CTA Accidents

[strictures]

I said earlier she would sue.

But Busjack, you beat me to it with Rule 137 of the Ill. Supreme Court.

I certainly hope the CTA orders its lawyers to go after the mother's shyster lawyer for filing a totally baseless suit. Because we all know, lawyers never want to sue other lawyers.

And Bushunter agrees with my earlier statement that something might be done with that bus.

So here's my next prediction: Protests on South Shore Drive to either slow the buses down, put up a fence along the curb or totally eliminate the buses from the street.

[TripleTransit1]

Forgive my language, but this is BS that CTA's getting sued over this accident. Now, I understood everyone who sued for that O'Hare crash in March because it was the operator's fault for sleeping at the controls, but suing CTA because a bus driver swerved a 60-foot bus to not even try to hurt a child, but accidentally doing so? The mother is pathetic.

[TripleTransit1]

I said earlier she would sue.

But Busjack, you beat me to it with Rule 137 of the Ill. Supreme Court.

I certainly hope the CTA orders its lawyers to go after the mother's shyster lawyer for filing a totally baseless suit. Because we all know, lawyers never want to sue other lawyers.

And Bushunter agrees with my earlier statement that something might be done with that bus.

So here's my next prediction: Protests on South Shore Drive to either slow the buses down, put up a fence along the curb or totally eliminate the buses from the street.

Nothing will happen with #4314, and the buses will not be slowed down. And WHY would they even reroute the #6, PERIOD?

[Busjack]

...

So here's my next prediction: Protests on South Shore Drive to either slow the buses down, put up a fence along the curb or totally eliminate the buses from the street.

That could be, but around there they protest everything. However, since it was also reported that someone keeps shooting up a strip mall around 79th and South Shore, they are going to have to duck for cover.

On the Rule 137 point, CTA used to be a litigation patsy, but (I would say about 20 years ago) took a more resistant stance, and if it is like Walmart, not only won't settle, but will make the litigation as expensive on the plaintiff as possible.

As I implied earlier, it is real easy to file a complaint because most of the news media is too ignorant to evaluate it, but that doesn't mean it is going far. The only exception seems to be that the Tribune published a scan of the rooftops contract, but I doubt it had to look far to find it.

[artthouwill]

If I am not mistaken, CTA buses are equipped with drivecam cameras. Obviously there should be a recording of this unfortunate accident. The video could either prove that the driver really had little time to react based on the proximity of the bus to the child as she darted out in the street or...

There could be a case made that the driver should've slowed down when he saw the child still on the sidewalk. As a Defensive Driving Instrudtor for the National Safety Council, we teach (and were taught) the "What If Rule?" Basically it is to get drivers to recognize potential hazards and anticipate your move should something happen. In this instance, the bus driver sees a couple of young children and a parent and a bike. Under the 'What If strategy, the question in his mind should've been, what if this child darts out in the street? A proper plan of action would be to slow down as a defensive driver. Had he done so BEFORE she actually darted out, it is possible that he could've stopped in time to not hit her, or the impact would've been less severe where she may have actually lived.

Anytime you see kids or dogs on the sidewalk on any street, it is best to slow down because you never know when a child or animal may dart across the street. This is the possible angle that the mother and lawyer may take in litigation against the CTA. The camera should have the proof.

[Busjack]

If I am not mistaken, CTA buses are equipped with drivecam cameras. Obviously there should be a recording of this unfortunate accident. The video could either prove that the driver really had little time to react based on the proximity of the bus to the child as she darted out in the street or...

There could be a case made that the driver should've slowed down when he saw the child still on the sidewalk. ..

Camera, yes.

However, on your other point, it isn't different from the driver who cut in front of the 7100 series articulated bus on LSD and got run over. IIRC, that was in the courts a long time, but CTA eventually won.

All that is required is due care. While I'll put in the disclaimer that I don't have the evidence, there is no requirement that a bus stop every 12 feet because there may be a child on the sidewalk.

[artthouwill]

Camera, yes.

However, on your other point, it isn't different from the driver who cut in front of the 7100 series articulated bus on LSD and got run over. IIRC, that was in the courts a long time, but CTA eventually won.

All that is required is due care. While I'll put in the disclaimer that I don't have the evidence, there is no requirement that a bus stop every 12 feet because there may be a child on the sidewalk.

