Humboldt Broncos tragedy.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

You’re suggesting there should be no due process for someone who clearly made a mistake and has clearly shown remorse since the incident. Just because of his immigration status as a permanent resident - he should be deported meanwhile there are plenty of canadian citizens who commit heinous crimes and we don’t abandon them above the arctic circle. maybe we should. this is a much larger issue.

why do politicians in the US advocate for a stay for prisoners on death row? obviously there are more deserving people and issues?

Sixteen people on the bus were killed and 13 were injured. Sidhu pleaded guilty to dangerous driving offences and was sentenced to eight years in prison. He was granted full parole last year.


Irrevocable harm + destroyed families + medical bills/therapy/insurance payouts for those 29 victims and their families run into the 10s million of dollars, much of the cost of which is borne by the taxpayer and all of which are borne by Canadians.

I get that he didn't mean to. Many people who kill others on the road "didn't mean to." They drove aggressively, or when they drank too much, or didn't sleep enough, or weren't paying attention or lost their temper. Those people still died. The harm was still done. And the harm was fully preventable by being a more responsible driver.

To see an an elected representative of canada doing the bidding of a non-citizen who killed 16 canadians...it's not something I can agree with. Maybe others can

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

Really CBC. "She doesn't want to reveal her identity for fear of losing her job" -Immediately proceed to reveal her gender and how long she's been an examiner, give a full body shot with framing so it's more than easy enough to profile

Edit: and her hands revealing her skin colour. ####ing amateurs

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

That a federal politician would advocate for this is disgusting imo. There are so many more worthy causes to advocate for than stopping the deportation of some guy who killed many young Canadians and spent years in a taxpayer funded correctional facility.

Paging this post is terrible.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Id rather my MP advocates for more deserving people and issues.

They aren’t? This is the only thing the people involved have done? Are you tracking their daily work load?

[You Need a Thneed]

Regardless of what might think on this one issue, the idea that we can't try to solve small issues until all big issues have been solved - needs to go away.

Just nonsense.

[VilleN]

From my understanding, I feel the trucking company is more to blame here - improper and inadequate training - the guy shouldn't have been on the road yet.

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by VilleN

From my understanding, I feel the trucking company is more to blame here - improper and inadequate training - the guy shouldn't have been on the road yet.

You legitimately believe that the employer is "more to blame" than the guy who got behind a wheel of a massive machine and chose to blow through a stop sign at highway speeds?

The stretch that some people take to absolve people of personal responsibility for things they do behind a wheel of a vehicle is unbelievable.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

You legitimately believe that the employer is "more to blame" than the guy who got behind a wheel of a massive machine and chose to blow through a stop sign at highway speeds?

The stretch that some people take to absolve people of personal responsibility for things they do behind a wheel of a vehicle is unbelievable.

No one is absolving him of personal responsibility, but he didn't have the adequate training.

[Kidder]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

You legitimately believe that the employer is "more to blame" than the guy who got behind a wheel of a massive machine and chose to blow through a stop sign at highway speeds?

The stretch that some people take to absolve people of personal responsibility for things they do behind a wheel of a vehicle is unbelievable.

Nope. You want to have a valid discussion come prepared with accurate material.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

You legitimately believe that the employer is "more to blame" than the guy who got behind a wheel of a massive machine and chose to blow through a stop sign at highway speeds?

The stretch that some people take to absolve people of personal responsibility for things they do behind a wheel of a vehicle is unbelievable.

This isn't right. Don't be obtuse. There's already enough tragedy surrounding this incident. You don't need to include non-factual inflammatory BS.

[YyjFlames]

I am not being obtuse. If someone chooses to drive a vehicle, inattentiveness or whatever excuse someone uses, is a choice.

He chose to blow through the stop sign -- whether because he missed the many, many, many markers or because he ignored them (which would only be known by him). From the judge's summary of decision:

[99] It is baffling, and incomprehensible, that a professional driver, even one with little experience, could miss so many markers over such a long distance. His inattention displays risky behaviour given he saw the signs but they did not register because he continued to focus on the trailers behind him.

https://www.sasktoday.ca/north/local...ntence-4131142

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

This isn't right. Don't be obtuse. There's already enough tragedy surrounding this incident. You don't need to include non-factual inflammatory BS.

