You’re thinking of this as if truckers normally work 9-5 jobs and being up at 1am is a function of driving late into a normal work day. They work all different hours and driving at night is often preferred because there is less traffic at that time.
Sounds like Walmart is getting nervous. Their GPS tracking should have alerted them if that truck was continuously moving for too many hours.
Hard to say until more is reported. The guy may have been working another job or working at his home prior to his driving shift and not getting rest.
I would imagine it’s something mundane like him sleeping in the truck instead of going home and his duty time is improperly logged.
Big rigs sharing the road with 4 wheelers is a constant problem. the Ohio TP used to handle that situation in an intelligent way – two different speed limits, one for trucks one for cars. Cars were expected to go faster (I think it was 65 vs. 55) at the time, so tended to be in the one or two left lanes. Trucks clustered in the right lane, leisurely plodding along, but not in constant conflict with cars when they slowly passed slightly slower moving trucks. The key was to have good policing of the limits. It worked pretty well.
I would expect that if there is a device that a truck owner could add to the controls of a big rig to slow down and stop the truck if the driver is showing evidence of drowsiness (maybe something that monitors the eyes?) WalMart will be an early adopter.
yes, cars involved in accidents with large rigs have disproportionate numbers of dead and injured people, even if the truck is stopped and the car crashes into it. Very sad, but that is the way it is today. Improvements are always being made. Tachographs and electronic logs help screen out drivers who have bad habits and practices, and, let’s hope better devices are yet to come for both cars and trucks. 30000 people killed each year on the highways is still far too many, even if the rate per million miles is falling each year.
tv news says Morgan is out of the hospital and into rehab. no other details given.
Good news. I’m glad he pulled through.
You need to remember that people aren’t kept in a hospital the way they used to be–so he is undoubtedly still in pretty bad shape.
But stable enough to be moved so…that’s something
Good for him.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
No, no sarcasm intended. I’m glad he’s well enough to go home and I hope he sues the pants off of fucking Walmart.
OK. Sometimes it’s hard to tell on-line.
Walmart has explained that’s it’s partly Tracy’s fault: He should have been wearing a seatbelt:
That’s probably true, but it’s still a douchey thing for walmart to say.
You can’t sue a company and not expect them to defend themselves in court.
It’s also true. Seatbelts aren’t there to protect you during a normal ride. They are there to protect you when something goes wrong. Whether or not it is Walmart’s fault in this particular case, the fact is, that if you ride in cars, the odds strongly favor you getting into an accident someday.
I have a friend who died in a car accident because she skidded off the road on an ice slick she couldn’t see under snow, that was there because some people were violating a grey-water run-off law, and running water from their washer (or sump, maybe, I’m not sure, but this was in septic-not-sewage territory) across the road, instead of into their yard safely. But she also died because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt in the days before every car had an airbag, and she hit the windshield. Probably also had chest trauma from the steering wheel. If either thing hadn’t happened, the ice hadn’t been there, OR she’d had her seatbelt on, she’d probably be alive now.
It sucks that Walmart may get away with doing something terrible because Morgan didn’t wear a seatbelt, but at the same time, he might have been much less badly injured if he’d worn it.
They wouldn’t get away with it based on that. The plaintiffs’ lawyers are saying Walmart is about 100% responsible for the accident and their injuries, and Walmart is saying it’s some smaller percentage.
Why? It’s a civil case, so it’s not about proving absolute culpability. Wal-Mart’s lawyers are just trying to lessen their liability by pointing out that had Morgan been wearing a seat belt, his injuries would likely have been considerably less severe.
So like Marley23 is getting at, it’s about the amount of responsibility. So if Morgan’s sueing for $1,000,000 (to use a nice round number), and claiming it’s all Wal-Mart’s fault, Wal Mart’s coming back and saying that 40% of that is Morgan’s fault for not wearing a seat-belt, lessening the amount they’re on the hook for by roughly that amount.