Originally posted by emvanderpol:
I think it's good to have such open discussion, for the benefit of all members.
Yes, it is. And you have a lot of insight that others do not, into the design of roads and the circumstances under which things occur. Most fascinating. For example, you mentioned:
Originally posted by emvanderpol:
You must realize, however, that traffic engineers design these roads (line of site included) with the relative/posted speeds in mind.
I always assumed that the traffic engineers designed a road to be a given type of road (anything from a multi-lane limited-access highway to a two-lane road lined with businesses and residences, etc), but that the posted speeds were assigned later, after the road was completed, sometimes based on traffic surveys.
BTW, it's extremely difficult to visualize many situations based on a verbal description. For example, I'm not sure how sharp a turn a given number of feet is; I would think that a three-lane (each way, I assume) highway marked for 55 mph would be mostly straight and would only have gradual, broad, sweeping turns, not sharp turns. Or, that if there are sharp turns, that those are marked with warning signs with posted limits for the turns. In any case, without actually seeing the turn, it's very hard to judge whether a given speed is appropriate or not.
I assume that on roads where hazards are known to occur - sharp turns, slippery conditions, deaf children playing - there are standards which determine whether warning signs should be posted, and whether or not they are accompanied by explicit, lower speed limits for the hazard. Whether such warning signs were missing but would be appropriate at the location of your accident - either due to the turn or the sprinkler system (which one would assume is used regularly), again, it's hard to say without being there. Also, it sounds from your description of improper drainage that the resulting water situation was highly unusual (possible pooling causing hydroplaning?). So again, an accident like this could be due to a combination and confluence of factors - sprinkler system, inoperable drainage, poor line of sight, inadequate warning signs, speed traveled, etc - such that had any one of these conditions NOT been present, the accident would not have occurred. I assume that, when that's the case, all of the relevant factors are mentioned, rather than claiming that a single cause was entirely responsible. (Like Dusty Baker's selection of a relief pitcher in one game was not the entire cause of the Giants's loss in the World Series.)
Originally posted by emvanderpol:
barring the "Ummm..." and the sarcasm.
To answer you question: Yes, obviously it is "humanly possible" to drive slower than the speed limit; your sarcasm included, but not necessary.
I do appreciate your post, but please, there is no need for sarcasm.
I apologize for the sarcasm. (I'm not sure whether I need to apologize three times, however.
)
Given additional thought, I realize that your use of the term "humanly possible" is probably a technical term in the professional accident reconstruction field, as well as possibly in the legal deliberations which it supports. I repeated that term because, to this layman, its original usage sounded a bit sarcastic itself, and it is sometimes appropriate, when disagreeing with an opinion that is expressed sarcastically, to refute the argument while using the same terminology, to show that perhaps the original allegations might not have been so certain as to justify that initial sarcasm. Unfortunately, this occurs all too often in these electronic media, where a
statement can be made beginning with self-righteous words such as
"I certainly don't see how anyone can construe..." that objects to something that turns out to have a simple, legitimate explanation, hence the appropriateness of the same sarcastic expression in refuting the argument. I know, this is rather a long way of accompanying my apology with an explanation, but sometimes people here misconstrue things - misconstrue statements as falsehoods, technical jargon as sarcasm, knowledge as arrogance, etc. We will rarely go wrong if we assume that bad intentions were not originally intended at all.
Again, all very interesting - thanks for your insight. Best of luck with the insurance company and with finding as much enjoyment from your next car as you have experienced with your NSX.
