 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2006NTSB: Trucker had little sleep before wreck that killed 7 kids
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/03/bus.crash/index.html, NTSB: Trucker had little sleep before wreck that killed 7 kids Friday, February 3, 2006; Posted: 5:31 p.m. EST (22:31 GMT) Three mourners leave the funeral for the Mann children, who died in a car crash in Lake Butler, Florida. Florida National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) or Create Your Own Manage Alerts | What Is This? (CNN) -- The truck driver who plowed into a car near Lake Butler, Florida, on January 25 killing seven children in a fiery crash had little sleep in the 34 hours before the wreck, investigators revealed Friday. "Except for a short nap, he was awake for 34 hours, but I'm not prepared to tell you whether or not he was exceeding the allowable hours of service," said David Rayburn, a National Transportation Safety Board investigator. The truck driver, 31-year-old Alvin Wilkerson, of Jacksonville, Florida, has not cooperated with NTSB investigators on the advice of his attorney, Rayburn said. Investigators were able to determine he had been awake for an inordinate amount of time by examining records and interviewing many people. (Read about the crash) "We know that he was doing something almost continuously during those hours that he couldn't have been doing if he was asleep," Rayburn said at a news conference, without elaborating. No drugs or alcohol were found in Wilkerson's system, Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Bill Leeper said. The driver of the car was 15-year-old Cynthia Nicole Mann, who had six other children, all but one related, in the car with her at the time. Two of the children were 13 and the others were 15, 9, 2 and 20 months. Mann's parents were in the process of adopting the 20-month-old. In Florida it is illegal for a 15-year-old to drive without an adult being in the car. Mann, who had only a learner's permit, was stopped behind a school bus and talking on her cell phone when the semi truck smashed into her January 25. The truck's cab overturned, Mann's car caught fire and, Rayburn said, three children on the school bus were ejected from the back and had to be transported to hospitals by helicopter. Wilkerson suffered burn injuries. Compounding the Mann family's grief, the children's grandfather suffered a massive heart attack and died when he learned of the crash. (Full story) The Florida Department of Highway Safety said Wilkerson had been cited in the past -- in 2000 and 2001 for operating a vehicle in unsafe conditions and in 2000 for driving with a suspended or revoked license. Wilkerson's truck was traveling between 50 and 65 mph when it hit Mann's car, police said, adding that there was no evidence Wilkerson tried to stop before the early afternoon crash. Marks on the road showed that he veered away only after the initial impact, police said. It could be a year before the NTSB issues its final determination of what caused the crash. However, Union County Sheriff Jerry Whitehead said charges could be filed against Wilkerson within a month, when state authorities finish their investigation. Troll wrote: <snip> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/03/clinic.crash.ap/index.html You don't happen to drive a Lincoln Towncar as a beater, do you? > http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/03/bus.crash/index.html, > > NTSB: Trucker had little sleep before wreck that killed 7 kids at least he didn't committ the ultimate crime, at least he didn't have tinted windows on his truck. save america, kill a cop today. DEATH TO COPS . > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/03/bus.crash/index.html, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > DEATH TO COPS > . Considering his past infractions, this trucker deserves the death penalty but we all know that won't happen. Maybe do a couple years and not even lose his license. Imagine the outrage if he'd been a terrorist and blew up a school bus and killed 7 kids. Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 11:50 AM: >>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/03/bus.crash/index.html, >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not even lose his license. Imagine the outrage if he'd been a > terrorist and blew up a school bus and killed 7 kids. I see you still don't know the difference between a person that has the intention for the act (commits the act deliberately) from someone that does not have "intent" (commits the act out of accident or stupidity or both). > Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 > 11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > does not have "intent" (commits the act out of accident or stupidity or > both). Out of curiosity, what's your position on "hate" crimes? Conservatives argue "hate" crimes don't exist because motivation can't be a factor. I think it is and should be considered. Message from liberalhere@yahoo.com written on 2/4/2006 3:58 PM: >> Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 >> 11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Conservatives argue "hate" crimes don't exist because motivation can't > be a factor. I think it is and should be considered. What do these questions have to do with this trucker having little sleep and