Good question zorry I think they would be ground but can't swear to that.
Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123
FedEx Truck, Bus Crash
- Thread starter zorry
- Start date
Good question zorry I think they would be ground but can't swear to that.
Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123
I think he was talking about liability wise. If the driver was speeding its another nugget in the lawyers pocket.
Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123
Yet according to the CHP the truck sideswiped the car before the truck crossed the median.
"There was a small white sedan in front of the truck," California Highway Patrol Officer Lacy Heitman said. "The FedEx vehicle did sideswipe the sedan before it crossed the median."
True. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of accidents involving trucks and cars, it's the cars that were at fault in causing the accident.
Alol the early reports I saw said "both drivers were killed," indicating the driver of the truck, and the driver of the bus. The latest reports seem to clarify that. There has yet been no mention of a co-driver in the truck.
"The driver of the charter bus and the driver of the FedEx truck that struck it were also killed, authorities said."
minnieskid
Rookie Expediter
The earliest reports said both truck drivers AND the bus driver were killed.
At a Fedex facility picking up and they hear the car and truck were heading in the same direction and the car cut off the truck.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using EO Forums mobile app
At a Fedex facility picking up and they hear the car and truck were heading in the same direction and the car cut off the truck.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using EO Forums mobile app
Well thoughts and prayers for all those touched by this terrible thing. With both drivers deceased may be hard to tell if the car or the truck really caused this accident. Unless maybe FEDEX was running the dash cams that transmit back the data. Be sad if the blame is pinned on the now deceased driver who can't defend himself if it wasn't his fault.
Last edited:
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
IF Kennedy would've ducked. I hate what ifs.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Officials with the Los Angeles Unified School District – which had 19 students on board – along with Humboldt State University and the California State University system, were also at the news conference to lend their condolences. “The great irony here, the great sadness, is these are the students California needs to be successful going forward,” CSU Chancellor Timothy White said, saying the students “had their dream of going to Humboldt State taken away by this tragic accident.”
Oh
My
God
Oh
My
God
Polish_Drive
Rookie Expediter
This whole accident is a tragedy. My prairies go out to the families.
You never know when its you time to go...
You never know when its you time to go...
That has come close to happening to us a couple of times. A car would pass, cut in way too soon and then slowed down. We managed to miss them when it has happened, but not by much.
This is why I say that the car was going the same was. This is from a CBS Bay Area story.
CHP spokesperson Tracy Hoover said the truck sideswiped the sedan, which was in front of the bus, before striking the bus head on. Both the truck and the bus went up in flames moments after the collision.
CHP spokesperson Tracy Hoover said the truck sideswiped the sedan, which was in front of the bus, before striking the bus head on. Both the truck and the bus went up in flames moments after the collision.
zorry
Veteran Expediter
If either of the commercial drivers had survived, they would have been poked, prodded,and put under a microscope.
As their companies will.
If the Nissan tangled with the FedEx to start the accident is there any reason that driver shouldn't be blood and alcohol tested ?
Mods, if this begins a soapbox type discussion about civil rights, move this.
Also, no one mentioned the fact that the bus driver could have an HOS issue.
This wouldn't have changed anything except increase the bus company's liability. ( which is silly, but true.)
This is exactly why I went from outlaw trucker to Mr Clean many years ago.
Not the FMCSA.
Lawyers and liability issues.
As their companies will.
If the Nissan tangled with the FedEx to start the accident is there any reason that driver shouldn't be blood and alcohol tested ?
Mods, if this begins a soapbox type discussion about civil rights, move this.
Also, no one mentioned the fact that the bus driver could have an HOS issue.
This wouldn't have changed anything except increase the bus company's liability. ( which is silly, but true.)
This is exactly why I went from outlaw trucker to Mr Clean many years ago.
Not the FMCSA.
Lawyers and liability issues.
Last edited:
zorry
Veteran Expediter
I believe Ground would be all ICs or employees of IC's.
I believe Freight, as well as Express, would be all employees of FedEx.
I know when I worked at Schneider, employees were held to a higher standard.
Tougher physical because of company worker's comp was one example.
Jamin_Joe
Seasoned Expediter
Often I take the side of Truck Driver, in Richmond Virginia I see way too many distracted NonCommecrial drivers. I once saw a stupid lady reading a book while driving, this really happened!
I think some of the penalties that apply to commercial drivers should be applied to the regular drivers.
I think some of the penalties that apply to commercial drivers should be applied to the regular drivers.
In breaking-news stories like this, early reports are often spotty and conflicting. And even when all the facts are in, conflicting interpretations of the facts can continue for a long time.
I once served on a jury in a traffic case where a car struck a bicyclist. The jury's task was to listen to the testimony and then determine the percentage of fault that was attributable to each party. For three full days, we sat in the jury box listening to people talk about this accident that happened in a split second.
We heard from the car driver, a passenger who was in that car, witnesses, accident reconstruction specialists, and even a physicist; all sharing their particular view of what happened. We saw photos and drawings of the scene. We listened to the closing remarks from legal teams representing each side.
As people presented their information, it was interesting to see how your own view of what happened would change with each new detail that was added. You can probably see same phenomenon unfolding in yourself as you read this post.
All I said so far about this accident is that car struck a bicyclist and there was a passenger in the car. A perceptive reader might have noted that the bicyclist was not on the list of people who testified about the accident. With that little bit said, the image of the accident that you have in your mind is probably more complete. The image may not be right, but it exists nevertheless because of how the human brain works.
