2 Killed In Crash With State Police Cruiser - News Story - WRC ...

That really sucks. But it's another reason why after a certain age people should need to retake their driver's test. I really think that every 5-10 years everyone should have to retake their driver's test!

Maynard Lowery, who died in this tragic accident, was one of the most renowned traditional boatbuilders in the mid-Atlantic region. We've lost an amazing craftsman and a true gentleman.

argh wrote:

That really sucks. But it's another reason why after a certain age people should need to retake their driver's test. I really think that every 5-10 years everyone should have to retake their driver's test!

This truly is tragic. I think starting at age 75 it should be mandatory that a driver's test be passed every 3-years. My father is 81-years old and drives everyday, but I know that his response time is slow, and it takes him longer to figure out where he is and needs to go. It's just sad fact.

I hope the trooper recovers quickly and God Bless the two that died. It's unfortunate to lose them. Definitely the older aged citizens who still exercise the right to drive need to address and realize their altered limitations. More testing should definitely be done.

I find it very interesting the automatic assumption of fault being placed on the older driver. While I agree w/ testing older drivers for competency, did it cross anyone's mind that possibly the trooper was reckless, endangering the lives of all citizens in his path by driving at a much greater speed than was necessary or warranted? This tragedy could have happened to anyone who was on Rt. 33 that day...not just someone over the age of 75!!

IntheKnow wrote:

I find it very interesting the automatic assumption of fault being placed on the older driver. While I agree w/ testing older drivers for competency, did it cross anyone's mind that possibly the trooper was reckless, endangering the lives of all citizens in his path by driving at a much greater speed than was necessary or warranted? This tragedy could have happened to anyone who was on Rt. 33 that day...not just someone over the age of 75!!

True but in this case, and without any further information about the crash than what's given here, the Trooper has the right of way.

First, in Maryland, there is the motor vehicle rule called the "Boulevard Rule". It means that, unless, as you pointed out, the Trooper (or anyone else on Rt33) is traveling wrecklessly, they have the right of way, period. Even if they are speeding. If the limit on 33 is, say 45, the Trooper (or anyone else) would have to be traveling what the court would consider to be wreckless, probably over 100mph. So even if he was going 70 or 80, he still has the right of way and the old man should have yielded, even if the speed makes that difficult to judge.

Second, and most important, the Trooper was driving with lights and siren on. That makes his car "an emergency vehicle" operating as "an emergency vehicle". He can disregard any of the traffic laws, BUT as you sort of pointed out, the Maryland law also states that the emergency driver still has to have due regard for safety.

Basically, Unless the trooper was going pretty much as fast as the Crown Vic will go- 120, he has the right of way. That area of road is straight and the old man should have seen his lights before pulling out.

yeah wrote:

<quoted text>
True but in this case, and without any further information about the crash than what's given here, the Trooper has the right of way.
First, in Maryland, there is the motor vehicle rule called the "Boulevard Rule". It means that, unless, as you pointed out, the Trooper (or anyone else on Rt33) is traveling wrecklessly, they have the right of way, period. Even if they are speeding. If the limit on 33 is, say 45, the Trooper (or anyone else) would have to be traveling what the court would consider to be wreckless, probably over 100mph. So even if he was going 70 or 80, he still has the right of way and the old man should have yielded, even if the speed makes that difficult to judge.
Second, and most important, the Trooper was driving with lights and siren on. That makes his car "an emergency vehicle" operating as "an emergency vehicle". He can disregard any of the traffic laws, BUT as you sort of pointed out, the Maryland law also states that the emergency driver still has to have due regard for safety.
Basically, Unless the trooper was going pretty much as fast as the Crown Vic will go- 120, he has the right of way. That area of road is straight and the old man should have seen his lights before pulling out.

Let me guess..."yeah" is a trooper? A lot of MD law recited here. I don't know much about the actual law, but I do know about good judgment and common sense...neither of which, in my opinion, was demonstrated by the trooper. If you are familiar w/ the area, you would understand why traveling at a high rate of speed on this stretch of Rt 33 is not a good idea under any circumstances. It just a shame two people had to lose their lives to reinforce what most of us already know. There also seems to be some question of when exactly the trooper turned on his lights and sirens indicating himself as an emergency vehicle. I guess we'll just have to wait for the report....probably won't be made public though. That should also prove to be an interesting topic too...the CRASH team investigating their own. And the debate goes on....