killing 7 kids in an accident story? It certainly doesn't appear to be a "hate" crime. > > Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 > > 11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Conservatives argue "hate" crimes don't exist because motivation can't > be a factor. I think it is and should be considered. No. Conservatives generally believe that motivation is a factor in EVERY crime, and that it is unfair to prosecute one person stricter than another simply for politically incorrect motivation and that a better way would to simply punish everyone at the more strict level. Message from Allen Seth Dunn written on 2/4/2006 9:44 PM: >>> Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 >>> 11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > than another simply for politically incorrect motivation and that a > better way would to simply punish everyone at the more strict level. Of course there is always motivation behind every crime. That's why the crime itself is punishable, not the motivation/motive. The motive is often is discussed in the trial. I think there should be a hate law that makes it illegal for a person to beat up Cadillac Escalade owners because someone just happen to hate people that drive them. Of course we'll need another law for the Ford Expedition owner protection as well. Gee, this could go on forever! People, it's ALREADY ILLEGAL to assault someone...anyone! How hard is that to understand? It's matters not the *reason* someone had to assault another person. But, if you want redundant laws that serve no legitimately purpose but to add unnecessary complexity and give lawyers more loopholes to get the bad guys off, knock yourselves out. It matters not to me. >>>Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 >>>11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > than another simply for politically incorrect motivation and that a > better way would to simply punish everyone at the more strict level. Are you saying you have no problem with homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, etc.? Hate-crimes laws covering race that more severely punish white-on-black assaults, murders, etc., along with education in schools, have gone a long way toward eliminating "external" kinds of racism -- that is, racist behaviors -- such as lynchings. Granted, it is impossible to legislate against thought or beliefs, and I'm not arguing in favor of that; but when you oppose hate-crimes laws, you're confusing legislating against thought with legislating against action. Just this past Thursday, in New Bedford, MA, an 18-year-old neo-Nazi asked a bartender, "is this a gay bar?" before pulling out a hatchet and a gun. Before he was done, suspect Jacob Robida had critically injured two men and left a third with bruises. Are you telling me that you have no problem with implicitly encouraging a repeat of this anti-gay hate crime by not strongly deterring the commission of violent crimes against members of a widely-hated minority group? It is high time for a federal hate-crimes law that specifically protects gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans.  SignatureLarry Harvilla e-mail: roads AT phatpage DOT org blog-aliciousness: http://www.phatpage.org/news/ also visit: http://www.phatpage.org/highways.html (in progress) > >>>Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 > >>>11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Are you saying you have no problem with homophobia, racism, > anti-Semitism, etc.? I'm not the poster you're replying to, but I think I agree with his position on this one - and I certainly do have a problem with any kind of bigotry. > Hate-crimes laws covering race that more severely punish white-on-black > assaults, murders, etc., along with education in schools, have gone a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that; but when you oppose hate-crimes laws, you're confusing legislating > against thought with legislating against action. No, the opponents of hate-crime laws are the ones who are confused. Why should one person who assaulted one/more people unprovoked get a lighter sentence than another person who did almost exactly the same thing, just because the latter person used the "n-word" or had a politically incorrect tattoo? They both are violent criminals, and they both should be treated equally. > Just this past Thursday, in New Bedford, MA, an 18-year-old neo-Nazi > asked a bartender, "is this a gay bar?" before pulling out a hatchet and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > crime by not strongly deterring the commission of violent crimes against > members of a widely-hated minority group? I'm against ALL violent crimes, not just politically incorrect violent crimes. > It is high time for a federal hate-crimes law that specifically protects > gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans. Why? We already have laws that prohibit anything you'd want these laws to address. nate oops, fixed one typo below... nate > > >>>Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 > > >>>11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > No, the opponents of hate-crime laws are the ones who are confused. should read, "the opponents of hate-crime laws are *NOT* the ones confused. > Why should one person who assaulted one/more people unprovoked get a > lighter sentence