Clear Full Forecast

Run Away Truck Leads to Charge

By 250 News

Thursday, December 30, 2010 04:45 PM

Prince George, B.C.- Charges have now been laid in the wake of a trucking incident  on December 16th.

It was on the afternoon of  the 16th when a chip truck barrelled down  Peden Hill,  and  lost use of the brakes.  The driver averted disaster by going over a median to avoid colliding with other traffic.
The cab jack-knifed,  and stopped  just a few feet away from the patio of the Boston Pizza at Vance Road and Highway 16. 
 
Prince George RCMP Traffic Services along with the Commercial Vehicle Safety and Enforcement - Motor Vehicle Inspectors - have completed the follow-up investigation into the incident.
 
The investigation revealed extensive braking issues with the vehicle and did not meet the minimum standards set out in the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations of British Columbia as the main contributing factor of this collision.
 
As a result of this investigation the driver of the vehicle has been charged with - Fail to ensure vehicle in safe operating condition (BC Motor Vehicle Regulations).
 
As the RCMP and CVSE have concluded their investigation, the file has now been turned over to Work Safe B.C. for their follow-up.

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Oops!
throw him in jail for 10 years he could of killed a whole family
I don't think that's how sentencing works. You get punished for what you do, not what you could have done.
Isn't the company also responsible? Driver's are sometimes caught in the middle of bad maintenance. Go to work or go home!
I don't know much about chip trucks. I would never have been able to control that truck so other's were not harmed. The driver did a skillful job of bringing the vehicle to a stop.

Having said that, I am glad there are charges. Vehicles are weapons, and the failure to follow safety checks should be monitored. These kinds of accidents usually lead to the loss of lives. I see this as a great outcome.
Wow, what a surprise that he was charged...
And yes, I am being sarcastic....
As I said on the original story, it was the drivers fault... And all the people that said otherwise don't know as much as they should, or have no need to know. Yes he steered exelently, but all that could have been avoided completly
Folks, look at the size of this truck and what is behind it. Have you seen the hill he just came down? He rode the middle of the road, and in a last deparate move jackknifed the whole damn rig to avoid catastrophe? I put his guy in the same league as Captain Sully landing on the Hudson. Well done Driver, professional all the way.
Drivers are 100% responsible for the condition of the truck once they head out the door to work. If it suffered from poor maintenance then it is up to the driver to refuse to drive it until it is brought up to snuff.

While the driver deserves to be commended for avoiding certain catastrophe he needs to be held responsible for failing to adequately inspect his vehicle before and during the trip.
"Drivers are 100% responsible for the condition of the truck once they head out the door to work. If it suffered from poor maintenance then it is up to the driver to refuse to drive it until it is brought up to snuff". Thank you Mercenary for this.and as a trucker myself I ask why truckers need to drive in the left lane in town especially that hill when they know there is a light at the bottom?,I am passed a many of times just to see and smell the trucks and trailer brakes smoking at the light


Poor reporting IMO. The story above in no way says what it was that caused this situation.

Fail to ensure vehicle in safe operating condition (BC Motor Vehicle Regulations) does nothing to prevent this kind of incident from happening in the future. By vehicle do they mean trailer, or truck, or both.. and do they mean air loss issues ignored, or do they mean leaky wheel seals coating the brakes with oil, or lack of adjustment, or excessive wear on the system... if its the drivers fault then is it something that should have been noticed during the pre-trip, or something that should have been noticed en-route... it should seem obvious speed wasn't a factor as all trucks contracted by Excel, Lomak, or any of the other big companies are all tracked for speed and braking electronically and one would assume this is the first thing they looked at... so if its mechanical and the drivers fault then... I still think a broken service line is the only explanation for how this happened... ignoring that would constitute failure to maintain safe operating conditions.
There is responsibility on the Carrier as well for the maintenance of the vehicle. 100% on the driver was changed because it was too easy to just blame the driver while the owners were exempt from poor maintenance. In fact the fines to the Carrier are higher than to the driver when maintenance is an issue. If a driver has issue with the truck and documents it in his log book the Carrier can be held 100% liable.
That sounds right, but I don't think it was a carrier maintenance issue, or they would have come out and said this. Also that was a lease op truck subcontracted by an owner operator, so it would appear as though the issue was with either the truck or the driver. Excel has probably more spare trailers than all the competitors in the region own in total (must be 40 of them at River Road alone), so for them to pull a trailer off the road for any maintenance issue brought to their attention is not an issue for them... they will just tag it out and issue another trailer that is authorized to go. Also Excel often contracts out their vehicle inspections to independent third parties, and those third parties make more when they find anything they can fix.

