JSO Negligence Sends Woman Flying through Brick Wall

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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.  

[Shwaz]

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.

[Springfielder]

now that's something I'm inclined to agree with what happened

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah JSO has made alot of "mistakes" lately.

+1,000,000

[Lunican]

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

[Springfielder]

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.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Are you an accident reconstruction expert?

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.

[Shwaz]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

Are you an accident reconstruction expert?

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?

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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.

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

Right from the article in the Times Union

Sgt. 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?