Tragic accident....

[coffeefreak]

This family (a widow with 12 kids who used to homeschool) lives a few hours from us, so it's on the news a lot right now. Just tragic. I have real mixed emotions about this because.....I feel very sorry for this family.....but, I just do.not understand what they were thinking?? :confused: A 17-year old driving with a 16-year old in the passenger seat (the only 2 of 18 buckled up). They said this souped-up rv, pulling a fully loaded trailer, was over 80 feet long. Also, I don't understand how they could think that it's a good idea to load 18 people (mostly kids) in an rv....go on a big trip from MN to TX....and.not.buckle.up. :eek:

Gosh....what that poor 17-year old boy will have to live with for the rest of his life. :crying:

I don't know. I'm so sad for these people....yet I'm mad too. I just don't understand the.......dare I say it?.....stupidity. I hope I don't get flamed for saying that about these poor people. :sad:

 

I don't think the OP ever expressed anything but mixed feelings in her posts, and I don't think she called them "stupid." But, yeah, I get what you're saying about the general sentiment expressed. I don't think it was a particularly wise decision, myself, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say. And nobody can make this family feel worse about it than they already do, nor would I want to try.

 

I just am fairly amazed that MN allows such young drivers to be able to drive such large vehicles. I generally think of those vehicles as being restricted class, and therefore requiring a certain age and/or training beforehand. I think that that state should revisit those regulations in light of this accident.

 

I can see your point. I guess I understand Minnesota's law because I lived there and it's still a rural state. But, you're right, it wasn't on the family farm, and hindsight is always 20-20. I think it's interesting that someone brought up Kansas' laws, because that's not something I necessarily think about when I'm traveling. It's a good point though. If you're from another state and you are traveling with a teenage driver, who wouldn't be allowed to drive in a state you're traveling through, which state are you bound by? Would the police have the right to pull you over? Would you be subject to a ticket?

[Princess Peach]

I can see your point. I guess I understand Minnesota's law because I lived there and it's still a rural state. But, you're right, it wasn't on the family farm, and hindsight is always 20-20. I think it's interesting that someone brought up Kansas' laws, because that's not something I necessarily think about when I'm traveling. It's a good point though. If you're from another state and you are traveling with a teenage driver, who wouldn't be allowed to drive in a state you're traveling through, which state are you bound by? Would the police have the right to pull you over? Would you be subject to a ticket?

 

Yes, you have to obey the laws of the state you are in. I drive thru NH, VT and NY to get to my parents house to visit and I always have to be aware of cell phone laws that are different in every state. Same with seatbelts.

[Aelwydd]

I can see your point. I guess I understand Minnesota's law because I lived there and it's still a rural state. But, you're right, it wasn't on the family farm, and hindsight is always 20-20. I think it's interesting that someone brought up Kansas' laws, because that's not something I necessarily think about when I'm traveling. It's a good point though. If you're from another state and you are traveling with a teenage driver, who wouldn't be allowed to drive in a state you're traveling through, which state are you bound by? Would the police have the right to pull you over? Would you be subject to a ticket?

 

I'll let the OP answer for her comment, and what she meant by it. I agree with you that there's really nothing to be gained by castigating them for what happened, but it is human nature to react with, "I'm so sorry for what happened, but lady...what were you thinking?!"

 

That aside--and back to my focus--the differing laws between states is something that caught me by surprise, too. Prior to our trip to Florida 3 years ago, I hadn't really thought about if my son HAD to have a booster seat. But, since we'd be driving through 3 or 4 states, we had to abide by each state's rules. By the same token, if we rented a car in Florida, we had to agree to abide by the child restraint laws there, even though we're obviously not residents.

 

Here's a web page that discusses how different states either recognize, or do not recognize, other states' driving permits. It looks like Kansas may accept permits, with restrictions.

[BatmansWife]

We are about 2 hours from them too.

 

 

 

I wonder how close we live to each other? I'm in SE MN.

 

I'm about 20 miles from Pine City...in WI.

How horrible.

 

I agree with some previous posters - it's a miracle anyone survived, seeing what the vehicle looked like after the crash. :( Without more details as to how injuries happened, I wonder if seatbelts would have helped or not.

