Man in wheelchair taken for a ride.

[Doodler]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19088976/


PAW PAW, Mich. - A man was taken on a wild ride when his wheelchair became lodged in the grille of a semitrailer and was accidentally pushed down a highway for four miles at about 50 mph, authorities said.
The 21-year-old man, whose name was not released, was unharmed but was taken to a hospital as a precaution. He had been secured to his wheelchair by a seat belt.

World's first hood ornament to survive the experience...

[NEOWatcher]

Yep; that story is on just about every news source I usually go to. My question is how in the world can a wheelchair get tangled up in the grill?

Anyway; the guy should probably send the WC manufacturer a thank you card.

[Fazor]

I read that, kinda wondered if it wasnt a suicide-gone-"wrong". I'm guessing he was facing foward so the wheels weren't dragging, and it's just amazing that at those speeds that it didn't flip and wedge him under the rig. I also kinda wonder about his condition (i.e., mentally as well as physically handicapped?), as the article I read said he wasn't upset, except he spilled his soda. I think i'd be pale white and sitting in a pile of my own...well, you get the idea.

[Doodler]

I think i'd be pale white and sitting in a pile of my own...well, you get the idea.

They took him to a hospital afterwards, I'm wondering if it was to unclamp his buttcheeks from the seat...

[Maksutov]

I don't know...sounds like someone's selling a K-Whopper to the media.

[davidlpf]

should not laugh, should not laugh, should not laugh, oh man I am going to explode.

[Nicolas]

(same link) Name and photo plus many details now released. Apparently only physically handicapped. He was scared, no info on piles or clamped seats though. The story as described does not sound like a suicide "gone wrong".

[Fazor]

Then the only other explanation is a National Lampoonesque series of unfortunate events. Hope there wasn't a dog teathered to the rear bumper also... :)

[edit: inexplicable double post deleted. sorry]

[NEOWatcher]

(same link) Name and photo plus many details now released.
With more questions...
Police said the wheelchair was pushed about four miles, but Donald Carpenter said it was about half that.
Anybody got a map? I'm sure this wouldn't be too difficult to determine.

It looks like a case of the driver being distracted at a light, noticing the green and going. I'm sure this is a common thing to do, but by the time he should/would have looked left and right before continuing, I would think that the chair would have made it into view somewhere. Or; maybe Ben was just going that slow.

Where was the father at this time?

No matter though...it's still an incredible story.
And now Ben can say his wheelchair can burn rubber.

One last note:
The wheelchair, with Carpenter strapped in it, ended up being pushed by the truck as it sped down the Red Arrow Highway.
Sped? In context of being on a road with a legal speed limit...No. Or was it a 45 zone?

[farmerjumperdon]

The front end of semi-tractors can have a lot of protrusions. Handles, latches, lights, grillwork, etc. Sounds like he crossed in front of the truck, it started moving when he was not within view of the driver, and his chair got snagged on the front end instead of getting crushed underneath.

In the radio interview he sounded pretty cool, calm, and collected.

[Captain Kidd]

From the photo, it looked like the wheelchair handles were inserted into the the grill of the semi, thus a fairly secure connection.

I think the driver was pulling out of a gas station. So, assuming he was making a right, he'd have probably been angled slightly. Thus the wheelchair must have been moving from left to right with respect to the direction the truck was facing. Thus it was just about lined up right so that the truck and WC were almost facing the same direction. The driver couldn't see the guy right in front of him due to the height of the hood and how low the WC is (donno about not seeing him earlier).

Basically, this guy was lucky. Had any of those factors been off just a bit and we would be reading a story entitled: "Disabled man in wheelchair run over by truck, driver charged with involuntary vehicular homicide."

[Fazor]

Had any of those factors been off just a bit and we would be reading a story entitled: "Disabled man in wheelchair run over by truck, driver charged with involuntary vehicular homicide."
Ah, there you go assuming the driver was in the wrong. Many pedestirans get run over and the driver is not charged. "Pedestrian always has right-of-way" isn't true. Crossing against the light or not using a crosswalk (in areas where these are designated) put the fault on the ped., not the driver.

But in a case such as this particular story, it's not important. The important (and quite miraculous) part is that no one got hurt.

[Captain Kidd]

From the article I read, it sounded like the truck was pulling out of a business and the guy in the WC was on a sidewalk crossing. Thus the wording 'cause from the [little] info I had to go on, it sounds like the WC had the right-of-way.

However, it was a sarcastic comment anyways. :)

[Gillianren]

"Pedestrian always has right-of-way" isn't true. Crossing against the light or not using a crosswalk (in areas where these are designated) put the fault on the ped., not the driver.

Legally, they do, even when they're crossing illegally. It's still the pedestrian's own fool fault if they get run over, but it is the legal responsibility of the driver to try to avoid the pedestrian, including stopping if need be.

