Homeland 'Security', eh?

[cheri1122]

http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=35773

This is mindboggling: a vehicle runs a red light, crashes into a tanker, causing it to explode, and Homeland Security officials insist that the carrier that owned the tanker is responsible for the cost of the cleanup?!
It appears that Homeland Security officials have their heads in a very dark place, and may be a bigger threat to citizens behaving in a lawful manner, than the threats they were created to guard against...

 

[lanier1]

I am not a proponent for Homeland Security but the way I read the article it sounds as though the director of Emergency Management services for the county just happens to be the director for Homeland Security in the county as well. I imagine it is an EMS issue and not Homeland Security.

Right or wrong it seems who the responsibility lies with is a matter of law unless challenged. It appears they are going to challenge it and I would agree that it seems wrong for a company who is not at fault be responsible for the clean up.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Cheri ,
I understand that the person causing the accident should at least share in the responsibility of the cleanup. I think though that if the carrier hadn't brought dangerous cargo out on to the roadway there wouldn't be the hazardous cleanup in the first place...

 

[Tennesseahawk]

That's the answer then... stop hauling hazmat on the roads. We don't need it anyways. By the way, I think JFK was partially at fault for being shot, since he forgot to duck. That's the same mentality DOT gives for accidents in court... if you weren't there, it wouldn't have happened. Thanx for the obvious, MrDOT, but can I borrow your magic wand so I can create your perfect world?

-Vampire Super Slooth Trucker!!!

 

[cheri1122]

"Taking resposibility for your actions" is the basic premise of American law - an innocent party should not be made to pay for the actions of a guilty party. I just don't see where there's any justification for assigning any of the cost to the innocent party in this case, when there's zero fault on their part.
If carriers stop hauling hazardous materials on the public roadways, we will all be out of work. But we'll have a lot of company, cause without any fuel deliveries, nobody goes nowhere.

 

[letzrockexpress]

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I am saying here. I don't believe Hazmat shouldn't be transported on the roadway, I am saying that the risk of an accident should at least be part of the cost of doing business when it is being transported by the carrier. If it wasn't dangerous to begin with it wouldn't be called "hazardous".