This implies that I share some responsibility for Network Solutions losing my data forever.  Here is my response to Network Solutions:

The cardinal rule in information technology is protection against the destruction or compromise of data. The greenest IT rookie knows enough to protect critical systems and customer data, using redundant storage on fault-tolerant hardware, and running backups every 24 hours. This technology is mature, relatively cheap, and easy to implement. Someone (probably several someones) at Network Solutions screwed up so badly, that neither of those basic protections worked properly for six weeks. The implication that somehow I’m partially to blame for that kind of irresponsibility is shocking and ridiculous. Failure to take the previously-mentioned actions are reason enough to lay the blame fully on the shoulders of Network Solutions. The other reason is a matter of public policy. If the software has a backup setting, and that’s the only protection you offer me, then enable it by default, or send me an email every day telling me that I need to enable it.

Your email to me included the words, “You did not previously have Database Backup enabled…”, but it should have used words like, “Network Solutions did not previously have Database Backup enabled, or adequately protect our information storage and retrieval systems from hardware failure. We apologize for these extremely serious mistakes, and have taken measures to ensure this never happens again.” Owning up like that probably would have kept my business.

If I torch my own data, without backing it up, then it’s my fault. But if YOU torch my data, and YOU didn’t back it up, that’s all on you. I’m astonished at this series of foul-ups at Network Solutions, but the reason I’m leaving after 14 years of business is that your firm failed to take full responsibility. Ducking the blame, or laying the blame on others (especially on paying customers) is an ethical lapse, a failure of leadership, and a hallmark of mediocrity. That’s what I’m going to associate with the name “Network Solutions” from now on.

That said, I’m taking my business to GoDaddy. Incidentally, they’ve assured me my data will be backed up every 24 hours, without any action required on my part. That leaves me care-free and able to focus entirely on writing and video editing, which is the reason I pay someone else to host the blog in the first place.

I did, actually, have a backup of some of my posted materials. I will be restoring these at some point, before I transfer my domains and other services, and then close my account at NetSol. It’s a hassle, but it’s worth it to be rid of you.

Good-bye, soon, but not soon enough.

-Ryan Reasons

——————

From: Network Solutions <networksolutions@mail1.networksolutions.com>
Reply-to: Network Solutions <NSCC99+4300530620@mail1.networksolutions.com>
To: Cranks-On-Cam.com
Subject: Important Notice About Your MYSQL Data – Please Read
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:06:16 -0400 (EDT)  Dear Valued Network Solutions® Customer,

This email is to inform you that we detected a storage hardware problem, involving a single MYSQL server, Saturday, September 17, 2011. We took immediate action to restore from backups, and while all of the data should be restored, some customers may still have missing data.  You did not previously have Database Backup enabled, therefore, we have restored your website to the last system backup on August 10, 2011. Our customer support specialists are available 24/7 to help or answer any questions you may have. Please call 1-866-908-9826 for dedicated support. We recommend backing up your MYSQL database through one of the following methods: - Turn on automatic backups for MYSQL within Account Manager. Learn more here- Enable automatic backups using SSH. Learn more here

Your continued business is appreciated, and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Sincerely,
Network Solutions® Customer Support

I’ve commented in a previous entry about the way Charleston law enforcement, in a stunning dereliction of duty, has spent most of July pretending that South Carolina has no law against vehicular manslaughter. While I applaud the Mayor’s stated intention to make Charleston safer, his words ring hollow while police are declining to enforce laws that are already on the books.

The authorities of Charleston have excused Dr. Hollon’s killer. That’s troubling for many reasons, but especially because the charges (“Improper Lane Usage”) leave a sense of unassigned blame. The court of public opinion, following the lead of law enforcement and local journalism, is deciding that Mitchell Hollon did not die through any fault of Gregory Rupley’s. The implication now taking hold is that Dr. Hollon’s death was his own fault for daring to ride a bicycle among motor vehicles. Read some of the ugly ‘user comments’ in online news articles about the crash, and you’ll see.

