[llama66]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Eight years.

That means he'll be out in under four years and when he gets out he'll get all sorts of assistance to get him back to work and he won't get deported.

Why would he be deported?

Because he's been charged and convicted with 29 indictable offences....

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Read an article in this morning's Globe And Mail stating that the process for his deportation has already been started, and will be more than complete when gets out of the slammer.

-J.

[Tricks]

martin14 martin14:

Tricks Tricks:

, are we going to stop calling that an accident?

We should, because it wasn't an accident.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4897902/humb ... -of-facts/

Humboldt Broncos tragedy: What happened, according to the agreed statement of facts

The intersection

Sidhu was travelling westbound on Highway 335 in a transport truck carrying two trailers loaded with peat moss. He was the only person in the vehicle, travelling at between 86-96 kilometres an hour.

A bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos hockey team was travelling northbound on Highway 35 at approximately 96-107 kilometres an hour. There were 29 people aboard the bus.





Sidhu failed to heed a stop sign at the intersection of Highways 35 and 335, near Armley, Sask. His truck was completely blocking the intersection when the Broncos’ bus slammed into the lead trailer at just before 5 p.m.

Tire marks show the bus tried to stop, but the truck did not.


Sidhu faced a stop sign at the intersection. The Broncos’ bus did not.

The stop sign itself was “oversized” and measured 1.2 metres across. It was attached to a post with a blinking red light immediately above it, 19 metres ahead of the intersection.


There was nothing to obscure Sidhu’s view of the stop sign, according to the agreed statement of facts. The sun was not in his eyes, the road was not affected by any inclement weather and the intersection was clearly visible before the collision. Sidhu also passed signs indicating that an intersection with a stop sign was ahead.



A few trees southeast of the intersection would not have blocked Sidhu’s ability to see the approaching bus, if he had stopped to check for traffic at the intersection.

Glen Doerksen, the Broncos’ bus driver, saw the transport truck blow through the stop sign and hit his brakes 24 metres before the intersection, but there was no way for him to evade it.

I'm not sure what that has to do with dropping a glass. You know, the full sentence that you cut out.

[bootlegga]

Tricks Tricks:

llama66 llama66:

Human error negates the "accident".

What? Accident is the definition of human error. If we didn't have human error, we would have no accidents. Dropping a glass and having it shatter is human error, are we going to stop calling that an accident?

I think that Llama is talking specifically about the implications of the word 'accident'.

Society at large likes to use the word accident, when in fact, around 90% of all crashes are not true 'accidents', because they are completely due to mistakes people have consciously made while driving (running a stop sign, speeding, distracted driving, impaired driving, etc.).

Dropping a glass is an accident, but running a stop sign is not. A driver makes a conscious decision whether or not to stop, and if the driver is unable to stop, it is because he/she was driving too fast for the conditions (again, a conscious decision on the part of the driver).

That is why experienced police officers never use the term accident, they typically use collision or crash.

They feel - and I completely agree - that using the term 'accident' removes responsibility from the person who caused the collision.

In this case, there is no doubt that Singh caused this collision by his decision not to stop at the stop sign, and therefore, in my books, it was not an accident.

[Tricks]

Conscious decision to ignore something is not human error. Unless you considering hubris or stupidity to be human error.

This wasn't a comment on the accident in question, it was a comment that human error is the wrong term. I was being pedantic ass.

[llama66]

Well, stop it.

[Tricks]

llama66 llama66:

Well, stop it.

Make me.

[llama66]

Tricks Tricks:

llama66 llama66:

Well, stop it.

Make me.

Mom! Tricks is being a pedantic ass again!

[stratos]

martin14 martin14:

stratos stratos:

The guy was not drunk or on drugs. He mad a mistake that lead to horrible results. No malice or ill intent on what he did. Along with not running away, fessing up, pleading guilty from the start. Yeah maybe a bit longer sentence like 10yrs might have been more palatable to take yet this guy was not out to kill or harm anyone when the ACCIDENT happened.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4901778/semi ... iolations/

Semi-driver in Humboldt Broncos bus crash had 70 regulation violations

$1:

Jaskirat Singh Sidhu had 70 regulation violations in the days leading up to the April 6, 2018, Humboldt Broncos bus crash.

Sixteen people were killed and 13 injured when the team’s bus slammed into the semi being driven by Sidhu.

A logbook review found Sidhu, 30, violated 51 federal regulations and 19 Saskatchewan regulations between March 26 and April 6.

“If Jaskirat Singh Sidhu had been stopped and inspected on April 6, 2018, prior to the incident, he would have been placed under a 72 hours out-of-service declaration for failing to produce the current daily log and previous 14 days,” stated the review.

It stated Sidhu would have been prevented from operating a commercial vehicle under the Federal Commercial Vehicle Driver’s Hours of Service regulations for the time period in question.

So, entirely preventable, even to the point of the guy not being on the road
when he ran the stop sign.

