No charges Humbolt Bus Crash !?!?!?

I am certain there is no question that his lawyer would have examined it closely looking for anything possible to use. However, in my experience, good lawyers are pretty pragmatic and when there is no defence...

Also, there may be something that comes up to try and mitigate sentencing.

Agreed on both accounts.

 

During the sentencing phase that report will come into play.

 

No surprise on the no plea, and someone owes you a doughnut...

According to the statement, Sidhu was travelling at a speed of 86 to 96 km/hr, west on Highway 335, at the point of impact.

The road conditions and weather conditions were fine for safe driving, and the intersection was clearly visible to him. The trees at the corner of the intersection would not have stopped Sidhu from seeing the approaching bus if he had stopped at the stop sign, according to the statement.

"The relevant stop sign was an 'oversized' stop sign; it was 4 feet in diameter," reads the statement.

The sign was affixed to a light standard that also had a red traffic light, that flashed once per second as a warning to drivers.

Collision unavoidable for bus driver
The bus driver, Glen Doerksen, applied the brakes to the bus and started to skid, about 24 metres before the point of impact. The bus was travelling at a speed of 96 to 107 km/h at the time of the crash.

The truck was completely in the intersection and spanning all lanes of Highway 35 when the bus hit the semi in a T-bone fashion, just forward of the wheels on the lead trailer.

"There was no way that Glen Doerksen, the bus driver, could have avoided the collision," the statement said.

The statement of facts put the responsibility of the crash fully on Sidhu, saying Doerksen recognized the hazard early and tried to avoid the crash.

"The driver of the semi-tractor unit failed to recognize the hazard and took minimal or no action in an effort to avoid the collision," it stated, noting that alcohol and drugs were not a factor, and that Sidhu was not believed to have been distracted by his cellphone at the time of the crash.

- Statement of facts shows Humboldt Broncos' driver saw danger of impact but could not stop | CBC News

"No tire skid marks due to braking were left by the semi-tractor unit," reads a statement of facts agreed to by the Crown and defence in the court case of semi driver Jaskirat Singh Sidhu.

It says Sidhu simply "failed to recognize that his vehicle was approaching an intersection and did not heed the stop sign."

- Driver in Humboldt crash wasn't distracted, just didn't heed stop sign, document says | CBC News​

 

And destroyed 29 lives, families and friends. And kicked a country in the nuts.

 

Not sure what to make of the following opinion. To miss the large stop sign, with the flashing light and the numerous warning signs takes a lot more than a momentary lapse. I agree everyone gets a bit distracted at times but this required more than taking his eyes of the road for a split second. If this isn't considered a "marked departure" from normal driving I don't know what is.

Most of us have the good fortune of getting away with our idiot mistakes. Every one of us has driven too fast, or taken our eyes off the road for a split second, or operated a car on autopilot and arrived home having forgotten how we got there. Even you, skeptical reader, self-professed perfect driver, have made errors on the road; you don't remember because they were unremarkable — mercifully, no one got hurt. You got lucky.

Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, the driver of the semi-trailer that collided with the Humboldt Broncos team bus on a Saskatchewan highway last April, did not get so lucky. According to a preliminary statement of facts, Sidhu was not speeding, intoxicated or distracted at the time of the collision. The intersection where his semi crashed into the junior hockey team's bus was unobstructed and the stop sign where he should have yielded was clearly visible. But, for whatever reason, Sidhu missed it. Perhaps he was tired, or zoned out. Either way, it was a mistake — a horrific and deadly one — but one any one of us could have easily made.

On Tuesday, Sidhu pleaded guilty to 16 counts of dangerous driving causing death and 13 counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm — a choice that will spare the Broncos families the anguish of a trial. And the plea was indeed very much a choice: Sidhu could have challenged the charges against him, thereby forcing the Crown to prove that his conduct constituted a "marked departure" from normal driving. The Supreme Court of Canada has established that a momentary lapse of attention alone is not enough to establish actus reus or mens rea (guilty act or mind) of the offence of dangerous driving.

There's a chance the Crown could have secured a conviction had Sidhu gone to trial, but from what we know of the details of the collision, it certainly would have been a challenge.
Driver in the Humboldt crash made a mistake — a horrific one — but one any of us could have made: Opinion | CBC News

 

Robyn Urback usually has thoughtful and incisive opinions. In this case her opinion is based on the perspective of the average car driver. However, the standard that would be used to judge Sidhu in court would be that of a professional truck driver and not an average car driver.

What is the standard of a professional truck driver in Canada these days? I suppose a lawyer could make an argument that the standard of a truck driver in Canada is the standard of a dangerous, unskilled, unqualified man from a third-world country with no driving standards whatsoever because that is the actual demographic of truck drivers in Canada these days.

There has been a marked increase in the number of truck drivers who intentionally blow stop signs in Canada (especially on the prairies). That is the standard of driving in the countries those men came from.

 

"There's a chance the Crown could have secured a conviction had Sidhu gone to trial, but from what we know of the details of the collision, it certainly would have been a challenge."

########! They had him dead to rights, that's why his defense did the guilty plea. Now they're gonna try for the bleeding heart "leniency" during sentencing. With the current government, might just work. Wouldn't surprise me if they bring his crying wife/kids to the sentencing and push for probation or at the very least; serve all 16 sentences simultaneously. (plus time served X2.5 of course).

 

Now that he has plead guilty to what we knew all along, I hope the lawsuits come a plenty. For him and the owner.

 

And the government which has been negligent for far too long; primarily not for compensation, but to effect change.

 

theres no money to be had.