The process of blaming Dr. Hollon for his own death began when biased public officials and journalists used the word “accident” in reference to the crash. The term “accident”, in common usage, refers to random chance, an event without cause and beyond control, that leads unpredictably and unavoidably to a harmful result. Those who identify strongly with motoring, or those hostile to cycling, prefer the word “accident” to describe Dr. Hollon’s death, for its built-in assumptions of sympathy and freedom from responsibility for the motorist.

The “accident” narrative goes like this. First, Gregory Rupley operated a motor vehicle at a high rate of speed, an event that occurred through random chance. Second, he failed to use attentively the lane markings, brakes, and steering wheel to control his vehicle properly, due to reasons beyond his control. Finally, despite a history of dangerous driving, including convictions for speeding and causing a previous “accident”, the catastrophic results were impossible for Mr. Rupley to foresee, or take measures to avoid. This is an absurd charade, of course, but anyone who calls Dr. Hollon’s killing an “accident” is selling this version of events.

Here is an example of the way some police officers and at least one local newspaper writer are ignoring or stretching the facts to fit the charade.

“Currently, bicyclists ride in the emergency pull-off lane on the [James Island] Connector, which puts them in shaky legal territory. The day after the accident, Charleston police spokesman Charles Francis was unable to say for certain whether bicycling was allowed on the 55 mph freeway. Under South Carolina law, it is illegal to ride a bike on a freeway, defined as “a multilane divided highway with full control of access, and grade separated interchanges.” Violation of the law is a misdemeanor carrying a punishment of up to a $100 fine or 30 days of imprisonment.” – Charleston City Paper

The article cites the definition of a “freeway” under South Carolina law, but the author uses only the first 16 words of the definition, and replaces the remaining 24 words with a period. The author is suggesting, with a seemingly deliberate omission of important details, that Dr. Hollon was the lawbreaker, and by proxy, that Gregory Rupley was the victim.

Here is the full text of the law that defines a “freeway” in South Carolina, in context, with all 40 words included:

SECTION 56-5-615. Freeway defined.
“A ‘freeway’ is a multilane divided highway with full control of access, and grade separated interchanges, of the type comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, or other highways built essentially in conformance to the standards of them.”

The James Island Connector is not part of the Interstate System, nor did the builders conform to the standards of the Interstate System during its construction in 1996. The standards of the Interstate System include, among other things, full control of access, and a 10-foot right paved shoulder.

The right shoulder is three feet wide at the Mitchell Hollon crash site on the Robert B. Scarborough Bridge, and three feet wide in most of the sections on dry land. The FHA standards for “full control of access”, as documented in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, require a freeway to be enclosed within walls or fences. Roadside views from the 3-mile-long the James Island Expressway on Google Maps show several areas with conspicuous omissions of this requirement. (It’s worth mentioning that the standards of the Interstate System are designed to accommodate bicycle traffic, which is legal on a freeway under federal law.) The James Island Connector is not a freeway.

Those who misrepresent the legal status of the Connector are contributing to the ongoing effort to excuse Gregory Rupley and blame Mitchell Hollon for the “accident”. This is driving to a conclusion that Dr. Hollon had a duty to avoid cycling on the James Island connector, and his failure in that duty caused the otherwise avoidable result of his own killing. It’s disgusting, but these distortions of the truth to fit the “accident” narrative are prevailing, as evidenced in the failure of police to charge Mr. Rupley, in newspaper articles about Dr. Hollon’s death, and in some increasingly ugly user comments that accompany such articles.

A serious effort to make the Connector safer for cyclists would involve four simple and relatively inexpensive steps; (1) reduce the speed limit from 55 MPH to 35 MPH, (2) add cycling sharrows down the center of the right lane, (3) crack down on speeding and aggressive driving, and (4) prosecute motorists like Gregory Rupley for vehicular manslaughter. All of this would require the city officials of Charleston to recognize that cyclists already are legitimate roadway users under South Carolina law. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

The uneven handling of Dr. Hollon’s death suggests that Charleston city officials will use the bogus “questionable legal status” of cyclists as a pretext to leave the James Island Connector exactly the way it is, and allow history to repeat itself. That would complete the terrible mockery of justice that is now unfolding in Charleston, where a killer gets his freedom, and his victim gets the blame.