$1:

An agreed statement of facts found Sidhu was travelling between 86 and 96 km/h when he ran an oversized stop sign with a flashing red light.

The driver of the bus, Glen Doerksen, braked but was unable to avoid the collision and slammed into the side of the semi.

Sidhu pleaded guilty early in January to 16 counts of dangerous driving causing death and 13 counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He faces a maximum sentence of 14 years for each count of dangerous driving causing death and 10 years for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The sentence... is a fucking joke.. as usual.

Okay I missed all that some how. My assertion that this was JUST an accident I would like to retract. Obviously this guy didn't give a shite about safety an was seriously criminally negligent in this matter.

[BeaverFever]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

Beaver is defending the truck driver. Shocking.

$1:

Jaskirat Singh Sidhu had 70 regulation violations in the days leading up to the April 6, 2018, Humboldt Broncos bus crash.

Sixteen people were killed and 13 injured when the team’s bus slammed into the semi being driven by Sidhu.

A logbook review found Sidhu, 30, violated 51 federal regulations and 19 Saskatchewan regulations between March 26 and April 6.

“If Jaskirat Singh Sidhu had been stopped and inspected on April 6, 2018, prior to the incident, he would have been placed under a 72 hours out-of-service declaration for failing to produce the current daily log and previous 14 days,” stated the review.

It stated Sidhu would have been prevented from operating a commercial vehicle under the Federal Commercial Vehicle Driver’s Hours of Service regulations for the time period in question.

Beaver, you're a pathetic 'human being', and I use that term VERY loosely.

-J.

I’m not defending anything Einstein.

And those were for logbook entries not driving violations you stunning genius. None of that has to do with the accident.

[BeaverFever]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Tricks Tricks:

llama66 llama66:

Human error negates the "accident".

What? Accident is the definition of human error. If we didn't have human error, we would have no accidents. Dropping a glass and having it shatter is human error, are we going to stop calling that an accident?

I think that Llama is talking specifically about the implications of the word 'accident'.

Society at large likes to use the word accident, when in fact, around 90% of all crashes are not true 'accidents', because they are completely due to mistakes people have consciously made while driving (running a stop sign, speeding, distracted driving, impaired driving, etc.).

Dropping a glass is an accident, but running a stop sign is not. A driver makes a conscious decision whether or not to stop, and if the driver is unable to stop, it is because he/she was driving too fast for the conditions (again, a conscious decision on the part of the driver).

That is why experienced police officers never use the term accident, they typically use collision or crash.

They feel - and I completely agree - that using the term 'accident' removes responsibility from the person who caused the collision.

In this case, there is no doubt that Singh caused this collision by his decision not to stop at the stop sign, and therefore, in my books, it was not an accident.

I don’t see how you can assume there’s a conscious decision to run a stop sign, it can happen unintentionally due to an unexpected distraction or fatigue.

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

, it can happen unintentionally

Oversized stop sign.

With a flashing light.

A warning 'stop ahead' sign before the intersection.

No sun or weather issues.

No road issues.

No alcohol or drugs.

No cellphone.

No brake marks, he didn't even try to stop.

90km/hr.



At some point, even the 'unintentional' starts to look pretty thin.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

martin14 martin14:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

, it can happen unintentionally

Oversized stop sign.

With a flashing light.

A warning 'stop ahead' sign before the intersection.

No sun or weather issues.

No road issues.

No alcohol or drugs.

No cellphone.

No brake marks, he didn't even try to stop.

90km/hr.



At some point, even the 'unintentional' starts to look pretty thin.

Rookie driver who shouldn't have been licenced in the first place distracted by incorrectly tied tarp.

Here's why I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. A) He's owned what he did since day 1. And B) I wasn't far from being him many years ago when I blew through a stop light with a truck loaded with flammables and volatile compressed gases. And it wasn't even in an unfamiliar place, it was in my own home town! There was nothing intentional about it.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Rookie driver who shouldn't have been licenced in the first place distracted by incorrectly tied tarp.

Here's why I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. A) He's owned what he did since day 1. And B) I wasn't far from being him many years ago when I blew through a stop light with a truck loaded with flammables and volatile compressed gases. And it wasn't even in an unfamiliar place, it was in my own home town! There was nothing intentional about it.

^^

We've all made mistakes. We just had the luck that no one got hurt because of our mistakes.

I can sit at watch cars pull up to a 3 way stop right out side my office, and people sometimes don't even slow down for the stops. A couple times, I've almost been hit crossing the street there. Almost. I wonder if they learnt from their mistakes, or if they keep making the same one over and over till they crash.

[llama66]

I've never made a mistake where anyone has died. I don't think we call those mistakes.

The fact is he wouldn't have been allowed to drive if an inspector stopped him and inspected his logbook and truck. I give him full marks for owning this, but... The collision was merely the cherry on his negligence cake.

Lets not apologize for the actions of a man who, despite owning what he did, deserves what he got.