Accident statistics

Marc Adler wrote:

It all happened in a split second. I sped up and passed the pickup, and
the guy wasn't even aware that he had lost a mattress.

I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.

Glad to hear your attentiveness served you well!

B A R R Y wrote:

I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.

Also, why isn't carrying people in the bed illegal? Just a few months
ago four women died in Hawaii when the truck whose bed they were riding
in collided with another car.

The scary thing is all the kids you see riding around in the beds of
pickups. You don't even need to crash. One sharp turn could send them
flying.

Glad to hear your attentiveness served you well!

That makes two of us!

Marc

Marc Adler wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:

I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.

Also, why isn't carrying people in the bed illegal?

It _is_ in Connecticut.

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

Marc Adler wrote:

It all happened in a split second. I sped up and passed the pickup, and
the guy wasn't even aware that he had lost a mattress.

I'm very anal about securing loads in my trucks and trailers but am
always amazed at how many people will tailgate me while I'm loaded.


.....especially those cop cars with flashing lights! They really don't
like it if you are driving around loaded! ;)

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
....especially those cop cars with flashing lights! They really don't
like it if you are driving around loaded! ;)

I only fly MSFS while _that_ version of loaded! G

"Marc Adler" wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
As soon as that thought crossed my mind, like clockwork, the top
mattress started to slide. I was directly behind the pickup, so the
mattress was aimed right at me. I changed lanes just as the mattress
slid off the truck, and it came far too close to me - maybe three feet.
It all happened in a split second. I sped up and passed the pickup, and
the guy wasn't even aware that he had lost a mattress.

Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event would not
have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you would
have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with plenty
of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response.

I sold my motorcycle shortly after that.I was still in college then,
but I've got kids now, and for me riding a motorcycle is too great an
act of faith in the drivers around me. I know how people drive, and I
don't want my life in their hands.

Your life was only in the fellow's hands because you failed to maintain a
safe following distance. That was your choice, not his.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Marc Adler" wrote in message
ups.com...

Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event would
not
have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you
would
have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with plenty
of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response.

I agree with your post, but it leaves me wondering......

The normal three second rule assumes the vehicle in front of you will
require a 'normal' stopping distance, so you've got three seconds to react,
and stop your own vehicle.

If a mattress lifts off the bed and goes vertical, it may 'stop' much faster
than the vehicle is capable of.

I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE DISTANCE
than 'normal'.

Steve Foley wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Marc Adler" wrote in message
ups.com...

Had you been following at the proper and safe distance, the event would
not
have been *nearly* so frightening. At a safe following distance, you
would
have easily been able to come to a complete stop before running into a
mattress, or could have selected other evasive actions instead with plenty
of time for execution rather than requiring a split-second response.

I agree with your post, but it leaves me wondering......

The normal three second rule assumes the vehicle in front of you will
require a 'normal' stopping distance, so you've got three seconds to react,
and stop your own vehicle.

If a mattress lifts off the bed and goes vertical, it may 'stop' much faster
than the vehicle is capable of.

And three seconds is a lot of time. One second is more than enough for
me to react if I clearly see what's going on before me. Even taking
rearviewmirror and additional half of a second three seconds should give
reasonable safety margin.

Of course if you're in good condition and paying attention...

I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE DISTANCE
than 'normal'.

That's sometimes easier to say than to actually do.


--
Leonard

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:yoXPg.1258$F46.1094@trndny09...
[...]
The normal three second rule assumes the vehicle in front of you will
require a 'normal' stopping distance, so you've got three seconds to
react,
and stop your own vehicle.

If a mattress lifts off the bed and goes vertical, it may 'stop' much
faster
than the vehicle is capable of.

I think the lesson here should be to give unsafe loads MUCH MORE DISTANCE
than 'normal'.

Assuming a "three second rule" is normal (I've more commonly heard two
seconds and the Washington State driver's manual actually suggests four
seconds, so I don't know that there's a true consensus), that should give
plenty of room to come to a complete stop even if the mattress comes to a
halt the instant it leaves its vehicle. Assuming 60mph, that still leaves
almost 180 feet of stopping distance after wasting 1 second for the
emergency to register. Most modern vehicles should have no trouble doing 60
to 0 in 180 feet, and certainly no motorcycle should take anywhere near that
much distance.

Nonetheless, I absolutely agree that "n second" rules are only rules of
thumb. They do not guarantee a safe following distance...they offer
guidance to a driver of what a *minimum* safe following distance might be.
Any number of factors could require even more distance following, you are
right about that for sure. It's up to each driver to exercise *judgment*
and make a new determination at any given moment about what the actual safe
following distance is.

Of course, here in the US the idea of a motorist actually exercising any
judgment is a fantasy. But that's how it *ought* to be.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


Your life was only in the fellow's hands because you failed to maintain a
safe following distance. That was your choice, not his.

To believe that a safe following distance will protect you from all
harm is dangerously naive. There are plenty of situations which require
quick thinking and fast reaction. I survived the incident because
luckily the matresses slid off peacefully and rather slowly and I had
time to react.

I was at a safe following distance from the truck, but what would have
happened if the wind had caught the matress and flipped it over?

Please let me know what the safe following distance is from airborne
matresses on the freeway.

Marc