Vigo wrote: The car never stops responding to inputs, unless something breaks. Breaking traction doesnt count. I agree that 'lost control' is a bit too faultless and euphemistic.
I don't think its a faultless term. Calling it an 'accident' makes it sound faultless. Lost control is a it of a euphemism for saying 'he berkeleyed up" though.
Abdicated control, or ran out of talent.
"Lost control" is just a way of saying "The driver screwed the pooch in a major fashion".
dyintorace wrote:Vigo wrote: The car never stops responding to inputs, unless something breaks. Breaking traction doesnt count. I agree that 'lost control' is a bit too faultless and euphemistic.True point. The car will still respond to inputs, but the direction of travel will not. Hence the lack of control over the situation. And I agree as well that "lost control" is a bit too faultless.
It's sort of cop speak for "mistakes were made," another annoyingly blameless way to sort of sound like your sorry.
That picture does make me wonder why the cop was going so fast, and driving so on the edge, for something as minor as a burglary.
skruffy wrote: Does anyone else dislike the term "lost control"?
Just as much as the euphemism "departed controlled flight"...
holy E36 M3! I live in santa maria
I don't think that "lost control" gives up blame. I have used it in accident reports from time to time. You are responsible for your vehicle and should not operate in such a manner as to lose control of it.
MrBenjamonkey wrote: That picture does make me wonder why the cop was going so fast, and driving so on the edge, for something as minor as a burglary.
He had to get there fast - the suspect was running...literally...he was on foot, how fast do you really need to drive to overtake a man running? Good thing he didn't kill innocent bystanders or himself.
"lost control of the vehicle" = "the gun went off"
TJ wrote:MrBenjamonkey wrote: That picture does make me wonder why the cop was going so fast, and driving so on the edge, for something as minor as a burglary.He had to get there fast - the suspect was running...literally...he was on foot, how fast do you really need to drive to overtake a man running? Good thing he didn't kill innocent bystanders or himself.
I think a lot of times police get so ramped up on "nabbing the bad guy" that they forget about the general public's safety. At least, that's always what I end up thinking when I watch an episode of Cops or when I see a Nevada State Trooper blasting by me at double the speed limit in order to catch a hardened criminal with expired tags.
I'd much rather the burglar escape than the police drive 90 miles an hour on residential streets to catch him.
It should read "Officer was traveling too fast for conditions' when he slid off the road and struck a tree."
I was in a collision when I was 17 (long story, short version: front brakes inop, bald tires, fresh snow on new asphalt) and the citation was "Failure to control".
I have since learned that "failure to control" is the generic term for "hit something". As in, if you avoid some dipE36 M3 who enters your lane by diving off into the ditch, you get cited for "failure to control". They'd rather see you stay in your lane and get creamed, I guess.
Anyway, the reason I posted something:
http://www.bacomatic.org/~dw/cars/camaro/camaro.htm
Knurled wrote: I was in a collision when I was 17 (long story, short version: front brakes inop, bald tires, fresh snow on new asphalt) and the citation was "Failure to control". I have since learned that "failure to control" is the generic term for "hit something". As in, if you avoid some dipE36 M3 who enters your lane by diving off into the ditch, you get cited for "failure to control". They'd rather see you stay in your lane and get creamed, I guess. Anyway, the reason I posted something: http://www.bacomatic.org/~dw/cars/camaro/camaro.htm
Holy berkleying crap!!! 
Parts Camaro? WTF is salvageable off that thing? Dude, the rim was wasted-from the inside!
Apparently, just the heads and intake manifold!
From the article. "...he lost control of his vehicle..."
Not much doubt about who was at fault. The officer screwed up and lost control of his vehicle. His fault.
Taking lost control out of context makes it faultless and euphemistic.
I find that statement shallow and pedantic.
On the bright side he was the first to the scene of the accident
In reply to dyintorace:
How about: The driver relinquished control of the car to luck and physics therefore - instead of "lost" it should say - "The officer made some uninformed mistakes in his attempt at vehicular operation and actions played out as pictured."
Or some such thing.
This brings us to the oft misused term: Speed Kills. If this were true - I (as well as many here) would have died many times over - Andy Nelson even more-so.
a buddy died in a SVT contour - 80 mph (he was an idiot, but there were other factors at play as well) plus fishtail + softball sized tree = bisected car + funeral. The found a cd embedded in a tree 100' away and the cigarette lighter from the dash (the push in/pop out one) over 100 yards away. Sometimes speed+dumbossity kills
I'm guessing the tree walked away from that one as well.
poopshovel wrote:Does anyone else dislike the term "lost control"?Pretty much everybody here, I'm guessing.
I always picture the scene from Strange Brew: "No point in steering now."
On the bright side he was the first to the scene of the accident
zing!
You'll need to log in to post.