And NEOWatcher, by the standards of a wheelchair, it was speeding!

[Doodler]

Gillian is quite correct. Even when they're jaywalking on a highway, if you hit them, its your fault.

Pedestrian right of way is nigh carte blanche to legally act like a completely indifferent *** to the world around them and get away with it. People crossing with iPod spuds in their ears might as well have a paper bag on their head for all their awareness of the world around them, and legal jurisprudence as it stands defends this practice.

[Fazor]

Gillian is quite correct. Even when they're jaywalking on a highway, if you hit them, its your fault. If you are getting your law from tevlevisions 'the Andy Griffith show' then maybe, but you are actually quite incorrect.

If you can see them and can avoid them, but fail do, then it is failure to contol. But it's tough to prove that those conditions were met. It's illegal to walk even on the brim of a highway. Pedestrians get killed darting across these all the time, and no driver is cited. My aunt hit and nearly killed a bicyclist who cut out into the street in front of her, she was not citied (although she didn't drive for about six months because she was soo shaken up...and yes, a bicyclist is considered a pedestrian). My co-workers "baby's daddy" was killed when he drunkenly stumbeled onto the highway and was hit (allegedly his ex pushed him, but they coulnd't prove it). There was the above mentioned jogger. Driver wasn't cited. I worked third shift and our building was near the bar district, with the east and west ends of our building on two very busy intersections. Withing the 4 months I worked there, 3 people were hit because they crossed against the "do not walk" signs. None of the drivers were cited.

And just to show this isn't all anecdotal evidence, here:

Example 1 (http://neworleans.injuryboard.com/motor-vehicle-accidents/pedestrian-killed-by-car-in-jesuit-bend.php)
Example 2 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060402/ai_n16207350)

In summation: the driver is ONLY cited for vehicular homicide, or any other various voilation in these cases when they are found to be dirrectly at fault for the accident.

[Doodler]

I stand happily corrected.

There was a recent case in DC where a seven year old was plastered by a car at night when he crossed with his father. Both were wearing dark clothes, and it was a fairly blind turn.

DC police were calling it a hit and run.

[LurchGS]

I stand happily corrected.

There was a recent case in DC where a seven year old was plastered by a car at night when he crossed with his father. Both were wearing dark clothes, and it was a fairly blind turn.

DC police were calling it a hit and run.

HIt and run, though, is a very specific charge - it states that the driver was involved in an accident and left the scene without authorization. It doesn't address whether the accident was his fault to begin with.

[Fazor]

Correct; of course in most cases like that it's almost a dead giveaway that the driver was drunk.

And I apologize if my last post sounded harsh or whatever, it was really early the other morning and I was a bit grumpy. Plus I grew up in a city full of the type of people who would walk out into traffic and when you question them on it they'd say "i'm a pedestrian, I have right-of-way. If they hit me it's thier fault". They didn't see the two major flaws in this reasoning, 1) as stated, that is not (necessarily) true, or the more important number 2) even if it's thier fault, you're the one that ends up splattered across the pavement. who are you teaching a lesson to, really?

[SeanF]

...and yes, a bicyclist is considered a pedestrian...
That's not universally true. Here, a bicyclist riding in the road is considered a vehicle operator, and required to follow all the rules of the road (including ceding or having right-of-way). It's not illegal to ride on the sidewalk, but a bicyclist doing so has no right-of-way in any situation (not even in situations where a true pedestrian would have right-of-way).

Someone walking alongside their bike is, of course, a pedestrian. :)

They didn't see the two major flaws in this reasoning, 1) as stated, that is not (necessarily) true, or the more important number 2) even if it's thier fault, you're the one that ends up splattered across the pavement. who are you teaching a lesson to, really?
As my mother used to say, "It's not so much who's right as who's left." :)

[Noclevername]

Reminds me of an old cartoon I once saw. A rocket is headed straight for a hurtling asteroid. The pilot says," No, sir, I will not alter our course. I've got the right-of-way!"

[Trebuchet]

Or the one about the aircraft carrier insisting that the other vessel on radar alter course: "This is a lighthouse. Your call."

[Gillianren]

In point of fact, I learned about pedestrians having the right of way from the Washington (and California, actually) State drivers' handbook. So I imagine it depends on jurisdiction, as so many things do.

[tdvance]

In college, I got bored and read from Virginia state law. In Virginia in 1994 at least, the letter of the law is that a pedestrian is at fault if crossing illegally, otherwise the driver is at fault. The courts have set precedents contrary to the letter of the law though according to annotations--mainly, if a pedestrian has right of way but runs in front of the car or comes from behind an obstruction and the driver had no reasonable chance of stopping in time, it's the pedestrian's fault, and if a pedestrian crosses illegally and is visible to the driver from far enough away that he can stop in time and he hits the pedestrian, it is the driver's fault.