Got into an accident Thursday night

Ok... here we go again... i am probably gonna get beat up again for posting on this subjuct... but i feel i at least must try... so here we go....

1st... MOST CHP offices have a policy that citations are to be written on collisions where fault has been determined. the offcier PROBABLY did not have a choice.

2nd.. it wouyld NOT MATTER if he HAD writeten you a ticket though... DMV treats the event as ONE incident, so you would NOT have gotten hit twice with 2 points with the DMV.

3rd... given what you have posted and based on MY EXPERIANCE AND TRAINING, i would tend to believe you were driving at a speed unsafe for conditions. i say this because... i grew up in your area (El Toro) and spent MANY MANY days at the beaches in San Clemente... i am VERY familiar with the on/off ramp there. My wife used to work in the shopping center there on the west side of the 5 frwy in the shopping center where VONS used to be. i qualify my reason for the unsafe speed simply because i would take into consideration the number of cars that travel that on/off ramp with the same conditions present (wether it be from the sprinkler or rain, the road was simply wet) when you crashed.... your statement that you were gong 40mph through the turn. you also state two other cars "lost it" while you waited there for the CHP. my question to you would be "why did they not crash also???" i would assume because they were not doing 40mph through the turn...it would be VERY difficult for you or anybody else to convince a trained collision investigator that this crash was CAUSED soley because the roadway was wet. it MAY have CONTRIBUTED to the crash, but simply put YOU the driver are responsible to operate your vehicle at a speed that is safe for the prvailing conditions. i know that is not what you want to hear, but the thats the fact....

4th... by NOT writing a collision report, the officer SAVED you a point on your driving record. weather anyone here wants to believe it or not.... WET ROADS DO NOT CAUSE COLLISIONS !!!!! they cant !!!!! you the driver are the one in control of the car.... NOT THE ROADWAY!!!!

5th.... insurance companies DO NOT NEED a police report for you to file a claim.... even in the cases when reports are filed, the insurance companies DO NOT alway rely on the officers OPINION of the collision cause....

6th... the PCF (primary collision factor) is simply the officers OPINION (based on training and experiance) of what was the PRIMARY cause of the collision. this is almost ALWAYS an undisputible opinion by DMV. they will RARELY not follow the officers opinion.

my response here is NOT to beat up or critisize the OP !!!!!!!! i am simply chimming in because of the posts that are starting to beat up the CHP officer for not taking the report and "threatening" (as some suggest) the OP with the ticket. the guy was doing his job... called it like he saw... and gave the OP an OPTION....

lets face it... we all know what happened here.... late night... open road.... minimal traffic... an opprtunity to pull a G in the corner getting onto the freeway.... the OP simply did not see the wet raodway (which was well lit and not obstructed by bushes from Pico).

unfortunate ACCIDENT.... yes.... has anybody on this forum never done the same thing... i doubt it.... did the CHP officer do ANYTHING WRONG herE... ABSOLUTLY NOT !!!!

sorry if i pissed anyone off defending a brother again.... JUST CANT HELP MYSELF WHEN ASSUMPTIONS AND THE UNINFORMED MAKE SNAP JUDGEMENTS AND STUPID COMMENTS !!!!!!!!!!


Typical. You're basically saying that he's lying. A Prime member gets into an unfortunate accident, posts his exact recollection of the incident, and you call him a liar. The tone of the OP's post is not one condemning the officer's actions - he's simply stating what happened and is asking for a just resolution.

As an officer, perhaps you're not subject to the same treatment that an ordinary citizen would receive from other officers. If you're unhappy with some of the other comments on this thread, then I have no problem with your defense of the undoubtedly difficult job of being a police officer. But recognize that you're out of line by questioning the OP's statements when he has been nothing but open in regards to this accident. Snap oversteer is not uncommon with the NSX. I've had the rear of my car come loose on a freeway onramp due to damp conditions, and it was at a reasonable speed.

IMO, your comments do your profession a disservice.
 
I would'nt be too hard on oneadam12,what he is saying sounds about right to me.Obviously the conditions changed enough to cause a spin,those conditions were not seen or anticipated.Tire adhesion became nil.I have driven nearly bald So3s in the wet and I can tell you it demands attention and low speeds.Make of this combo what you will,but in general I agree with the concept of shared fault.
 
lets face it... we all know what happened here.... late night... open road.... minimal traffic... an opprtunity to pull a G in the corner getting onto the freeway.... the OP simply did not see the wet raodway (which was well lit and not obstructed by bushes from Pico).

