Humboldt Bus Accident Update

[Jigger]

Originally Posted by ctd

I never even thought about the truck driver blowing a shift easy to do with that load and not knowing the truck.
How I feel is the Police are having a hard time determining actual fault. The swarms of Racist people have already made up their mind in the situation.
They want blood for the driver and the owner.

The owner has to keep rolling, he has bills to pay like anyone else. Yet he is ridiculed for trying to keep food on his table and roof over his head. Yet the Bus company never had their operating certificate suspended pending investigation.

I have never heard of company being suspended indefinitely unless they had sever violations prior to and or including for the accident until the investigation is completed and fault found. This does not seem to be the case.

Until the facts are known we wont know.
I feel ashamed at all the racist comments made about the driver and the truck owner here and on other sites.
Absolutely sickening,

So people who think the guy that blew a stop sign and killed 16 people is at fault and should be held accountable along with the shady company he works for are racist? Wow what a bigoted statement to make, sickening is right. Guy has bills to pay what a joke.

[Okotok]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Interesting, would they have shut down Day & Ross, Bison, TransX, Arrow, etc if it were one of their drivers involved?

Interesting indeed. Carrier profile violations are usually what will shut you down from what I recall. Not sure how those ratios apply to number of trucks vs. violations etc. and if they were applied consistent with the rules/policy in this case.

[Crankbait]

I remember a report on one of the surviving players saying he saw headlights and then hearing the driver make a surprised sound.

was the driver already partially in the lane heading south with the trailer straddling both lanes?

[HalfBreed]

Originally Posted by Crankbait

I remember a report on one of the surviving players saying he saw headlights and then hearing the driver make a surprised sound.

was the driver already partially in the lane heading south with the trailer straddling both lanes?

Wow, that paints a whole new picture for me. Interesting observation.

[ctd]

Originally Posted by Jigger

So people who think the guy that blew a stop sign and killed 16 people is at fault and should be held accountable along with the shady company he works for are racist? Wow what a bigoted statement to make, sickening is right. Guy has bills to pay what a joke.

Well there were a few comments that were bringing color of the driver and owner in earlier and it seems they have been erased and or edited.
What defines a shady company?
The joke is the attitude that the truck owner does not have the right to continue business until the investigation is done. Does the bus company. Are they suspended?


The news reported the company had a couple of minor infractions. Who the heck doesnt when your trucking.
If you went and "audited fully" the majority of trucking companies you would see some major and lots of minor infractions. Even from the reputable ones.it depends on how much money they have to throw at the problem to make it go away is the question.....

Stating an opinion is not a fact.
There are lots of opinions on this matter based on other opinions.

The facts are 16 passed away, a few more injured, bus drove into a semi truck trailer at a intersection.
How, and why are under investigation. Until then we wont know.

This would be a very interesting case to go through with the evidence as it may not give any answers, or it may give them all.

[calgarygringo]

And if that was the case where does the bus driver fit into blame on this whole thing? I bet for insurance reasons there would be a big partial shift of blame.

Originally Posted by sillyak

My theory is similar

[270person]

Originally Posted by Dick284

I’ll throw my theory into the mix.

The game time in Nipewan was 7:30 or 8:00PM
The collision happened just before 5:00pm

This I know that for 7:30 games in the AJHL the teams are at the rink for 5:00PM(some even earlier). Were the Bronco’s running a bit late? Even for an 8:00PM game I’d say they were at least 30 mins behind schedule. If this presumption proves correct, I think the bus was doing a tad over the speed limit.

Bus was 20 minutes out of Nipawin so they'd have been at the arena by 5:30 absolute latest. I'd say time wasn't a factor.

Judging by the aerial photos the bus hit the trailer about mid point which points at the truck either blowing the stop sign completely or pulling out in front of the bus. Bus had right of way 100% so there's not a lot of ways the blame can fall.

