Got into an accident Thursday night

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:

OK.... I get it now..... i have been on this site since 2002 and it just finally hit me.....

1. whatever is typed on these posts is taken quite literally..... (my 1 g thru the corner analogy) (my looking a gift horse in the mouth comment) etc..

2. if you make a mistake and type right instead of left, it will be assumed you are an idiot... not simply a typo when typing....

3. it is demonstrated here on this site time and time again.... when someone does something wrong.... or makes a mistake... or is involved in an unfortunate circumstance... that we as a society want to BLAME someone or something else for what happened..... excuses and reasons WHY someone or something esle was the cause for what happened (now dont get confused here... i AM making a reference in general here).

4. hard headed people just dont get it sometimes..... STANDING WATER DOES NOT CAUSE COLLISIONS !!!!!!!! IT CAN BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR, BUT NOT A CAUSE!!!!!COLOR="Black"][/COLOR][/B][/B] Scorp was going too fast for conditions in a car that is not prepared to drive in the wet in this collision.....what part of that is hard to see????? if the water here CAUSED this collision, then no car could drive thru it and not crash.........
 
"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?


i last lived in the area in 1991.... everytime i am down there i am just amazed at how much it changes.....

YES... i believe the water DID CONTRIBUTE to this collision..... to what degree i cannot say without have been on scene.... the one question i do have is HOW can ANy amount of water be standing on this onramp at all???? the grade appears to be at leats 6% and crowned in the center to allow any water to drain towrds the curbs...
 
a little more on the water being a contributing factor...

on the standard CHP 555 form (property damage only report)... there are several boxes that are checked...

primary collision factor (PCF)... that which was primary ot the cause of the crash....

roadway conditions..... wet, dry etc....

and OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS ... this is the box that would be checked to reflect the amount of water or how the watyer stream was hitting on the roadway..... the contributing factors are always taken into consideration by the insurance companies when determining who pay and how much.... for instance... if the PCF is speed and the water is a contributing, the insurance company would establish what % each were. the PCF is primarily used by the DMV for establishing fault and subsequently points....

all these factors are OPINIONS established by the investigating officer on scene and are based on his TRAINING AND EXPERIANCE .... i would assume a CHP offcier in that area respondes to at least 2 crashes a day.... 5 days a week.... so whats that.... approx 260 crashes a year???? i think it would be safe to assume the offcier has seen just about every (now dont take me litterly on the EVERY part of this comment) type of crash you could imagine. i think his opinion shopuld account for something here on this forum.... it would definatly stand up in a court of law....

i will go back to what i said in my previous post (and now i AM NOT refering to anyone here on this forum specifically).... we as a society have come to want to shift the blame of or misfortunes on someone or something else .... again, i am not suggesting Scorp is doing that here. i firmly believe he and other TRULY believe the water caused this collision..... i can understand the passion when someone believes in the cause...

did the water on the road CONTRIBUTE to this collision YES YES YES !!!!!!! (based on what scopr has posted here)..... do i believe it CAUSED this collision NO NO NO!!!!! in this case you just cant get there !! sorry... my opinion... Dave
 
Scorp & others,

Sorry to hear about the accident. The pictures certainly don't make the on-ramp look like the safest one in the world. My take on this is that unexpected conditions combined with a hopped-up car & tired driver resulted in the accident. Your headlights should have been bright enough for you to see the water in time to react, unless you were too tired to notice or driving too fast for the conditions. Perhaps the on-ramp should have had a slower posted speed due to the lighting (what was it marked on the ramp?). Regardless, having windshield wipers or better tires might have helped prevent the accident.

Does CHP not issue "fix it" tickets for stuff like missing windshield wipers? I've lived in at least two states, where you can't even license a road car without windshield wipers.