Maybe "disservice" is a little harsh. It's just this above portion, which totally contradicts the account of the accident, which is wrong. If you read through scorp's posts, you'd see that he has been honest in his experiences with the NSX - from the turbo install to his buying experiences - all for the benefit of the community. The above statement sounds like a presumption of guilt.

sorry if i pissed anyone off defending a brother again.... JUST CANT HELP MYSELF WHEN ASSUMPTIONS AND THE UNINFORMED MAKE SNAP JUDGEMENTS AND STUPID COMMENTS !!!!!!!!!!

Then take your own advice.
 
I would like to know the pipe dia., Pr. and timer duration.
I have a feeling many are thinking it was like driving through the sprinklers in their front yard............... Opposed to getting hit with a solid stream at greater than metered home pressures.
Next time I go north, I will try to remember to pull over and check it out.
I know its illegal, but am all of a sudden a law breaking, irrigation rebel..........
My curiosity has been stirred...
 
I would like to know the pipe dia., Pr. and timer duration.
I have a feeling many are thinking it was like driving through the sprinklers in their front yard............... Opposed to getting hit with a solid stream at greater than metered home pressures.
Next time I go north, I will try to remember to pull over and check it out.
I know its illegal, but am all of a sudden a law breaking, irrigation rebel..........
My curiosity has been stirred...

I went through it at 10:35PM, I am going back at 10:30PM tonight to check it out, with my camera.

I called my insurance company today, they're sending out an adjuster next week to check the car out.
 
That's a very good idea.

The key part in my mind, (that some here seem to be missing) is getting blasted by a broken irrigation line.
Some here seem to look at it as a minor distraction, but in reality it probably had a lot to do with the outcome. Not sure how others can pass judgement having never been in this exact situation.
I have seen broken lines on the fwy, and would not be at all surprised if was
80-100 lbs from an 1" to 2" line. Only a guess as I have seen broken lines like this arch 30' in the air.
 
Maybe "disservice" is a little harsh. It's just this above portion, which totally contradicts the account of the accident, which is wrong. If you read through scorp's posts, you'd see that he has been honest in his experiences with the NSX - from the turbo install to his buying experiences - all for the benefit of the community. The above statement sounds like a presumption of guilt.



Then take your own advice.

just a quick post.... just where is it that i call the Op a liar???? i think i went out of my way to say i WASNT flaming on the OP.... my post was aimed at several of the posts and the comments made in them...

what i did was TRY to explain collision investigation here.... was i assuming when i made the comment about pulling a G thru the corner.... yes i was.... does anybody here also think that could have been the case also... i assume so also....

Now... i read the up dated post by the Op where he explains the situation with a little more detail...

i will take his updated comments and refer to the original post with the picture and drwaings on the picture to make these COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS....

"I was trying to convey the huge amount of water, that was instantly present."

look at the picture, you can see the road gets wet JUST AFTER the turn would have been made onto the onramp. the indication of where the sprinkler was looks fairly a short distance from Pico.

"I do not drive this red car in the rain, it has no windshield wipers, no wiper motor, no traction control, and has a stiff suspension with an aggressive tire wear alignment; it is intended as a dry-weather car"

i am not beating up the OP here but.... this statement itself indicates even MORE fault of the driver. while it isnt everyday standing water is on a roadway when it is not raining, it is not unforseeable that this could be the case at any time. windshield wipers ARE a requirement by the vehixcle code...

"The tires are close, within a mm, of the wear bars - they're not done yet, and are only 2k miles on the car, but they're not something I would want to drive in the rain, and certainly they're not suitable for standing water."

good tires are required and is a responsibility of the driver / owner.

"The on-ramp is poorly lit, the camera phone pictures I posted convey the lighting situation."

i dont get this statement.... the intersection looks like a pro football stadium with all the lights there....

i will stand by my opinion and observation... based on the pictures and the original post by the OP, i appears he hit the water as he was coming out of the apex of the turn, which based on the condition of his car and speed caused him to loose control and subsequently crash.

nowhere did i call anybody a liar.... nowhere did i assuse ANYONE of anything... i simply stated facts (with the exception of one assumtion) and tried to explain how collisioin investigations work. i in no way tried to offend anyone... sorry if i did....

if i had wanted to offend somone... maybe i would have made a statement somehting like this.... isnt it funny how some people look a gift horse in the mouth and then slap the horse when it is trying to give the gift... and this is reference to the CHP officer offering the OP an OPTION (not threatening him) of having a report taken or not..... i will say it again and it has NOTHING to do with the OP..... if it were anybody, it would be the same....STANDING WATER IS NOT A PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR IN THIS CRASH !!!!!!!!DRIVING AT A SPEED UNSAFE FOR CONDITIONS IS....the OP was clearly at fault in this collision and the CHP offcier saved him a point on his DMV record by not taking the report....

