C.R. England Accident Kills 1 Trainee, Injures 9 More

A man died. What the heck is wrong with you? That's sick to say something like that. I'm even more sick of people judging a man by the name of the company that's on the door! Judge a man for who he is and NOT WHO HE DRIVES FOR! I can't begin to explain how childish it is to say something like that, but worse you have a man dead and you want to put others down to make yourself feel good.

 

Does it really not matter that it happened to be they were in training with C.R.E.???
To the general motoring public, all Big trucks look the same, so to them, no, it doesn't matter. For those who are familiar with the questionable business practices of C.R.E. and their apparent lack of respect for new recruits in general, yes, it does matter. Would you recommend C.R. England to a friend seeking to get into the Big truck truckin' industry? If not, why not? If so, please explain your reasoning, -- or lack thereof.

Sadly, that is true.
What caused his death?
Who employed the driver of the van carrying multiple passengers?
Did the driver of that van have a passenger endorsement on his CDL-A?
Was the van involved in the crash in good order? Was it safe to operate, illegally without proper passenger seat belts?
Are you aware that those who experienced the C.R.E. adventure have reported that they rode in that very van, and that it, along with several other vans operated by C.R.E. also had seat belts that didn't work, and that at least one van had loose seats that rocked back and forth? Does that impress you as a company that cares about the safety of those who take the ride?
This never should have happened and the blame is on the Company as well as the driver of the fateful van that morning.

OH!
By the way, traffic on I-10 at 5:30 am is heavy, stop and go every weekday. The van driver SHOULD have been aware of that fact and been even more cautious. Apparently he threw caution to the wind, -- not paying attention. C.R. England's driver trainers are who drive the vans. Might that be a clue as to the quality of training they receive there? Is it hard to imagine why anyone would be of the opinion that C.R.E. drivers can't even drive a 4-wheeler? Are they exaggerating? Perhaps. But it should be easy to understand why they're so appalled.

Hauling freight is one thing, transporting living human beings is quite another thing.
Much more responsibility goes with transporting people as the driver holds the lives of the passengers in his hands.
Who maintained that van? Why was it not up to safety standards? Who dropped THAT ball?

I realize that your question is directed toward Freightwipper, but I think I know the answer, -- nothing is wrong with Freightwipper, -- just stating an opinion probably based on knowledge about C.R. England's shabby standards.
What the heck is wrong with you?

When the truth sounds "sick"to you, perhaps you need to reexamine why you aren't "sick" about what actually caused the crash that killed a passenger.
The D.O.T. opines that "ALL accidents ARE preventable." So why didn't the van driver prevent the crash?
Driver Error. Plain and simple. NO other vehicles were involved.

Judge not, lest ye be judged in the same manner. Are you not "judging" someone based only on their stated opinion? An opinion that could be correct, for all we know.

Maybe you can't begin to explain how childish it is to say something like that because it would be childish to say something about childishness when it doesn't apply. Besides, that would be a judgement on your part. If not the driver of the van, is it Okay to judge C.R.E.? Is judging the same as blaming? Who do you blame for the crash? Mother Nature? Fate? No one? Every one? Stopped traffic? Equipment failure? Inattentiveness? Gotta be a reason it happened.

You have a dead man due to driver error and you want to put down a poster who expressed an opinion concerning the driving skills of those associated with C.R. England, --- just to make yourself feel good? Tell me about "judging" others again. Maybe that'll make me feel good too.

Do you think folks just woke up one morning and decided that there needs to be a Big truck truckin' company that they can ridicule and berate for no other reason than to satisfy their desire to pick on those who happen to drive for that company? Do you think they picked a company name out of a hat while blindfolded, and it happened to be C.R. England that was randomly selected by chance? Do you think that makes sense? Do you think it's remotely possible that the reason why C.R. England, the Company, and those who drive for the Company, were chosen is due to the Company's reputation for questionable business practices and shabby treatment toward the Company and lease drivers and taking advantage of them, -- a Company showing no concern for their parasitic actions as they continue to exploit folks who trust the silver-tongued recruiters who regularly resort to telling outright lies to entice those who just want to find a way to earn an honest living and support their family? Are you aware that C.R. England finds it necessary to have their drivers pass through a metal detector to see their dispatcher entrenched in an office behind bullet-proof glass? Why do you think the Sons-0-Chester find that necessary? Other Big truck truckin' companies don't find it necessary to go to those extremes.
And THAT, Freightlinerman, is what SHOULD make you sick. NOT an expressed opinion that killed no one. A C.R. England driver did that, and he'll have to live with that thought for the rest of his life. I wonder what his thoughts concerning C.R.E. are right about now.