 

It also sounds like MN allows for people to be without seatbelts in cars in most cases, which is very different from TX. If it wasn't for the provision on the 17yo's driver's license, the lack of seatbelts would have been completely legal (with the possible exception of the littles).

 

I'm not sure if that is the case. The MN Seat Belt law says:

 

Minnesota’s seat belt law is a primary offense, meaning drivers and passengers in all seating positions — including in the backseat — must be buckled up or in the correct child restraint.

Law enforcement will stop and ticket unbelted drivers or passengers. A seat belt ticket is $25 but can cost more than $100 with fees.

Drivers will be ticketed for unbelted passengers ages 14 and younger. Unbelted passengers age 15 and older will be ticketed directly.

 

 

I don't think the OP ever expressed anything but mixed feelings in her posts, and I don't think she called them "stupid." But, yeah, I get what you're saying about the general sentiment expressed. I don't think it was a particularly wise decision, myself, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say. And nobody can make this family feel worse about it than they already do, nor would I want to try.

 

I just am fairly amazed that MN allows such young drivers to be able to drive such large vehicles. I generally think of those vehicles as being restricted class, and therefore requiring a certain age and/or training beforehand. I think that that state should revisit those regulations in light of this accident.

 

As cofeefreak so nicely pointed out....yes, I did say:

 

I just don't understand the.......dare I say it?.....stupidity. I hope I don't get flamed for saying that about these poor people.

 

I'm sorry that stupidity was the wrong word choice at the moment I was writing. I guess I should have said "wrong choices"...."bad decisions"....I don't know. In reality, it's all the same.

 

 

I'll let the OP answer for her comment, and what she meant by it. I agree with you that there's really nothing to be gained by castigating them for what happened, but it is human nature to react with, "I'm so sorry for what happened, but lady...what were you thinking?!"

 

That aside--and back to my focus--the differing laws between states is something that caught me by surprise, too. Prior to our trip to Florida 3 years ago, I hadn't really thought about if my son HAD to have a booster seat. But, since we'd be driving through 3 or 4 states, we had to abide by each state's rules. By the same token, if we rented a car in Florida, we had to agree to abide by the child restraint laws there, even though we're obviously not residents.

 

Here's a web page that discusses how different states either recognize, or do not recognize, other states' driving permits. It looks like Kansas may accept permits, with restrictions.

 

I don't know that I necessarily have to answer for my comment. Yes...I said stupidity. And....I said I'd probably get flammed for it. I couldn't think of another word at the time. I should have said....unwise choices, I don't know. I don't think it's rocket science to understand what I meant by it. I still stand by my comments. My point was basically on two things......letting a young inexperienced teen behind the wheel (regardless of the laws) driving that heavy of a load with that many people loose inside (which was the second point...no seatbelts). I guess I don't understand why some people (I don't necessarily mean you) have to bicker about that. But...I shouldn't be surprised by anything here anymore.

[Slartibartfast]

The question in my mind isn't whether it was legal in MN for a 17 yo to be driving that vehicle, and with so many unbuckled passengers. The question is whether it is legal in Kansas, where the accident occurred. Just because one state is lax doesn't mean another will be equally forgiving. For example, my nephew can ride around in a car in this state without being in booster seat. In the next state over, he has to be in a booster until he's 8 yo.

 

If we were taking a trip to Florida, and driving through LA to get there, it doesn't matter that in TX it's legal for him to go without a booster. In LA, the laws are different, and we would be accountable for abiding by them.

 

Under seven has to be in a booster unless they are over 80 lbs.

 

In Minnesota law there are less restrictions if the RV is a private vehicle. Those loopholes don't apply in Kansas, a CDL is required depending on the weight of the vehicle. You cannot apply for a CDL in Kansas until you are 18. But the CDL licenses for under 21 year olds only apply for driving within the state, it doesn't allow for cross country driving. Minnesota law is apparently extremely lax. I wonder if they will change it as a result.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

I think I agree that it is human nature to think or say, "well, this tragedy is because of x or y, so, whew, me and mine are safe." But, the truth is, tragedies happen every day to people who thought they were doing everything right.

[Slartibartfast]

I think I agree that it is human nature to think or say, "well, this tragedy is because of x or y, so, whew, me and mine are safe." But, the truth is, tragedies happen every day to people who thought they were doing everything right.