I’ve traveled this stretch of road thousands of times, in many different lane positions. I’ve traveled it down the center, on the right side, and on the left side. I’ve had speeding motorists overtake me, dangerously, illegally, and unpredictably, crossing the center lines to pass on my left, or using the shoulder to pass on my right. It’s illegal for motorists to use the shoulder as a travel lane, or cross the solid yellow lines in the center of the roadway. That makes no difference, however, because if the space is available, then most motorists do one or the other.

The main factor that prevents this sort of dangerous overtaking is oncoming traffic, because it denies would-be illegal overtakers the opportunity to cross the center lines. The other factor is my position in the roadway, riding inside the travel lane, just left of the fog line, and avoiding the shoulder.  This eliminates the threat of drive-out hazards (a frequent occurrence here) and discourages motorists from overtaking me on the shoulder. The point is that my lane position cannot prevent dangerous and illegal overtaking here, it can only influence which one it’s going to be. I choose the lane position that tends to result in the illegal straddle passing, because almost every motorist gives me plenty of room in the process.

This describes the reasoning for my lane position in today’s video. I’m avoiding the shoulder and traveling one foot inside the fog line, when I see in my mirror a line of about seven motor vehicles approaching from behind. I’m turning left at the next traffic light, which is 200 feet ahead, and also where the road divides into two lanes thereafter. There is no oncoming traffic, so I decide to let the line of cars pass before I take the lane for my left turn. As predicted, they all go for the illegal straddle pass, albeit at a safe distance.

That is, except for the very last vehicle in the line of cars. That driver decides against a safe but illegal straddle pass, and opts for a dangerous and illegal “buzz” overtake instead. The driver honks the horn. I hear the words, “Move over!” emerge from the passenger-side window. The vehicle passes within a foot of my elbow, traveling at 40 miles per hour.

(Notes: The video footage shows the side mirror on my bicycle, but not the position of my elbow. My elbow extends further out, depending on the position of my hands and how far forward I am leaning.)

Massachusetts law defines an assault as an attempt to either; (1) do bodily harm to another person by force or violence, or (2) intentionally cause fear or apprehension in another person. Note that assault does not require actual bodily harm, it requires only that someone intentionally instills a fear of bodily harm. For example, holding a fist under another person’s nose is assault, even if the fist-maker never touches the nose.

A motorist who overtakes a cyclist at high speed, honking the horn, shouting a command to move over, and passing within inches of the cyclist’s body, is trying to instill within the cyclist a fear of imminent harm. Move over. I can crush your body with my vehicle. That’s a Felony Assault. The motorist used a moving vehicle to establish the threat. That’s a Felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. These are serious criminal charges, which upon conviction could put an offending motorist behind bars for several years.

Massachusetts license plate 5949GT

—–Original Message—–
From: Cranks-On-Cam Moderation
To: Ryan Reasons
Subject: [Cranks-On-Cam] Please moderate: “Mitchell Hollon Dies, Law Enforcement Shrugs, and Gregory Rupley Walks”
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:06:21 +0000

A new comment on the post “Mitchell Hollon Dies, Law Enforcement Shrugs, and Gregory Rupley Walks” is waiting for your approval

Author : Heather Friedrichs Lyman
E-mail : (Hidden)
URL :
Whois :
Comment: Hello…..Mitch was a very close family friend, and his loss and manner of his death has been unfathomable. Perhaps the only thing more stunning is the charge (or lack thereof) against Mr. Rupley. You have succinctly worded here what so many of us are thinking and feeling; might you consider submitting this as an editorial to our local newspaper?