No, there is no debate. His lights and siren were on. There were many witnesses to this fact. There were many witnesses that the elderly man pulled out in front of a police car with it's lights and siren on. One doesn't need to be doing over the speed limit to still kill people on the road. And if he was going over the limit it is his right as a emergency vehicle. He assumed, rightly so, that in a normal circumstance that this driver would have no issue seeing and hearing him. However, obviously this was not a normal situation as the elderly driver's driving ability was impaired! I'm glad the elderly man hadn't hurt anyone else while driving before then. He was a hazard to the road and could have killed many people including themselves before that point.

I feel horrible for the elderly people and their family that died. I feel bad for the cop who took these people's lives because you KNOW he feels horrible about it. I also feel bad for the people who were waiting on this police officer to get to his destination because they are without a officer in an emergency situation--because the elderly people were obstructing an emergency vehicle. I'm just glad no one else was hurt.

But again, somehow the cops are always at fault, aren't they?*shakes head*

There are many details about this tragic accident that have been unspoken regarding this horrific day. First off, the Trooper was responding to a call that was at least 32 miles away from his location. You mean to tell me, the State Police is that understaffed, they weren't able to have someone closer to the screen of that emergency? Secondly, any and all emergency vehicle that are on any highway are trained to drive with caution and protect the citizens at the same time. Unfortunately this 28 years old Trooper was inexperienced and to cocky to understand his job as a police officer. Not to mention, the emergency that the Trooper was originally responding to was nothing more than a minor fender bender. I am sure the State Police was able to get someone there to the scene of that accident since the troooper on Rt. 33 was so inconvenience and detained because of those "impaired elderly people."

Oh you're right of course. Impaired elderly people should drive at all times of the day and night even though they could kill themselves or someone else. No one should EVER question their rights to be on the street. And if they get into an accident it's always the other person's fault.

Police officers on the other hand should always go under or at the speed limit even when responding to a call about an accident. Of course they should always have their lights and sirens on (but it was the case this time anyway). And police officers should never be younger than what? 35? 40? 90?(oh wait that puts them in the elderly and impaired) because that means they are too young and immature to be officers. And heaven forbid that after hundreds of calls answered appropriately and without issue they have an accident with said impaired driver we should string 'em up on the nearest tree, cause obviously the cops area always at fault, right?

Idiotic.

I didn't see in the article where they said that the elderly driver was impaired. Maybe people are referring to the age of the driver. That's certainly an area for debate but I've ridden with much younger drivers and had to close my eyes in fear.

The one thing that continues to run through my mind is the decibal of sirens these days, especially in the extreme summer and winter. With the windows up and the A/C or heat on, and the radio at a normal volume, it can still be hard to hear a siren. As for the lights, I wonder if the sun was out and if there was a glare.

I am sorry these two people died. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, a family is mourning.

Wow...the mere suggestion of another point of view sparking such harsh opinions and the willingness of certain individuals to come to drastic conclusions with little or no actual known fact. I can't help but wonder how the perspectives would differ had the victims been a mother and a child instead to two "old" people? Responses by certain individuals clearly suggest that aside from James Bond, all troopers have a license to kill on the road and there is an ongoing game of "Death Race 2000." Civilian Drivers Beware!!

IntheKnow wrote:

Wow...the mere suggestion of another point of view sparking such harsh opinions and the willingness of certain individuals to come to drastic conclusions with little or no actual known fact. I can't help but wonder how the perspectives would differ had the victims been a mother and a child instead to two "old" people? Responses by certain individuals clearly suggest that aside from James Bond, all troopers have a license to kill on the road and there is an ongoing game of "Death Race 2000." Civilian Drivers Beware!!

I agree with you. That's the problem with these forums. They are for opinion but there are so many people that cannot tolerate opposing views, no matter how they are presented. Maybe that's why they come here; their friends and families have quit tolerating their views.

Every Woman wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you. That's the problem with these forums. They are for opinion but there are so many people that cannot tolerate opposing views, no matter how they are presented. Maybe that's why they come here; their friends and families have quit tolerating their views.

Yes, you are right, these forums have SO many people that can't tolerate opposing views, etc...

My point was simply to show what Maryland traffic law states about who has the right of way. That was still disputed. Why? Because "Intheknow" doesn't want to accept what's written in the law book.

Then there's the "Citizen Tilghman MD" person who obviously didn't read the article. For the cheap seats: HE WAS RESPONDING TO AN OVERTURNED VEHICLE ACCIDENT! Not a "minor fender bender".