 

I don't get sick because people train with CRE. Albeit disappointing of their choice having personally been through their school years ago. SO, telling a friend not to go to CR England is giving friendly advice. Making rude comments about a dead man and a bunch of injured trucking trainees because of the company they were training for, is that more of an opinion a personal attack?

The article states he was ejected, assuming he suffered massive trauma hence he died on scene. Who employed the driver, I would guess CRE. Did he have a passenger endorsement? Not needed for the van he was in. Even if he had one, would it have changed anything? In my opinion, no. As far as seat belts, many big companies have these vans and drivers foolishly think they don't need to wear a seat belt. I always wear mine. The seat belts in this van were apparently inoperable and seats were loose. Why were the seat belts inoperable? Can you fault the people riding for not wearing? Well, it's all opinion. I have multiple on the subject.

AS I said, it all goes to individual behavior. You don't drive for CRE because you are a bad driver, or choose not to be cautious. You do it because you CHOOSE to do. I have no doubts there are some really, really bad trainers there that are simply looking for that second seat to make the miles to get the lease op/company driver more $. Some people DO care. I don't have numbers, but it's all individual behavior.

Do you think folks just woke up one morning and decided that there needs to be a Big truck truckin' company that they can ridicule and berate for no other reason than to satisfy their desire to pick on those who happen to drive for that company? Do you think they picked a company name out of a hat while blindfolded, and it happened to be C.R. England that was randomly selected by chance? Do you think that makes sense? Do you think it's remotely possible that the reason why C.R. England, the Company, and those who drive for the Company, were chosen is due to the Company's reputation for questionable business practices and shabby treatment toward the Company and lease drivers and taking advantage of them, -- a Company showing no concern for their parasitic actions as they continue to exploit folks who trust the silver-tongued recruiters who regularly resort to telling outright lies to entice those who just want to find a way to earn an honest living and support their family? Are you aware that C.R. England finds it necessary to have their drivers pass through a metal detector to see their dispatcher entrenched in an office behind bullet-proof glass? Why do you think the Sons-0-Chester find that necessary? Other Big truck truckin' companies don't find it necessary to go to those extremes.
And THAT, Freightlinerman, is what SHOULD make you sick. NOT an expressed opinion that killed no one. A C.R. England driver did that, and he'll have to live with that thought for the rest of his life. I wonder what his thoughts concerning C.R.E. are right about now.
[/QUOTE]

SO, from your comment, if you went up to the dead CRE trainees family and said, "C.R. England drivers can't even drive a 4 wheeler!
Not surprising..." Is that opinion? That is an unsubstantiated statement. Has the poster researched or have some kind of proof? If you want to call a child like comment opinion, you can. It's my opinion that its child like, so call me hypocritical. But, a normal person would probably say the same thing. I'm aware of the thug practices CRE employs, but you want me to be SICK at the company, and NOT sick at the out of touch comments the poster made on a thread where a man died? Quite frankly they both disturb me.

 

All this argueing, and speculating about who is at fault, what happened, etc. None of us were there, regardless of which company they represent. The fact remains a van carrying 10 human beings was involved in a accident, and one was killed. The rest is company bashing, and personal opinion. It was unfortunate that these individuals were injured and one killed, but it happened. C.R.England was not driving, just a employee. Regardless of what you think of CRE, the driver made his/her own decision. Maybe we can feel some remorse for those who were injured or killed in this tragic accident, and quit using it to bash a company you personally dont like.

 

The articles I read reported that the passenger who was killed was "partially ejected through a window", and the van rolled over him. Not uncommon in a roll-over when not wearing a seat belt.

All things considered, --- probably not.

Lookit that!
We agree.

And some companies foolishly don't keep the seat belts in proper working order for those who WOULD wear them IF they were operable. Who's responsibility is it to assure all equipment is in proper working order? Would you say they dropped the ball? Is it your opinion that the passenger who died did so as a result of his own chosen actions? It's my opinion that SOMEbody failed the man who died. Had the seat belts been functional there's a good chance he'd still be alive.