—–Original Message—–
From: Ryan Reasons
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:23 AM
To: Heather Lyman
Subject: Re: [Cranks-On-Cam] Please moderate: “Mitchell Hollon Dies, Law Enforcement Shrugs, and Gregory Rupley Walks”

Dear Heather:

Thank you for your message. I’m deeply sorry for the loss of your friend.  I’d be glad to submit this as an editorial. Which newspaper do you recommend? Also, I was about to approve your post for publication on my blog, and  make our communication public. Do you feel okay with that?

Best regards,
-Ryan Reasons

—–Original Message—–
From: Heather Lyman
To: Ryan Reasons
Subject: RE: [Cranks-On-Cam] Please moderate: “Mitchell Hollon Dies, Law Enforcement Shrugs, and Gregory Rupley Walks”
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:05:41 -0400

Hi, Ryan — thanks so much for your reply. Yes, it’s fine to post my comment.  And yes, it would be wonderful if you would submit this to www.charleston.net (The Charleston Post and Courier). So many of us are reeling from the unbelievably  lax charge against Rupley, and I haven’t seen anyone state the case as clearly  as you. Thanks again…..

——–Original Message———
From: Ryan Reasons
To: letters@postandcourier.com
Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Subject: Mitchell Hollon Dies, Law Enforcement Shrugs, and Gregory Rupley Walks

Look at what the police announced this week: “After careful consideration of all the evidence and facts gathered concerning this collision, investigators with the Charleston Police Department’s Traffic Division have charged Gregory E. Rupley with Improper Lane Usage. “

Yes, you read that right. Rupley is due in court on September 1st to face charges of committing a traffic violation. The same press report that provided the quoted paragraph above also indicated the Charleston Police Department consulted with the Charleston County Solicitor’s Office to determine the charges. Apparently, the prosecution is going to let Rupley off the hook for the deadly consequences of his inattentive driving.  That, or someone forgot to mention that Rupley killed Dr. Hollon last week in the process of using the lane improperly.

The State reports that Police Lt. Chip Searson, of the Charleston Traffic Division, said Rupley’s actions displayed no “willful or wanton disregard for public safety”.  The police, in other words, claim they are powerless, for lack of evidence that Rupley did anything wrong.

I looked up the laws of South Carolina, and found the legal definitions of “negligence”, “wanton”, and “manslaughter” in a legal dictionary. The language used to describe these things stands out rather compellingly: Omission of a known obligation with reckless indifference to potential harmful consequences. Failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest.

The police and prosecutor are displaying all the symptoms of “Just An Accident Syndrome,” an affliction where some in the legal system (who are motorists themselves) identify with motorists so strongly, they refuse to enforce the law against them. Thus, Rupley is excused for taking Dr. Hollon’s life, and “criminal negligence” becomes “just an accident”, with the subtext that Dr. Hollon’s violent death was the result of random chance that was beyond Rupley’s control.

This skewed perspective ignores several important truths, most notably that the AT&T utility van has brakes and a steering wheel, the roadway has lane markings, and the rules of the road obligate Rupley to use and pay attention to these things, which he clearly was not doing when he killed Dr. Hollon. Rupley’s omission of his obligations caused a motor vehicle, traveling at 55 miles per hour, to veer off a clearly marked roadway, and kill a human being. If that doesn’t fit the legal definition of negligence, I can’t imagine what else does.

Scarlett A. Wilson is the Solicitor for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Berkeley and Charleston Counties. The police would have consulted Wilson or a prosecutor on Wilson’s staff. I encourage everyone to contact Scarlett A. Wilson and Gregory Mullen, the Charleston Chief of Police, and remind them respectfully that Dr. Mitchell Hollon, now silenced forever, deserves a better measure of justice than a traffic ticket.

- – -

South Carolina Code: Section 16-3-60. With regard to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section. A person convicted of involuntary manslaughter must be imprisoned not more than five years.

Legal definition of Negligence: “Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.”