I didn't say stop every 12 feet, but slow down. Obviously there are just some accidents that are just unavoidable, the question is did the driver do everything reasonable in his power to avoid it? I don't have the camera evidence so I don't know, but it will be key in determining that, and possibly whether CTA wins or not..

If you are referencing the 6 Jeffery Express accident near Soldier Field, cutting off a bus and stopping at any speed will get you run over and CTA should've won that case. Even in that, CTA instituted governing all buses at 55 mph (because it was reported at that time that the bus was running above 60 mph in a 45 mph zone).

[artthouwill]

I said earlier she would sue.

But Busjack, you beat me to it with Rule 137 of the Ill. Supreme Court.

I certainly hope the CTA orders its lawyers to go after the mother's shyster lawyer for filing a totally baseless suit. Because we all know, lawyers never want to sue other lawyers.

And Bushunter agrees with my earlier statement that something might be done with that bus.

So here's my next prediction: Protests on South Shore Drive to either slow the buses down, put up a fence along the curb or totally eliminate the buses from the street.

South Shore Drive between 83rd and 71st is a two lane street, one lane in each direction with no parking available on either side of the street. Basically when you step off the curb you are in traffic immediately. There is a small, very small grass area between the curb and the sidewalk, maybe all of two steps. The speed limit is 30 mph, though going faster would not be recommended. IIRC, that stretch of South Shore recently underwent construction..

[artthouwill]

This reminds me when I was in high school riding the 6 Jeffery Express. We stopped at 64th and Stony Island going NB and a girl had just gotten off the bus. As the bus started to pull off, she walked right in front of the bus, the bus driver blew his horn and she stepped back as the bus stopped. Then she proceeded out in front of the bus again and into traffic where there was a NB car starting to pass the bus. The car slammed on brakes but still hit the girl. This was a teenage child in this instance.

[Busjack]

I didn't say stop every 12 feet, but slow down. Obviously there are just some accidents that are just unavoidable, the question is did the driver do everything reasonable in his power to avoid it? ..

That isn't the legal question. The only question is whether the driver exercised due care.

Given that South Shore Drive is a known artery, with heavy bus traffic, what speed limit would have been necessary to meet your standard?

If anyone wanted to presume anything, it would be that people who live on South Shore Drive or Jeffery should expect heavy traffic,including buses. I don't know what housing choices these people have, but articulated buses are not running down Ogelsby Ave.

[strictures]

Nothing will happen with #4314, and the buses will not be slowed down. And WHY would they even reroute the #6, PERIOD?

I never said the CTA would reroute the #6, I said there would be protests that might demand that.

There's a difference.

[BusHunter]

Nothing will happen with #4314, and the buses will not be slowed down. And WHY would they even reroute the #6, PERIOD?

Remember #6043, the #152 that ran over the cyclist getting her bike off the rack. That bus I believe never went back into service at FG and I don't remember if it ever went back in service again, because they were getting close to retirement then. That bus was stuck in legal limbo. (The news footage of that is on my youtube videos link below if anyone needs a refresher course on that.)

[Busjack]

Remember #6043, the #152 that ran over the cyclist getting her bike off the rack. That bus I believe never went back into service at FG and I don't remember if it ever went back in service again, because they were getting close to retirement then. That bus was stuck in legal limbo. (The news footage of that is on my youtube videos link below if anyone needs a refresher course on that.)

Given my observation that the drivecam should provide sufficient evidence, this bus shouldn't be in legal limbo. And it certainly is about 11.5 years from its retirement date.

If the bus were to be in legal limbo, you would have heard that a lawsuit had been filed within 2 days, which is the usual procedure when a lawyer wants an order to preserve the evidence.

[garmon757]

Remember #6043, the #152 that ran over the cyclist getting her bike off the rack. That bus I believe never went back into service at FG and I don't remember if it ever went back in service again, because they were getting close to retirement then. That bus was stuck in legal limbo. (The news footage of that is on my youtube videos link below if anyone needs a refresher course on that.)

That bus is still at the South Shop while yet to be scrapped!!!!

[Busjack]

That bus is still at the South Shop while yet to be scrapped!!!!