To Scorp..... sorry for the damage to your car..... glad you were not hurt... glad the car can be fixed.... if i can offer you any advise, please PM and i would be happy to.... Dave
 
look at the picture, you can see the road gets wet JUST AFTER the turn would have been made onto the onramp. the indication of where the sprinkler was looks fairly a short distance from Pico.

Dave,

This is an uphill on-ramp, the water visible has run down the hill, perhaps this serves as an indicator for the amount of water present, as you can see in the map, the sprinkler supplying this water is over two hundred feet further up the hill.

i am not beating up the OP here but.... this statement itself indicates even MORE fault of the driver. while it isnt everyday standing water is on a roadway when it is not raining, it is not unforseeable that this could be the case at any time.

This information was an effort to provide context for the situation - is it possible a different car might have handled the spin, or the standing water, better? absolutely, if I had a car with AWD, perhaps even if I had an nsx with functional TCS and all weather tires, the outcome might have been different, I don't drive this car in the rain on purpose, because it is not setup for the rain. I don't drive this car when there are clouds in the sky, on purpose.

good tires are required and is a responsibility of the driver / owner.

My tires are good dry-weather tires, they're not at the wear bars, they're Y speed rated, and recently installed. They're not all weather tires.

i dont get this statement.... the intersection looks like a pro football stadium with all the lights there.

Pico is well lit, the onramp is not; the pictures were taken perhaps 5 minutes after the accident, so the entire onramp appears wet in them, but I did not see any indication of water until it hit my windshield. Could it have been wet when I entered the onramp? Possibly, as you can see from the map, this is a right turn onramp, so I never saw 'straight up' the onramp.

isnt it funny how some people look a gift horse in the mouth and then slap the horse when it is trying to give the gift... and this is reference to the CHP officer offering the OP an OPTION (not threatening him) of having a report taken or not.

I made no judgement against the CHP officer, he advised me I had two options, either don't have the report written, and tow my car home, or have a report written that will give me a ticket, and tow my car home. Of these two options, I think the one that doesn't involve a ticket is the better of the two choices. The optimal choice would be to have a report that takes into account the hazard that has been left unfixed by either CalTrans, or the City of San Clemente, and has led to not only my accident, but at least 2 others, and has put countless motorists at risk, despite the proper authorities (CalTrans and the California Highway Patrol) being informed about this issue over the course of the last 3 weeks.

DRIVING AT A SPEED UNSAFE FOR CONDITIONS IS....the OP was clearly at fault in this collision and the CHP offcier saved him a point on his DMV record by not taking the report.

If I had been driving like an idiot I would have acknowledged doing so, I have no problem taking responsibility where I am at fault, as you can see from my above post, I can only hope I did the correct thing once I hit the water, as I don't think there is a way I could have anticipated it being there. As far as the cause of the accident, its a combination of factors, but the primary one is the presence of this water in the first place. Is there something particular to my driving, or my vehicle, that made it unsuitable for this amount of water? Absolutely, otherwise there would have been a dozen cars on top of the ice plants. Was I "pulling a G" and driving 100mph up this onramp? Absolutely not, I did take the car out for some fun driving, but by the time I left San Clemente I was tired, and ready to go to bed so I could wake up for my tuning appointment. I was not conscious of speeding, I was 'driving normally' - for an onramp, that goes from a 45mph road to the freeway, this means I slowed for the turn, and started to accelerate once I passed the apex of the turn - this means 40mph.
 
"lets face it... we all know what happened here.... late night... open road.... minimal traffic... an opprtunity to pull a G in the corner getting onto the freeway.... the OP simply did not see the wet raodway (which was well lit and not obstructed by bushes from Pico)."

Not all of us seem to know what happened here.........


"at the end of this right hand turn, by the signal light, there was just a wall of water, caused by a broken high-pressure sprinkler, that hit the car like a fire hose. As soon as the water hit the car the rear end broke loose,"

"Also, the tow truck driver mentioned he had pulled 2 other cars in the last MONTH from this same location, this sprinker has been broken for this amount of time, and he claims he contacted a cal trans team several weeks ago about this EXACT sprinkler, and they have done nothing. I asked the CHP officers if they would have the sprinkler fixed, and they said they would 'mention it to somebody"

The tow truck driver said he contacted Cal Trans after getting hit with the same wall of water, and almost getting into an accident in his tow truck.
 
just a quick post.... just where is it that i call the Op a liar????