 

That's true. When I was in a car accident one thing I joked about was that I wasn't doing anything wrong at the time. I wasn't speeding, on the phone, distracted by kids or anything. It didn't prevent someone from running into me.

[Henriettakittycat]

I think it's a horrible accident and we shouldn't now be discussing what they might have done wrong. My younger brother (20 yrs old) was killed in a car accident because he was sleeping in the back seat of truck and not buckled in. My dad, who was driving and was buckled, died as well. The other vehicle ran a stop sign, so I don't really know if the seatbelt would have mattered all that much. I do know I would not have done very well with others deciding what he should have done and discussing it. What we were dealing with was hard enough without all of that. I feel so much for what this family is going through and they're in my prayers.

 

WSS.

[Princess Peach]

:blink:

[BatmansWife]

:blink:

 

:iagree:

 

:blink:

 

:lol:

[Joker]

 

It's a tragedy what happened to this family, but make no mistake. Had he driven that vehicle across the double yellow lines instead of off the road, and killed others, those victims' families would hardly be expected to just swallow that it's "just an accident" and nobody should judge.

 

 

 

That's not always the case. My family went to the boy's home who was responsible. My mom knelt by his side and told him she didn't want the accident to ruin his life and there was nothing to forgive because it was an accident. Some do realize that accidents happen and don't wish to punish or judge people further.

[RanchGirl]

The reason I think that the accusations of irresponsibility leveled at this family are inappropriate is that we do not have all the facts. Even a general state law discussion isn't going to be productive without all the facts.

 

For example, the driver in question was not an inexperienced teen driving with a learner's permit. The news article stated that he had a professional drivers license; in MN this is called a commercial driver's license (CDL). It is above and beyond the regular driver's license required to drive an automobile. It is not anything like a permit that a typical 15 year old gets while learning to drive for the first time. The minimum age for a CDL is 17 and it requires additional testing and driving experience. Yes the driver was a teen, but he had been driving for seven years and he had a commercial driver's license.

 

A previous poster has cleared up the misstatement about MN seatbelt laws. In Kansas the following vehicles are exempt from seatbelt laws: Vehicles for over 10 people, and trucks over 12,000 lbs. The Kerber vehicle falls into both categories. Personally, I prefer to ride with seatbelts but I fail to see how a seatbelt could save anyone from that accident.

 

If an investigation proves that a more experienced driver could have avoided this tragedy, that's one thing. But since the actual cause of the accident is unknown at this point, I think it's too early to start pointing fingers at the driver, his parent, or at Minnesota/Kansas laws. What if the investigation proves a mechanical problem or physical road hazard caused the accident, and the driver avoided hitting other cars because of his skill and expertise?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The reason I think that the accusations of irresponsibility leveled at this family are inappropriate is that we do not have all the facts. Even a general state law discussion isn't going to be productive without all the facts.

 

For example, the driver in question was not an inexperienced teen driving with a learner's permit. The news article stated that he had a professional drivers license; in MN this is called a commercial driver's license (CDL). It is above and beyond the regular driver's license required to drive an automobile. It is not anything like a permit that a typical 15 year old gets while learning to drive for the first time. The minimum age for a CDL is 17 and it requires additional testing and driving experience. Yes the driver was a teen, but he had been driving for seven years and he had a commercial driver's license.

 

A previous poster has cleared up the misstatement about MN seatbelt laws. In Kansas the following vehicles are exempt from seatbelt laws: Vehicles for over 10 people, and trucks over 12,000 lbs. The Kerber vehicle falls into both categories. Personally, I prefer to ride with seatbelts but I fail to see how a seatbelt could save anyone from that accident.

 

If an investigation proves that a more experienced driver could have avoided this tragedy, that's one thing. But since the actual cause of the accident is unknown at this point, I think it's too early to start pointing fingers at the driver, his parent, or at Minnesota/Kansas laws. What if the investigation proves a mechanical problem or physical road hazard caused the accident, and the driver avoided hitting other cars because of his skill and expertise?

 

 

No, he had a provisional driver's license, not a professional license.

