Humboldt Broncos accident

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well the issue is that this guy already admitted to driving dangerously and that has an inherent criminal aspect in it. His defence would have been that this was a true and genuine accident, a mistake if you will and you can't punish someone criminally for a genuine, honest mistake. But when he admits to dangerous driving, he's already admitting to driving in a manner that is a marked departure (legal standard) from the norm. Caselaw has time and time said that a momentary lapse of judgment - even if it results in death cannot be dangerous driving and that should have been (or I thought it would have been) his defence but now that he's admitted that he was driving dangerously to the criminal standard, especially for these many counts jail becomes really the main option.

Thank you!

[tonytiger55]

This should have gone to trial. Also I don't think jail time would do him or the prison system any good. The guy has to carry that in his mind for the rest of his life.
I think the director of the company should be facing some questioning in the dock.

[blueToy]

I am no expert in these situations but I'm assuming now that he has pleaded guilty, all the facts and evidence against him are now sealed away? Basically, we'll never know what he was doing leading up to him running the stop sign at speed. Or are all the files against him open for public viewing?

I appreciate the fact he wants to take responsibility for his actions, but it warrants a sentence to make others who drive carelessly or reckless something to think about. By his own admission, he took the lives of 16 people and maimed many more by his actions. His sentence should reflect the pain and suffering for those affected. It should also be heavy enough to sting those who push that envelope of irresponsibility. Personally, I would think a jail sentence of 5-8 years plus losing the ability to ever drive anything past a class 5 licence.

But two other things about this plea irks me. Firstly, we will never know the level of guilt I think should also be looked at, his boss or the owner of the company he was driving for. For the owner of the truck, I assume this is far from being over still. Secondly, that particular intersection has more then a history of being dangerous. From the very first time I saw those images of this accident and how trees were so close to the intersection right-of-way on a secondary highway, I thought there is way more to this story then a truck running a stop sign. Turns out I wasn't the only one. Buried in a huge article on this guilty plea in the Herald, was this little gem:


A safety review of the rural crossroads done by a consulting firm for the Saskatchewan government was released last month. It said sight lines are a safety concern at the spot.

A stand of trees, mostly on private property, obstructs the view of drivers approaching from the south and east — the same directions the bus and semi-trailer were coming from when they collided, the review said.


It recommended negotiating with the landowner to remove the trees, and also suggested rumble strips, larger signs and painting “Stop” and “Stop Ahead” on the road.

The report’s authors determined that six collisions had taken place at the intersection between 1990 and 2017 and another 14 happened on roads nearby.

One of those collisions was deadly. In 1997, six people were killed when a pickup truck heading east failed to stop on Highway 335 and was hit by a southbound tractor-trailer.


The way I see it, those trees are a wind break for the farmer who lives near that intersection. He doesn't give a rats ass how many people die at this intersection because of his trees. He wants his wind break. After the deadly accident in 1997, the government should of either forced him to cut them down or reduced the speeds nearing this intersection. Lots of government ass dragging lead to this bus/truck accident too I think.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This should have gone to trial. Also I don't think jail time would do him or the prison system any good. The guy has to carry that in his mind for the rest of his life.
I think the director of the company should be facing some questioning in the dock.

As crappy as living with it may be (who knows how remorseful he truly is or how he is able to cope with it over time, but I'd like to think he is genuinely remorseful), that is getting off pretty easy in my books. It's impossible to quantify how guilty someone really feels, and further decide what level of arbitrary guilt equates to a sufficient punishment. I can't even imagine what the families of those kids must be feeling, but at least for some of them I guessing that knowing the person responsible was actually punished beyond having to say 'sorry' would help with closure. I am speculating, but I feel like if I was in that situation, I would feel better if the person solely responsible for taking away my child was punished. I think a long prison sentence would be good - it's not all about reform. He took away 16 lives and changed the lives of many others, and after freely admitting he as driving dangerously, he shouldn't get to live another minute of his life as a free man in my opinion (based on the info we have anyway, which I acknowledge is surely not everything).

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Buried in a huge article on this guilty plea in the Herald, was this little gem:


A safety review of the rural crossroads done by a consulting firm for the Saskatchewan government was released last month. It said sight lines are a safety concern at the spot.

A stand of trees, mostly on private property, obstructs the view of drivers approaching from the south and east — the same directions the bus and semi-trailer were coming from when they collided, the review said.


It recommended negotiating with the landowner to remove the trees, and also suggested rumble strips, larger signs and painting “Stop” and “Stop Ahead” on the road.

The report’s authors determined that six collisions had taken place at the intersection between 1990 and 2017 and another 14 happened on roads nearby.

