R.I.P. young one

[maryjane48]

i have a lifted truck and unless someone darts out at last minute , i can see better from being up who might be th8nking of crossing

[KL3-Something]

So now, because of his profession, CTV and Castanet feel it is appropriate to release his photograph and his name to the public prior to any charges being laid?!?

Wow. Just wow.

[twobits]

While we usually do have to explain things to you like you are five years old, what you're implying is that if the driver was not impaired he deliberately ran over the boy.

Given the height of the truck, I would imagine he just did not see him.

Imagine a 5 year old up close to this, he would not be easy to see.

Goat....as a reasoned poster here you actually shock me with this post. Never mind the speculation that this was some kind of lift kit truck, all that matters is the driver ran over and killed a 5 yr old child. And if he was in a lifted truck, all the more reason for him to be cognizant of traffic and pedestrians in his area. Learners licence 101 in my mind. Following your "understanding" that he may not have been able to see the child, I would ask you if you would give the same pass to the driver of a 5 ton delivery truck or a semi with a hood the size of a ping pong table.
You drive it, you be responsible for it.

ETA- Much has been said about the "green arrow" as well. At that intersection, travelling east off of the reserve, there are two lanes that are controlled by a single green light only. It controls when traffic can turn left going north and straight thru onto Fairview. Turning right onto Channel Parkway to go south is dictating by traffic laws. If the opposing light is red, you must stop and make your right hand turn only when safe to do so. If the opposing light is green, you do not have to stop to make a right hand turn but you are still required to make sure it is safe to do so since you will be subject to crossing a crosswalk. The pedestrian in this case always has the right of way. And this boy was a pedestrian as he was pushing his bike over the crosswalk as required by law. It matters not if the colour of the opposing light (arrow) (walk signal) was green or not. All that matters is that the pedestrian entered into the crosswalk before the opposing light said "stop". Until that point, the pedestrian had the absolute right of way. Even if it had been a 200 yr old man that took four light changes to cross the road, the ROW belongs to the pedestrian.
I have a large problem thinking that a dad with a 5 and 6 yr old plus a dog, would have lead this entourage walking their bikes as per MVA regs across this point of HWY 97 on a crosswalk when the opposing light was red!!! It matters not whether the driver was a cop or had a jacked up truck that limited visibility. Those are superfluous distractions to the fact that an innocent child is dead.

[twobits]

So now, because of his profession, CTV and Castanet feel it is appropriate to release his photograph and his name to the public prior to any charges being laid?!?

Wow. Just wow.

And they wouldn't if he were a plumber or mechanic?
There is a difference between illegal and appropriate isn't there?

[Partmanpartfish]

So now, because of his profession, CTV and Castanet feel it is appropriate to release his photograph and his name to the public prior to any charges being laid?!?

Wow. Just wow.

CTV and Castanet didn't release his name. It was already all over social media. Same as the Alberta Killer/Dry Cleaner. Same as federal election results.

Times are a changin'.

[goatboy]

Goat....as a reasoned poster here you actually shock me with this post. Never mind the speculation that this was some kind of lift kit truck, all that matters is the driver ran over and killed a 5 yr old child. And if he was in a lifted truck, all the more reason for him to be cognizant of traffic and pedestrians in his area. Learners licence 101 in my mind. Following your "understanding" that he may not have been able to see the child, I would ask you if you would give the same pass to the driver of a 5 ton delivery truck or a semi with a hood the size of a ping pong table.
You drive it, you be responsible for it.

Well, if we accept the notion that he didn't deliberately run over the child, then something happened that caused it to happen. The options being inattention or distracted driving, impaired driving, child running into path of truck or freak accident. That he couldn't see the child is not a pass, but a possibility. I have no more information than you, and I truly hope it's not impaired driving, but at this point nothing has been said to lead us to believe that. It also sounds like the child is not blame so that leaves the other options, one of which could be he simply did not see the child. Does that absolve him of responsibility? No, but it also doesn't mean he was negligent.