 

"KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A 17-year-old boy with a provisional driver's license was behind the wheel when a converted semitrailer crashed on a Kansas highway, killing five members of his Minnesota family who were on vacation to see a motocross race, authorities said Monday."

http://www.680news.com/news/world/article/347470--17-year-old-with-provisional-license-was-driver-in-kansas-motor-home-crash-that-killed-5

 

Provisional license restrictions:

http://education4drivers.com/minnesota/drivers-license-restrictions.htm

[BatmansWife]

The reason I think that the accusations of irresponsibility leveled at this family are inappropriate is that we do not have all the facts. Even a general state law discussion isn't going to be productive without all the facts.

 

For example, the driver in question was not an inexperienced teen driving with a learner's permit. The news article stated that he had a professional drivers license; in MN this is called a commercial driver's license (CDL). It is above and beyond the regular driver's license required to drive an automobile. It is not anything like a permit that a typical 15 year old gets while learning to drive for the first time. The minimum age for a CDL is 17 and it requires additional testing and driving experience. Yes the driver was a teen, but he had been driving for seven years and he had a commercial driver's license.

 

A previous poster has cleared up the misstatement about MN seatbelt laws. In Kansas the following vehicles are exempt from seatbelt laws: Vehicles for over 10 people, and trucks over 12,000 lbs. The Kerber vehicle falls into both categories. Personally, I prefer to ride with seatbelts but I fail to see how a seatbelt could save anyone from that accident.

 

If an investigation proves that a more experienced driver could have avoided this tragedy, that's one thing. But since the actual cause of the accident is unknown at this point, I think it's too early to start pointing fingers at the driver, his parent, or at Minnesota/Kansas laws. What if the investigation proves a mechanical problem or physical road hazard caused the accident, and the driver avoided hitting other cars because of his skill and expertise?

 

I know we don't have all the facts. But, you don't either. I'm sorry to differ with you...but the boy did not have a CDL. He doesn't have a "professional" drivers license but a "provisional" drivers license. The two are completely different. In MN, the steps for a teen to get his license are 1. permit 2. provisional (with the GDL restrictions) 3. full license.

 

 

Quote from one article:

A 17-year-old boy with a provisional driver's license was behind the wheel when a converted semitrailer crashed on a Kansas highway, killing five members of his Minnesota family who were on vacation to see a motocross race, authorities said Monday.

According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, A___ K___'s (name withheld by me) license includes several restrictions, including that all occupants of the vehicle wear seatbelts when available. Only two of the 18 people aboard were belted in, but it wasn't clear if belts were available for those passengers riding in the trailer.

 

The minimum age for a CDL in MN:

 

You must be at least 18 years of age to apply for a CDL for intrastate (within Minnesota) driving and at least 21 years of age to apply for a CDL for interstate driving.

 

The vehicle was registered as a private recreational vehicle. No special license was required to drive it....no training. Anyone with a drivers license in MN can drive an rv.

 

It is unclear to me if the driver really was under his GDL restrictions....although, this may be the case since the articles I have read state that he had a "provisional" license (those would have the GDL restrictions). If he was under his GDL restrictions then they were clearly violated:

 

Nighttime and passenger limitations for provisional drivers in MN:

Every occupant must wear a seat belt or use a child passenger restraint system

You may not use, or talk on, a cell phone while driving (including a hands-free cell phone device)

During the first six months of licensure, driving is prohibited from midnight until 5 a.m. unless the provisional driver is:

Accompanied by a licensed driver at least 25 years of age

Driving between home and work

Driving between home and a school event for which the school does not provide transportation

Driving for employment purposes

For the first six months of licensure, only one passenger under the age of 20 is permitted, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian

During the second six months of licensure, no more than three passengers under the age of 20 are permitted, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian

Note: Passengers under 20 who are members of the provisional driver’s immediate family are permitted during both time periods.

 

And....I don't care how long the boy has been driving around his farm. Just because he was driving trucks around the farm and fields does not give him 7 years driving experience in my book.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2012 by ~AprilMay~

[BatmansWife]

No, he had a provisional driver's license, not a professional license.