You don't think he chose to blow through the stop sign?

Driver in Humboldt crash wasn't distracted at time of collision with bus, "No tire skid marks due to braking were left by the semi-tractor unit,"

It states Sidhu drove into the intersection at a speed of 86 to 96 km/h. This was despite a 1.2-metre-wide (four feet) stop sign with a red flashing light on top, as well as clearly marked highway signs warning of an intersection from approximately 400 metres, 300 metres, 200 metres and 100 metres away.

Not sure why it hasn't been talked about enough, witnesses from the peat moss yard said he had trouble shifting his truck when he left the yard from the sounds of grinding gears and getting up to speed, this is very simple, he had no experience shifting a fully loaded B-train(very different than empty) and didn't want to start over again. Since he's obviously not blind he absolutely chose to run that sign.

This is just another of many many reminders that we should have graduated licences for big trucks.

[chemgear]

SENTENCING DECISION

Factual Background

[5] The following is a summary of the facts.

. . .

[9] The maximum speed limit on both highways is 100 km/h. It is accepted that Mr. Sidhu was approaching the intersection at a speed between 86 and 96 km/h. Prior to the collision with the bus, Mr. Sidhu passed the following signs:

a) a “Junction Highway 35" sign located approximately 406 meters east of the intersection;

b) a “Stop Sign Ahead” sign located approximately 301 meters east of the intersection;

c) a “Gronlid ahead/Tisdale left/Nipawin right” sign located approximately 199 meters east of the intersection;

d) a “Highway 35 South/Highway 335 West/Highway 35 North” junction sign located approximately 104 meters east of the intersection; and

e) a “Stop” sign located approximately 19 meters east of the center of the intersection. This was an oversized stop sign, four feet in diameter, affixed to the light standard on the north shoulder of Highway 35. A functional red “traffic” light, which flashed once per second, was attached to the light standard, just above the stop sign.

[10] The semi-tractor unit did not stop prior to entering the intersection. It left no tire marks due to braking.

. . .

[14] No environmental conditions contributed to the collision. The sky was clear and the position of the sun leading up to the collision was not a factor. The intersection was clearly visible to Mr. Sidhu as he was approaching it prior to the collision. Specifically, the trees in the south east quadrant, at the corner of the intersection, would not have obstructed Mr. Sidhu’s ability to observe the bus approaching the intersection if he had stopped the semi-tractor unit to check for traffic before entering the intersection, as required by the posted signage.

[Kipper_3434]

Plenty of blame for both the driver and company. Don't need stricter regs if you simply add more jail time for negligent killings.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

If someone chooses to drive a vehicle, inattentiveness or whatever excuse someone uses, is a choice.

I don't even know what this means. Choosing to drive a vehicle and being involved in a collision out of negligence and inattentiveness doesn't mean that you "chose" to have the collision or occur, or in this case, "chose" to blow the stop sign.

I like how you quoted the parts that fit your narrative, but neglected to quote the part that directly contradicts that he "chose" to blow through the sign.

https://canlii.ca/t/hzbj5

[35] He did not testify at the sentencing hearing, but learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Sidhu explained events leading up to the collision. He was well rested on April 6, 2018, when he drove from Saskatoon to Carrot River to pick up a load of peat moss at a fertilizer plant. He had not been to this area before, and got lost and stuck on the side of the road. A passerby helped and he was able to attend to the plant, load and tarp his cargo and start his return journey. Approximately 10 to 15 minutes away from the fateful intersection, he noticed air was getting under a tarp and it was flapping. He pulled over, fixed it, and started on his way again.

[36] Unfortunately, as he drove, Mr. Sidhu focused on the tarps and the trailers behind him. He used the two side mirrors of the semi-tractor unit to keep an eye on the trailers, and given their lengths, he spent spans of time looking in the mirrors towards the back of the trailers. He saw the signs as he approached the intersection, but was so concerned about the tarps and the trailers that the signs and signals did not register.

Which part of this indicates that he made a "choice", a conscious decision, to blow through the stop sign?

