Same thing.
FedEx back in the news...
- Thread starter HighwayRover
- Start date
Same thing.
bubblehead
Veteran Expediter
How so?
bubblehead
Veteran Expediter
Example of a failed steering system. http://www.rvforum.net/SMF_forum/index.php?topic=77325.0
At fault is at blame.
Responsibility, liability, culpability, blame worthiness, guilt, these are all synonyms for fault.
Be that as it may, whoever was in command control of the vehicle carries the guilt, and the liability, even if they died prior to impact.
bubblehead
Veteran Expediter
The article unless I missed something only dealt with finding of fault. The article didn't reference any finding of guilt as if the driver himself did something wrong. So I don't by the "Guilty until proven innocent" claim from the other poster. Nothing has happened in the court systems as of yet to find the driver guilty. That is another matter altogether.
This case may never be argued in criminal court because evidence so far hasn't demonstrated any intent or gross negligence on the part of the FedEx driver. Likely, civil proceedings will produce an outcome favorable to the victims and the families who suffered a tragic loss. The fault lies with the FedEx truck and likely with the driver.
I am disappointed that mechanical failure was so quickly dismissed because the truck and the driver were so badly burned that much potential evidence, physical and pathological was destroyed. Given the type truck for example; if one of the front bushings that hold the cab assembly to the chassis had failed, could this cause a binding of the steering to the extent that the driver couldn't overcome?
The investigators took the easy way out imho as happens frequently in aviation and found the operator at fault.
Outside of the legal system, guilt and fault mean the same thing.
This will never go to criminal court, for the driver, because the defendant is dead and cannot defend himself. If FedEx were to be found to be at fault, they're is a possibility of criminal charges. But that's unlikely.
Even if it were mechanical failure, the driver would still most likely be at fault. If recent mechanical work had been performed improperly abdicate caused the accident, then the mechanic would likely bear the brunt of the blame.
The reason the driver was so quick to blamed is the absence of skid marks or other evidence of braking or crash avoidance.
This will never go to criminal court, for the driver, because the defendant is dead and cannot defend himself. If FedEx were to be found to be at fault, they're is a possibility of criminal charges. But that's unlikely.
Even if it were mechanical failure, the driver would still most likely be at fault. If recent mechanical work had been performed improperly abdicate caused the accident, then the mechanic would likely bear the brunt of the blame.
The reason the driver was so quick to blamed is the absence of skid marks or other evidence of braking or crash avoidance.
Do you think their loved ones death would be easier to accept if they knew who to 'blame'? They may say so, and they may even believe it, until they find out it doesn't. Nothing does, or can.
Excerpt from the article is below. Emphasis IN CAPS is mine.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California Highway Patrol faulted a semi-truck driver Friday for a fiery head-on collision with a bus that killed 10, but officials said THEY STILL DON'T KNOW WHY his big rig veered across an interstate median and into oncoming traffic, killing five high school students on their way to visit a college and a couple who had just gotten engaged.
The underlying cause of the crash is the FedEx semi-truck driver, Tim Evans, 32, "allowing his vehicle to travel across the median in an unsafe turning movement," Sgt. Nathan Parsons said. "He could have fell asleep, he could have had an undiagnosed medical condition. WE'RE UNABLE TO PROVE EITHER."
It makes no sense to me that when the police themselves say they don't know why and cannot prove how the truck came to cross the median, they still find the driver to be at fault. If they don't know why or how, they cannot logically conclude that the driver "allowed" the vehicle to do anything. For all they know, he may have been doing everything in his power to prevent the vehicle from leaving the road. Or he may have been powerless to do anything because he was unconscious or dead before the vehicle left the road. That said, FedEx is likely on the liability hook for this since the company is responsible for the truck and driver and, clearly, the truck was in the wrong place.
It just seems fundamentally unfair to the driver for the police to blame him without proof. They are doing it by speculating that the accident was his fault but speculation is not proof and that is not fair. Why could they not have simply said that the cause is unknown (which they did) and left it to others to argue about fault and liability (which they did not do)?
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California Highway Patrol faulted a semi-truck driver Friday for a fiery head-on collision with a bus that killed 10, but officials said THEY STILL DON'T KNOW WHY his big rig veered across an interstate median and into oncoming traffic, killing five high school students on their way to visit a college and a couple who had just gotten engaged.
The underlying cause of the crash is the FedEx semi-truck driver, Tim Evans, 32, "allowing his vehicle to travel across the median in an unsafe turning movement," Sgt. Nathan Parsons said. "He could have fell asleep, he could have had an undiagnosed medical condition. WE'RE UNABLE TO PROVE EITHER."
It makes no sense to me that when the police themselves say they don't know why and cannot prove how the truck came to cross the median, they still find the driver to be at fault. If they don't know why or how, they cannot logically conclude that the driver "allowed" the vehicle to do anything. For all they know, he may have been doing everything in his power to prevent the vehicle from leaving the road. Or he may have been powerless to do anything because he was unconscious or dead before the vehicle left the road. That said, FedEx is likely on the liability hook for this since the company is responsible for the truck and driver and, clearly, the truck was in the wrong place.
It just seems fundamentally unfair to the driver for the police to blame him without proof. They are doing it by speculating that the accident was his fault but speculation is not proof and that is not fair. Why could they not have simply said that the cause is unknown (which they did) and left it to others to argue about fault and liability (which they did not do)?
Yes, it provides temporary relief.
Totally agreed Cheri, with the rest of your statements
True, the blaming will not bring the loved ones back. But it does provide some temporary closures for the families so atleast they can maintain some normal daily functions.
My thoughts..
Blaming is an initial coping reaction to the stressful event, it's a normal human reaction.
It's ok for the families to blame, if that's the only effective coping skill they know in dealing with an extreme stressful event at that time.
However, blaming becomes abnormal if it continues after certain amount of time and it begins to interfere with one's ability to cope with the normal daily life. Effective coping skills should be explored. In this case, grief counselor and/or the therapist are advised.
I swear, I did not not google this, lol.
I totally get that it's a normal human response to want to assign blame for tragedies - that is, after all, the underpinning of religion. We are an inquisitive creature, we want to know WHY, always.
I just think we'd be better served to try to accept that some things, we don't/can't know, and maybe never will. Doesn't mean we stop trying to find out, of course.
The problem with blame is that it's so closely followed by "pay for", as in retribution - and the ones who need to see to it personally, if they don't think it's being done, or done fast enough.
I just think we'd be better served to try to accept that some things, we don't/can't know, and maybe never will. Doesn't mean we stop trying to find out, of course.
The problem with blame is that it's so closely followed by "pay for", as in retribution - and the ones who need to see to it personally, if they don't think it's being done, or done fast enough.