 

"KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A 17-year-old boy with a provisional driver's license was behind the wheel when a converted semitrailer crashed on a Kansas highway, killing five members of his Minnesota family who were on vacation to see a motocross race, authorities said Monday."

http://www.680news.com/news/world/article/347470--17-year-old-with-provisional-license-was-driver-in-kansas-motor-home-crash-that-killed-5

 

Provisional license restrictions:

http://education4drivers.com/minnesota/drivers-license-restrictions.htm

 

Ditto. You posted while I was getting my facts.

[HiddenJewel]

And....I don't care how long the boy has been driving around his farm. Just becasue he was driving trucks around the farm and fields does not give him 7 years driving experience in my book.

 

Do you come from a farm background? Your statement leads me to believe that you don't know what is involved in hauling hay and livestock, driving equipment, etc.

[BatmansWife]

If he was under his GDL restrictions then they were clearly violated:

 

Nighttime and passenger limitations for provisional drivers in MN:

Every occupant must wear a seat belt or use a child passenger restraint system

You may not use, or talk on, a cell phone while driving (including a hands-free cell phone device)

During the first six months of licensure, driving is prohibited from midnight until 5 a.m. unless the provisional driver is:

Accompanied by a licensed driver at least 25 years of age

Driving between home and work

Driving between home and a school event for which the school does not provide transportation

Driving for employment purposes

For the first six months of licensure, only one passenger under the age of 20 is permitted, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian

During the second six months of licensure, no more than three passengers under the age of 20 are permitted, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian

Note: Passengers under 20 who are members of the provisional driver’s immediate family are permitted during both time periods.

 

I may have to take this back. I'm not sure if he clearly violated the GDL restrictions or not....since the parent was with. Some of the 18 had different last names, so perhaps they weren't all immediate family. I'm not sure. Regardless......it was a bad idea, in my opinion.

[BatmansWife]

Do you come from a farm background? Your statement leads me to believe that you don't know what is involved in hauling hay and livestock, driving equipment, etc.

 

Nope....no farm background. I still don't think it would be the same as driving on a highway with other traffic during a big cross country trip.

ETA: I also don't think he would have been allowed at age 10 - 17 to be driving heavy equipment hauling hay and livestock on the highways of MN. Maybe on a country road between a farm and a field. But...whatever, clearly I'm not a farmer so I'm probably wrong.

Edited April 3, 2012 by ~AprilMay~

[SKL]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Who in this tragedy needs to feel worse than s/he already feels?

 

Accidents happen and people die even when those in charge try to do everything exactly right. The mindset that every tragedy was someone's "fault" and could have been prevented is problematic on many levels, IMO.

[SweetBean]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Who in this tragedy needs to feel worse than s/he already feels?

 

Accidents happen and people die even when those in charge try to do everything exactly right. The mindset that every tragedy was someone's "fault" and could have been prevented is problematic on many levels, IMO.

 

:iagree:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do you come from a farm background? Your statement leads me to believe that you don't know what is involved in hauling hay and livestock, driving equipment, etc.

 

I do. And driving a vehicle on a farm at low speeds with no traffic is not even remotely similar to driving a large vehicle on the interstate.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Who in this tragedy needs to feel worse than s/he already feels?

 

Accidents happen and people die even when those in charge try to do everything exactly right. The mindset that every tragedy was someone's "fault" and could have been prevented is problematic on many levels, IMO.

 

It is possibly partly due to a poor decision made by whomever put a young driver in charge of that vehicle.

 

Personally, I have stated quite clearly I do not blame the 17-year old, and I feel great compassion for him. I do feel less for the person who put him that situation, and who put the lives of everyone else on the roads they traveled.

[angela in ohio]

The vehicle was registered as a private recreational vehicle. No special license was required to drive it....no training. Anyone with a drivers license in MN can drive an rv.

 

That's the crazy part to me. With the trailer behind the RV, he was basically driving a semi with a double trailer. At 17. On a provisional driver's license. It's crazy that that is the law, but I also think we have a responsibility to make our own choices within the law to keep our faily safe.

 

And I don't understand why you would blow five tires in one trip? Is that normal with semi tires? That's scary, because those things have killed drivers in nearby cars, most recently a college girl south of here.

[clarkacademy]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Who in this tragedy needs to feel worse than s/he already feels?

 

Accidents happen and people die even when those in charge try to do everything exactly right. The mindset that every tragedy was someone's "fault" and could have been prevented is problematic on many levels, IMO.

