[sublinear]

> It reminds me of the bumper stickers on trucks saying that vehicles must stay back at least 200 feet because the driver is not responsible for damage done to other vehicles by falling rocks. It's nonsense of course.

No, it isn't nonsense. Neither are the signs at a mechanic's shop telling you they're not responsible for lost or damaged items. What all these signs have in common is that they signify dangerous work.

A dump truck can't be unloaded without everything else out of the way, a car on a lift should be treated with caution, and of course a rational statement of fact cannot be sugarcoated or censored without affecting its truthfulness.

Particularly with software, it can absolutely be dangerous to not be as clear as possible what is occurring. Computers are machinery too and humans should respect that.

[cmh89]

>No, it isn't nonsense. Neither are the signs at a mechanic's shop telling you they're not responsible for lost or damaged items.

I'm sure that included in the waiver you sign at the mechanics shop, its included that they are not responsible for lost or damaged items. The extra sign is just to let you know.

The sign on the back of the truck is nonsense because it has no basis in reality. You can't just slap a sticker on your truck and say 'laws don't apply to me'

[hansvm]

You can't sign certain rights away. If you sign a contract saying the mechanic isn't responsible for broken or missing stuff and they use that as an excuse to steal, drive recklessly with the door open, not take their gloves off before smearing oil on the upholstery, ..., they can and will be held liable if there's a modicum of evidence.

[wewtyflakes]

The nonsense was the lack of liability, not that rocks wont fall off a truck.

[sublinear]

To focus only on the liability instead of the danger is missing the point. This article does a lot of that.

If the sign seems obtuse it's because it addresses the danger by pointing out the liability. Yes it can seem condescending, but wouldn't you rather everyone notice the sign? The problem still lies squarely with those who do not heed warnings, not the sign.

[wewtyflakes]

The sign just talks about liability, not about falling rocks.

[jawns]

The law (at least in my state) holds the truck driver responsible for what is called an unsecured load. Meaning if it is unable to be driven without stuff flying off it, it shouldn't be on the road. The signs have no legal significance.

Do I drive closely to dump trucks, though? Nope, I keep my distance. They might be responsible for the damage, but I don't want to deal with a broken windshield in the first place.

[msla]

Some people really need to internalize the fact that anyone can put up a sign, and signs don't make the law.

[saalweachter]

I'd also like to note that a 3-second following distance is 240 feet on the highway.

If you aren't tailgating those gravel trucks, you're already fine.

[PpEY4fu85hkQpn]

Sure, trucks can be dangerous, but that's not at all what the stickers or the author is talking about.

[seattle_spring]

You're going to be a whole lot closer than 240 feet if you pass them in the adjacent lane. Plenty of ways a rock could flight to the side.