Legal definition of Wanton: “Grossly careless or negligent; reckless; malicious. The term wanton implies a reckless disregard for the consequences of one’s behavior. A wanton act is one done in heedless disregard for the life, limbs, health, safety, reputation, or property rights of another individual. Such an act is more than Negligence or gross negligence; it is equivalent in its results to an act of willful misconduct. A wanton injury is one precipitated by a conscious and intentional wrongful act or by an omission of a known obligation with reckless indifference to potential harmful consequences.”

Legal definition of Criminal Negligence: “Careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant. [...] The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a ‘malfeasance’ where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a ‘misfeasance or ‘nonfeasance’ (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest.”

Legal definition of Vehicular homicide: “([A]lso known as vehicular manslaughter) [...] [D]eath that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving while committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony. In the Model Penal Code there is no separate category of vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicides that involve negligence. Both are included in the overall category of negligent homicide. It can be compared to the offense of dangerous driving causing death in other countries. All states except Alaska, Montana, and Arizona have vehicular homicide statutes. The laws have the effect of making a vehicle a potentially deadly weapon, to allow for easier conviction and more severe penalties. In states without such statutes, defendants can still be charged with manslaughter or murder in some situations. The victim may be either a person not in the car with the offending motorist, such as a pedestrian, cyclist, another motorist, or a passenger in the vehicle with the offender.”

Descriptions of Involuntary Manslaughter from several South Carolina criminal defense lawyers and law firms; Bobby G. Frederick , Ross & Enderlin, Jack B. Swerling, and James R. Snell, Jr..

I normally pass stopped traffic on the left. That’s my intention until I see there isn’t enough space between them. Instead, I keep my speed at a cautious 5 MPH and move over to pass on the right. The stopped truck suddenly accelerates just as I start to overtake. The driver either ignored me or never saw me.

The video camera doesn’t really show the dangerousness of the situation. If I had accelerated quickly into narrow space beside the truck, the trailer likely would have clipped or snagged me when the driver gunned the engine and took off. I braked the moment I saw the trailer move, which might have saved my life.

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90: Section 14. Precautions for safety of other travelers. It shall not be a defense for a motorist causing an accident with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of vehicular traffic.

Dr. Mitchell Hollon, an avid cyclist and anesthesiologist, was killed on July 5th while cycling in Charleston, South Carolina. The police traffic report, citing statements from two witnesses, indicates that an AT&T van moved out of the westbound right lane, drifted several feet onto the shoulder, and struck Dr. Hollon from behind. The impact crumpled the van and catapulted Dr. Hollon over the guardrail of the James Island Connector, where he plunged forty feet and landed in the Charleston Harbor marshland. Police say the driver of the AT&T van, Gregory Rupley of Charleston, is at fault for the crash.

Gregory Rupley’s version of events differs considerably from witness accounts and the police report. Rupley dialed 911 after hitting Dr. Hollon and said, “I just hit a man on a bicycle and he flipped off the bridge.” The 911 dispatcher asked, “You said he flipped off the bridge?” Rupley continued, “He swerved out in front of me and I hit him and he went off the bridge.”

I find Rupley’s story extremely difficult to believe, given the witness reports, and the history of the two men involved in the crash. The Post and Courier of Charleston reports that Rupley has a history of reckless and aggressive driving, according to records from the South Carolina DMV, including convictions for speeding in 2004 and 2005, a conviction for careless driving in 2005, and a conviction for contributing to a motor vehicle accident in 2006. Dr. Hollon was an experienced cyclist who observed traffic laws and averaged 3000 miles per year. It doesn’t add up that a savvy urban cyclist would “swerve out” into a 55 mile-per-hour lane “in front” of a speeding motor vehicle. It seems much more likely that Rupley is lying because he fears the consequences of what he has done.

The same report from The Post and Courier also contains a glaring factual error, which perpetuates the myth that cyclists must move aside for motorists and expose themselves to greater risk: “The police incident report indicates Rupley allegedly drifted several feet off the traveling lane and into the far right westbound shoulder where the helmet-clad Hollon was obligated to be.”