 

No one needs to feel worse at all. But you will always find some people on this board need to point out the different things they would have done so that their lives would have had a better outcome. You will always find people of that nature who like to rub salt in the wound so to speak because, they just have nothing better to do.

 

Children are dead, that mother has to live with it. I would like to apologize for her for all the mistakes she made. Woulda coulda shoulda don't matter much when you are about to bury your babies. Why don't all you people who want to point it out go hug your kid give yourself a pat on the back and congratulate yourself. Your such a great parent.

 

I hope you never make a mistake and have to pay the way this mom is paying.

[dani3boys]

 

I'm about 20 miles from Pine City...in WI.

 

 

 

My in-laws live in Sandstone. I grew up in Duluth.

[BatmansWife]

No one needs to feel worse at all. But you will always find some people on this board need to point out the different things they would have done so that their lives would have had a better outcome. You will always find people of that nature who like to rub salt in the wound so to speak because, they just have nothing better to do.

 

Children are dead, that mother has to live with it. I would like to apologize for her for all the mistakes she made. Woulda coulda shoulda don't matter much when you are about to bury your babies. Why don't all you people who want to point it out go hug your kid give yourself a pat on the back and congratulate yourself. Your such a great parent.

 

I hope you never make a mistake and have to pay the way this mom is paying.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how things get so twisted. I don't believe I was rubbing salt in a wound or any of the other things you are claiming. Sheesh....it was a local news story and I just wanted to talk about it. But....this isn't the first time I should keep my mouth shut (or tie my fingers behind my back) and not discuss things here. Too many people twist it up and make it into something that it never was in the first place. What I find quite ironic is the people that say....don't be judge and jury....regarding people we don't know....are the very ones who end up judging so harshly the people here who should be our "friends".

[Audrey]

I agree with you. It is a tragic accident, but the tragedy could have been avoided if not for stupidity. The 17yo had restrictions on his licence and should never have been allowed to drive the vehicle in the first place. Not having safe seating with proper restraints for all passengers was another purely stupid move, as well.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Audrey

[Audrey]

I may have to take this back. I'm not sure if he clearly violated the GDL restrictions or not....since the parent was with. Some of the 18 had different last names, so perhaps they weren't all immediate family. I'm not sure. Regardless......it was a bad idea, in my opinion.

 

He CLEARLY violated the first restriction!

 

Nighttime and passenger limitations for provisional drivers in MN:

Every occupant must wear a seat belt or use a child passenger restraint system

[BatmansWife]

I agree with you. It is a tragic accident, but the tragedy could have been avoided if not for stupidity. The 17yo had restrictions on his licence and should never have been allowed to drive the vehicle in the first place. Not having safe seating with proper restraints for all passengers was another purely stupid move, as well.

 

Bingo. Thank you Audrey. This was really the point of my whole post summed up nicely.

[RanchGirl]

No, he had a provisional driver's license, not a professional license.

 

My mistake, I read elsewhere it was professional.

 

The minimum age for a CDL in MN:

 

You must be at least 18 years of age to apply for a CDL for intrastate (within Minnesota) driving and at least 21 years of age to apply for a CDL for interstate driving.

 

 

No, there is a CDL in MN with a minimum age of 17:

http://mn.gov/elicense/licenses/licensedetail.jsp?URI=tcm:29-2761&CT_URI=tcm:27-117-32

 

I admit I made a mistake about the professional license, and I do find it surprising a parent would allow a teen to drive a large vehicle like that without extensive experience if that is in fact the case.

[Audrey]

No one needs to feel worse at all. But you will always find some people on this board need to point out the different things they would have done so that their lives would have had a better outcome. You will always find people of that nature who like to rub salt in the wound so to speak because, they just have nothing better to do.

 

Children are dead, that mother has to live with it. I would like to apologize for her for all the mistakes she made. Woulda coulda shoulda don't matter much when you are about to bury your babies. Why don't all you people who want to point it out go hug your kid give yourself a pat on the back and congratulate yourself. Your such a great parent.

 

I hope you never make a mistake and have to pay the way this mom is paying.

