time to check those brakes - or why not to lock em up ...

[BJ_M]

bad assed crashes all caught on video after van breaks down in passing lane with no lights .. click HERE

[shelbyGT]

Painful first wreck there looks like.
Wonder what insurace did... who's fault it all was (I hope the van's)

[SquirrelDip]

Probably not the van... You're always supposed to be travelling at a speed where you can come to a complete stop before hitting a stationary object.

[BJ_M]

well a lot of people just locked it up and lost control ...

i guess they missed 'threshold braking' class.. better than even ABS most of the time ..

[offline]

What is threshold braking exactly?

[shelbyGT]

Probably not the van... You're always supposed to be travelling at a speed where you can come to a complete stop before hitting a stationary object.

So you think they just let him get away with parking a van in the middle of a highway at night with wet pavement and not putting any flashers on?

Something tells me not...

[waheed]

Probably not the van... You're always supposed to be travelling at a speed where you can come to a complete stop before hitting a stationary object.

So you think they just let him get away with parking a van in the middle of a highway at night with wet pavement and not putting any flashers on?

Something tells me not...

There is a difference between "parking a van" and "breaking down". ShelbyFT is partly correct. You are supposed to be travelling at speeds where you can come to a stop.

That was just an accident waiting to happen. I guess the van driver would be partly to blame as if his van did brake down, he should have monovered it onto the hard shoulder to avoid an accident, rather than letting it stop in the middle of the motorway.

[shelbyGT]

Yeah, I realize he didn't park it there and get out to go to the 7-11, it was just a figure of speech.

He should have been able to try and manuever it as far away from traffic as possible. Unless his car stopped within 50 feet, this should have been possible.

I still blame the van.

[SquirrelDip]

Yeah, I realize he didn't park it there and get out to go to the 7-11, it was just a figure of speech.

He should have been able to try and manuever it as far away from traffic as possible. Unless his car stopped within 50 feet, this should have been possible.

I still blame the van.

I'm not doubting that the van was negligent (I agree with your comment about manuevering far away - especially if travelling at highway speeds)but anyone else who hit him is also to blame - the absolute minimum they could be charged with is following too close.

If you hit someone from behind then you are to blame, either entirely or partly - pretty cut and dry.

[shelbyGT]

I can see the whole 'hit from behind' thing, but following too closely? These were cars that were just going down the road! Let's say, for purpose of argument, that they were all going exactly the speed limit. They were following too close to a van that was parked, with no lights on, at night? That's like saying you were following too close to that deer stuck in your headlights!

If that was the case, insurance is even more farked than I thought.

[Shadow57]

I wonder who was videotaping that!

Maybe it was the guy who left the van there!!!

[SquirrelDip]

I can see the whole 'hit from behind' thing, but following too closely? These were cars that were just going down the road! Let's say, for purpose of argument, that they were all going exactly the speed limit. They were following too close to a van that was parked, with no lights on, at night? That's like saying you were following too close to that deer stuck in your headlights!

If that was the case, insurance is even more farked than I thought.

About 3 million years back - when I was 18... I rear ended a guy and he was stopped (I was screwing around with the stereo - hit him at about 5 mph). I eventually got charged with following too close - the cop told me that was the least thing he could do. At the time it amounted to two points and no fine. He was originally going to let me off (believe it or not - a nice traffic cop) but I figure he took a little crap from his superiors.

Originally I thought is was a silly charge - because of what you said, he was stopped. I brought it up with an uncle (a cop) and he explained that I got off easy (that was the least he could charge me with) - I laughed and told the uncle that that was what the cop told me too.

[MrMoody]

What is threshold braking exactly?

Braking exactly the amount necessary where the tires just start to break loose--right on the threshold of sliding. This will stop the car in the shortest possible distance. It takes a lot of practice, and will get you rear-ended if anyone is close behind you.

So you think they just let him get away with parking a van in the middle of a highway at night with wet pavement and not putting any flashers on?

Something tells me not...

In most states of the US if not all, it is illegal to stop on interstates unless ordered by an officer or traffic control (construction flagger etc) or the road is blocked, and you will (and should) be ticketed for breaking down and stopping in a travel lane. Many places even have a minimum speed.

Of course anyone who hits someone stopped (or wrecked) will probably also get ticketed for traveling too fast for conditions or failing to maintain a proper lookout (or whatever is the local legalese for not paying attention).

Fault only gets assigned by insurance companies or civil courts.

[rallynavvie]

Keep in mind that you have to take into consideration your tires and your vehicle's ability to brake when considering threshold braking. I know a lot of trucks and SUVs just don't have the pad/rotor contact to be able to threshold brake on dry pavement at high speeds. A lot suffer from bad brake fade at high speeds too. Most cars only come with adequate brake packages, at least in the USDM. If you want to see a vehicle that has more than adequate brakes off the lot in the US go take a look at a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 8)

[BJ_M]

in a lot of trucks the rear end just locks up anyway and jack is your uncle ... then in some GMC pickups i drove the brakes were so sponge that you had to stand on them to stop hard (and were impossable to lock up) , while some ford f150 were just the opposite and would lock always one inside front wheel (these were almost new trucks) ...

I had a dodge van (93) that the abs would come on when you breath on the brakes which made it VERY dangerous to drive in snow and some other winter conditions (hit the brake with ANY pressure and just nothing would happen and you would roll just about forever and the abs would be buzzing merry away ...(abs is not a good thing in dirt and built up snow and other conditions) , so i disabled it...... newer generations abs on some cars is MUCH better ...

[rallynavvie]

Well if there's nothing in the bed of the truck it doesn't surprise that they're locking up easier. If you're braking hard most of the stress is on your front brakes because the CG is shifting forward as you decelerate. This also takes even more weight off the bed of the truck and the rears are probably not making near the contact that the fronts are. Rear brakes in trucks are usually only utilized much when trailering or hauling a load.

[BJ_M]

yes - but as mentioned it was a front wheel that locked ... face it -- those trucks have not great brakes in the best of times ..

not that it really matered much in the 40-50++ cars and trucks ive owned and driven or raced or both ... you just deal w/ it ..