One of those collisions was deadly. In 1997, six people were killed when a pickup truck heading east failed to stop on Highway 335 and was hit by a southbound tractor-trailer.


The way I see it, those trees are a wind break for the farmer who lives near that intersection. He doesn't give a rats ass how many people die at this intersection because of his trees. He wants his wind break. After the deadly accident in 1997, the government should of either forced him to cut them down or reduced the speeds nearing this intersection. Lots of government ass dragging lead to this bus/truck accident too I think.

I grew up around there and while it's been over 20 years that I've lived there I have driven that intersection hundreds of times in my youth, it was/is well know locally as being dangerous. I don't think anyone has issues with the trees and I highly doubt that family doesn't care. There are many ways to make that intersection safer - none have just ever been done.

[blueToy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I grew up around there and while it's been over 20 years that I've lived there I have driven that intersection hundreds of times in my youth, it was/is well know locally as being dangerous. I don't think anyone has issues with the trees and I highly doubt that family doesn't care. There are many ways to make that intersection safer - none have just ever been done.

I'm pretty sure this driver didn't grow up around there, and didn't know its history. He shouldn't have to. Its about road design and speeds. Its why you don't see trees along any major highways, especially if they create a possible blind spot or obstruction. Had the bus driver seen that the truck was not going to stop from a extra couple of hundred meters, things would not be where they are today. We could argue that till we are blue about what could of been with this crash, but its not the first time this happened. The other accidents at this intersection, including one killing six people and it was the same directions should of warranted immediate action to reduce its blind spot. If I was the owner of that property after the first fatality and its known to be dangerous even possibly because of my tree, I would've cut them down. I'll re quote from the article :

It said sight lines are a safety concern at the spot.

A stand of trees, mostly on private property, obstructs the view of drivers approaching from the south and east — the same directions the bus and semi-trailer were coming from when they collided, the review said.


So either no one has ever made the connection or many people have failed for a long time to make this intersection safe. My bet is the latter, and its because of the trees. Seeing the trees are very large and mature, they've been there for a very long time. I can see some local county bureaucrat not wanting to force a guy to cut down his wind break, and also removing any privacy they provide, so they should of slowed the speeds dramatically ( to 50 ) coming up to that intersection.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We could argue that till we are blue about what could of been ......

Well you win that one automatically.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

so they should of slowed the speeds dramatically ( to 50 ) coming up to that intersection.

Yes, thank you for agreeing with my point. There were many things that could have been done many times over, including and outside of, cutting down trees. Hopefully they actually finally do something.

[Mitsu3000gt]

How do the trees prevent people from obeying the rules of the road and not being careless drivers? If the trees create a blind spot, you don't just blow through the intersection, that is as basic as it gets. There are countless bad intersections, horrible road designs, blind spots, etc. everywhere, if we changed them every time there was an accident it would be chaos. 100% the driver's fault and not the road or the trees, IMO. I've been on countless undivided highways where the dotted passing sections are EXTREMELY sketchy, way too close to corners and hills - if I passed into a blind corner that would be 100% my fault not the road's fault.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This should have gone to trial.

why? personally i would assume quick closure is best for the families vs. a long drawn-out trial where his defense would surely put up arguments that would offend people.

this way he is guilty and it's a done deal so people can move on with their lives (including him).

[BavarianBeast]

I say guillotine

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

why? personally i would assume quick closure is best for the families vs. a long drawn-out trial where his defense would surely put up arguments that would offend people.

this way he is guilty and it's a done deal so people can move on with their lives (including him).

A number of reasons. Mistu wrote he took away 16 lives. Thats the problem. The truck driver did not wake up that morning with that intention to kill. You can't put him in the same box as a child killer for example.
Its also so we can see the details of events and testimony leading up to the crash. Lessons can be learned. This then can become case for so legislation to be developed for road traffic safety or processes in business that might have impacted this. But we will never know as it never went to trail. So the potential for this crash to happen again exists.
Putting up arguments to offend people Vs to finding out events that led to the crash so this does not happen again...? In a civic society do we want this to happen to other kids? I dont, so I would rather this go to trail so we know exactly what happened and the factors that contributed to it.

[blueToy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How do the trees prevent people from obeying the rules of the road and not being careless drivers? If the trees create a blind spot, you don't just blow through the intersection, that is as basic as it gets. There are countless bad intersections, horrible road designs, blind spots, etc. everywhere, if we changed them every time there was an accident it would be chaos. 100% the driver's fault and not the road or the trees, IMO. I've been on countless undivided highways where the dotted passing sections are EXTREMELY sketchy, way too close to corners and hills - if I passed into a blind corner that would be 100% my fault not the road's fault.

