police cruiser was attempting to turn left at 11 a.m. from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the eastbound-heading pickup, jolting it into westbound lanes of traffic and into the tint shop. "The police vehicle violated the right of way," Harville said.
How much more clear can it be made for you?
Welp, that about does it. The next day the facts are revealed and I can redact most of my comments. Thanks all.
what? wait a minute....
Why start now? Id stick in there, if I were you, westside.
Don't let a little thing like facts bother you. ;)
Has it come out yet whether or not air traffic control was able to register the flying truck and at what altitude?
they weren't new facts, that was from the original article in the Times Union "Posted: October 30, 2010 - 2:45pm" Same day as the accident....
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 02, 2010, 07:34:51 AM
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=174198&catid=3
QuoteWestside Woman Grateful to Survive Crash With JSO Officer
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- As her truck was airborne, Linda Horne said she remembers still trying to pump the brakes.
But the only thing that would stop her was the brick and glass front of an empty building.
"I knew I was dead, I knew I was dead, but I looked, my airbag had deployed and it popped my seatbelt loose somehow," said Horne.
Horne survived but she wouldn't be walking away from the crash, she couldn't move her leg and later found out she had a fractured knee.
And she said she also started to realize it was a JSO officer's patrol car that had knocked her off the road.
"It was probably the most terrifying thing I've been through in a long, long time."
Horne said she was driving Eastbound on 103rd Street Saturday morning when the officer pulled out from California Avenue to also go East on 103rd.
She said somehow the officer clipped her truck.
Horne said she ramped up the median, going airborne across three lanes and landing halfway into an empty store front.
Our news partner the Florida Times-Union quotes investigators at the scene as confirming the officer violated the right-of-way.
"I just wish people would drive so much more carefully. There's so many accidents out there," said Horne.
Horne said she will need surgery on her knee and she is getting around slowly, but after her crash landing, she's grateful for even that.
We asked JSO about the crash but so far have not heard back.
©2010 First Coast News
And of course the T-U never heard back from JSO, that's only natural when their communications officer got arrested earlier this week for welfare fraud;
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-30/story/jacksonville-sheriffs-office-employee-charged-food-stamp-fraud
Which is why I posted the complete article, along with the link from the Times Union, and told you it was from the Times Union
Quote from: Springfielder on November 03, 2010, 12:03:17 PM
Which is why I posted the complete article, along with the link from the Times Union, and told you it was from the Times Union
try the link and read the article that is there.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 03, 2010, 12:07:34 PM
Quote from: Springfielder on November 03, 2010, 12:03:17 PM
Which is why I posted the complete article, along with the link from the Times Union, and told you it was from the Times Union
try the link and read the article that is there.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-30/story/pickup-crashes-westside-building-police-officer-fault-investigators-say (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-30/story/pickup-crashes-westside-building-police-officer-fault-investigators-say)
QuoteBy Jeremy Cox
A Jacksonville police cruiser caused a collision Saturday that sent a pickup crashing into a Westside building, investigators say.
Shards of broken glass littered the sidewalk in front of Tint Specialist West in the 8500 block of 103rd Street after the crash. The nose of a battered Mazda pickup truck sat just inside the shop.
The driver and lone occupant of the pickup, who wasn't identified at the scene, was sent to Orange Park Medical Center with minor injuries, said Sgt. R.A. Harville of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. There were no other injuries.
Harville gave this account: The police cruiser was attempting to turn left at 11 a.m. from southbound California Avenue onto eastbound 103rd. The cruiser clipped the eastbound-heading pickup, jolting it into westbound lanes of traffic and into the tint shop.
"The police vehicle violated the right of way," Harville said.
There is no traffic signal at the intersection.
He didn't provide the identity of the police officer. The matter likely will go before the police review board, he said.
And your point is?
and here comes the mea culpa - I never saw the article that Springfielder had posted, only the one that CWG started - the facts that I was alluding to were not in the original article, but in the one that Springfielder did post.
Now after you catch your collective breaths, put my questions in context to the original post by CWG and you'll understand that this isn't political at all - just me going on completely off-topic.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 03, 2010, 12:29:01 PM
and here comes the mea culpa - I never saw the article that Springfielder had posted, only the one that CWG started - the facts that I was alluding to were not in the original article, but in the one that Springfielder did post.
Now after you catch your collective breaths, put my questions in context to the original post by CWG and you'll understand that this isn't political at all - just me going on completely off-topic.
I really don't think you should let these pesky facts interfere with your argument one bit.
It was actually very entertaining. One normally has to watch Ruprecht's cork-on-a-fork dinner scene from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels for entertainment like this. You saved me the $3.99 at Blockbuster. I think I can speak for everyone in this thread when I say please don't stop. Your arguments are like Occam's rusty Safety Razor with no shaving cream.