Anyway, I certainly agree that the sprinkler problem should have been fixed and feel that they should consider posting a reduced speed sign on the ramp, if there's not one there, because of the lighting. The road & sprinkler are not entirely to blame though, if your car easily breaks traction on dry roads.:redface:


Be careful out there - you never know what's going to happen,

Michael
 
"did the water on the road CONTRIBUTE to this collision YES YES YES !!!!!!! (based on what scopr has posted here)..... do i believe it CAUSED this collision NO NO NO!!!!! in this case you just cant get there !! sorry... my opinion... Dave"

Maybe your right. My thinking was not so much the wet road, or the darkness, or speed.
But rather I focused on getting hit out of the blue with a deluge of water from a broken line.
Not many drivers anticipate getting hit with a high pressure blast of water 100% of the time
they are behind the wheel / and are prepared to react accordingly.
If Scorp knew was going to get hit with a large volume of pressurized water, and the road was going to be flooded we would not be having this conversation.
 
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!

Your Personal Injury Lawyer...don't leave home without one!

I actually have two that I've hired that follow me every where I go. They're my "security detail" since I'm weak at defending myself in court. Two, of course, is the key number. You have one always watching your back, playing defense. And the other whose job is to play offense -- to scout out good opportunities for lawsuits. Further, it always helps to have *two* witnesses when you slip on the icy sidewalk (they can also stand cover so all the bystanders laughing & pointing don't see your face).

I've thought about adding a Guatemalan physician to my Entourage, since he could spot the more obscure health related risks that traditional trial lawyers like John Edwards couldn't recognize. I could then move into the big leagues suing the $$ healthcare and pharmaceutical companies. I just don't know if I'm ready for all that flash, paparazzi and publicity though...I'm just a small town boy with a big city heart.

:biggrin:
 
Scorp, did I read your last post correctly? Did the water hit your windshield in a deluge causing literally zero visibility? Was this during the curve or on a straight part of the road? I could certainly understand how this would hurt your driving. :eek:
 
This story is almost identical as to what happened to me in my Crystal Cove incident. Same water, same speed, same type of turn, and same snap-oversteer situation! And almost the same damage!

Glad to hear you're ok. It happens to the best of us.
 
1. whatever is typed on these posts is taken quite literally..... (my 1 g thru the corner analogy) (my looking a gift horse in the mouth comment) etc..

2. if you make a mistake and type right instead of left, it will be assumed you are an idiot... not simply a typo when typing....

You're right, I was out of line. Sorry.
 
a little more on the water being a contributing factor...

on the standard CHP 555 form (property damage only report)... there are several boxes that are checked...

primary collision factor (PCF)... that which was primary ot the cause of the crash....

roadway conditions..... wet, dry etc....

and OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS ... this is the box that would be checked to reflect the amount of water or how the watyer stream was hitting on the roadway..... the contributing factors are always taken into consideration by the insurance companies when determining who pay and how much.... for instance... if the PCF is speed and the water is a contributing, the insurance company would establish what % each were. the PCF is primarily used by the DMV for establishing fault and subsequently points....

all these factors are OPINIONS established by the investigating officer on scene and are based on his TRAINING AND EXPERIANCE .... i would assume a CHP offcier in that area respondes to at least 2 crashes a day.... 5 days a week.... so whats that.... approx 260 crashes a year???? i think it would be safe to assume the offcier has seen just about every (now dont take me litterly on the EVERY part of this comment) type of crash you could imagine. i think his opinion shopuld account for something here on this forum.... it would definatly stand up in a court of law....

i will go back to what i said in my previous post (and now i AM NOT refering to anyone here on this forum specifically).... we as a society have come to want to shift the blame of or misfortunes on someone or something else .... again, i am not suggesting Scorp is doing that here. i firmly believe he and other TRULY believe the water caused this collision..... i can understand the passion when someone believes in the cause...

did the water on the road CONTRIBUTE to this collision YES YES YES !!!!!!! (based on what scopr has posted here)..... do i believe it CAUSED this collision NO NO NO!!!!! in this case you just cant get there !! sorry... my opinion... Dave

I respect your reasoning and your expertise in this matter........HOWEVER, You keep stating that while the water might have been a contributing factor in the accident, it John's driving that brought on the end result....Okay, but I feel that it was the SURPRISE appearence of the water, not the water in and of itself, that caused the accident. Your opinion seems to indicate "One sees water, slow down !!!" Correct !!! But if John knew that he was about to hit a wet patch, I think he would have been driving slower to begin with...
 
