trey824 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 it is so sad and nerve recking to see my new flyer damaged like that.and to top it off the s o b that hit the bus was a negligent driver. did any one see the rear damage to bus 1667? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Oh, I saw Channel 7's 11am newscasts about the crash. It happened at right near Roosevelt & Loomis. It looks like from that video, that car got moreso totaled than the rear of the bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymc77 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 What a surprise, another New Flyer in an accident on the West Side. And to top it off, a negligent driver involved too. Can you just notice my sarcasm. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buslover88 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 What a surprise, another New Flyer in an accident on the West Side. And to top it off, a negligent driver involved too. One thing: Roosevelt and Loomis is not on the west side. It's right by one of those universities (UIC or another one, can't remember the name). Anyway, I feel bad for #1667 and the passengers aboard that bus with a driver like that aboard and driving that bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 One thing: Roosevelt and Loomis is not on the west side. It's right by one of those universities (UIC or another one, can't remember the name). Anyway, I feel bad for #1667 and the passengers aboard that bus with a driver like that aboard and driving that bus.I guess it depends on your definition. Pretty much anything west of Halsted would qualify, until you get to the nebulous boundaries between the northwest and southwest sides. At least you noted the passengers. For those who keep bringing up the bus numbers, any incident on Roosevelt has an overwhelming chance of affecting a new bus (unless, by chance they hit a 6000). But there is a reason why there are bumpers (and some bus assemblers, such as Nova, stress their flexible rocker panels). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 it is so sad and nerve recking to see my new flyer damaged like that.and to top it off the s o b that hit the bus was a negligent driver. did any one see the rear damage to bus 1667? What a surprise, another New Flyer in an accident on the West Side. And to top it off, a negligent driver involved too. Anyway, I feel bad for #1667 and the passengers aboard that bus with a driver like that aboard and driving that bus. Anyone have a direct link to the story? These quotes have confused me.... is the driver of the other vehicle the negligent one(as Trey824 says), or is the CTA Bus Driver of #1667 the negligent one(as Buslover88's quote says)? I'm not sure whether mikeymc77 is leaning toward the vehicle driver or CTA Bus Driver as the negligent one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Anyone have a direct link to the story?Channel 5 link. The Flash embedded picture is especially good. From what I saw on TV, the car rearended the bus, whacked the bus's rubber bumper good. Usually, by definition, a rear end collision is evidence of the trailing driver's negligence. Certainly not the stopped one's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buslover88 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 These quotes have confused me.... is the driver of the other vehicle the negligent one(as Trey824 says), or is the CTA Bus Driver of #1667 the negligent one(as Buslover88's quote says)? I'm not sure whether mikeymc77 is leaning toward the vehicle driver or CTA Bus Driver as the negligent one. I only said the driver of #1667 was negligent just because everyone else was. Sorry for doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 I saw the newsbrief of the accident in the RedEye. According to that, this time it was the car driver who was negligent and not the operator. The driver of the car alledgedly caused a chain reaction accident that sent her car rearending into the back of the bus. I'm disappointed that it was a new bus that got damaged I'm more concerned that the paasengers weren't hurt too badly. As for the sarcasm about the accident being on the West Side and involving a new bus, let's not go back down a similar road as last year when we had members suggesting that my community on the West Side or those on the South Side should not get new buses because they are "bad areas or high-crime areas." The accident could have very easily involved a North Park NF 1000 on the North side or any other area of the city that sees NF 1000s in service, which at this point amounts to almost anywhere in the city along with areas in Evanston, Skokie and Wilmette that have CTA bus service. The more important issue over that kind of silly drivel is that no one gets serious hurt due someone's careless driving be it a CTA operator or as in this case a negligent car driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymc77 Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 :lol: Good News. 1667 is back in service, seen it on the 12 Roosevelt this afternoon. The rear of the bus is fixed, the only sign that something was done hastily is the fact that there is no number on the rear of the bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.