Jesus Christ. I spelled it out for you. You know, the part that I quoted... :rolleyes:

Here it is again:

lets face it... we all know what happened here.... late night... open road.... minimal traffic... an opprtunity to pull a G in the corner getting onto the freeway.... the OP simply did not see the wet raodway (which was well lit and not obstructed by bushes from Pico).
 
Jesus Christ. I spelled it out for you. You know, the part that I quoted... :rolleyes:

Here it is again:

OK... i just may be a little dense here...... just how does it work when you quote my entire first post "spell it out foir me"?:rolleyes:
 
Well, you responded to my 2nd post that quoted only that portion. In fact, YOU quoted ME explaining it to you:

Maybe "disservice" is a little harsh. It's just this above portion, which totally contradicts the account of the accident, which is wrong. If you read through scorp's posts, you'd see that he has been honest in his experiences with the NSX - from the turbo install to his buying experiences - all for the benefit of the community. The above statement sounds like a presumption of guilt.
 
Look, let's not turn this into the quote game. All I'm saying is that the OP deserves the benefit of the doubt. If you're offended by the cop bashing, then that's your problem. My problem is cops that won't admit they're wrong.
 
We dont need to get all up in arms about this you two; you're both trying to help. Adam12s advice is good for John to hear because it will put him in a better frame of mind should he decide to pursue this and him speaking his mind here provides only upside to John.

I believe that John's case will be tough to win given that one of the responsibilities that we all take as drivers is that we retain control of the vehicle when the unforeseen happens. In this case it was water, and it sounds like a lot of it, but I would ask the question that if John was going at half the rate of speed (whatever that may be), would the accident have happened? If the answer is no, maybe that is a tougher case to win.

It reminds me of an incident that a friend of mine had many years back. In his case, a snowplow was blowing snow from an overpass, over the shoulder of that road, over the barrier and then directly onto a highway that crossed under the bridge (the snow removal guy was clearly negligent in this case). So imagine driving at whatever speed down a highway and all of a sudden you get hit, not by a bunch of water, but by a flying snowbank (snow, ice, rocks, etc...) from maybe 80 feet above. He lost control of the car and was deemed at fault because his primary responsibility as a driver is to retain control of the vehicle under all conditions. The fact that a snowplow put a wall of solids in front of him was irrelevant; apparently if he were in sufficient control he would have been able to stop.
 
Okay, let's just take a step back here. I see things from both pvmike's point of view and oneadam12. IMHO, Oneadam was responding to the rather harsh comments made by a few others in regards to the CHP officer. As Oneadam and I have both experienced, there have been in the past, some highly hateful and inappropriate comments towards officers. Then, when we post on prime, we are ridiculed for what we post and then people make assumptions about how we do our job or question our integrity. I find this to be very offensive. So, I perfectly understand Oneadams feelings on this matter. He may have come off as too judgmental regarding Scorp's accident.

Let's be real here...none of us really know what happened here. Was scorp going a little too fast? It's possible. Was Scorp's car set up for the unplanned event of a wet road? Well, apparently not. Could Scorp have anticipated the broken sprinkler and water on the road? Likely not. Should Scorp drive like a grandma because of unknown situations on the road? Well, of course not..where would be the fun in that?

Still, there's a very gray area between "Driver Fault" and "Unpreventable situations" that promote accidents. Which side is Scorp on, none of us will know. I would guess that this is exactly what the CHP officer was thinking.

The irony I find in this entire thread is a change in the behavior of NSXprime members now, and several years ago.

I remember posting about my accident in the rain. I was driving slowly in the rain in the right lane of a three lane road, when suddenly a car pulls out from a parking lot right in my lane. It was so close, I knew if I slammed on my brakes, I would likely run into him. There was also the chance that he would straighten his car just enough, that I may strike more towards his backside than his left side. That would certainly make me seem more at fault. So, I made an evasive maneuver, turning into the center lane. Sadly, there was some standing water right as I made my lane change. The car fishtail once to the left, then snap oversteer to the right, sending me into a 360. I got the car straightened up, but not after the left rear rim of my old HREs banged the curb on the left side of the road.

I posted this incident, and WOW, did I get flamed:rolleyes: I had members (some still posting today) tell me that I should sell my car, I have no idea how to drive. I had members telling me that I should have pulled over because it was raining. Other's told me I was too young to own an NSX. I mentioned that I was tired having worked a long day; of course, being the obnoxious mother hen's, these guys told me that I shouldn't have driven home since I was tired. They said I should have had someone come pick me up from work. There entire outlook was that it was completely and totally my fault.