Great photos OP. I love the representation of how steep the grade is going up that ramp. Here in Florida that would be considered a mountain! Not sure if after straigntening out the car from the turn, the vehicle would have had any remaining intertia in a sideway direction so it looks like an "under power" loss of traction and the crown of the road sent the car off to one side and the subsequesnt steering correction finished the dirty deed.

Adam - I would think that a typo would be maybe more like Geft or Tight instead of Left or Right...sounds like mixed up brain function to me. My wife has the same problem. Her hands show the correct direction but her mouth usually says the wrong one. I have learned not to ask her which way to turn as we are driving around town.

I am glad you have backed down off of your agressive stance against our poor "crash dummy":tongue: He is probably quite concerned about his baby and her future welfare. I could see if it was just hot-dogging and if it was totally his error but I do think the large amount being put into the roadway was the PCF in the accident. I feel it would be safe to say that if there was no water on the roadway that night he would have not had any problems at all.


All the best to all involved. Let us know how it turns out and if we can help with parts or anything needed.
 
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 remembered reading this and just had to post the video: :tongue:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DDfZdfeJ1nc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DDfZdfeJ1nc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
 
thanks for the post..... :eek: i think you made my point for me..... :wink: how many cars went through THAT and DID NOT CRASH????? a couple dozen???? the ONLY one that crashes is the truck that hit the large metal round cover that came off and landed in the middle of the lane....
 
I remembered reading this and just had to post the video: :tongue:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DDfZdfeJ1nc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DDfZdfeJ1nc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

HAAAHAHHA!!! Seeing the water spew out like crazy was funny but after seeing the pedestrian next to his truck...that's classic~!
 
I drove by about 30 minutes ago, on the 1-week anniversary, and to my amazement Old Faithful is still in full effect, its still spraying a huge quantity of water directly onto traffic headed up the onramp.

I was held up in Long Beach, and didn't get to San Clemente until 10:38PM; I got off at the next exit, doubled back on the freeway, and parked in the much wider breakdown lane on the I-5, next to the onramp. I got out, looked down, and sure enough the sprinklers were enabled, and the single defective sprinkler was pouring water across both lanes. I went back to my car to grab the camera, tripod mount, and tripod, and just as I was setting up, literally as my finger was pushing the shutter button, the sprinklers stopped.

I did take this picture, to show the level of water present - this is approx 1 minute after the sprinkler's turned off, there were visible ripples in the water, a 'current' if you will, so its reasonably deep, and moving down the ramp. My accident occurred at 10:34PM, this picture is around 10:40PM; the cops showed up at my scene at 10:55PM, when the entire onramp was covered in a thin layer of water.

DSC01149.JPG


Note how the water is flowing down the hill, when my accident occurred, it was 6 minutes before the time when this picture was taken, so there would have been no water visible _at_all_ - what water was present was shrouded in darkness further up the hill, closer to the sprinkler.

I am amazed nobody seems to consider repairing this any kind of priority :confused:

As far as how many cars travel this on-ramp, while I was there, for around 5 minutes, I counted 4 cars that drove up the ramp; the sprinklers are only enabled certain days of the week, as they were disabled when I went by last Sunday; if its on a similar pattern as my local on-ramp, its enabled for 5 minutes 3 days of the 7.

The sprinkler has been broken for the last month, so there have been, assuming this pattern, 12 total days of sprinkler use, at 5 minutes per day, so a total of 60 minutes of sprinkler pouring water across the ramp during this time. The tow truck driver that picked me out of the ice plants said he had pulled two other cars from the same ramp, in the same situation, with my car that makes 3 vehicles that have crashed off here, at least in large part as a result of this broken sprinkler, that is one accident every 20 minutes, all based on a SINGLE tow truck driver, perhaps there are more accidents, with different tow trucks, or cars that spin and are still in drivable condition.