I'm not saying this driver is anything less then 100% guilty of causing this accident. He admitted to it. What I'm saying is that if the driver of the bus had a bit more notice of the truck about to run this intersection, he MAY have had a little bit more time to react to the situation, possibly, just possibility avoiding the carnage. Go back and look at the photos of the intersection. Both drivers had VERY little time to react, and mostly because the trees block the sightlines. I know if this was being built today, there is no way any trees would be allowed next to the highway. Also I don't expect every dangerous area to be made safer, BUT, this particular intersection has had many serious accidents over the last 20 years, including one that killed several people. This intersection has PROVEN itself to be a safety concern.

" A safety review of the rural crossroads done by a consulting firm for the Saskatchewan government was released last month. It said sight lines are a safety concern at the spot.

A stand of trees, mostly on private property, obstructs the view of drivers approaching from the south and east — the same directions the bus and semi-trailer were coming from when they collided, the review said."

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A number of reasons. Mistu wrote he took away 16 lives. Thats the problem. The truck driver did not wake up that morning with that intention to kill. You can't put him in the same box as a child killer for example.
Its also so we can see the details of events and testimony leading up to the crash. Lessons can be learned. This then can become case for so legislation to be developed for road traffic safety or processes in business that might have impacted this. But we will never know as it never went to trail. So the potential for this crash to happen again exists.
Putting up arguments to offend people Vs to finding out events that led to the crash so this does not happen again...? In a civic society do we want this to happen to other kids? I dont, so I would rather this go to trail so we know exactly what happened and the factors that contributed to it.

fair points and i agree about the lessons to be learned so that hopefully something can be put in place to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. However i don't think a trial is the only way to get the learnings from this. The investigation by authorities happened already and all the details are there for people to build new legislation on regardless of whether a trial happens or not. i honestly don't think his testimony in court would be of any value at this point... what could he possibly say that would help? he blew past a stop sign and that's it. he was probably in shock and has no recollection of the time leading up to the crash but even if he did, i just can't imagine what additional valuable info he would be able to give during a trial that hasn't already been collected.

people always say "how can a lawyer defend this guy/gal" and that would inevitably happen here too. just makes it that much worse for the families. This way he's guilty and they don't have to re-live the pain going through a trial where him and his defence try to argue he's innocent.

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How do people think the guy should be punished?

Ya this is a tough one. I have no clue.

[mrsingh]

Interesting article on this:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...he-right-thing

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

fair points and i agree about the lessons to be learned so that hopefully something can be put in place to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. However i don't think a trial is the only way to get the learnings from this. The investigation by authorities happened already and all the details are there for people to build new legislation on regardless of whether a trial happens or not. i honestly don't think his testimony in court would be of any value at this point... what could he possibly say that would help? he blew past a stop sign and that's it. he was probably in shock and has no recollection of the time leading up to the crash but even if he did, i just can't imagine what additional valuable info he would be able to give during a trial that hasn't already been collected.

people always say "how can a lawyer defend this guy/gal" and that would inevitably happen here too. just makes it that much worse for the families. This way he's guilty and they don't have to re-live the pain going through a trial where him and his defence try to argue he's innocent.

Its because there is always two sides (or three) to the story. The police investigation is one.
I concede, yes it will be horrible to put the families through this. I don't think the defence would be arguing his innocence. I think people are getting misunderstood on that.
The investigation is one narrative, we also live in a society where people can be easily told what to think. The investigation has to be cross referenced as its set to gain a conviction. The cross examination is not in sense to catch the police out, but is the emotion of the case being used to bypass other areas and only pinning it on the driver..?
Thats the whole purpose of the cross examination. The trial is the checks and balance in the system.

Also the driver could give other details at the trial. Was he under pressure for time by his employer, how did he get the job, did his employer vet him properly etc His character is also judged in court.
There was a whole set events that led to this. The accident was only the end part. What was the start point? It might not have been the driver. The owner of the company could be cross examined for example. The trail has the ability to do that.

Quoted from CBC news

Sukhmander Singh, owner and director of Adesh Deol Trucking Ltd. and Sidhu's employer at the time of the crash, faces eight counts of failing to comply with various safety and log-keeping regulations.

I was listening to the news on the way home. Some of the parents said they think its not just him, its also the company that hired him is to blame. We will never know now.

Years ago I sat through a clear cut murder case at the Old Bailey in London. Guy killed his brother. Slam dunk case.
But the investigation and cross examination brought things I would have never considered. The defence did not argue his innocene. Other factors were brought up that the police did not (& could not show). It was evidence and factors outside of the police investigation. It had a massive impact how the jury saw the trail and the narrative presented by the police. It went from killer to manslaughter.. and the same questions raised.. do we really lock this guy up? How do we deal with it...?