 

 

Oh please... :001_rolleyes: No one is saying it is any LESS tragic because of the stupid decisions that led to the deaths. It IS still VERY tragic, and sad, and no one is saying anyone deserved it. The fact remains, however, that some very poor judgment went into helping this tragedy occur. I'm quite sure the mother is aware of it, and I don't think that discussing it on this forum is in any way equivalent to us patting ourselves on the back.

[BatmansWife]

He CLEARLY violated the first restriction!

That's true. It doesn't say..."unless there are no seatbelts available, like in an rv". I think the rv laws (or whatever they are called) say to wear them if they are available. But...the GDL restrictions don't say that.

[BatmansWife]

My mistake, I read elsewhere it was professional.

 

 

 

No, there is a CDL in MN with a minimum age of 17:

http://mn.gov/elicense/licenses/licensedetail.jsp?URI=tcm:29-2761&CT_URI=tcm:27-117-32

 

I admit I made a mistake about the professional license, and I do find it surprising a parent would allow a teen to drive a large vehicle like that without extensive experience if that is in fact the case.

 

The laws are often hard to understand (they definitely could make things more easily understood). I know my son will have his GDL license soon and I have to read it over with a fine tooth comb.

 

The quote I had was from a MN site that didn't list the age of 17. Your quote varies a bit saying:

 

 

A combination of vehicles in which the gross combination weight (GCW) is more than 26,000 pounds and the towed unit has a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of more than 10,000 pounds — Minimum age is 18**

 

 

 

 

 

A single vehicle with a GVW exceeding 26,000 pounds — Minimum age is 17**

 

 

 

 

 

A vehicle designed to transport more than 15 persons, including the driver — Minimum age is 18**

 

 

 

 

So...who knows. To me it would fall under the first one and the 3rd one. But, not that it matters anyway. :001_smile:

 

 

[brandigirl]

Well as a person who lives in an RV I want to through my .02 cents in.

 

First he should not have been driving.

 

Second You are not supposed to have 80ft worth of vehicle thats against the law.

 

Third Most motorhomes are not equipped with seatbelts much less 16 of them.

 

It was not stupidity people dont realize how dangerous RV's are and they think its all fun and games you should see some of the accidnets we have seen.

[Jennifer3141]

And I don't understand why you would blow five tires in one trip? Is that normal with semi tires? That's scary, because those things have killed drivers in nearby cars, most recently a college girl south of here.

 

Angela, I come from a tire background (glamorous, I know) but no, blowing out FIVE tires was the part of the story that scared me the most.

 

Tires "blow" when they are either improperly inflated or are too old or the wrong load capacity. So this/these vehicle/vehicles either were way overloaded, the tires (at least) were breaking down due to age or they were the wrong load capacity for this vehicle. I can see having ONE blowout and moving on but unless you are at a contruction site with nails lying all over, the five blown tires should have been an indication that something was very, very wrong with this set up. It's frightening to me that that didn't occur to anyone in this vehicle.

 

Under the rubber of the tire's tread are steel belts. When a tire runs without the correct air pressure, it runs hotter than it should. Friction heats the tire which causes those belts to snap. The steel belts are the tire's frame. On a trailer tire, those tires that are blown out usually blow out the side where the frame and the rubber just separate. It looks like a zipper when this happens. You can see all the belts poking through the rubber. And if the tire gets hot enough, the entire tread comes off the belts. Those are those giant pieces of rubber you see on the highways from semi trucks.

 

I'm sorry for the "accident" in that I am sorry people died. But wow. The lack of good judgment all the way around is astounding.

 

And yes, in this day and age it is super easy to judge other people. Everyone makes decisions that other people can question. That's the age of 24 hour news reporting!!!

 

But it sickens me to think that this kid just completed driver's education with NO knowledge about basic vehicle safety at all. And that no one anywhere had the mental capacity to stop and think, "Hey, five blown tires seems kinda weird. I wonder what's wrong?"

 

If blowing tires like that was common, none of us whould be able to make it down the road in anything short of a Hummer because of all the rubber pieces. And a box of cereal would cost you $467 at Walmart because the cost of shipping it there would be astronomical. A brand new commercial truck tire can cost close to $1000 depending upon its position on the semi-truck. You cannot afford to be popping those all over the place all the time.

