A reasonable and experienced, sober driver will not outrun his vision. This means that at night, or on a winding road, you drive only as fast as to stop in front of an obstacle that you just saw. Around bends you drive always assuming that there is a boulder on the road, or a bicyclist, or a deer - you should be able to stop in time after you see the problem. I also saw chickens on the road, and pheasants, and wild turkeys, and people riding horses, and hikers on foot, and a cow; one time I turned around a corner and saw a line of stopped cars - they were there because of an accident ahead, and the road was blocked; the only LEO in charge had no traffic cones to warn drivers before the bend.
This means that a good driver typically wouldn't have the accident regardless of what is happening on the road. But I would make an exception if the victim intentionally reduced their visibility, beyond what is reasonable. For example, if the taillights are off at night and covered, so that their internal passive reflectors are also inoperative, and the truck is painted matte black. In this case only an investigation can tell if an average driver with an average night vision could be expected to see the obstacle in time to stop.
“This means that a good driver typically wouldn’t have the accident regardless of what is happening on the road.”
I generally agree with you. I guess my point is that even sober drivers have accidents.
The actual situation, if obstructed view etc., would temper my judgement in any case.
Hence, I’m not that quick to lambaste the subject of stories in the press, of all places, when the press gets so much wrong as a matter of course.
When I’ve read stories in the press on subjects that I’m actually privvy to, I see they ALWAYS get at least one thing wrong in the story.
In the case of this story, I’m more interested in pointing out the relevant facts not presented than defending either subject of the story.