
The Dueling Dash Cam controversy has generated a ton of comments. I thought I’d throw my two cents onto the table. You have probably seen the video clip on social media. If not, you can catch it here on X.
Right off the bat, I’ll say the actions of two of the three drivers involved in this incident were wrong. Seriously wrong. Yet, I’ve seen correspondence from officials with two of the carriers involved defending their drivers’ actions.
If what was recorded in these dash cam video clips passes for safe and defensive driving, then this industry is in deep trouble.
It’s risky taking sides in such discussions but I feel pretty strongly about this. Also, full disclosure: I’m armchair quarterbacking this. I wasn’t there, but the video evidence is almost incontrovertible.
Taking a deeper dive into the footage
Here’s the chronology as seen on the video from the X account of @401_de_sarpanch. It’s an amalgamation of two video clips taken from two of the three trucks.
The first part of the clip contains 11 seconds of footage from the perspective of the truck that was very nearly hit head-on. We’ll call this Truck 1.
The scene then changes to a forward view from Truck 2, the truck that made the passing maneuver that very nearly caused the head-on crash.
At the beginning of this part of the clip, at the 11 second mark, Truck 3 can be seen pulling out of the snowplow turnaround area.
This snowplow turnaround is located on the south side of Hwy. 11, about midway between Orient Bay and Macdiarmid. You can see it here on Google Maps.
The roadway geometry offers a limited view of the turnaround area when approaching from the west (the direction of Truck 2), due to a sweeping curve and a slight downward change in elevation.
The turnaround area would not have been visible to a truck approaching from the west until it was about 10 seconds away — roughly 900 feet or 300 meters.
From Truck 3’s perspective, depending on the angle at which it was facing Hwy. 11 as it prepared to leave the turnaround heading east, Truck 2 would have been very difficult to see, likely impossible, until the driver had almost straightened out.
The scenario, as it unfolded, has Truck 2 rounding the long curve with the turnaround area coming into view almost immediately. About 10 seconds elapses from when we first see Truck 3 and when Truck 2 arrives at a spot adjacent to the turnaround area where a collision would have occurred had the Truck 2 not pulled into the oncoming lane of traffic — across a double solid yellow center line.
As Truck 2 (wrong way in the opposing lane) pulls up even with Truck 3 (in the correct lane but moving very slowly), Truck 1 comes into view on Truck 2’s dash cam.
According to Truck 1’s dash cam, seven seconds elapse between the time Truck 2 comes into view, and the two trucks reach the spot where a collision would have occurred.
Truck 1’s dash cam, which records the truck’s speed, shows it decelerating from 88 km/h to zero over an 11-second period.
Over the course of that 11 seconds, Truck 2 manages to get fully back into its lane, partially forcing Truck 3 off the road, and narrowly missing Truck 1, thanks only to it’s coming to a full stop in the nick of time.
Safety is not in the eye of the beholder
Nothing in the actions of either Driver 2 or Driver 3 can be deemed safe or prudent.
Driver 3 had stopped in a snowplow turnaround area, which is not permitted. Secondly, he was stopped at the far end of the turnaround area, which was only 60 meters (196 feet) from end to end. This left him no room to accelerate before pulling onto the highway.
Fundamentally, this is why these turnaround areas are unsuitable places for a truck to park. They are too small to accommodate the maneuvering necessary for tractor-trailers to safely re-enter the highway. Given its position relative to the highway as shown in the video from Truck 2, Truck 3 probably didn’t see Truck 2 approaching because it was just rounding a curve and coming up a slight grade.
Now for Driver 2. I’m sure he was shocked when he saw Truck 3 pulling on to the highway in front of him, but the video does not show any change in the speed of the truck.
There was an interval of about 11 seconds from the time Truck 3 appeared in the frame, until Truck 2 passed the point where the two trucks would have collided had Truck 2 not changed lanes. Eleven seconds is about twice the amount of time the driver would have needed to bring the truck to a stop from 105 km/h (65 mph), if he was going that fast — even allowing a couple of seconds reaction time.
Based on the brake testing I’ve done in the past, a fully loaded truck can be stopped in about five seconds from 65 mph with a full brake application.
Debate this if you want, but it raises a point: My five-second stop was done on clean dry pavement. The road surface in the video was clear of snow, but possibly wet and maybe slippery. We don’t know how fast Truck 2 was traveling, but Truck 1, traveling at 88 km/h stopped safely in about 11 seconds.
Why he apparently made no attempt to stop is anyone’s guess. Only the driver could answer that question, but there is nothing in my universe that justifies what he did.
Was he worried about his cargo breaking free during a hard brake? He shouldn’t have been if the cargo (automobiles) was properly secured.
Was he worried about hitting the other truck? A gentle (after braking) rear-end would have been a superior outcome compared to a full-speed head-on crash.
The ditch would have been another option.
So, why did he choose to possibly endanger another driver’s life by pulling around Truck 3 and passing it? That’s not safe driving anyway you look at it.
Poor judgment
This, friends, is what we mean when we talk about experience. Experience is not just about how many years or miles you have under your belt, but how much you’ve learned while accumulating those miles. Another word for it is judgment.
Both of these drivers, Driver 2 and Driver 3, regardless of how much experience they had, badly misjudged this situation. If not for Driver 1’s recognition of a developing situation and his timely brake application, the outcome of this situation would have been much worse.
And as for the companies representing those drivers, they need to look at what they consider good driving behavior. In both cases, the drivers’ behavior was inexcusable, unconscionable and unacceptable in this armchair QB’s opinion.
Credit: Source link