So, I'm happy that so many have been supportive towards Scorp and no one has flamed or judged him harshly. I even find it interesting when a new NSX owner posts that he totaled not one, but TWO Vipers by crashing into a wall while street racing, no one flames him for this. But when a guy posts that he accelerated a bit, when a scion toyed with him, EVERYONE attacks him.:confused:

Very interesting indeed.:cool:
 
isnt it funny how some people look a gift horse in the mouth and then slap the horse when it is trying to give the gift...

This really confuses me. The expression, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth", refers to the proverb: when given a present, be grateful for your good fortune and don't look for more by examining it to assess its value. In this instance, the horse is the gift. Looking into a horses mouth is method of assessing it's age by examining it's teeth, thus being critical of the gift (the horse). You seem to be saying that the horse is bearing gifts?
 
Okay, let's just take a step back here. I see things from both pvmike's point of view and oneadam12. IMHO, Oneadam was responding to the rather harsh comments made by a few others in regards to the CHP officer. As Oneadam and I have both experienced, there have been in the past, some highly hateful and inappropriate comments towards officers. Then, when we post on prime, we are ridiculed for what we post and then people make assumptions about how we do our job or question our integrity. I find this to be very offensive. So, I perfectly understand Oneadams feelings on this matter. He may have come off as too judgmental regarding Scorp's accident.

I definitely see your point, and I welcome both your opinion, and that of oneadam, on this thread; I don't think anybody posts pictures of an accident they have been involved in, without thinking somebody will post judgmental comments about that accident. The law enforcement point of view is always welcome, and is valuable in this situation, if I decide to take some kind of civil action after the fact.

As I have said, it is my hope that, in spite of the outcome, I did the most that could have been done by a driver, once the spin situation was entered. I don't think it was possible to anticipate the quantity of 'instant on' water I experienced in this situation, and I hope to clarify this level of water, both for prime and myself, by taking acceptable pictures of it tonight, assuming CalTrans hasn't fixed the situation in the last two days.
 
I hate to keep pasting, but we seem to be forgetting.........

"This sprinkler is a massive hazard, I can't believe it has been allowed to cause trouble for this huge length of time, on an onramp with no lighting, and virtually no warning until you're getting hit with water. I think this is comparable to when a pot hole damages a wheel, and the city is made to pay for the repair cost of the wheel - just as the pothole is a hazard, this broken sprinkler, shooting a huge jet of water onto oncoming cars, is a huge safety hazard. I can't understand why nobody seems to consider fixing it a priority, perhaps because its only a hazard for a few minutes each day"

"The CHP officer did not seem to feel the massive amount of water spraying onto the unlit on-ramp was in any way responsible for the accident."

I wanted to ask the 2 officers posting here if they would feel the same way about the water hitting the car?
Also, the onramp is pitch black at night. No lights, just in the intersection.
And am also sure a modified NSX with a large wing gets looked at differently
than a Pinto in these situations.......

"Offtopic" but ONEADAM12, what year did your wife work at VONS? Was it In the Pico plaza? was it a Vons before Ralphs? Its has been a Staples for the past 10 yrs. My memory must be on the blink.

As a side note: This may keep someone else from getting injured.
Just bringing this up, will probably get the hazard fixed.
 
Last edited:
This really confuses me. The expression, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth", refers to the proverb: when given a present, be grateful for your good fortune and don't look for more by examining it to assess its value. In this instance, the horse is the gift. Looking into a horses mouth is method of assessing it's age by examining it's teeth, thus being critical of the gift (the horse). You seem to be saying that the horse is bearing gifts?

See, this is why to me, Prime can be trying at times. Chops, I have my doubts that you are actually confused by what oneadam is saying here. I speculate, that he was trying to convey what the CHP officer did, as a "favor" to Scorp. Understand, the CHP officer DOES NOT have to give Scorp the choice of doing a report or not. The officer could have simply requested Scorps DL and vehicle information, then gone about writing a report and citing Scorp.

I believe you understood what Oneadam was trying to convey; and yet, you felt the need to point out that Oneadam erroneously expressed the "gift horse" analogy. Why did you feel it was necessary to do this? Why do an exorbitant amount of prime members feel the need to behave this way?


