Analysis of crash was not based on facts

In regard to a June 22 letter: The first rule of investigation is get all the facts straight then come to an informed conclusion.

It was not cane smoke that caused the accident. The cane field being burned was a quarter-mile from the road. Those driving that road that morning could see the road past the smoke and slowed as appropriate. But, all of a sudden, a fire started next to the road and whipped up black heavy smoke. Within an instant, it turned visibility darker than night.

A van in front slowed slightly and was slammed from behind. The van was spun around and was facing the other direction. A truck went to the right lane. Two other cars then entered the smoke in the left lane, passing the van and the truck. The first car slowed down and was hit from behind. There were two separate accidents within a blink of an eye.

So cane smoke was not the issue, it was the fire that jumped the cane field and started a fire down wind and made it to the roadside. The wind was so strong that the fire jumped a quarter of a mile. The black smoke came from the fire near the road, not the cane. Why was it so black? That needs to be determined.

I arrived after, and have pictures to prove it.

The letter writer broke the rules and spoke from experience, not from facts.

Raymond J. Hutaff