[calgarygringo]

Unfortunately that is not how it works in the blame game in the courts or the insurance industry. They will also look at weather the bus driver had time to avoid the crash in some way or another. If they determine the truck was in the intersection way ahead and there was a potential the bus driver could have swerved or taken the ditch they may end up laying some of the blame there. This happens a lot and most people never hear about it and always assume that because as in this example the trucker was in the wrong they still may possibly put some per cent of the blame on the other side saying there was not enough attention being paid to the driving.

Back to the old days we used to call it driving defensively. Not saying that is what happened but it may be a possibility they are looking at and why this thing is taking so long to get any answers.

Originally Posted by 270person

Bus was 20 minutes out of Nipawin so they'd have been at the arena by 5:30 absolute latest. I'd say time wasn't a factor.

Judging by the aerial photos the bus hit the trailer about mid point which points at the truck either blowing the stop sign completely or pulling out in front of the bus. Bus had right of way 100% so there's not a lot of ways the blame can fall.

[elkhunter11]

About the only way that the truck driver is not at fault, is if the truck had broken down in the intersection, and wasn't moving. Otherwise the truck driver either didn't stop, or he stopped and then proceeded from the stop sign before it was safe to do so. A person can try and make up excuses for the truck driver, but if he couldn't see down the highway because of the sun, he should not have entered the intersection, and if he cut it so close that even 20km/hr difference in the speed of the bus caused the collision , then he cut it too close. I could care less who the truck driver is, if he ran the stop sign, or pulled into the intersection when it wasn't safe to do so, he should be held accountable. Regardless, of what happened, unless an eye witness suddenly steps forward, the evidence is not likely to change at this point, and the investigators should have determined what actually happened by now. At this point, it's a matter of if and when they decide to release the details of their investigation.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Highly unlikely that the conclusion will prevent this from happening again.

That may be, but that has always been one of the reasons for a fatality inquiry or an investigation. If the investigation was just to gather enough evidence to charge someone, that could have been completed long ago.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

About the only way that the truck driver is not at fault, is if the truck had broken down in the intersection, and wasn't moving. Otherwise the truck driver either didn't stop, or he stopped and then proceeded from the stop sign before it was safe to do so. A person can try and make up excuses for the truck driver, but if he couldn't see down the highway because of the sun, he should not have entered the intersection, and if he cut it so close that even 20km/hr difference in the speed of the bus caused the collision , then he cut it too close. I could care less who the truck driver is, if he ran the stop sign, or pulled into the intersection when it wasn't safe to do so, he should be held accountable. Regardless, of what happened, unless an eye witness suddenly steps forward, the evidence is not likely to change at this point, and the investigators should have determined what actually happened by now. At this point, it's a matter of if and when they decide to release the details of their investigation.

You seem to be assuming that the only reason for an investigation is to determine fault or gather evidence to support a charge? The investigators will be tasked with looking at everything that could be a contributing factor no matter how small that may have played a part.

If their only task it to determine individual fault or lay a charge that could have been done a long time ago. You are correct that there is very little excuse for not stopping or proceeding into the path of another vehicle. The law states that one must come to a complete stop at a stop sign and remain stopped until it is safe to proceed. That is the minimum that the driver might be charged with. Multiple death does not by itself demand a higher charge but multiple dead does demand an investigation into the possibility of a more serious charge and also other factors that may have contributed.

Determining a more serious charge will involve evidence to determine if what happened was the result of momentary inattention or was the result of actions or attitude that could be construed to be criminal negligence on the part of the driver. It must also be determined that if the driver made a bad judgment was that bad judgment the result of the driver's negligence or was it the result of inadequate training. If it is inadequate training is there someone else that is guilty of negligence? It goes on an on. Every turn has to be investigated.

Some may think that the investigation is over when charges are laid. If that was the case some of the victim's families may not feel their concerns were addressed or some may have questions long afterwards when the ability to provide an answer is available.

It is obvious that this is more than a fender bender. It may be just my opinion but I would prefer an investigation that leaves no stone un turned.