I wanted to ask the 2 officers posting here if they would feel the same way about the water hitting the car?
Also, the onramp is pitch black at night. No lights, just in the intersection.
And am also sure a modified NSX with a large wing gets looked at differently
than a Pinto in these situations.......[/B][/COLOR]

What answer are you expecting to here regarding your query? I expressed in my very first post, that If I were the officer on scene, I may attempt to write a report and NOT find Scorp at fault; however, that would be pushing it. My supervisor would likely question me for this action and could make me write a citation even after leaving the scene. The bottom line is, in a single car accident like Scorp's, both the officer and likely the insurance company will find Scorp at fault. Is that fair? OF COURSE NOT. Did Scorp's racing looking car envoke some envy from the cop? It's possible. Yet, What in the world makes someone assume this other than prejudice against cops. Just yesterday I had a cop pull me over so one another officer could swing by and check out my car. They were ecstatic to learn I was a cop also. As we talked, I found out that one of them responded to a robbery call where I got injured and helped me out.

It's high time members on here woke up and matured a little bit to realize: There a good cops and bad cops. Guess who you will come across more often than not? How many times do you get robbed, raped, battered requiring an officer to come to your assistance? Now how many times do you get pulled over?

Remember, and I'm speaking from experience here, there are three kinds of cops:

1) The guy that genuinely wants to help people (like me)
2) The guy that wanted an exciting job that was NOT a desk job
3) The guy that was/is a dork, got teased for it, and now wants to get back at society.

I know quite a few guys that qualify under #3 at my job and I don't get along with ANY of them. But there will always be guys like that...In any Job. Sadly, some of these guys become bosses and supervisors making other's lives miserable.

In my second post, I elaborated that something very similar to Scorp's situation happened to me. I did not mention however, that after contacting the police and an FHP officer's arrival, I was given THE EXACT SAME CHOICE SCORP WAS GIVEN. The FHP officer told me that without an independent witness who saw the vehicle pull out in front of me causing me to loose control, she will have to find me at fault for the accident and cite me. She knew I was a cop; nonetheless, She said it was better to just not have a report written and then contact the insurance company. Take a wild guess who the insurance said was at fault:rolleyes:

You mentioned on more than one occasion about "water hitting the car". What caused the accident was a layer of water on the roadway that could not be seen and could not be anticipated. Let's forget about whether or not Scorp was going too fast or the condition of the vehicle's ability to perform in the wet. Water hitting Scorp's car from the sprinkler has no bearing on the cause of the accident. There simply isn't enough force coming from the sprinkler to effect the car. Even Scorp has stated this himself.
 
Last edited:
John,

Easier said than done but, remember look forward and not look back. Most important thing is that you are ok. Can't wait to go to meets together again soon.
 
Guys... i may have made some statements here that seem to have been taken the wrong way... so please let me TRY to explain...

i am NOT trying to be judgemental towrds scorp here in ANY way !!!!!

i simply read the original post, looked at the diagram / picture, made a reasonable assumption and rendered MY OPINION. i based my opinion on 13 years of traffic collision investigation experiance. factoring in the LAW and the RULES OF THE ROAD (California Vehicle Code).

i tried to offer an explination of why the CHP officer did what he did...

i admit I TOOK OFFENCE with some of the posts (not Scorps) that accuse the officer of ... thratening Scorp.... being lazy.... not doing his job... being a dick.... all of which are totally baseless and pre-judgemental of the officer. the very same thing those who posted the comments accuse the officer of being.....

i will say it again.... and i know some of you will not like to hear it..... THIS IS CLEARLY A CASE OF UNSAFE SPEED FOR CONDITIONS !!!!!!!! facts are.... numerous cars drive through this same area under these same conditions and DO NOT CRASH !!!!!!!!!!! why.... the speed of thier vehicle..... water on the road CAN NOT CAUSE A COLLISION.... however, it can CONTRIBUTE to the collision..... which in my opinion IT DID in this crash....

i made an assumtion that Scorp took an oportunity on a late night with light traffic, on a sweeping left hand turn to pull through a corner.... look in the mirror guys... has ANYONE on this board not taken this same oportunity???? given the knowledge of how we like to drive these cars, is that not a safe assumption for me to make??? IF Scorp was coming off a 45mph speed zone and into this corner at 40 (which i can assume the average driver driving an accord would probably have taken at 20mph) does not neccessarily indicate he was breaking ANY speed laws if the roadway conditions allowed. it is still up to each and every driver to access the roadway conditions when they drive and adjust thier speed for the conditions..... had Scopr been going slower than the was (whatever his speed was) in this situation this collision could have been avoided as proven by the two other cars that night he referred to and the numerous others that do not crash. just take into consideration the two cars he states LOST IT and ALMOST crashed in the same spot. IF the wet road was the cause of this crash only, then they should have on that theory crashed too. they didnt.... why??? im positive it is because thier speed was slower.... therfore at whatever speed Scorp was going in this case WAS UNSAFE FOR THE CONDITIONS.... this isnt even taking into consideration the condition of his car as he stated in subsequent posts.....

