Rant! "Stay back 200 feet -- not responsible for broken windshields." Oh, BS!

[MichaelD]

One of the major highways where I live is a 2-lane-each-way loop that goes around the outskirts of the city. It passes thru some rural areas, where lots of cement companies have set up business.

There are thousands of "gravel trucks" that drive on this highway everyday. As they drive and hit bumps, gravel flies out of the cargo bed and just wails on anything behind the truck. A piece of gravel traveling at 70mph is a bullet, as any motorcyclist knows.

Anyway, I've had gravel hit the windshield of every vehicle i've owned. Chipped windshield is usually the result; shattered windshield has happened. I always thought the bed had to be covered if they're hauling anything...guess not.

Well, I saw something today for the first time. I got on the highway and up ahead is a gravel truck. I do my usual "get in the left lane/halfway on the shoulder and speed by it as fast as possible." You NEED to do this unless you want your hood/windhhield sprayed by gravel like 00 gauge shotgun pellets.

As I whiz by, I notice a sign in big, reflective letters on the back of the truck. It said:

Stay back 200-feet. Not responsible for broken windshields.

WTF is up w/that? That's BS. If they are hauling something, and it flies out of the bed and cracks a windshield, or a big rock flies out and knocks a car out of control and it crashes, they're not responsible?

Someone please explain this logic to me. I'm really pissed off about this. I'd call the cement company (they are about a mile from my place of employment) but I know they've been hearing complaints for years about the gravel/windshield thing; they'd prolly hang up on me.

Someone clue me in, here. :|

 

[TomC25]

Bulldung

They should be liable for anything that falls off their truck. A normal motorist would be liable. Imagine if you had a tailpipe dragging and about to fall off and when you hit a bump it does fall off. Now a car behind you swerves to miss the pipe in the road and hits the center divider and wrecks. I would think the driver of the car whose tailpipe fell off would be liable.

 

[MichaelD]

TomC25,

Agreed! Now, I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on ATOT...) but I'd imagine that they can get away with these signs because of "bully tactics." There are literally hundreds of these monstrosities on that highway 7-days-a-week. Lots of new construction in my city. Big business. Big business won't slow down b/c of " a whiny guy w/a cracked windshield" right?

What I'd love to do is drive past one of these things spewing 1/2 gravel like machine gun fire, and fire my 12-gauge shotgun right at the windshield of the truck. Maybe then they'll know what it's like to drive/get stuck behind one of these things.

ps
I'd never do that. Fantasy and Reality are two distinctly different things. I can dream, though.

 

[NFS4]

Here's my luck:

I'm driving down I-40 and am behind a big rig. It kicks up a rock and cracks my windshield right above the steering wheel. I get on the phone AT THAT MOMENT while I'm still driving and call the insurance company (Allstate). I pull out my insurance card and give them my info. Within 8 mins of the rock hitting my windshield, I had an appointment with an Allstate approved glass place the next morning at 8:00AM. Got the windshield replaced the next morning, $0 deductible.

One week later, I'm going back down I-40 and an F-150 kicks up a rock and blasts the upper passanger side of the windshield and leaves a rather large divot.

Sigh

 

[gopunk]

that's bull...

maybe you should fire a riflewhile holding a sign that says stay out of line of fire. not responsible for injuries or deaths

 

[mithrandir2001]

Some debris fell off of a dump truck ahead of me on the highway once and it pierced my car's aluminum radiator. The radiator fluid completely drained onto the highway and my car became disabled. I had to get a tow to the dealership (at least I had AAA) and had to pay about $300 for a whole new radiator, installation and overnight shipping of the part, in addition to rental car fees. F'ing truck. :|:|

 

[MichaelD]

<< One week later, I'm going back down I-40 and an F-150 kicks up a rock and blasts the upper passanger side of the windshield and leaves a rather large divot. >>



Bummer man! See, that's the OTHER problem with this situation: The trucks spew gravel, which naturally just lays there on the highway...until the guy in front of you runs over said gravel, propelling it backwards into your vehicle.

With the recent (year or so) 10000000% increase in construction activity and the subsequent increase in truck traffic that it won't be long before someone important (judge/district representative) gets his/her windshield smashed and then finally something will get done.



<< maybe you should fire a riflewhile holding a sign that says stay out of line of fire. not responsible for injuries or deaths >>



I agree, but see, that kind of behavior is frowned upon. Unfortunately.

 

[kranky]

I think it's just a bluff. If they point to their sign and that makes someone go away instead of pushing for reimbursement, they're ahead.

 

[db]

If enough people made them pay for windshields, they would do something to help prevent the load drops. It's cheaper for them to hang a sign than to fix the problem in the first place.

 

[Murpheeee]

If I get a ticket for a chunk of snow flying off my roof because "it could break someone's windshield"....I would think they are DEFINITELY liable for spilling stones.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Haven't you guys learned by now that disclaimers don't supercede the law?

 

[Hammer]

Too bad they don't sell LAWs to the public, otherwise this problem would have 'corrected' itself.

 

[b0mbrman]

I'm sure that their little sign will free them of *some* liability but I doubt they'd get off scot-free

 

[pulse8]

mmmmmm...

If I put a sign on my car that says, "Stay away from me. Not responsible for any accidents that my car is involved in as a result."

 

[MichaelD]

<< "Stay away from me. Not responsible for any accidents that my car is involved in as a result." >>



MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, if I only knew someone who printed bumperstickers......

 

[iamwiz82]

trucks with tar on them are even worse! I had the misfortune as of being behind one once, my car has tar on it to this day.

 

[Stark]

answer

 

[Kev]

<< If I get a ticket for a chunk of snow flying off my roof because "it could break someone's windshield"....I would think they are DEFINITELY liable for spilling stones. >>


did you actually get a ticket for that? thats bullpoo!

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

If there's a sign, and you're stupid enough to stay there, you deserve it!

dumbass...

nik

 

[OutHouse]

Stark!!
I was looking for that story!! to post here, I saw that news story aired. Good Job.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

What you do is check to see if the sign is even legible at 200 feet.

Compute the angular width of the lettering, and compare to the angular width of the letters on an Eye Chart. Or go here:

Letter Size Calculater

This sight suggests that the Lettering on their truck has to be at least 6.5 inches tall to be legible at 200 feet, by 95% of the population, assuming the sign is clean and has good contrast.

If their sign is dirty, or they drive their truck in conditions where visibility is poor, then there sign should be almost 10 inches tall.

 

[Amused]

A sign claiming no liability DOES NOT absolve them from liability. Any lawyer will tell you this.

 

[MichaelD]

STARK,

Nice linky! That's good news man!

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< If I get a ticket for a chunk of snow flying off my roof because "it could break someone's windshield"....I would think they are DEFINITELY liable for spilling stones. >>


did you actually get a ticket for that? thats bullpoo! >>


That's not crap. It's not hard to clear all the crap off your car.
I know in NJ you can receive a citation for each and every piece of ice/snow that flies off your car, and you can receive a criminal charge for each piece that hits someone or causes property damage.

As for the sign on the back of the truck, 200 feet is a pretty long distance, even at high speeds. Following at 4-seconds at 80MPH, I'm still maybe only 75ft back...probably even a little less than that.

Anyway, as others have said, a disclaimer cannot supercede a law. The argument could be posed in court that you were following too close, but at the end of the day, an unsecured load is the driver's problem and he'll take the hit for any damages that occur.

 

[GasX]

that sign is a "first line of defense".

You might be less likely to sue if you see that sign. Nevertheless, signs like that do not change their liability one bit. The same thing goes for coat checks that have a sign saying not responsible for lost or stolen articles.