I do too.
Just for the sake of conversation, if any of those passengers refused to take a ride in a van with no seat belts and/or a loose seat, -- what do you reckon the powers that be C.R.E. would do with him? Praise him for being safety minded, or sent him packin' for home, post haste?

No, the people riding in that van sure had a reasonable expectation that C.R. England, the Company, would have done everyuthing possible to provide a safe vehicle for them to ride in. C.R. England, the Company AND it's employees obviously weren't concerned with the safety of those involved. To top it all off, the van that crashed is only one of many vans used to transport trainees with similar safety issues.

In your opinion, if it wasn't the fault of the passengers, and it wasn't the fault of any C.R.E. employees, ---- where should the blame be placed? The manufacturer of the vehicle? Fate?

In this case the "individual" behavior is the Company and who the Company delegates the responsibilities of assuring the safety of those the Company transports.

Personally, I harbor no ill feelings toward the drivers at C.R.E.. My gripe is with the Sons-0-Chester for the way they (mis)treat and disrespect their trainees and lease operators.




Do you think folks just woke up one morning and decided that there needs to be a Big truck truckin' company that they can ridicule and berate for no other reason than to satisfy their desire to pick on those who happen to drive for that company? Do you think they picked a company name out of a hat while blindfolded, and it happened to be C.R. England that was randomly selected by chance? Do you think that makes sense? Do you think it's remotely possible that the reason why C.R. England, the Company, and those who drive for the Company, were chosen is due to the Company's reputation for questionable business practices and shabby treatment toward the Company and lease drivers and taking advantage of them, -- a Company showing no concern for their parasitic actions as they continue to exploit folks who trust the silver-tongued recruiters who regularly resort to telling outright lies to entice those who just want to find a way to earn an honest living and support their family? Are you aware that C.R. England finds it necessary to have their drivers pass through a metal detector to see their dispatcher entrenched in an office behind bullet-proof glass? Why do you think the Sons-0-Chester find that necessary? Other Big truck truckin' companies don't find it necessary to go to those extremes.
And THAT, Freightlinerman, is what SHOULD make you sick. NOT an expressed opinion that killed no one. A C.R. England driver did that, and he'll have to live with that thought for the rest of his life. I wonder what his thoughts concerning C.R.E. are right about now.

Sure.
Absolutely.
And it would still be an opinion if the dead CRE trainee's family said that before I did, ---- IF I had met them. However, I doubt that would be what I'd say if I met them.

Well, ...... there's a dead trainee that shouldn't be. I wonder what his opinion would have been? Silly mistake or massive blunder?

Thanks. I feel better knowin' I have permission.

If it's all the same with you, I'd prefer to call you "Freightlinerman". I not real big on name-callin'.

I hope you're not thinkin' I'm "normal". I've seen what is considered "normal", and that's not an accurate description of me. Last thang I wanna be is normal.

In a word, YeS.
And nobody died on this, or any other thread I'm aware of.

I respect that, --- and appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you in a calm, civilized manner. I hope and look forward to more such exchanges in the future.

 

In a nut shell:

1. CR England I would hold them responsible. With all those safety people, how hard would it be to have a sign saying mandatory seat belt use? Or, doing a spot check to make sure trainees were wearing seatbelts, OR having the driver who is a figure of authority as the van driver/employee of CRE tell the trainees to buckle up?

2. If the seat belts were defective, why didn't the driver report it? Would CRE brush it off? Ignore it? It's more like the mechanics, but would they? I would guess yes. They have bigger fish to fry, and hunting down or repairing seat belts is probably not on the priority list.

3. If the trainees spoke out, I could bet that CRE would send them home. I can just imagine one of their guys ranting that "if you can't handle a van with out seat belts, how can you handle a truck?" OR, "this guys going to be a head ache, lets let him finish the school so we can bill him for it and then send him packing."

All this is speculation and opinion. They may as well have Lex Luther run the place.

And to the other person saying this is arguing, it's not arguing, its a discussion.

 

It doesn't look like the law firm was hired yet. I think they were just putting their name out there with the article so when the family decides they might hire them?