I don't think an intersection with this kind of record would be allowed to operate for very long, I am amazed that any public road is allowed to remain open with this kind of safety record, and what floors me is THE PROPER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONTACTED, not once, but several times, and still nothing is being done. I am tempted to buy a toro sprinkler head at Home Depot and repair it myself :mad:
 
Hey John,

It was good seeing you today, sorry about the unfortunate accident.

Without reading everyone's posts on this thread, I think he made the corner at a safe speed but then while accelerating, the wet surface of the road caused him to break traction (he does have a very responsive turbo, which can easily explain how the car got away from him) and result in a spin.

I DOUBT he was going 40mph around that corner, im sure you were overstating your speed a little as it may have felt faster than that. I might just have to go try that corner to see how realistic the 40mph claim is - which if its not realistic - further proves that you were not being unsafe.

I believe he made the corner safely and was not being 'unsafe' by any means. It IS an onramp and he does have a lot of power that is fun to tap (and is often safe to do so on an onramp), and I just believe the loss of traction combined with water spraying his windshield and suprising him led to the spin.

0.02




John: What tires do you run and what condition were they in?
 
John: What tires do you run and what condition were they in?

The wheels came with a set of Bridgestone S03's installed; the rears were worn, but just shy of the wear bars.

The suspension setup on this nsx is somewhat unique, I have advance "flat out" coilovers installed, which are 600lbs in the front, and 1000lbs in the rear, so the car tends to oversteer.
 
I went back tonight at 10:30PM - again, I setup on the I-5 looking down on the ramp, and took these pictures:

(f/2.8 13 second exposure)

DSC01191o.JPG


DSC01192o.JPG


Then a CHP officer came, and told me I could not stop in the emergency lane unless I had an emergency, and I had to leave. So I got off the freeway at the next exit, and setup across the street from the onramp, on the sidewalk off Pico, looking up the ramp (where I took pictures before).

I waited for the sprinklers to turn on, but nothing happened - then it occurred to me, we recently adjusted clocks for daylight savings, so the sprinklers would turn on at 11:30PM, rather than 10:30PM.

I had dinner nearby, and returned to the sidewalk for the 11:30PM sprinklers. Just before they went off, at 11:25PM, a blue MR2 with the t-tops removed drove up the ramp... if he was 5 minutes later, he would have had a nasty surprise.

I took the following pictures at f/4.8 13 second exposure, with the camera fully zoomed up the ramp (120mm):

This is the area where water is dropping, you can see a white line from the water splash, it covers the entire width of the onramp:

DSC01228o.JPG


sprinklero.jpg


I was there for the entire duration of the sprinkler, and watched several incidents, including one person hit the curb, and one car fully spin - this is over the span of a few minutes.

Unfortunately, because of the lighting, all pictures were 10-16 second shutter, so the only thing visible are the tail lights of the cars, but here are some incidents I witnessed tonight:

This car had a full rotation spin:

spino.jpg


This is a raised pickup truck that hit the water, and immediately veered into the curb on the left side - I could hear the impact of the car hitting the curb from the sidewalk, but he paused for a few seconds, then drove off:

crasho.jpg


This car nearly spun:

backendouto.jpg


These cars looked rather squirrelly:

backendout2o.jpg


backendout3o.jpg


The guy on the left slammed on his brakes after hitting the water:

brakeslamo.jpg


These pictures show the gradual accumulation of water, they're spaced a few minutes apart:

water_currento.jpg


wateraccumo.jpg


watersprayo.jpg
 
^

Wow! that is just so wrong, there is no way people could anticipate the water. Going up hill then entering a downhill slope and get caught by a big surprise at the transition point.

If it were me, I probably would had went wot going uphill, then say holy shit:eek: :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad:. Slam on the brake and pray.

I normally would had been not too pleased even just to have my car sprayed with water.
 
Anyone see the beer I left? I had it right there on the corner....oh well...I will get another. Nevermind. What were you guys saying? :cool:
 
Can you get a video camera to show all the cars spinning/swerving? That would carry more weight than the stills. Maybe the insurance will go after the town or whoever is in charge of the sprinklers & that will make them finally fix it.
 
Back
Top