R.I.P. young one

[KL3-Something]

Okay KL3. You admit you were not there, and I will admit that I wasn't there.

But allow me to rebut a few of your hearsay claims.

I am not sure when you say that according to witnesses, that the dad was only half way across with the the older child, when the truck made the turn. If they were only half way across the intersection, this accident would not have occurred on the corner/yield section, where it actually happened.

You need to have another look at the scene:

http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/ ... uck-by-cop

And the intersection:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/BC-97 ... *bleep*!6m1!1e1

Look at where the truck came to a stop. It is facing south on Hwy 97. The south bound lanes of the highway on the south side of the intersection are blocked off for the investigation. The incident did not occur in the yield/right turn lane for west bound vehicles turning north. Furthermore, one doesn't need a walk signal (or a "green arrow" as the dad put it) when crossing the right turn yield lane. The walk signal isn't needed until crossing the actual highway itself.

You then go straight to how the younger boy struck the side of the truck and fell and was run over. You never make any mention of where the younger boy was, in relation to his dad, his older brother, or where he was in the crosswalk.

From what I have heard (also hearsay) is that the dad and both kids were together, walking their bikes across the lane, with a green light.

Not from what I "heard" from those who were on scene and talking directly with witnesses. True, I wasn't there. But as hearsay goes I'm pretty confident with the information that I got about the scene. I didn't get it from clipped media reports that were based on hearsay to begin with.

After seeing pictures of the truck that hit them, I am way more likely to believe that the driver simply did not see them. Jacked up trucks tend to make visibility bad.

I wouldn't classify that truck a "jacked up". From the picture it appears to have, at most, a 4" lift. I have no doubt that the driver didn't see him. Whether that be due to the height of the truck, the boy being blocked by the A, B or C-pillars, the sun in the driver's eyes (I was informed that it was a left turn from Fairview south bound) or the driver being distracted in some way.

Tragic no matter what the cause was. It has me being noticeably more diligent in clearing intersections in all directions when I am making turns or even just driving down the road in general.

But again, hearsay, and I'm not on any kind of jury.

I don't think this is criminal, but definitely an accident that could have been prevented.

I agree.

[onestop67]

You need to have another look at the scene:

http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/ ... uck-by-cop

And the intersection:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/BC-97 ... *bleep*!6m1!1e1

Look at where the truck came to a stop. It is facing south on Hwy 97. The south bound lanes of the highway on the south side of the intersection are blocked off for the investigation. The incident did not occur in the yield/right turn lane for west bound vehicles turning north. Furthermore, one doesn't need a walk signal (or a "green arrow" as the dad put it) when crossing the right turn yield lane. The walk signal isn't needed until crossing the actual highway itself.

I think you missed this part. The accident DID happen on the right turn, to go south. Not sure how you misinterpreted me about going North? I never said anything about going North.

I do know that intersection. I live on Fairview...the road where this happened.

Again, I believe this was nothing more than a tragic accident.

[mexi cali]

To anyone who knows for sure and can prevent me from having to go back through the previous myriad posts.

Which road was the driver turning off of? Was it Fairview or Green Mountain Rd.?

If it was Fairview, the child was hit in the median lane? If it was Green Mountain, the child was hit in the curb lane?

Someone said the child hit the truck. Is that how it happened?

[onestop67]

To anyone who knows for sure and can prevent me from having to go back through the previous myriad posts.

Which road was the driver turning off of? Was it Fairview or Green Mountain Rd.?

If it was Fairview, the child was hit in the median lane? If it was Green Mountain, the child was hit in the curb lane?

Someone said the child hit the truck. Is that how it happened?

The child was hit by the truck turning right, off of Green Mountain Road. The family was walking west, across the intersection from Fairview.

[Partmanpartfish]

I'm just wondering if I ran over a child in a crosswalk and then took off when the thump somehow didn't register with me, and had to be flagged down before I stopped . . .

. . . would folks be rushing to defend me? Would they be trying to place blame on the child or the child's father to rationalize the incident?

Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss how the driver didn't see the child? Regardless of how small the deceased was or how big the truck is, the driver should have seen the boy occupying or approaching the crosswalk. How do you run over someone if you're paying attention?

[twobits]

Actually, what I learned from one of the initial investigators on the file who took statements from witnesses prior to the IIO being called, Fair isn't making things up. According to independent witness accounts, the dad with dog on a leash was about half way across the highway with the older child when the truck made the turn. The younger boy struck the side of the truck and then fell under the rear wheel and was run over.

I have read through to the first few posts on the next page and came back to comment on this post. It would appear that the truck was turning right from Green Mountain Rd to go south. If one of the initial investigators revealed to you that the dad, dog, and older son were half way thru the intersection.....that would put the dad behind the son that was hit, not in front of him.
The truck was turning right off Green Mtn road to go south. It would make sense that the truck driver was perhaps focused on the dad, dog, son group that were proceeding west on the crosswalk and felt it was safe to complete the right hand turn before they got to the lanes going south. Focused on the group he did not see the younger boy 15 ft ahead of them. This scenario is likely if the child impacted the driver's side of the truck. I have not seen that info yet but it sure seems likely as the picture provided clearly shows the truck stopped in the curb lane going south.
Now, as far as the comment from your source "the dad group was about halfway across the intersection"....I would pose you this.

MVA section 179(1) says that a driver must yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the highway in a cross walk if the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the driver is traveling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that he or she is in danger.

This would clearly suggest by the evidence of your own source that the truck should not have been attempting to make that right hand turn and instead, deferred to the right of way of the pedestrians. Sadly, it would seem by the info at hand, that the truck driver was perhaps rushing his right hand turn before the group he was focused on (dad et al) made his turn illegal as far as deferring the ROW to pedestrian, and missed seeing the little guy in front of them.

[dreamon]

Actually, what I learned from one of the initial investigators on the file who took statements from witnesses prior to the IIO being called, Fair isn't making things up. According to independent witness accounts, the dad with dog on a leash was about half way across the highway with the older child when the truck made the turn. The younger boy struck the side of the truck and then fell under the rear wheel and was run over.

I am NOT making excuses for the driver because I don't know why the driver didn't see the boy in time (maybe he was riding his bike quickly to catch up?). But I can't understand why the dad didn't make sure everyone was herded together before crossing that highway. It's something I've been going over again and again in my mind as a parent since learning that detail. Something I'm sure the dad will be going over again and again in his mind forever.

KL3, your post is borderline offensive and certainly insensitive to the father of James.
The bottom line is that this is tragic accident that will forever change the lives of two families, the McIntosh's and the driver. In hindsight, both Mr M and the driver would have done things slightly differently, however it is hindsight.

To a point the finger at the father at this time is uncalled for. The driver is the one of the most kind, caring, selfless and compassionate individuals that will ever grace us. The last thing the driver would want is for you to point the finger at a grieving parent, let alone the finger pointing come from a fellow member.

Shame on you.

[twobits]

To a point the finger at the father at this time is uncalled for. The driver is the one of the most kind, caring, selfless and compassionate individuals that will ever grace us. The last thing the driver would want is for you to point the finger at a grieving parent, let alone the finger pointing come from a fellow member.

Shame on you.

Thank you for that post. You obviously know the driver. I cannot imagine the grief he is going through. I responded to KL3's post because I too thought he was trying to cast doubt, justify, mitigate......whatever. This tragedy is what it is...a tragedy. No one need's to be hung from the rafters here for gross negligence. Not the driver or the father for not keeping his flock in a cohesive bunch on a legal crosswalk.
I think we all need to stop trying to figure out who is to blame and do a bit of grieving for both of the parties involved.