And, according to Googlemaps, the distance from crash to the overturn crash wasn't "at least 32 miles away" it was about 14 miles. Maximum 17 if you go from the trooper crash all the way to Trappe. Why don't you understand that? Did you even think or did you just guess?

Do you know the staffing of MSP? Yes, it is possible to be 17 miles away from a call and have to respond ALLLLLLLL the way code 3. WOW! 17 miles, in rural Maryland! Wow! It's possible for suburban police to travel that far to a call. Don't come back on here and dispute that.

And just how many years of employment does one have before they're no longer "inexperienced" and do YOU know if that trooper was cocky? How? Really, answer that, how do you know he's cocky? How do you know that's why he just disregarded everyones safety and that he doesn't "understand his job". Do YOU understand his job? How do you understand his job? How?

OH, I'm so sorry that the trooper was so "inconvenienced" by the elderly man. He was going to the scene of another accident. How is that "inconvenienced"? Tell that to the family of the overturned vehicle.

"Intheknow": You just mooted your own statement. You said "I don't know much about the actual law..." Then how can you surmise who's at fault? I understand you have an opinion on what happened and why, but that's different than outright stating who's at fault, which includes the trooper's attitude and judgement.

You seem to think that having "the crash team investigate their own" means a cover up is inevitable. No, there's no conspiracy theory. Although this isn't the same police dept, you may have seen the report where Ofc. Cokinos struck the child in Germantown, Md. That was shared responsibility, Cokinos was going almost double the limit, off duty. Or Ofc. Distel who crashed his cruiser drunk. Where's the cover up? It's in the news!

It makes me sick to think that you people immediately hang the trooper out to dry, stating a bunch of nonsense like, "32 miles away", "I don't know the laws, but...", "Inexperienced and cocky"... you are all grasping for straws.

Funny, "Intheknow": You've just summed up your and "Citizen Tilghman MD"'s entire rant with your own quote:

"willingness of certain individuals to come to drastic conclusions with little or no actual known fact"

All I stated was fact from two sources: NBC4 and Maryland transportation article. You both have facts from nowhere.

So please, answer my questions from above and note that I have not provided "opinions", as you both have, just facts.

Person, darn straight! Keep those facts comin'! Well said.

In this case however the trooper was reckless. very small town, cop going 100+, to a problem well under hand in a different town, asumptions about old people are fine but in this case yer wrong ah ha

When I get older, I hope I have enough sense to quit driving if I can no longer do so safely. I remember my uncle taking the keys from my aunt when she developed mental problems. She got upset but he would not let her endanger others.
My dad went through a stage when he became dangerous on the road. Enraged and often upset because the state took his license after a minor accident, the family had to put up with rage but not having to endure him on the road.
In this particular case, there is room for doubt and room to question the need for police to endanger the public when speed and reckless driving are not needed if the emergency is not dire, that is, threating the well being of others as it seems was this case involving a minor accident.
Still the problems of impaired drivers is a serious one. In fact, I know of a lady with failing eyesight who renewed her license by mail and was not subjected to a vision test. She has had several fender benders and really is a danger to herself and others. She is seventy four.

What a tragedy reguards

G L Rockwell wrote:

When I get older, I hope I have enough sense to quit driving if I can no longer do so safely. I remember my uncle taking the keys from my aunt when she developed mental problems. She got upset but he would not let her endanger others.
My dad went through a stage when he became dangerous on the road. Enraged and often upset because the state took his license after a minor accident, the family had to put up with rage but not having to endure him on the road.
In this particular case, there is room for doubt and room to question the need for police to endanger the public when speed and reckless driving are not needed if the emergency is not dire, that is, threating the well being of others as it seems was this case involving a minor accident.
Still the problems of impaired drivers is a serious one. In fact, I know of a lady with failing eyesight who renewed her license by mail and was not subjected to a vision test. She has had several fender benders and really is a danger to herself and others. She is seventy four.

Do you people actually read?

GL, where did you get your information that the officer was responding "recklessly" to a "minor fender bender"?

Where did you find that?

Hey "yeah"... you better check your facts before making yourself sound dumber than usual. Just because lights and sirens make a vehicle and "emergency vehicle", they cannot disregard traffic laws and devices. They MUST stop at red lights and stop signs, but may proceed past then once safe. People are supposed to yield, which seems to be a word the Maryland idiots don't understand.

They have to practice due regard, but they cannot completely disregard traffic devices. Idiot.