Its totally changed my perception of how to interpret police investigations, when emotions are stirred up, and what the media reports.
There were so many external variables in this murder case that the police could not present. It raised the same question(s) that has come up in this discussion forum. Thats why I would have liked to see this go to trail.

I guess we are not going to know.

On a last point. I know people want to lock the guy and throw away they key. I don't defend him. But I would encourage anyone who thinks clear cut case such as this to sit through a entire trial from start to finish. So many important things are brought up that are not reported by the media or even presented by the invstigation.

[Misterman]

Just because the intersection is known to be dangerous, due to other people not obeying traffic signals and running the stop sign. Doesn't mean this guy should get any break for running it himself. That's a really poor argument to make.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Doesn't mean this guy should get any break for running it himself. That's a really poor argument to make.

Nobody has made that argument, come on now. He's going to get at minimum 3 years in jail, that's the law, but it could be as high as 14.

The question is, as I already mentioned, what should the jail time/punishment be? I think 14 is insane, especially if the man has a family. It will destroy that family.

But I do agree that 3 is too lenient. 5-6 years seems about right.

When I was younger, I didn't really understand jail time, I was all about lock em up, throw the key away. Now I realize just how crazy it is to lock a person away for a long time without good reason (criminal intent, not possible to rehabilitate). 5 years of my life? For an accident? People get into accidents all the time and kill people and don't see jail time, including running red lights. Yes, it's tragic that it happened with kids, and a lot of them, but that doesn't change it.

So I really don't agree with 10+ years for him to go away. 5-6? Sure, if anything, that is good strictly from the "set an example" standpoint. I just see zero value in putting him away forever.

And I get the aspect of revenge/retribution from the family. I'm strictly looking at this from a "what is best for everyone" standpoint. I mean, if I was of the mindset of the parents, well I'd probably be saying they all get baseball bats and go to town, life for a life kind of thing. But that isn't going to happen, and the guy going away for longer is just going to wreck more lives for a mistake that ANY of us could make.

If you guys are all content with the fact that one day, you weren't paying attention, ran a stop sign, and killed somebody and that would result in you going to jail for 15 years and you would plead guilty... well your dedication to your ideals is clearly stronger than mine,

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nobody has made that argument, come on now.

That's exactly what numerous people have made mention of. Matter of fact, you're trying to wrap your head around whether he should get a break or not below for like 4 paragraphs.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He's going to get at minimum 3 years in jail, that's the law, but it could be as high as 14.

The question is, as I already mentioned, what should the jail time/punishment be? I think 14 is insane, especially if the man has a family. It will destroy that family.

But I do agree that 3 is too lenient. 5-6 years seems about right.

When I was younger, I didn't really understand jail time, I was all about lock em up, throw the key away. Now I realize just how crazy it is to lock a person away for a long time without good reason (criminal intent, not possible to rehabilitate). 5 years of my life? For an accident? People get into accidents all the time and kill people and don't see jail time, including running red lights. Yes, it's tragic that it happened with kids, and a lot of them, but that doesn't change it.

So I really don't agree with 10+ years for him to go away. 5-6? Sure, if anything, that is good strictly from the "set an example" standpoint. I just see zero value in putting him away forever.

And I get the aspect of revenge/retribution from the family. I'm strictly looking at this from a "what is best for everyone" standpoint. I mean, if I was of the mindset of the parents, well I'd probably be saying they all get baseball bats and go to town, life for a life kind of thing. But that isn't going to happen, and the guy going away for longer is just going to wreck more lives for a mistake that ANY of us could make.

If you guys are all content with the fact that one day, you weren't paying attention, ran a stop sign, and killed somebody and that would result in you going to jail for 15 years and you would plead guilty... well your dedication to your ideals is clearly stronger than mine,

I don't agree with locking people up and throwing away the key either. But only because if you're going to take someones life away, then take their life away and put them in the ground. Why pay a bunch of tax money to feed them and house them until they die naturally?

This guys case is definitely different. He isn't some murderer nutjob. He just fucked up. It was a pretty ignorant fuck up, but I doubt he ever had any intention to kill anyone. Still though, I don't think blissful ignorance is a good excuse for reduced sentence.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's exactly what numerous people have made mention of. Matter of fact, you're trying to wrap your head around whether he should get a break or not below for like 4 paragraphs.
.

The law is something like minimum 3 years. There is nothing about it being a "break". It then goes up due to extenuating circumstances. So there is no "reduced sentence" there is a minimum, and then everything after. I haven't argued for a break. Within the laws given, 5-6 years would seem appropriate. Those advocating for more need to justify their reasoning, I've justified mine.