Hope they make it

[67L48]

Originally Posted by upflying

Are you implying if someone is hurt or killed in a crash, attorneys won't sue someone?

No. Not at all. But, side note: generally attorneys don't sue people. People sue people. And, they often do so with terrible reasons, little data, and no ability to succeed in the lawsuit.

There are lots of posts like yours that suggest or outright state definitively that someone overweight will be found legally liable for crashes and such, based on that state of having been overweight.

Funny how this criminal issue quickly turned civil. Those are different issues entirely.

In any case, if this were in anyway common or probable, there would be a case or an article in some newspaper somewhere. I'm not asking for many cases or even a pattern. Just one. Show me the one case where prosecutors or LEOs assigned liability due to a person towing an RV overweight.

I can't prove the negative. I can't prove it's never happened. But the lack of a single case suggests to me that it's somewhere between exceptionally rare and exceedingly improbable.

All of this conversation about what could happen and CSI-style investigations are hypothetical. Sure, I suppose those things could happen. If they happened with even a little bit of regularity, there would be some evidence of it. I'm not seeing it.

And, I'm very much on the side of "don't drive overweight ... ever." I just think it's more of a safety issue and I find the "you could be found liable" side of the conversation hyperbolic and sensational.

I actually started on the other side of this argument. About a decade ago, I'd see other people do the "show me one example" argument. I was the one who thought, "In today's litigious society and with myriad laws on the books, I'm sure that people are cited for being overweight and held liable based on that fact."

Over time, I continued to see silence to the request of "show me one example." Or, as above, the simplistic "just because I can't prove it happened doesn't mean that it didn't." OK. Same goes to the claims that aliens abducted drifters for medical science.

Year after year, it was a hypothetical "people could be held liable" against a dearth of evidence that people were held liable.

[D W]

Originally Posted by SlowrideHD

May be an entire family of 4, or two couples, sitting in the front of the camper having a snack. Way too many perfect people with doomsday advice on here.

If four people can make that rig squat like that then they've exceeded their payload.

[Shamrockthecasbah]

Originally Posted by 67L48

No. Not at all. But, side note: generally attorneys don't sue people. People sue people. And, they often do so with terrible reasons, little data, and no ability to succeed in the lawsuit.

There are lots of posts like yours that suggest or outright state definitively that someone overweight will be found legally liable for crashes and such, based on that state of having been overweight.

Funny how this criminal issue quickly turned civil. Those are different issues entirely.

In any case, if this were in anyway common or probable, there would be a case or an article in some newspaper somewhere. I'm not asking for many cases or even a pattern. Just one. Show me the one case where prosecutors or LEOs assigned liability due to a person towing an RV overweight.

I can't prove the negative. I can't prove it's never happened. But the lack of a single case suggests to me that it's somewhere between exceptionally rare and exceedingly improbable.

All of this conversation about what could happen and CSI-style investigations are hypothetical. Sure, I suppose those things could happen. If they happened with even a little bit of regularity, there would be some evidence of it. I'm not seeing it.

And, I'm very much on the side of "don't drive overweight ... ever." I just think it's more of a safety issue and I find the "you could be found liable" side of the conversation hyperbolic and sensational.

I actually started on the other side of this argument. About a decade ago, I'd see other people do the "show me one example" argument. I was the one who thought, "In today's litigious society and with myriad laws on the books, I'm sure that people are cited for being overweight and held liable based on that fact."

Over time, I continued to see silence to the request of "show me one example." Or, as above, the simplistic "just because I can't prove it happened doesn't mean that it didn't." OK. Same goes to the claims that aliens abducted drifters for medical science.

Year after year, it was a hypothetical "people could be held liable" against a dearth of evidence that people were held liable.

Agreed. This issue comes up on every RV forum and Facebook with no one ever being able to show proof of an actual example.

I'll admit that being sued and found liable seems feasible, and if I was towing overweight I sure wouldn't advertise it on a forum like some folks do.

[upflying]

Plenty of collision reconstruction "proof" on the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPh10LOh5ps

[TitanMike]

Originally Posted by 67L48

No. Not at all. But, side note: generally attorneys don't sue people. People sue people. And, they often do so with terrible reasons, little data, and no ability to succeed in the lawsuit.

There are lots of posts like yours that suggest or outright state definitively that someone overweight will be found legally liable for crashes and such, based on that state of having been overweight.

Funny how this criminal issue quickly turned civil. Those are different issues entirely.

In any case, if this were in anyway common or probable, there would be a case or an article in some newspaper somewhere. I'm not asking for many cases or even a pattern. Just one. Show me the one case where prosecutors or LEOs assigned liability due to a person towing an RV overweight.

I can't prove the negative. I can't prove it's never happened. But the lack of a single case suggests to me that it's somewhere between exceptionally rare and exceedingly improbable.

All of this conversation about what could happen and CSI-style investigations are hypothetical. Sure, I suppose those things could happen. If they happened with even a little bit of regularity, there would be some evidence of it. I'm not seeing it.

And, I'm very much on the side of "don't drive overweight ... ever." I just think it's more of a safety issue and I find the "you could be found liable" side of the conversation hyperbolic and sensational.

I actually started on the other side of this argument. About a decade ago, I'd see other people do the "show me one example" argument. I was the one who thought, "In today's litigious society and with myriad laws on the books, I'm sure that people are cited for being overweight and held liable based on that fact."

Over time, I continued to see silence to the request of "show me one example." Or, as above, the simplistic "just because I can't prove it happened doesn't mean that it didn't." OK. Same goes to the claims that aliens abducted drifters for medical science.

Year after year, it was a hypothetical "people could be held liable" against a dearth of evidence that people were held liable.

The reason you don't see news articles like you are asking for is the fact that the news media rarely reports the results of any accident investigation unless it's really major. Plane crashes, train crashes, etc are huge news events and as they say, the story has legs.

Good example locally, three separate fatal accidents in a short period of time on our local freeway. Big story on TV and Newspapers. Investigations were ongoing but results never reported. Reason? More headline making events reported and the media saw no interest in reporting on old news.

The reason people cant "show you just one" is because by the time facts have been determined the news media has lost interest.

If one were to do a record search, following up on accidents of the type being discussed they'd probably find at fault drivers were probably merely charged with something like "Failure to maintain control of vehicle" or Negligent Driving". Also "Driving too fast for conditions". Rarely are criminal charges filed unless driver kills someone, is found to be drunk, or driving so recklessly they wipe out a dozen vehicles like the I-70 wreck recently near January.

Law enforcement let's the Lawyers deal with civil issues.

The reason you haven't found proof is because it's usually buried in accident reports that arent published.

[smittyboy]

How do they sleep in there.

[67L48]

Originally Posted by upflying

Plenty of collision reconstruction "proof" on the internet.

I glad you went ahead and put proof in quotes, so I didn't have to. The only thing that video proved to me was that super expensive Hensley WDHs perform about the same as other WDHs. The dude running the slalom course was a good driver!

There was an assertion at the beginning that hitch failure led to the accident. OK. Let's assume that's true. Nothing was said about being overweight that I heard. Nothing was said about liability being assigned to someone based on being overweight. Cool video, though.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You have faith that, regardless of any evidence, there are people being held liable in accidents based on a state of being overweight. I'll sit on the other side and wait for data to tell me that story. I'm wholly unimpressed with the hand-waving away of why a single story cannot be found. But, that's OK. That explanation works for you; it doesn't for me. Civilly disagreeing with one another is actually and OK thing.