Posted on 02/08/2015 10:30:31 AM PST by SamAdams76
MALIBU, Calif. — Gender-bender reality-TV star Bruce Jenner rear-ended a car Saturday, causing an accident that killed a woman motorist.
Seven other people were injured in the accident, which happened shortly after noon on the Pacific Coast Highway near its intersection with Corral Canyon Road.
Jenner’s dark blue Cadillac Escalade was towing a dune buggy in a trailer when he rear-ended a white Lexus sedan being driven by an elderly woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at pagesix.com ...
Well, not a full-on skid, but there's a chirp or three that come out as the computer figures out what's going on. There could be evidence from that. But more than anything, the Escalade will tell investigators everything they want to know when that tap into the computer system.
I wonder if he is suicidal.
Ya see um on LA freeways all the time...25 miles of slinky stop and go traffic as they push the accelerator then kick their brakes for 25 miles. Instead of just backing off a bit which would make the entire traffic flow, flow smother and faster. Studies have been done, it works but people are too stupid.
Correct, the big reason these idiots tailgate is because they’re attempting to make the vehicle in front go faster...
Another big problem with stupid people are the ones who get into the #1 lane (fast lane) and drive slowly.
Many of these idiots are attempting to meter the flow of traffic to a slower speed. What it does is cause people to change lanes attempting to go around them, which also causes more collisions, as those attempting to pass them are pissed and change lanes aggressively and carelessly due to being PO’d.
It’s because he can’t handle a stick shift anymore.
Depends on the set-up for the trailer. If over a certain weight, then it has to have its own braking system, which could be surge or electric. Electric would possibly engage quicker in this situation, if the vehicle was braking, where surge brakes may be slower, or not activated at all, given momentum prior to the impact.
In all the pics I have seen so far, I don’t see the Prius. Read that it slowed down 200 feet before the intersection, but that isn’t necessarily bad. Might have been anticipating to make a left turn and slow to slide into the left turn lane or anticipating the light to turn.
Generally you would be correct, even here in California. However, 10 years ago I rear Ended 5 cars and totalled everyone of them in my 3/4 chevy service truck on the freeway.
It turned out that an asian woman was going freeway speed when she slammed on the brakes to keep from running over a piece of tire laying flat in the lane. Everyone was crashing into her, I just cleaned it all up. The CHP found me only 10% Liable and the Judge Dismissed EVERY LAWSUIT on Day one, finding me factually innocent.
BTW, I love watching the tailgaters on highways with lots of traffic lights.
The tailgater will pass real aggressively only to slam on their brakes for the next red light ahead...These types of idiots will do this for 30 miles of traffic lights. They never really get ahead but they need new brakes and have expensive drive train issues quite often.
If I brake hard for debris on the road, and you rear end me, you’ll be sued and lose big.
By the way, many of those tires on the road have steel belts, those belts can rip your tires up/blow them out quickly. I know of at least two fatalities which a vehicle hit tire debris, blew a tire, lost control and caused multiple collisions/including fatalities.
Another a vehicle hit a large truck retread, kicked it up, the following vehicle hit it while in their air, with the 20 pound piece of retread thrown into oncoming lanes, going though a windshield, killing the driver instantly.
They all thought the same thing, especially with my multi million dollar commercial insurance, but they ALL LOST on DAY ONE. A simple Motion by my Insurance Company and it was OVER.
You actually need a reason to slam on your brakes, they believed the reason was insufficient.
Yes, and braking for debris on the road is a good reason. Absolutely.
The only reason you were only found 10 percent at fault, as their were obviously others who were also at fault prior to you rear ending the pack...
Again if I brake hard for debris on the road, and you or anyone rear end me, you’ll be sued and lose big.
Bet the rent.
You are correct, they were all going to crash anyway, I had an impact speed of less than 15mph, airbags did not deploy! But I pushed the guy in front of me through all of them. It also helped a whole lot that I was The ONLY ENGLISH SPEAKING person in the accident, all were chinese/korean. The CHP couldn’t understand a single word from anybody but ME.
Several decades ago I was driving down a very busy expressway. With no warning or apparent reason, the lady in front of me slams on her brakes really hard - locks up all four wheels. I can’t move over because of traffic and lock up all four of mine. I come to a stop but barely hit her. Meanwhile she jumps out of her car and runs to the side of the road.
A cop is in the middle lane, sees all this, and pulls over. He asks the lady if she is injured. Se doesn’t even know my car lightly hit hers. No, she’s terrified because there is a wild animal loose in her car.
Seems like her kids sometimes take their hamster with them and let it loose in the car. They have apparently forgot it because it just went past the back of her leg and freaked her out so bad she slammed on the brakes.
The cop says he needs to get the cars out of the road. I start mine up and move it to the shoulder. She won’t go near hers, so the cop takes her keys to move it. He opens the car door, stands there for a second and then reaches in and picks something up. He gets in and virtually swerves the car to the shoulder, and starts walking towards us looking really pissed,
He comes over to where we are standing with a pair of gym socks in his hand. They are folded up so as to be a slightly oval shaped ball. He says to the lady, “were these by any chance under your front seat and is this what brushed the back of your leg.” She takes the socks and says, “yes they were under the front seat and I guess that is what I felt.” The cop chewed her out good, and said he could give her a ticket for reckless endangerment. But he didn’t, and in fact he gave no one a ticket.
I told my insurance agent about it and he had a good laugh. The damages to my car were essentially none, and her’s were about $250. Her insurance company tried to get mine to pay, and mine told them to go pound sand. This was back before ‘no fault’ insurance and her insurance demanded this go to trial to determine guilt.
At the trial the cop told the same story and said he felt he could have written her a ticket. The judge pretty much said, “I wish you had but you didn’t.” The judge then said he had no choice but to follow the law which says if you hit somebody from behind, you are following too close.
So for the next three years my insurance rates were elevated because of an “at fault accident.” All this over a hamster, a pair of socks, and a numbskull driver!
Frankly it looks like Granny (RIP) has a phone in her hand, not Bruce. The article says Bruce may have been smoking a cigarette. His eyes were straight ahead in all the impact photos I saw yesterday.
lol....Wrong.
Look the cause of your collision was people not paying attention and or following too close to the vehicle which braked due to debris/hazards on the roadway.
If someone brakes for hazardous debris, and you rear end them, you lose.
There was a light ahead but the Prius stopped in a weird place well before the light. The Prius may be responsible.
Bummer, good story, But I understand, even though I was dismissed as not being liable, Farmers still doubled my rates as a result, so I cancelled them.
That makes no sense at all. Your rates were doubled due to the fact you were found to have a percentage of fault..
You were liable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.