‘I'm glad I didn't hit you': Utah Highway Patrol trooper nearly struck in close call with truck on SR-40
HEBER CITY, Utah () — A l trooper was nearly struck by a white truck on SR-40 last week, prompting a reminder to drivers to increase their following distance on the road.
Video from the incident showed that the trooper was outside of his car while responding to a crash near mile marker 8 on SR-40 in Summit County. Utah Highway Patrol said a truck that was tailing too closely to the car ahead didn't have time to react to traffic suddenly slowing down for the crash.
'Despite another patrol car parked well behind with emergency lights flashing, the driver failed to slow down and had to swerve at the last second, barely missing the trooper,' Utah Highway Patrol said in .
When interacting with the driver after she pulled over shortly after, the trooper told her his heart was racing.
'I'm so glad you're ok,' the driver told the trooper. 'I just need a second to recover. I'm glad I didn't hit you.'
The trooper, after making sure the driver was ok, asked her what she learned from the incident.
'Well, I guess not to follow so closely,' she replied.
Cpl. Luis Silva told ABC4.com the video is a lesson to Utah drivers that following distance matters on the highway. He added, 'Following too close is one of the largest reasons for crashes in Utah.'
In its social media post, Utah Highway Patrol said incidents like the one in the video are the reason why Utah's exists.
Under the law, drivers are advised to slow down for emergency vehicles long before they get close. If it is clear and safe, drivers should also move over to the next lane to give emergency vehicles room to operate. If it is not possible to move over, Utah Highway Patrol said to just slow down more.
Either way, UHP encourages drivers to focus on the road ahead and not what's happening on the side of the highway.
'Please give yourself time and give us space,' UHP concluded in its post.
'I'm glad I didn't hit you': Utah Highway Patrol trooper nearly struck in close call with truck on SR-40
Tariffs drive up U.S. auto prices by 2.5%
Hawley says Trump told him 'no Medicaid benefit cuts'
Trump slams Paul for voting 'NO on everything,' lacking 'constructive ideas'
Taylorsville woman charged with over 100 felonies for alleged rental payment theft
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State health officials urge kids, pregnant women to get COVID-19 vaccine despite federal pullback
Wisconsin's state health department still recommends the COVID-19 vaccine, despite discord at the federal level after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said it would no longer be recommended for children and pregnant women. "The recent changes in (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidance were not made based on new data, evidence or scientific or medical studies, nor was the guidance issued following normal processes," a June 4 news release from the state health department said. Kennedy, a vocal vaccine critic, announced May 27 in a video on X that the CDC would no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. He did not cite new evidence in doing so. CDC guidance published days later still recommended COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children if their parents and doctors agree, but said the vaccines are no longer recommended during pregnancy. Children can contract COVID-19 like any other person, but are less likely to become seriously ill from the virus than adults, though they can still spread it to more vulnerable individuals. Pregnant women, however, are more likely to become seriously ill, which can lead to preterm birth and other problems. Experts say vaccination during pregnancy can safeguard infants after birth because babies depend on maternal antibodies for early immunity. Federal vaccine recommendations matter not just because the public pays attention to them, but because it can affect which vaccines insurers decide to cover, said Patrick Remington, emeritus professor at UW-Madison's School of Medicine and Public Health. Given the recommendation from the state, Remington said he's hopeful companies that insure people in Wisconsin will continue covering the COVID-19 vaccine despite the change in federal recommendations. Wisconsin's Medicaid program will continue to cover the vaccine, according to the news release. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which sets recommendations for vaccines in the U.S., is not scheduled to meet until later in June. The group is discussing whether to narrow its recommendation about who should receive COVID-19 booster shots. There's room for healthy debate about the benefits and risks of the COVID-19 vaccine for certain groups of people, Remington said, because it's part of how science works. But he said that debate should take place among the members of the advisory committee, who are independent medical experts. For Kennedy to bring his personal beliefs about vaccines into his recommendations is unfortunate, Remington said. "When you see disagreement between the federal government's recommendations and what experts, like at (the state health department) say, sometimes the public throws up their hands and says, 'If they can't agree, I don't believe anything,'" he said. If someone is confused about the differing recommendations and wants advice on their particular situation, Remington suggested talking with a doctor, who'll be able to consider their personal circumstances when it comes to future doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Less than one in five Wisconsinites have received at least one dose of the most current COVID-19 vaccine, according to data from the state health department. Nearly half of those who have are adults 65 and older. More: COVID, conspiracy theories and a billboard campaign: Grace Schara's hospital death finally sees trial More: How were Milwaukee-area health departments using COVID-era grants cut by the Trump administration? Madeline Heim covers health and the environment for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Contact her at 920-996-7266 or mheim@ This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin health department still recommends COVID-19 vaccine
CBS News
17 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump's travel ban is set to begin Monday. Here's what to know.