Notice how your image of the accident changes as each fact is added:
1. It happened on a four-lane city street.
2. The car driver and bicyclist were both adult females.
3. The car driver and her female passenger were on their way home from work.
4. The accident happened around 5:00 p.m. in daylight.
5. It was raining.
6. While the plaintiff's attorney went to great lengths to prove that the car was speeding, no evidence was presented that made that case. Convincing evidence to the contrary was presented.
7. The bicyclist was struck broadside ("T-boned") while pedaling her bicycle through an intersection.
8. The bicycle was a single-speed bike designed to be operated with the bicyclist sitting upright (not crouched over like with a racing or touring bike).
9. The bicyclist was not wearing a helmet.
10. The intersection was controlled by a 2-way stop sign that required cross-street traffic to stop.
11. The bicyclist entered the intersection from the cross street.
12. The bicyclist had a bag of groceries hanging on her right handlebar.
13. The bicyclist was carrying a large, open umbrella in her left hand.
We jurors took this and much more information into account and made our decision. But the thing that amazed me most about this case was what happened after.
We were told by the judge to not investigate the accident ourselves and to not go visit the scene. I followed the judge's instructions but, out of curiosity, I went to check out the scene when the trial was over.
Once there, I was shocked to see how different everything appeared compared to the image of the scene I had in my mind based on days of testimony, photos and drawings. Even with the huge body of information we had about the scene in the courtroom, my mental image of the scene was quite different than the true scene as it existed on the ground.
Having seen the scene with my own eyes, I left believing that the jury made the correct decision. I also left amazed that with so much time and truly professional effort placed into presenting the scene to the jury, the scene on the ground differed so much from the scene in my mind.
Ever since then, I have been careful when listening to early news reports. Not only are the reporters eager to be the first to tell the story, when all the facts are in, and even if the facts are uncontested, it does not follow that the views we develop will accurately reflect what actually happened on the ground.
I once served on a jury in a traffic case where a car struck a bicyclist. The jury's task was to listen to the testimony and then determine the percentage of fault that was attributable to each party. For three full days, we sat in the jury box listening to people talk about this accident that happened in a split second.
We heard from the car driver, a passenger who was in that car, witnesses, accident reconstruction specialists, and even a physicist; all sharing their particular view of what happened. We saw photos and drawings of the scene. We listened to the closing remarks from legal teams representing each side.
As people presented their information, it was interesting to see how your own view of what happened would change with each new detail that was added. You can probably see same phenomenon unfolding in yourself as you read this post.
All I said so far about this accident is that car struck a bicyclist and there was a passenger in the car. A perceptive reader might have noted that the bicyclist was not on the list of people who testified about the accident. With that little bit said, the image of the accident that you have in your mind is probably more complete. The image may not be right, but it exists nevertheless because of how the human brain works.
Notice how your image of the accident changes as each fact is added:
1. It happened on a four-lane city street.
2. The car driver and bicyclist were both adult females.
3. The car driver and her female passenger were on their way home from work.
4. The accident happened around 5:00 p.m. in daylight.
5. It was raining.
6. While the plaintiff's attorney went to great lengths to prove that the car was speeding, no evidence was presented that made that case. Convincing evidence to the contrary was presented.
7. The bicyclist was struck broadside ("T-boned") while pedaling her bicycle through an intersection.
8. The bicycle was a single-speed bike designed to be operated with the bicyclist sitting upright (not crouched over like with a racing or touring bike).
9. The bicyclist was not wearing a helmet.
10. The intersection was controlled by a 2-way stop sign that required cross-street traffic to stop.
11. The bicyclist entered the intersection from the cross street.
12. The bicyclist had a bag of groceries hanging on her right handlebar.
13. The bicyclist was carrying a large, open umbrella in her left hand.
We jurors took this and much more information into account and made our decision. But the thing that amazed me most about this case was what happened after.
We were told by the judge to not investigate the accident ourselves and to not go visit the scene. I followed the judge's instructions but, out of curiosity, I went to check out the scene when the trial was over.
Once there, I was shocked to see how different everything appeared compared to the image of the scene I had in my mind based on days of testimony, photos and drawings. Even with the huge body of information we had about the scene in the courtroom, my mental image of the scene was quite different than the true scene as it existed on the ground.
Having seen the scene with my own eyes, I left believing that the jury made the correct decision. I also left amazed that with so much time and truly professional effort placed into presenting the scene to the jury, the scene on the ground differed so much from the scene in my mind.
Ever since then, I have been careful when listening to early news reports. Not only are the reporters eager to be the first to tell the story, when all the facts are in, and even if the facts are uncontested, it does not follow that the views we develop will accurately reflect what actually happened on the ground.
Last edited:
Polish_Drive
Rookie Expediter
NBC news is saying that a witness has seen FedEx truck on fire B 4 it has cross the median.
With that said, what I find amazing is the general public really has no idea what their fellow drivers are doing behind the wheel that could cause a tragedy like this.
Since the Nissan was going the same way as the bus it wasn't the cause of the truck crossing the freeway. Please read the part that the Nissan was in front of the bus.
CHP spokesperson Tracy Hoover said the truck sideswiped the sedan, which was in front of the bus, before striking the bus head on. Both the truck and the bus went up in flames moments after the collision.
CHP spokesperson Tracy Hoover said the truck sideswiped the sedan, which was in front of the bus, before striking the bus head on. Both the truck and the bus went up in flames moments after the collision.