A broken service line wouldn't make it into the log book if it broke en route (from driver error)... that would be the responsibility of the driver to be aware of the condition of his unit, and find a safe place to evaluate the situation before proceeding any further.
I am glad to hear that the incident was the result of poor maintenance (which can be improved in the future) and not something that "just happens" as some people were thinking after the first story.
They had to charge him with something. That's what police do. Could you imagine that if they caught people speeding excessively they could throw you in jail for 10 years because you could of killed someone? LOL JamesToney.

Was his log book in order? Did he do a pre-trip? I'm sure if it wasn't he would of been charged with a whole lot more. It reminds me of getting charged with "driving too fast for conditions".

Oh by the way I heard the trailer was pretty new.

I can hardly wait until people get impaired charges for talking/texting on the phones will driving. Now that is a criminal offense.
Eagleone - I agree that this doesnt tell us the real problem. Since its been turned over to worksafe BC you should keep an eye on thier website. They will do an incident report that will tell us exactly what went wrong - at least they usually do.
Eagle I`m certain if the service line were severed the system would rapidly lose it`s air supply and the brakes would dynamite?
I know a few truckers, and the profit margins are so thin that a lot of the maintenance is done only when needed. Perhaps if they were paid more the trucks would be kept in better shape.

Basically when they buy a truck, they're just buying themselves a job.
Ervboy, service line only looses air when a brake application is made... trailer won't dynamite until air pressure is below 60psi then next brake application and it will likely dynamite. If your reving high trying to slow down with the engine and building air then it could take quiet some time before air got below the critical level... meanwhile no air would be going to the trailer brakes every time an application is made... furthermore if the truck brakes are compromised then you have a real big problem, but in most cases truck brakes should get you stopped.
2bits, chiptrucks are on a schedule and they are required to stay on that schedule. Speed is monitored and speeding is not permitted.
Sorry 2bits I misread your post.
Eagleone,You are correct on what the service line does however if it had become disconected,kinked,or frozen I as a retirerd log truck 00 for 20 plus years would have realized the trailer brakes were not working when I made an application with the foot valve.If traction was not an issue I would have bled the air supply to the trailer with the highway \ hand valve if the service line had become disconnected or severed enroute.If it had kinked or frozen enroute I would have cut the trailer air supply by pulling the dash valve which wood apply the spring brakes?
"furthermore if the truck brakes are compromised then you have a real big problem, but in most cases truck brakes should get you stopped."

On the contrary if there is an issue with the brakes on the trailers or issues with the air supply getting to the trailer to apply the trailer brakes in conjunction with the tractor brakes, a truck coming down a hill like that would experience heated brakes on the tractor resulting in brake fade in a very short period of time. That hill starts at the Bon Voyage. Once the brakes fade out no amount of air to the brakes will have much affect.

Brakes on the tractor alone might get you stopped if it were on flat level ground (no hill) and the speed was low enough with no restrictions on stopping distance such as traffic ahead of the truck.

You can do the hill from Bonvoyage to the bottom with 3-4 quick short brake apps while using your jake in a fully loaded chiptruck any day of the week without overheating your brakes at all with a properly maintained and adjusted braking system. When you smell brakes at the bottom you can be sure the driver doesn't know any better, doesn't care or the unit has brake issues.