What to know about President Trump's travel ban on nationals from 12 countries What to know about Trump's new travel ban What to know about Trump's new travel ban Washington — President Trump signed a proclamation late Wednesday barring travelers and immigrants from a dozen countries and restricting the entry of nationals from seven other nations. With the move, the White House cited concerns about national security. The president said the recent attack at a march supporting Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado, had "underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas." "We don't want them," Mr. Trump said. Here's what to know about the travel bans: Who does the ban apply to? With some exceptions, the proclamation bans the entry of foreigners from 12 countries who are seeking to come to the U.S. permanently as legal immigrants, as well as those with temporary visas, including tourists: Afghanistan Myanmar Chad The Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen President Trump announced that the U.S. would bar entry to nationals from these 12 countries, with few exceptions, citing national security concerns. CBS News The proclamation also partially suspends the entry of travelers and immigrants from another seven countries. This restriction applies to legal immigrants seeking to move to the U.S. and certain temporary visa holders who hail from the following countries: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela When does the ban take effect? The ban is set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Monday, June 9. Why were the countries selected? On the first day of his second administration, Mr. Trump directed officials to perform a security review of high-risk regions and make recommendations for where immigration and travel restrictions should be imposed. The president said the factors considered were "the largescale presence of terrorists, failure to cooperate on visa security, inability to verify travelers' identities, inadequate record keeping of criminal histories and persistently high rates of illegal visa overstays, and other things." "Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States," Mr. Trump said. The president cited the recent attack in Boulder, where an Egyptian national was charged, as part of the justification for the bans. Egypt is not among the countries on the White House's list. But the proclamation directed officials to assess the "adequacy" of Egypt's vetting policies "in light of recent events." Are there exceptions to the new travel ban? The president's decree contains certain exemptions, including for U.S. permanent residents and the spouses and children of U.S. citizens who have "clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship." The proclamation also outlines exemptions for Afghans who assisted American forces and have special visas; diplomats, athletes coming to the U.S. for the World Cup, the Olympics and other major sporting events; dual nationals with a passport from a country not listed in the president's decree; and for adoptions. Mr. Trump said the list could be revised if countries make "material improvements," and new countries could be added "as threats emerge around the world." Did Trump do this before? The president's actions follow a series of travel bans issued during his first administration that initially targeted predominantly Muslim countries. Like those orders, his latest proclamation could be subject to lawsuits, although the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the revised ban from his first term, which the White House noted in a fact sheet outlining his second-term bans. The president touted his first-term travel bans in his video statement released Wednesday. "In my first term, my powerful travel restrictions were one of our most successful policies, and they were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil," Mr. Trump said. In January 2017, Mr. Trump signed a travel ban restricting the entry of most citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The ban sparked widespread outcry, creating chaos at airports and prompting legal challenges, as opponents argued the ban was discriminatory. Then in March 2017, Mr. Trump removed Iraq from the list and added Chad, Venezuela and North Korea. The president expanded the ban in 2020, adding immigration restrictions for nationals of Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Myanmar and Kyrgyzstan. Chad was later removed from the list. The third iteration of the president's first-term ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in the summer of 2018. At the time, conservative justices cited the president's broad authority to restrict the entry of foreigners on national security grounds. When President Joe Biden took office, he scrapped that ban.
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Four States Ask F.D.A. to Lift Special Restrictions on Abortion Pill
In a strategy aimed at countering efforts to further restrict the abortion pill mifepristone, attorneys general of four states that support abortion rights on Thursday asked the Food and Drug Administration to do the opposite and lift the most stringent remaining restrictions on the pill. The petition filed by Massachusetts, New York, California and New Jersey might seem surprising given the opposition to abortion expressed by Trump administration officials. But the attorneys general consider it a move that would require the F.D.A. to acknowledge extensive scientific research that has consistently found mifepristone safe and effective, said an official with the Massachusetts attorney general's office who worked on the filing and asked not to be named in order to share background information. It would also prevent the F.D.A. from changing mifepristone regulations while the petition is pending. The petition notes that at a May senate hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, responded to questions by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who opposes abortion, by saying he had ordered the F.D.A. to do a 'complete review' of mifepristone. 'We want to make sure that when F.D.A. is making these decisions that they have all the data in front of them, all of the really powerful data that show that mifepristone is safe' the Massachusetts official said. The F.D.A. is required to respond within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time. In its responses, the agency must document its position, which could be useful in lawsuits, including one that the four states could file if their petition is denied. Mifepristone, which blocks a hormone necessary for pregnancy development, was approved for abortion in America in 2000. The F.D.A. imposed an additional regulatory framework called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, on mifepristone. That framework has been used for only about 300 drugs, currently covering only about 60 medications. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