With that said, right now none of us really know what happened except it was a very sad day.

[KL3-Something]

So now, because of his profession, CTV and Castanet feel it is appropriate to release his photograph and his name to the public prior to any charges being laid?!?

Wow. Just wow.

And they wouldn't if he were a plumber or mechanic?

No. It wouldn't have been.

The man is an absolute wreck right now. If he was a plumber or a mechanic do you think Kent Molgat would have been pounding in his door today?

[goatboy]

CTV and Castanet didn't release his name. It was already all over social media. Same as the Alberta Killer/Dry Cleaner. Same as federal election results.

Times are a changin'.

Responsible journalism is not the same as social media. Grabbing headlines and viewers is the name of the game and personally, these "times" are disturbing.

[Carmencat]

I thought the only reason it was disclosed that the man driving the truck was an off duty policeman was that the RCMP would not be investigating the accident. But it does seem likely given journalism these days that a reporter would have been banging on the guys door no matter what his profession if they found out his name.

I don't live in Pentiction so am not familiar with the intersection but am wondering if someone could clarify this statement which I have seen a few times now -

Father Brian McIntosh said the green arrow was showing at the time.

Aren't indicators for pedestrians to walk generally the picture of a person lit up, and often a countdown of how long the pedestrian has to cross until the light will allow traffic to resume? And aren't arrows generally for traffic that is turning? I do know that many times when I am crossing at a crosswalk that is controlled by lights I barely make it across walking at a pretty good clip before the light changes for vehicles to proceed.

[KL3-Something]

Usually where "green arrows" are displayed the walk signal is delayed until after the advanced turn signal ends so as to reduce the possibility of a pedestrian and a turning vehicle meeting.

I've heard two versions of the events. One that he was turning left. One that he was turning right. But also that he was on his way home from work.

[Carmencat]

That is why I was asking about that intersection in particular. What reason would there be for pedestrians to be walking on an arrow meant for vehicular traffic? In Kelowna I know there are a couple of intersections where the traffic will be flowing across the intersection and the green left turn advance arrow is off, and then I guess based on traffic waiting to turn the traffic flowing though will be halted and the arrow will come on again for the traffic turning left to resume. Is it possible that the family was walking across the intersection and the left turn arrow came on when they were in the intersection? The whole thing is very confusing.

[Bunnyhop]

When crossing Hwy 97 from either Green Mtn Rd or Fairview Rd, there is no green left turn arrow for traffic. For pedestrians crossing the Hwy, there is a Walk button that is only activated when someone wants to cross. It's a horrible intersection for traffic and pedestrians alike.

There are too many unanswered questions at this point for me to find fault with anyone. The intersection is so flawed that there is no room for human error at all. And we'll never not have human error.

[Partmanpartfish]

No intersection is perfect. We all have eyes in front of our heads and our vehicles all have brakes and steering. There is absolutely no excuse for running over a person in a crosswalk.

[maryjane48]

No intersection is perfect. We all have eyes in front of our heads and our vehicles all have brakes and steering. There is absolutely no excuse for running over a person in a crosswalk.

i agree , through my driving for over 20 years not once have i entered a crosswalk zone and not been aware of who might cross , and same for school zones . but having said that if a person is tired , have something on their mind ect ect , stuff can go wrong .

[JBX]

This is really going a bit far here. We don't know the facts. Nobody here does its all assumptions and pre hanging cause he is a cop. Hey I hate incompetent cops like the rest but we know NOTHING about is guy or the facts. So let's just wait for the official investigation before pre hangin him because he is a cop and assuming it will be a cover up.

Frankly I'm sure the guy is wreaked enought as it is, I know I would be. Some people here seem all high and mighty assuming this could never ever happen to them, spoiler, it can, and it can happen in a way where there is NOTHING you can do. Do you really want to be treated like this if it does.