No, only budget cuts.
Right, if he is so afraid for his safety, why doesnt he try to help the safety on the scene instead of doing the bare minimum?
1 Like
The guy in the black pickup was driving excessively fast for the conditions. All it would have taken is an animal/kid/object in the road and he would have easily plowed into one of the houses. I know from personal experience how it can be impossible to stop on icy hills even going very slow with good tires - even under 20 mph for example - and still end up in a ditch. That’s why it’s critical to give yourself lots of room and time to stop cause you never know what’s going to be on the other side of the hill.
You can see in the video how fast he was going and even hear him accelerating over the crest of the hill. That was reckless and stupid and he’s very, very lucky he didn’t flip over and kill himself or others.
10 Likes
Watched the video and one thing stuck out. There are many cars that approach at a safe speed and navigate the hazard without difficulty. In fact, more people did not slide than did. Only a small number of people have any problem at all. But we focus on the few who did have a problem and blame someone for doing a thankless job instead of the drivers. It seems to me, that if the average driver could navigate the problem then we might want to take a closer look at those who could not.
6 Likes
Because he clearly is getting pleasure from being calmly smug about rules in the face of someone who’s emotionally ranting in his face.
2 Likes
Ok, what are the legal ramifications of this employee operating outside the guidance his corporation has given him? What if people have an accident at the cones 1/4 mile away and someone dies? Do you know who is at fault at that point?
There is a lot complicating this problem beyond “Comcast tech chose to risk people’s lives” and almost all of it has to do with the public works surrounding the road, and the regulations to force Comcast to do more than the bare minimum.
EDIT
The obvious fault lies at Comcast not having a system to call in bad conditions and bring in the trucks without (I’m assuming) docking the pay of the driver.
Yeah, but it seems like that nuance is really only relevant to the asshats who are presenting the binary choice a) do something to help or b) get fired.
2 Likes
Opportunistic. I like to try and get that sort of thing into posts where it’s actually legitimate. Thin end of a wedge wouldn’t work nearly as well.
3 Likes
The problem is that the driver is putting themselves at risk for both A or B no matter what, because in the US the shit rolls downhill and we are super happy to let it. If I was the guy making the video there would be me talking to the driver, then calling the number on his truck. Then there would be calls to 911, to the city, etc. And I honestly don’t know that I would put out my own cones.
We have services that are intended to step in with situations like this, and corporate ethics or responsible driving are literally the bottom of the list of what we should rely on. Hell, the black truck accident appears to happen after the guy making the video has put out cones on the hill.
2 Likes
The coefficient of friction can easily be 0.01. As soon as the gradient exceeds that, there’s nothing you can do unless you have tyre chains, or there is plenty of snow you can use to wedge up as a crude mechanical stop.
I have encountered 4x4 drivers who think that in some magic way four wheel drive improves safety on ice - not snow, ice. They tend to forget that most of the problems are related to stopping, and even a cheap econobox has brakes on all the wheels. Paradoxically 4 wheel drive can be more dangerous if it enables you to get onto the road in the first place whereas the drivers of lowlier vehicles can’t get off their drives to endanger themselves.
5 Likes
Again, they have a job to do. I am sure he doesn’t want to be out in the snow risking his life either.
2 Likes
Firstly “proactive” isn’t a word, I don’t care what anyone says. The meaning you intend to convey is completely covered by the real word “active”.
Secondly why should he be doing anything at all? These dickholes blocked a road after a crest and it was clearly, evidently causing a major safety hazard. The responsibility to act was theirs, and their indifference in the face of the collision that took place, not to mention the numerous cars that had slid off the road, is unbelievable.
I’m staggered there are people in this thread finding fault with the videographer, who literally placed his own cones, literally worked with other drivers to attempt to warm incoming traffic of the hazard ahead.
4 Likes
This ^
You can’t just watch the cars pile up around your truck and shrug your shoulders. I mean, seriously, how is this a conversation that people are having.
11 Likes
Is firstly a word though?
(ducks)
2 Likes
Especially evident when the filmer puts his own cones out way up the hill and it still does nothing to make people slow down. That said in icy conditions its a hard sell to get people to slow down when going up a hill since they might not make it over the top. The correct call would be to cancel repairs on roads like this until conditions are safer.
3 Likes
Between instigating accidents and pissing off motorists, this seems like he’s actively trying to increase the probability of getting killed.
4 Likes
There is always someone in charge of safety of people and equipment: captain of a plane or a boat, foreman, the dude that drove the truck, etc. This person is responsible, not a row of cones.
Why do you assume this? If the first car crash was leaking gasoline and on fire, im certain the worker is not going to get docked pay. What is really contributing to the problem is the alpha dog feeling a slight bit of empowerment over the stupid citizens.
2 Likes
I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi. “Proactive” is just a trigger word for me. Way, way too much time spent in sales meetings in the late 90’s.
It’s like one of those movies where someone has been programmed to assassinate someone when they hear a certain word.
For me, that word is “proactive”.
I guess I should be more proactive about it.
See? I just made a sentence that means nothing yet implies an action I should be held accountable for.
Arrrgh. Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean.
Calm. Fucking. Blue. Fucking. Ocean.
5 Likes
That’s the point - you literally have no ideal who is legally culpable for any resultant lawsuit over injuries sustained that day. The safety of the driver is not in question, they followed their procedures and protected themselves and Comcast even has them use their truck to protect themselves in the bad weather. Comcast and their drivers are not responsible for the public roadway, and if the driver breaks what they are allowed to do according to regulation, then any damages after that don’t just go away because it makes sense.
What I know about Comcast techs, they are paid only for their time on site and working on the issue. If you are not on site working on the issue you don’t get paid. They also have explicit metrics they have to meet to keep their jobs about time spent on a job and actually doing the job assigned to them if their boss feels they should still be there.
So yes, the fault is in the logistics involved keeping the driver there and not on the driver who has no business trying to make the road safer based on gut feeling - or even based on their own reading of published safety guidelines.
1 Like
Indiana can’t even afford street lights on their major highways.
2 Likes
