CHP Officers - Clarify CalTrans notes regarding CHP logs?

[Spyder]

I think he's talking about how he feels that he's entitled to someone else's money because of his own lack of responsibility and poor decision making skills?

[Fizz]

What are you talking about?

you claimed to know what Caltrans said I posted the letter....

[IrishJoe3]

Dude live your life. Be happy. By all means, find someone else you can make accountable, because God forbid we take responsibility for our actions and their consequences.

That letter you posted said; "Pound Sand*"

*Not exact quote

[Fizz]

Dude live your life. Be happy. By all means, find someone else you can make accountable, because God forbid we take responsibility for our actions and their consequences.

That letter you posted said; "Pound Sand*"

*Not exact quote

What it doesn't say is that driver negligence was the reason for denial. Caltrans basically agreed with everything that I've argued so far. They would be responsible if they knew about it. They did. They lied and/or are incompetent.

I was and am living my life and being happy. It's you and the mathematician Spyder who had a bone to pick based on some perceived entitlement/blame shifting on my part.

This thread was started to to ask a simple question about CHP Logs and Caltrans. Instead of living your life you thought it prudent to comment on how I'm conducting mine, which I'm totally fine with. You're a CA tax payer, it is in fact part of your money that would be paying my claim (more likely, some outside insurance company but taxpayer funded premiums).

However, don't pretend like I'm the one that instigated the tirade.

[Blazinghand]

Caltrans does in fact sometimes pay for this sort of thing if they had been informed of it and didn't fix it. My brother was successful in receiving compensation for a pothole on a freeway offramp a few years back. Whether or not it's reasonable that it is possible to seek compensation from the government for their failure to provide basic services isn't what Fizz is about. Given that it's allowed and that Fizz can potentially be compensated, why not fill out the form? If the government actually spent its money on services for us instead of lining their own pockets this would be preferable of course.

[556_Addict]

Could it have been a different pothole? After reading the log, I cant discern a specific location. Yes it reads off ramp, but an off ramp can be a quarter mile long. Can you prove that was the exact pothole reported from before?

It was 10 o'clock at night. The potholes in a blind turn on an offramp and even with direct illumination doesn't showcase it's depth. Regardless of the speed I was traveling the pothole was a risk because it was impossible to register as a threat due to the curvature of the road and change in elevation.

You just admitted to being in violation of 22350 CVC. Hint: Visibility and roadway surface...

No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

[Fizz]

Could it have been a different pothole? After reading the log, I cant discern a specific location. Yes it reads off ramp, but an off ramp can be a quarter mile long. Can you prove that was the exact pothole reported from before?



You just admitted to being in violation of 22350 CVC. Hint: Visibility and roadway surface...

I went back to the pothole as I lost my hubcap. I took a picture of the ramp up/down from the stretch of ramp and it was the only pothole present. The pothole had massive rubber build up and missing paint. Another part of my records includes completion dates of repair. The repair of the hole in the OP was not fixed prior to when my information request was processed (or the data available) and the hole was reported before my loss.

I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but by preponderance of the evidence.

Your CVC argument is the same Irish made. Unless you're proposing I slam on the brakes immediately having exited the freeway, or committed another crime by impeding traffic below 65mph on the freeway previous to the exit. There's no reasonable opportunity to slow to down in the 50 feet into this ramp this pothole was.

Also, that CVC is immaterial for the purpose of state liability for damage claims regarding potholes. I only need to prove they knew about it and failed to act which caused foreseeable damage. A chasm in the road isn't something reasonable to expect when the conditions prior the road were fine.

[Spyder]

A chasm in the road would be awfully hard to NOT see and avoid, showing your ignorance and lack of responsibility and sense of entitlement all over again.

[Fizz]

A chasm in the road would be awfully hard to NOT see and avoid, showing your ignorance and lack of responsibility and sense of entitlement all over again.

Chasm is obviously an exaggeration.

Do you need English lessons (in addition to math) to understand hyperbole? Or are you just so enamored with trying to find a flaw in my argument that any petty thing you can come up with is becomes your raison d'etre?

[Ron-Solo]

This thread just keeps getting funnier all the time!



OP, the only thing I can say is "Suck it up, Buttercup!"

You are at fault anytime you hit a fixed or stationary object because you weren't exercising due caution based on the existing road conditions.

[IrishJoe3]

Your CVC argument is the same Irish made. Unless you're proposing I slam on the brakes immediately having exited the freeway, or committed another crime by impeding traffic below 65mph on the freeway previous to the exit. There's no reasonable opportunity to slow to down in the 50 feet into this ramp this pothole was.
.

Whoa whoa whoa cowboy!

Impede traffic (22400 CVC)

No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation

Clearly, you are completely at fault for the damage to your car due to your gross violation of 22350 VC. HAD you slowed to a safe speed that would have allowed you to avoid the chasm, it CLEARLY would not be any violation of law due to that reduced speed being necessary for safe operations.

That said, your concern about "committing another crime" is clearly theatrics as here, on a public forum, you blantently and with significant indifference, admit to violating 21718(a) of the California Vehicle Code; Non emergency stop on the freeway. For a hub cap? My good man, how can I POSSIBLY take you seriously with such lawless behavior?

[CinnamonBear723]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

[Ron-Solo]

I personally think Fizz's complaint has fizzled out.

[Fizz]

Whoa whoa whoa cowboy!

Impede traffic (22400 CVC)

Clearly, you are completely at fault for the damage to your car due to your gross violation of 22350 VC. HAD you slowed to a safe speed that would have allowed you to avoid the chasm, it CLEARLY would not be any violation of law due to that reduced speed being necessary for safe operations.

That said, your concern about "committing another crime" is clearly theatrics as here, on a public forum, you blantently and with significant indifference, admit to violating 21718(a) of the California Vehicle Code; Non emergency stop on the freeway. For a hub cap? My good man, how can I POSSIBLY take you seriously with such lawless behavior?

You failed to follow the sequence. If you exit a FREEWAY where it's prudent to drive 65mph, to slow down on an offramp to avoid potholes (you don't know are there) would require slamming on the brakes vs decelerating at normal pace that the ramp would normally require.

Maybe you're the type to do 45 on the freeway just to be safe. Kudos to you.

The impeding would have been on the FREEWAY. Not on the offramp.

Maybe your Lamborghini can decelerate from 65mph to 10mph in 30 feet. Mine can't.

Why does Caltrans pay these claims if they have no legal culpability? To be nice? Why are there jury instructions for government torts for known hazards?

Your citation of the CVC is IMMATERIAL, even if it were correctly applied, to this claim. Do you not understand that?

[Spyder]

Dude. You have a Lamborghini and are complaining about a $300 repair caused by your inability to control your vehicle and refusal to take responsibility for your own actions?

Explains a lot, sir.