i in know way attempted to or intended to insult or bash Scorp over this collision... i would have NEVER even posted had it not been for the posts that started to put blame on the CHP officer and the accusations against him...

i have said it before and i will say it 100 times... I WILL NOT DEFEND AN OFFICER THAT HAS DONE WRONG !!!!! I WILL GO OUT OF MY WAY TO HANG HIM OUT AND THROW HIM UNDER THE BUS IF HE WAS TO SULLY MY PROFESSION !!!!!!!!!! my one and only goal posting on this thread was to point out the situation as i saw it form the OP and pictures.... i tried to explain how cllision investigations work and the LAW.... nothing more.... i have not BASHED or FLAMED anyone..... i am sorry if i have offended anyone... that was not my intention.....

i know some of you on here hate cops simply because they are cops... i can live with that... i know some hate us for the things the bad ones do.... that embarasses me and causes me shame.... but what i take the most offence with is when I get lumped in with the assholes that sully my good profession..i know i cannot change some minds... my goal is to at the very least try to explain WHY things are done the way they are.... or what the law may or may not be.... i try to offer advise to those who ask and will help in any way i can legally amd morally..... i will take the heat when it is deserved and i will fight to the end to defend my brother when i feel the need.... i welcom a good arguement (not in an offensive way) and if you read some of my posts in the past.. i will agree when appropriate.....

MCM... i thought it was a VONS, i could be wrong... she did not work there... she managed the super cuts that was there in 1990.... long time ago......

drive safe boys.... Dave
 
OP -

Get some good high quality video, immediately, of that offending, dangerous, Cal Tran-owned and maintained water hazard.

I always and you should as well, call an accident attorney and an ambulance, or doctor, after any accident. It is best to just call the ambulance and let them check you out right on the scene. You never know what type of injury might go undiagnosed from the accident and pop up a day, week or month later and appear to you unrelated to the accident. Soft tissue injuries from accidents do not always present themselves immediately on the scene. Also, don’t let any police officer make judgments about whether you need medical advice or not. If they offer medical advice simply ignore it and request medical attention immediately. If they were skilled to do that type of work he would be working at the hospital, instead of their current profession.

I have asked a top accident attorney, here in Florida, and was told this could very likely be determined as Cal Tran’s liability for allowing a hazardous sprinkler head, which was previously known to cause accidents, to continue to leak and spray large amounts of water onto the roadway which subsequently caused your accident.

Take a few minutes to call a local accident attorney near you and ask what their firm can do to assist you. Call a couple of them to get a second opinion also. This will be your most accurate advice on how to handle both the insurance company and any money recovery opportunities from Cal-Tran since they see so many different types of accident and situations. They will also be able to give you some specific info on how your insurance company might treat you and what you might say, or not say, to ease the pain in that department. Seriously consider seeing a doctor as well. The attorney can recommend one if needed.

Best of luck!
 
OP-
That appears to be one hell a a "crown" on that entrance ramp. Maybe 10% or 6% at the least... a crown is the peaking in the middle of the roadway with a gradual slope off to the sides to prevent standing water. This proves that even with the severe crown this must have been a substantial amount of water. We have sprinklers every 3 feet here in Florida so I understand all too well about broken heads allowing water to enter to roadway.

The camber of an NSX being somewhat aggressive can lead to this feature of a road being more noticeable than with other cars. Going from lane to lane on an older semi-truck driven highway can seem like a roller coaster on the best of days and downright scary on others.

I don’t even see lane markings on this roadway. It appears to be blacktop which is basically a giant, BLACK OIL slick. If it was dry sunny conditions for some time prior to the water being applied, this would be a very dangerous situation do to the oils being left by cars accelerating heavily as they prepare to enter the highway, at speed. Over a period of time this residual buildup, once wet, can become like ice.

The attitude of the scene officer and a few posters here (wont call names) not give you the benefit of the doubt is quite upsetting to me. It’s not like this is even a 1g decreasing radius cloverleaf onramp anyway. This was a turn off of a sub street with a fairly straight lead-out onto the highway. This was no 40MPH 1G turn, IMHO “chips” mentioned prior.


Chips-

Sweeping left hand turn???????....I think he turned to the right, if I am not mistaken.

