(1).jpg)
Bay Bridge S-Curve (dtkkk)
The family of the trucker who plummeted from the upper deck of the Bay Bridge blamed Caltrans bridge designers Tuesday for the accident that led to the Hayward man's death.
Tahir Sheikh Fakhar, 56, was killed when his truck went over the northern side of the S-curve at 3:30 a.m. Monday and plunged 200 feet to Yerba Buena Island.
The California Highway Patrol said investigators believe Fakhar was going too fast. But his family says the detour, the scene of at least 43 accidents since it opened Sept. 8, is unsafe.
"That S-curve is too short," said Fakhar's brother Naveed Anjum, who owns a limousine service and is a former commercial truck driver. "They need to change it. But how are they going to change now? --San Francisco Chronicle
This is disappointing to read. I don't like these kinds of lawsuits. I often hope that they arise out of the grief stricken situation in which families find themselves rather than from a careful review of what has occurred.
The California Highway Patrol has already said that excessive speed was the cause of this accident. Authorities believe the truck was traveling 50-55 mph when it went into the S Curve where a 35 mph speed limit is posted.
If that's the case, then speed caused the accident.
Speed and the possible resulting shift of the payload inside the truck if centrifugal force was great enough as it went through the turn. (He was hauling a load of Asian pears.)
We've seen this scenario before. Go after the deep pockets and hope they'll settle rather than spend millions fighting the lawsuit. The man was an independent trucker and he owned his own truck, so there's no trucking company to go after. And since the lawsuit is against a state government institution, CalTrans, that means deep pockets, even though at the end it'll be the taxpayers paying the bill.
Tahir Sheikh Fakhar (SF Chronicle)
That's not meant to make light of the tragedy. There's nothing funny about someone dying in an accident. He was doing an honest day's work and it's a terrible, tragic accident and I'm sorry that he died. But the accident was caused by the driver of the truck. He was driving too rapidly.
There have been 43 accidents on the S-Curve, most of them caused by people who are not driving at a safe speed. If this man, at 3:30 in the morning when this accident occurred, had approached the S-Curve at 35 mph he would've been fine. But in approaching at 50-55 mph as the CPH maintains, he set up circumstances of the accident.
The taxpayers of this family do not owe that family a dime, despite the great loss they have suffered.
What argument will we hear from the lawyers? That because we had to retrofit the bridge so it wouldn't fall down in an earthquake, and because a retrofit according to the best engineering design meant putting in an S-Curve, and that makes it their fault because somebody hit the S-Curve 40 percent faster than he should've been, tipped his truck over and killed himself?
Sorry, that's not the fault of the taxpayer of California. That's the fault of the driver of the truck, with all due respect. I just wish there were some mechanism in our law where, if it's patently obvious you're the one responsible for what happened to you, then you have no cause of legal action against someone else, particularly if they have deep pockets.
Comments
I disagree with this article.
If California traffic signs are like those in New Jersey, then drivers pay less attention to the signs than to other drivers. If traffic slows, then you know there is something ahead you need to slow down for. At this point, I don't know if this was his first time on the bridge or if there were any other traffic to judge by.
I don't have any reason to doubt the truth of the Highway Patrol's speed estimate. Nevertheless, I would feel more comfortable if the estimate of the speed of the truck were made by an independent.
Finally, the load shifting argument doesn't hold water. If the truck couldn't go around a curve at 50 miles per hour without the load shifting, it wasn't packed correctly, and there's no evidence of that.
Forty three accidents in 2 month is way too many. This needs to be fixed.
I feel sorry for u mr. Maiman.. Before wriing an article you should have actually done some research the speed limit has been reduced to 35 mph after the car accident. 50 mph is not a big deal. I am sure in ur life you would have driven ur car higher speed than the actual speed limit. It is the fault of the bay bridge designers.. Otherwise, since it opened there would not have been too many accidents. And just for your knowledge, if there would not have been the problem with the bay bridge they would not be posting signs n decreasing the speed limit to 35 mph now. If it was you at his place today.. What will ur family have done? I hope such a tragic loss never happens with you or anyone else loved ones. Hoping, that bridge engineers realizes their mistake before someone else die in such accident.
Lou, I can't go along with you on this. If the majority of those 43 accidents was proven to have been caused by excessive speed, that's not the fault of the bridge. And I have a feeling the CHP estimate will be proven correct. Insurance companies routinely have ways to determine that whenever there are accidents (usually in their own best interests). I assume there's a reliable method using the laws of physics, etc --I wouldn't know-- but the bottom line is the speed limit. If it truly were the bridge design, we'd have a lot more than 43 accidents considering the daily traffic volume (as this is a major commuter artery).
Wish: How many cars travel the Bay Bridge daily? A quarter million? Daily? Times roughly 40 weekday commutes. And from that, 43 accidents? Would you say that's the fault of the bridge design? Why then have their not been more accidents. No one wants to minimize a tragic loss but let's put the responsibility where it belongs, particular if it's shown that the majority of the 43 accidents were the result of negligent drivers, not careless engineers. Was the 35 mph speed limit sign there for the trucker? Was he driving 50-55 mph? That should be the end of the discussion.
As I have mentioned before there was no 35 mph n it has been changed later. Therefore, you should re- write ur article again..If u so interested in it. :) Second, y so many accidents happenin at he same spot..obv it's wrong..I am sure there will be many other drivers too who drives more than the actual speed daily n on that actual bridge ..but Do they all hav car accidents. Also, something to think bout y only that S-Curve? Why not accidents happens on the whole bridge itself? I am assuming you want this that every other person who was drivin from that curve would have been killed so the bridge design could be proved wrong. If there would have been slow down signs.. den it does make sense. If the designers know that nothin is wrong with the bridge y they r posting signs now? This article argument won't bring back the dead person..so yes end of the discussion..but I hope they resolve their issue before more ppl are being killed.
"Motorists continued to ignore the speed limit approaching the Bay Bridge's S-curve Monday, just hours after a driver lost control of his truck there and fell 200 feet to his death...
"...a digital billboard at the westbound incline read, "Slow Down. 35 MPH Curve Two Miles Ahead," yet few drivers heeded the warning... said, Simon Washington, director of the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center at UC Berkeley.
"Washington, an expert in traffic safety, said most of the 40-plus accidents at the site since it opened Sept. 8 reportedly were due to driver distraction or a driver's "unwillingness to reduce speed."
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/10/MNGU1AHK5E.DTL
Of all people, experienced truckers should know the dangers of the road. Sorry, motorists must be responsible for their driving, not CalTrans.
But don't worry: They'll settle. Companies find it cheaper than a court case, even when it would likely find them innocent.
"something to think bout y only that S-Curve? Why not accidents happens on the whole bridge itself?"
You must be joking, dude. Do you even drive a car? The rest of the bridge is a straightaway, easier to navigate than a curve. When you get a license, you learn that you're supposed to SLOW DOWN when approaching a curve, even SLOWER for S-curves. Accidents happen on the s-curve because people keep driving like they're still on the straightaway. People don't ignore speed limit signs. They don't CARE about speed limit signs. Now they're talking about rumble strips. Some of these drivers need NAIL strips. Give me a break.
Has the family actually filed suit? I think they are blaming Caltrans but no suit has actually been filed.
bro, local radio and TV had reported the talk of a lawsuit but I haven't heard anything since. The headline may be misleading but at the time, I remember hearing those stories. The family may have backed down --maybe because of media attention and reader and viewer reaction? Didn't seem like there were many sympathy votes out there.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!