Maybe BusHunter just told us why. Sort of similar to Pace 2322, which pace2322 told us was on some hold "because of the lawyers."

There would be more reason in the 6043 case, as the person taking the bike off the rack was still technically a passenger, and thus owed a higher duty of care, and if what BusHunter says is the scenario, was engaged in an authorized activity that should not have resulted in being run over.

[garmon757]

Maybe BusHunter just told us why. Sort of similar to Pace 2322, which pace2322 told us was on some hold "because of the lawyers."

There would be more reason in the 6043 case, as the person taking the bike off the rack was still technically a passenger, and thus owed a higher duty of care, and if what BusHunter says is the scenario, was engaged in an authorized activity that should not have resulted in being run over.

And that seems to add up very well.

[BusHunter]

Yeah, they were on the hot seat in that case. You know all those notify bus driver when removing bike stickers on the inside front door were a direct result of that incident and whenever you see some action taken that shows they must have felt they were liable. That case couldn't still be going on. I think that was a 2007 incident, the video says the date I believe. Most court cases go on for years. Hopefully the #4314 one will be dropped or we may be minus 2 artics from the #4300's.

[brownliner]

 

Yeah, they were on the hot seat in that case. You know all those notify bus driver when removing bike stickers on the inside front door were a direct result of that incident and whenever you see some action taken that shows they must have felt they were liable. That case couldn't still be going on. I think that was a 2007 incident, the video says the date I believe. Most court cases go on for years. Hopefully the #4314 one will be dropped or we may be minus 2 artics from the #4300's.

Settled in 2012 for $5.45 million. No criminal charges against the murderer, though, which is what negligently running someone over is.

In the present case, the CTA may have liability if their driver were speeding, or if he didn't brake and just swerved. I believe the new buses have recording devices for that information. If the CTA didn't preserve that, they also may have liability, because they should have, and the absence of evidence will look bad.

[BusHunter]

The operator wasn't impaired, so I don't see why they should be jailed. Accidents happen. Unless someone can prove it was intentional it's no different then someone hitting someone with their car. $5 million is alot of money.

[jajuan]

And given what neighborhood witnesses have consistently said from the beginning that the child ran out into the street and that there was little the operator could do to stop in time, it's going to take a lot more THIS time around for CTA to move to settle and give up any significant amount of money. Almost all said he both hit the brakes and tried to swerve around the child. There were no statements that he was speeding. Since the child died, the investigation pretty much automatically involved continued participation of the police, so it's highly doubtful that the CTA got rid of any video evidence. And just about all inklings of negligence are pointing overwhelmingly more to the mother than the CTA or operator, yet one more thing that makes this apples and oranges in comparison to the case involving the bicycle rider, so I'm not really seeing the purpose of you injecting the hyperbolic references of an operator as a murderer other than to unnecessarily fan the flames of the high emotions already induced by the knowledge that a very young child ran out into a busy street and died from being hit by a city transit bus. Since most of us already know that's a street that already has high traffic from the way it's structured, it's just as likely that that poor child could have gotten hit by some other type of vehicle that normally travels that roadway. If not a CTA bus, it could have just as easily been a car or some other type of bus that this child darted out in front of.

[andrethebusman]

Why would they do that? That's like saying for now on no new buses will have 14 as the last two digits just like Pace did it with 13 in which I still find that bs pathetic as hell.

Pace's aversion to 13 seems to stem from 8213 being wrecked and 8313 burned within a couple of years of being built. 8713 was the last "13".

[TripleTransit1]

Pace's aversion to 13 seems to stem from 8213 being wrecked and 8313 burned within a couple of years of being built. 8713 was the last "13".

So that's what gave way for Pace to stop having bus numbers end with 13.

[BusHunter]

Speaking of accidents, I wonder why #3171 has shown up at 54th/Cermak yard?

[garmon757]

Speaking of accidents, I wonder why #3171 has shown up at 54th/Cermak yard?

They've been there for a while.

[sw4400]

Speaking of accidents, I wonder why #3171 has shown up at 54th/Cermak yard?

I believe 3171-3172 was part of the Ghost Train Incident of Sept. 30, 2013. This was the less talked about pair compared to the destroyed 3177-3178 pair. While not as badly damaged as 3177-3178, I believe 3171-3172 have been retired from service and will await scrapping.