It would be fairly easy for us to think that after all the comments and rebuttal you wrote that you didn’t even understand the fundamentals of this scene. Isn’t this true? Also, the two cars behind his car might well have been all-wheel drive ACURA MDX models or possibly another type of car which is not quite as susceptible to unexpected water hazards as an NSX is to that type of situation. But they weren’t, but they WERE front-wheel drive cars which are extremely good at keeping control of such a water encounter due to the fact they are pulling the car along, NOT pushing the rear end around after such a sudden loss of traction under acceleration. The NSX would act very differently being a mid-engine with a large %-age of weight nearest the propelling wheels having very wide tires, with possible low tread remaining, encountering a large amount of constant source of water spread across a heavily crowned, slightly uphill road while accelerating to highway speeds in an attempt to enter a freeway. From just that sentence it seems like it would be a no brain-er to determine that only a small % of drivers would be able to come out of that one ok while piloting the same vehicle.

This scene is WAY off the 1g skid pad, teen-angst, wild-ride you had him on a couple of posts ago. Factors such as the ones I listed above should always come in to account when determining if a driver was at fault, in any situational one vehicle accident. Have you just seen too many crashes and just assume lots of info to shorten your time on-scene and subsequent report writing and don’t really see the facts sometimes clearly? I just dished those observations out from 10 seconds of looking at a poor poor iphone night taken photo. Let me have a crack at surveying the actually scene for 15 minutes and he will be getting a key to the city.


:biggrin:
 
I went back today, I felt a little stupid while on the ramp with cars going by, but I stayed several feet on top of the ice plants, and only moved when no cars were present. I also had a blinking red led I picked up at Home Depot today for this purpose, I am not sure if this helped or hurt, as several people flashed their high beams at me.

I arrived in San Clemente at 10:15PM, and setup a tripod across the street for a few pictures, to show the ramp:

DSC01104o.JPG


DSC01114o.JPG


DSC01126o.JPG


Then I got in my car, and drove up the ramp, pulling over in the runoff area just over the crest of the hill, approx 30 feet away, and got out my flashlight, tripod w/camera, and blinking red light, which I clipped to my jacket. I noticed when I drove up the ramp, perhaps 30-40 feet from the sprinkler, there was a series of large pot holes; I don't remember these from Thursday night, but its possible they could have unsettled the car just before the water.

I was on the top of the ramp at 10:30PM, my accident occurred just before 10:35PM (I have the time stored in my phone from the 911 call, a few seconds afterwards), here is a picture from the runoff area down the onramp:

DSC01140o.JPG


Not quite 'lit like a football field' - note, all of these pictures are at the same setting, F/2.8, with a 2 second shutter.

I waited around from 10:30PM to 10:45PM, the sprinklers never turned on tonight (Saturday), perhaps they only go on a few times per week, or perhaps, after my accident, the right people were called and they have at least been disabled prior to being fixed. I will swing by Thursday night with a video camera to be sure, I am not certain walking the on-ramp at night again is such a good idea.

These final two photos were from across the way, on an asphalt incline, approx 10 feet from the road surface. The camera in this case was set to f/2.8 with a 30 second shutter, to illuminate the hillside.

See the PVC piping leading down the hill towards the bushes? This is the approximate location of the sprinkler, note its position relative to the 'carpool' light, perhaps 30 feet South.

DSC01144o.JPG


And here is a picture slightly to the left of the previous one, at the same camera settings:

DSC01145o.JPG


Where the person is sitting is where my car ended up, there was broken curb and one of my plastic fender liners on the ice plants.

As you can see, total distance was very minimal, under 100 total feet from sprinkler to resting place. The car would have been going 40mph when it hit some deep pot holes, which may have been filled with water, then I was blinded by the sprinkler shooting water at me just before the light - the first indication of water was when it hit my windshield, and directly afterwards, as I was passing the light, is when I was in a spin. The car ended up perhaps 50 feet later, on the hill.
 
Last edited:
"What answer are you expecting to here regarding your query?"

"I wanted to ask the 2 officers posting here if they would feel the same way about the water hitting the car?"

A yes or no If the water hitting the car was a hazard, and if you would have thought it partially responsible for the accident and included it into a report.
V. S. this below.

"The CHP officer did not seem to feel the massive amount of water spraying onto the unlit on-ramp was in any way responsible for the accident."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice pic's, as I mentioned before, this on-ramp is a dud. Crowned & off camber. No fun at all. During daylight hours cars coming in from the left and right sometimes get really close.
Have never tried taking it at 40 mph in the wet. Would probably spin as well...........

1975 10,000 residents / 1990 30,000 residents / 2008 70,000.
Pico is now 4 to 6 lanes. The Pico off ramp there was just widened to 3 full lanes.
They are planning to do the same to this Onramp.

Scorp, did you find the broken water line?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top