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I don't even know what this means. Choosing to drive a vehicle and being involved in a collision out of negligence and inattentiveness doesn't mean that you "chose" to have the collision or occur, or in this case, "chose" to blow the stop sign.

I like how you quoted the parts that fit your narrative, but neglected to quote the part that directly contradicts that he "chose" to blow through the sign.

https://canlii.ca/t/hzbj5



Which part of this indicates that he made a "choice", a conscious decision, to blow through the stop sign?

Probably the point in the concluding analysis where the judge calls it "baffling and incomprehensible" (as close to unbelievable as you're going to see in a court record that relies mostly on the facts as presented by the accused's lawyer) that the driver didn't see the stop signs.

I personally also think that it's incomprehensible and baffling that he could miss the many stop signs and the flashing light over nearly half a km, but I also have only the lawyer's facts. In any event, it was a choice to get behind the wheel. It was a choice to be distracted. And consequently it was a choice to blow through that stop sign.

To go further for emphasis, if you choose to get into a motor vehicle and then choose to look at your phone while driving, and then you blow through a stop sign, are you suggesting that you didn't choose to take that last action because you were a victim of being distracted by your phone? No. You chose to blow the stop sign because you chose to look at your phone. It's the same decision. You may not have wanted to drive through the stop sign, but you sure as heck wanted to read that oh so important text.

We need to accept that the choice to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, and any other choices we make while driving, can have significant consequences--whether directly or indirectly. And we should be holding people accountable for the awful consequences of these decisions even if it is considered an "accident." But we rarely do. And that's why awful tragedies like this will continue to happen.

"Somehow we must stop this carnage on our highways" (from the decision).

Well, you see, judge, the carnage is no ones' fault because no one really chooses to do it. We just have accidents, so we'll just have to accept it.

[PepsiFree]

Sorry, how has believing that deportation is a step too far and that the trucking company should hold heavy responsibility for poor training and putting people in dangerous situations come to mean “it’s no one’s fault and we just have to accept it.”

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, how has believing that deportation is a step too far and that the trucking company should hold heavy responsibility for poor training and putting people in dangerous situations come to mean “it’s no one’s fault and we just have to accept it.”

Welcome to 2024

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, how has believing that deportation is a step too far and that the trucking company should hold heavy responsibility for poor training and putting people in dangerous situations come to mean “it’s no one’s fault and we just have to accept it.”

I didn't comment on deportation or whether the trucking company should hold a part of the responsibility.

My comments initially referred to an earlier post that said the employer is "more to blame" than the driver. That's false, even if the company has some responsibility. They are not "more to blame," and that removes accountability. I was then defending a comment I made about the driver choosing to blow through the stop sign, and a poster suggesting that the driver did not actually choose to do that.

My final comment is to make a point that this type of thing won't stop happening with our current view of road safety and the often disconnected way we look at personal responsibility and choice when someone gets behind the wheel of a car.

Are you suggesting that the outcome of this incident is going to "stop this carnage on our highways"? Fundamentally, nothing has really changed.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

I didn't comment on deportation or whether the trucking company should hold a part of the responsibility.

My comments initially referred to an earlier post that said the employer is "more to blame" than the driver. That's false, even if the company has some responsibility. They are not "more to blame," and that removes accountability. I was then defending a comment I made about the driver choosing to blow through the stop sign, and a poster suggesting that the driver did not actually choose to do that.

My final comment is to make a point that this type of thing won't stop happening with our current view of road safety and the often disconnected way we look at personal responsibility and choice when someone gets behind the wheel of a car.

Are you suggesting that the outcome of this incident is going to "stop this carnage on our highways"? Fundamentally, nothing has really changed.

We aren’t insurance adjusters, so I don’t see any value in treating blame/accountability as a zero sum game. Just because someone might see the employer as having more blame in the bigger picture doesn’t mean that it takes away blame from the driver. They both played roles that significantly contributed to this incident whether you want to admit it or not.

I think “the often disconnected way we look at personal responsibility and choice when someone gets behind the wheel of a car” is a funny statement when you (whether you are aware of it or not) are the one limiting who should feel responsible and how responsible they should feel, of those who really should share responsibility in this.