[spoiledsaskhunter]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

You seem to be assuming that the only reason for an investigation is to determine fault or gather evidence to support a charge? The investigators will be tasked with looking at everything that could be a contributing factor no matter how small that may have played a part.

If their only task it to determine individual fault or lay a charge that could have been done a long time ago. You are correct that there is very little excuse for not stopping or proceeding into the path of another vehicle. The law states that one must come to a complete stop at a stop sign and remain stopped until it is safe to proceed. That is the minimum that the driver might be charged with. Multiple death does not by itself demand a higher charge but multiple dead does demand an investigation into the possibility of a more serious charge and also other factors that may have contributed.

Determining a more serious charge will involve evidence to determine if what happened was the result of momentary inattention or was the result of actions or attitude that could be construed to be criminal negligence on the part of the driver. It must also be determined that if the driver made a bad judgment was that bad judgment the result of the driver's negligence or was it the result of inadequate training. If it is inadequate training is there someone else that is guilty of negligence? It goes on an on. Every turn has to be investigated.

Some may think that the investigation is over when charges are laid. If that was the case some of the victim's families may not feel their concerns were addressed or some may have questions long afterwards when the ability to provide an answer is available.

It is obvious that this is more than a fender bender. It may be just my opinion but I would prefer an investigation that leaves no stone un turned.

you've obviously been around this kind of stuff before.....some of the opinions on here are obviously made by folks who have never investigated a fatal mva. not saying they're wrong to wonder and conject, but it makes a huge difference when you actually have some experience with an investigation. sad part of it is, when all the legal nuances are considered, the result makes you shake your head when lives are lost and the person responsible pays a fine for leaving a stop sign before it's safe to do so. if i were to make a prediction, it would be that that is the outcome (but i've been wrong many times before)

[1899b]

Originally Posted by spoiledsaskhunter

you've obviously been around this kind of stuff before.....some of the opinions on here are obviously made by folks who have never investigated a fatal mva. not saying they're wrong to wonder and conject, but it makes a huge difference when you actually have some experience with an investigation. sad part of it is, when all the legal nuances are considered, the result makes you shake your head when lives are lost and the person responsible pays a fine for leaving a stop sign before it's safe to do so. if i were to make a prediction, it would be that that is the outcome (but i've been wrong many times before)

I have the same feeling on all counts. The end result will not be what most want to hear. Sad but reality is reality.

[kidd]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

Unfortunately that is not how it works in the blame game in the courts or the insurance industry. They will also look at weather the bus driver had time to avoid the crash in some way or another. If they determine the truck was in the intersection way ahead and there was a potential the bus driver could have swerved or taken the ditch they may end up laying some of the blame there. This happens a lot and most people never hear about it and always assume that because as in this example the trucker was in the wrong they still may possibly put some per cent of the blame on the other side saying there was not enough attention being paid to the driving.

Back to the old days we used to call it driving defensively. Not saying that is what happened but it may be a possibility they are looking at and why this thing is taking so long to get any answers.

This. Last winter my buddy was following another vehicle, which did a donut and was sliding to a stop in the driving lane. Buddy hit the front bumper of that vehicle with her front bumper (it was now facing her). It was deemed her fault, because she hit the other guy even though the other guy messed up and lost control. So frustrating. Insurance felt that she should have avoided the problem ahead. Where I am going with this is that the bus hit the truck. What happened and why is the mystery.
kidd

[liar]

what should be black and white can get murky when insurance companies and lawyers get involved . a driver that had a truck on with the same company as us hit a pick up truck that blew a stop sign . the pu driver's lawyer went through the drivers log book and found a time violation from the week before and was able to convince a judge that this may of been a contributing factor in the accident and fault was split between the guy who clearly blew the stop sign and the driver driving legally .
fact can be stranger than fiction .

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by calgarygringo

And if that was the case where does the bus driver fit into blame on this whole thing? I bet for insurance reasons there would be a big partial shift of blame.

Why ? He had the right of way. Why can't we accept one party did something illegal and stupid therefore is at fault ?

Grizz