than another person who did almost exactly the same [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > nate >>>>Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 >>>>11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >crime by not strongly deterring the commission of violent crimes against >members of a widely-hated minority group? Does this mean that if he went in and asked if this were a straight bar and did the same thing he should get a lesser sentence? To my mind, motive to do harm, willful negligence (such as the truck driver with inadequate sleep who triggered this thread), and mental responsibility should be the controlling factor. >It is high time for a federal hate-crimes law that specifically protects >gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans. To my mind this violates equal protection because it should be equally penalized to attack me for reasons of hate. The type of hate should not matter. >>>>>Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 >>>>>11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > penalized to attack me for reasons of hate. The type of hate should > not matter. Assuming you're not obviously a minority -- that is, assuming you're white, heterosexual, a Christian of some type, etc. -- what are the chances that you would be the victim of an unprovoked attack for reasons of hate? Think about it: society would consider somebody who calls you "cracker," "whitey," or "breeder" (a gay slang term for straight people) to be a nutcase and a freak. On the other hand, somebody who calls me "faggot" is considered to be perfectly normal by society, and courts are likely to accept a bullshit "gay panic" defense and give him an extremely light sentence for any violent crime he might commit against me. Do you seriously think "white panic" would work as a defense for a crime committed against you? SignatureLarry Harvilla e-mail: roads AT phatpage DOT org blog-aliciousness: http://www.phatpage.org/news/ also visit: http://www.phatpage.org/highways.html (in progress) >>>>>>Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 >>>>>>11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > seriously think "white panic" would work as a defense for a crime > committed against you? eh, maybe. The cities I've lived in recently, I've been a minority in some neighborhoods (lived in a mostly Lebanese neighborhood when I lived near Detroit, and the metro DC area is fairly diverse, with most of the less-than-ludicrously-expensive neighborhoods being populated by blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. depending on where you are. That said, I think it's a BS excuse when used either way. If someone assaults you, does it matter if he did it because you're homosexual/black/white/dressed funny/have buck teeth, or because he's just a dickwad? In my book, no - if you did nothing to provoke the attack, *his* motivation doesn't matter one bit. Let me ask you this - as a straight, white male, do you think if I were sitting in a bar, holding my beer, chatting with whoever's nearby, and some guy attacks me with a hatchet in the same manner that the guy did to the patrons of that gay bar, do you think that that person's punishment should be any LIGHTER? Would it make any difference if the attacker was another SWM or was of another ethnicity or sexual orientation? If so, what the heck could possibly be your reasoning? Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way condoning any kind of bigotry - but by asking for "hate crime" laws YOU are the bigot. I'm the one who's willing to treat you just the same as everyone else... nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >Think about it: society would consider somebody who calls you "cracker," >"whitey," or "breeder" (a gay slang term for straight people) to be a >nutcase and a freak. On the other hand, somebody who calls me "faggot" >is considered to be perfectly normal by society, and courts are likely >to accept a bullshit "gay panic" defense and give him an extremely light >sentence for any violent crime he might commit against me. Like the accused in the Matthew Shephard case? (all serving life sentences) Or that in the Scott Amedure case (25-50 years)? >Are you saying you have no problem with homophobia, racism, >anti-Semitism, etc.? They can't be made illegal without creating thoughtcrimes. >Hate-crimes laws covering race that more severely punish white-on-black >assaults, murders, etc., along with education in schools, have gone a >long way toward eliminating "external" kinds of racism -- that is, >racist behaviors -- such as lynchings. Really? And here I thought it was more Federal oversight into the state judicial systems which were letting the lynchers off the hook which did that. >Granted, it is impossible to legislate against thought or beliefs, No, alas, it is not. >Just this past Thursday, in New Bedford, MA, an 18-year-old neo-Nazi >asked a bartender, "is this a gay bar?" before pulling out a hatchet and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >crime by not strongly deterring the commission of violent crimes against >members of a widely-hated minority group? Was what he did illegal? I'm guessing it was. Carrying a concealed weapon (or weapons), brandishing a weapon, assault, aggravated assault, assault with intent to maim, attempted murder... most or all of those are already crimes. We don't need a new law each time those crimes are committed; the old laws will do just fine. Now, if you want him to be more severely punished because he asked "is this a gay bar?" rather than something like "you call this a whiskey?" before getting violent, then it IS speech and thought you're after, isn't it? > Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 > 11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > does not have "intent" (commits the act out of accident or stupidity or > both). And i see you're still a criminal coddler. You'd give this psycho a suspended sentence or maybe you'd just ignore the crime like happened with laura bush's murder of a kid. Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 5:05 PM: >> Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 >> 11:50 AM: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > suspended sentence or maybe you'd just ignore the crime like happened > with laura bush's murder of a kid. Hardly. The driver deserves punishment. I just don't agree that the death penalty that you suggest is the correct punishment for this situation. Given your application, we would have been rid of your buddy "Teddy Bear" Kennedy forty years ago! Hmmm... on second thought, can we make your plan retroactive? > Message from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend written on 2/4/2006 5:05 PM: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > buddy "Teddy Bear" Kennedy forty years ago! Hmmm... on second thought, > can we make your plan retroactive? It doesn't have to be execution, but this monster deserves a serious penalty. At least 20 years in the can. But there's a good chance he won't do a day. <snip> > And i see you're still a criminal coddler. And everyone sees you're still a deluded faggot. How's things going at the bath house, sh.t for brains? Man are you negative. His past infractions, 5 years ago, may or may not play a part. If the 'unsafe conditions' were having a burned out signal bulb, then no, that shouldn't have any affect. If the unsafe condition was that he had no functioning lights whatsoever, that's something completely different. The suspended license...well, we don't know why it was suspended. It could be because he forgot to renew his license or because of a DUI. Being that it sounds like he was on the road way too long in ignorance of federal laws, his license probably will be suspended. It is to the point where he could be found guilty of 7 counts of vehicular homicide? Possibly. But not all the facts are printed in the paper, so you can't just find him guilty. And don't forget - that 15 year old was not permitted to be driving. It sounds cruel, but hey, she was in the wrong also, and you can bet the truck driver's lawyer will point that out. He's not a terrorist. Something totally different. > Man are you negative. His past infractions, 5 years ago, may or may > not play a part. If the 'unsafe conditions' were having a burned out [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > He's not a terrorist. Something totally different. No he's not a terrorist but he's a psychopath and a killer. With his lack of sleep he shouldn't have been driving. And now 7 kids are dead and you're trying to blame the kids?? Well - the 15 year old driver was at fault to a small extent and deserves some blame but 99% belongs with the trucker. Stop being a kid-hater and a criminal coddler. > > Man are you negative. His past infractions, 5 years ago, may or may > > not play a part. If the 'unsafe conditions' were having a burned out [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > at fault to a small extent and deserves some blame but 99% belongs with > the trucker. Stop being a kid-hater and a criminal coddler. The driver of the car was 15-year-old Cynthia Nicole Mann, who had six other children, all but one related, in the car with her at the time. Two of the children were 13 and the others were 15, 9, 2 and 20 months. Mann's parents were in the process of adopting the 20-month-old. **************In Florida it is illegal for a 15-year-old to drive without an adult being in the car. **************** > The driver of the car was 15-year-old Cynthia Nicole Mann, who had six > other children, all but one related, in the car with her at the time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > **************In Florida it is illegal for a 15-year-old to drive > without an adult being in the car. **************** that has NOTHING to do with the fact that she's dead, had it been a 15 year old or a 30 year old they would still be dead >> The driver of the car was 15-year-old Cynthia Nicole Mann, who had six >> other children, all but one related, in the car with her at the time. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that has NOTHING to do with the fact that she's dead, had it been a 15 >year old or a 30 year old they would still be dead Unclear. The implication is that the inexperience of the 15 year old driver may have contributed to the crash. >>>The driver of the car was 15-year-old Cynthia Nicole Mann, who had six >>>other children, all but one related, in the car with her at the time. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Unclear. The implication is that the inexperience of the 15 year old > driver may have contributed to the crash. That implication is pretty much dead wrong, unless there was a possibility that a more experienced driver might have seen the truck coming and taken to the shoulder (a risky move, what with it being an unloading school bus and all.) I'm all in favor of having people take responsibility for their actions when they fark up, but in this case the underage driver seems to have been simply that, underage. Unless there's more to the story that hasn't made it online, it would seem that that is irrelevant to the incident and that the vast majority of the responsibility for this tragic incident rests squarely on the shoulders of the truck driver. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Unclear. The implication is that the inexperience of the 15 year old > driver may have contributed to the crash. I fail to see how a stopped 15 year old driver with cellphone glued to her ear is different from a stopped 25 year old driver with a cellphone glued to her ear. >>> The driver of the car was 15-year-old Cynthia Nicole Mann, who had six >>> other children, all but one related, in the car with her at the time. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Unclear. The implication is that the inexperience of the 15 year old >driver may have contributed to the crash. That's an implication of the article, but it's false. The vehicle being "driven" by the 15 year old was at a legally required stop, behind a stopped school bus, at the time of the collision. > >>> The driver of the car was 15-year-old Cynthia Nicole Mann, who had six > >>> other children, all but one related, in the car with her at the time. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > being "driven" by the 15 year old was at a legally required stop, > behind a stopped school bus, at the time of the collision. This does not negate the fact that the driver of a stopped vehicle still has options for avoiding collisions and that this fact may not dawn on an inexperienced driver. --Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- >**************In Florida it is illegal for a 15-year-old to drive >without an adult being in the car. **************** Wow, nothing gets past you... SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > No he's not a terrorist but he's a psychopath and a killer. With his > lack of sleep he shouldn't have been driving. And now 7 kids are dead > and you're trying to blame the kids?? If she had obeyed the law, NONE of them would have been in the car at that place at that time...and they would likely still be alive. So yes, she shares some of the blame. If the car hadn't been in the way, the trucker would likely have plowed directly into the school bus. It's impossible to guess what would have happened at that point. Don't just get pissed off at the truck driver. Trucking companies make it nearly impossible for these guys to do their jobs without breaking safe driving laws. Get them too. >> No he's not a terrorist but he's a psychopath and a killer. With his >> lack of sleep he shouldn't have been driving. And now 7 kids are dead [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that place at that time...and they would likely still be alive. So >yes, she shares some of the blame. Or, she'd have had one more person in the car, a person over 21, and there'd be one more dead person. Are there really two people stupid enough to use that argument, or has Scott got a sock puppet? VIRTUALLY ALL long-distance truckers have AT LEAST one of the following "D" attributes, just because they're truckers and have that "trucker mentality." As a group, they constitute a major menace on our highways and roads. So, when you see one driving you are correct to assume they are: 1) DRUNK 2) DRUGGED 3) DROWSY 4) DUMB Many truckers possess ALL of these faults! Scary! Stay alert! http://www.topix.net/city/lake-butler-fl VIRTUALLY ALL long-distance truckers have AT LEAST one of the following "D" attributes, just because they're truckers and have that "trucker mentality." As a group, they constitute a major menace on our highways and roads. So, when you see one driving you are correct to assume they are: 1) DRUNK 2) DRUGGED 3) DROWSY 4) DUMB Many truckers possess ALL of these faults! Scary! Stay alert! I guess the only thing you can do is boycott anything delivered in a truck. That will show them. > VIRTUALLY ALL long-distance truckers have AT LEAST one of the following > "D" attributes, just because they're truckers and have that "trucker [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I guess the only thing you can do is boycott anything delivered in a > truck. That will show them. Now that's really stupid. What we can do is throw the book at reckless truckers that kill. That would solve the problem overnight but criminal coddlers like you don't want that. > VIRTUALLY ALL long-distance truckers have AT LEAST one of the following > "D" attributes, just because they're truckers and have that "trucker [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.topix.net/city/lake-butler-fl And this would stop overnight if they were punished severely. But that never happens. I guarantee litlle will be done to this trucker. I can just hear him now - Hey dood, sorry about the 7 kids but it was an accident. And most americans will go along with that cause they know they're routinely guilty of reckless driving too. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.