The traffic laws of South Carolina specify that a bicyclist has no obligation to ride on the shoulder, which is not considered to be part of the roadway. The right lane appears to be 11 feet wide in the area where Rupley struck Dr. Hollon. (That’s an admittedly imprecise estimate based on photos of the crash site, which I’ve included at the end of this article.) If we assume a lane width of 11 or even 12 feet, the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to share safely, so it still would have been illegal for Rupley to overtake Dr. Hollon in the same lane. It’s arguable from a legal standpoint that Dr. Hollon would’ve been within his rights to travel in the right lane, or even ride down the center of it. The point is that Dr. Hollon’s location on the roadway is irrelevant. Rupley would still be at fault for hitting him from behind, whether the collision took place in the right lane or on the shoulder.

Even without witnesses, who stated that Rupley’s van swerved several feet onto the shoulder, there is physical evidence to refute Rupley’s claim that the impact occurred in the right lane after Dr. Hollon swerved out in front of his van. The video footage of Hollon’s bicycle at 03:25 to 03:30 shows the front wheel is straight and the back wheel is bent into the shape of a heart, which is an indicator that the van struck the bicycle from behind. Dr. Hollon’s trajectory over the side of the bridge is also an indicator of the van’s direction. Rupley is suggesting the collision happened in the travel lane. That would mean Dr. Hollon went flying off his bicycle, executed a right turn in mid-air, and passed completely over the shoulder and a four-foot concrete wall. It’s much more likely that Dr. Hollon flew in the same direction that Rupley’s van was going at the time of impact; diagonally, angling toward Charleston Harbor, as it left the right lane, and entered the shoulder.

The circumstances of the crash, the statements of two eyewitnesses, a history of reckless driving, the condition of the bicycle, and the final location of Michell Hollon’s body should make for a slam-dunk case against Gregory Rupley.  One thing concerns me, though. The law enforcement establishment of South Carolina has a mixed track record in convicting (or even charging) motorists with reckless driving or reckless homicide when it comes to killing cyclists. I have read a few articles stating that the police plan to file charges against Rupley, yet, it’s been six days since the crash, and no charges have been filed yet, according to any media report that I can find as of this writing. I hope that means the wheels of justice are just slow to turn, rather than broken altogether.

Charleston has been given an opportunity, at the tragic and staggering cost of Dr. Hollon’s life, to show the nation that irresponsible motoring is an extremely serious matter. The consequences Gregory Rupley faces should reflect the consequences of his actions for Dr. Mitchell Hollon. Let’s hope South Carolina justice handles this one right.

South Carolina Code of Laws, Chapter 5, Article 1, SECTION 56-5-2920. Reckless driving; penalties; suspension of driver’s license for second or subsequent offense.
Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. The Department of Motor Vehicles, upon receiving satisfactory evidence of the conviction, of the entry of a plea of guilty or the forfeiture of bail of any person charged with a second and subsequent offense for the violation of this section shall forthwith suspend the driver’s license of any such person for a period of three months. Only those offenses which occurred within a period of five years including and immediately preceding the date of the last offense shall constitute prior offenses within the meaning of this section. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or forfeiture of bail, be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days.

South Carolina Code of Laws, Chapter 5, Article 1, SECTION 56-5-2910. Reckless homicide; penalties; revocation of driver’s license; reinstatement of license; conditions; consequences for subsequent violations.
(A) When the death of a person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury received by the driving of a vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person operating the vehicle is guilty of reckless homicide. A person who is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or pleads nolo contendere to reckless homicide is guilty of a felony and must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. The department must revoke for five years the driver’s license of a person convicted of reckless homicide.

South Carolina Code of Laws, SECTION 56-5-3430. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(A) Except as provided in subsection (B), every bicyclist operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. A bicyclist may, but is not required to, ride on the shoulder of the roadway in order to comply with the requirements of this subsection.

Slideshow of Crash Site