 

There are stories that just make you miss critical thinking skills. I would probably have turned around because 5 blown tires seems like a jinx to me. But there's real science behind why the tires failed.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Jennifer3141

[BatmansWife]

Well as a person who lives in an RV I want to through my .02 cents in.

 

First he should not have been driving.

 

Second You are not supposed to have 80ft worth of vehicle thats against the law.

 

Third Most motorhomes are not equipped with seatbelts much less 16 of them.

 

It was not stupidity people dont realize how dangerous RV's are and they think its all fun and games you should see some of the accidnets we have seen.

 

This reminds me when I was a kid our family joined another family and we rented a rv. We went from WI to FL with all of us in there. All of us kids just roamed around the inside of the rv. We played board games at the back table, we used the bathroom, the moms made lunches....all while we were speeding down the highway at 55. I'm sure the 4 adults never thought a thing about it (although I can remember my dad saying a family prayer before we left :001_smile: ). Wow...thankfully we never were in an accident.

Edited April 3, 2012 by ~AprilMay~

[SKL]

A kitten dies every time someone uses the term "stupid" in connection with a mom who just lost a child.

 

Personally I would be afraid to say such a thing. I believe that unkind thoughts toward others do reach them and harm them. And I believe in karma. And I can remember a few times when I've done something stupid and was saved by the grace of God.

 

I just hope that mom has the sense to stay the heck away from sites that may contain this kind of talk.

 

Actually, my first (and really only) thought about this was "I hope the mother survives. Those surviving children need her." They have already lost their dad. They need their mom to bounce back and be strong, not hate herself and feel suicidal.

[clarkacademy]

A kitten dies every time someone uses the term "stupid" in connection with a mom who just lost a child.

 

Personally I would be afraid to say such a thing. I believe that unkind thoughts toward others do reach them and harm them. And I believe in karma. And I can remember a few times when I've done something stupid and was saved by the grace of God.

 

I just hope that mom has the sense to stay the heck away from sites that may contain this kind of talk.

 

Actually, my first (and really only) thought about this was "I hope the mother survives. Those surviving children need her." They have already lost their dad. They need their mom to bounce back and be strong, not hate herself and feel suicidal.

 

 

:iagree::grouphug:

[flyingiguana]

It never ceases to amaze me how things get so twisted. I don't believe I was rubbing salt in a wound or any of the other things you are claiming. Sheesh....it was a local news story and I just wanted to talk about it. But....this isn't the first time I should keep my mouth shut (or tie my fingers behind my back) and not discuss things here. Too many people twist it up and make it into something that it never was in the first place. What I find quite ironic is the people that say....don't be judge and jury....regarding people we don't know....are the very ones who end up judging so harshly the people here who should be our "friends".

 

I thought it was perfectly appropriate to post -- and to have an opinion on. And if letting more people know about this incident makes someone else think twice about getting into a similar situation then you've done good.

[Aelwydd]

That's not always the case. My family went to the boy's home who was responsible. My mom knelt by his side and told him she didn't want the accident to ruin his life and there was nothing to forgive because it was an accident. Some do realize that accidents happen and don't wish to punish or judge people further.

 

And then there are the majority of people, and what they think or feel about if their family members are robbed of life, or limb, due to someone else's deliberate choice to take a risk, such as drinking, texting, or maybe in this case, putting an inexperienced young driver at the wheel of a CDL-class vehicle.

 

I'm not going to apologize for believing that people who make such risky/ illegal choices should be held to account for them. I am not calling for this family to be prosecuted, as the damage was limited to their own circle.

 

However, if they had taken out one of my family members? Taken out my child? Because of a choice that probably 90%+ of the population would rightly identify as unacceptable?

 

Hells bells, it would be on.

[Aelwydd]

The reason I think that the accusations of irresponsibility leveled at this family are inappropriate is that we do not have all the facts. Even a general state law discussion isn't going to be productive without all the facts.

 

For example, the driver in question was not an inexperienced teen driving with a learner's permit. The news article stated that he had a professional drivers license; in MN this is called a commercial driver's license (CDL). It is above and beyond the regular driver's license required to drive an automobile. It is not anything like a permit that a typical 15 year old gets while learning to drive for the first time. The minimum age for a CDL is 17 and it requires additional testing and driving experience. Yes the driver was a teen, but he had been driving for seven years and he had a commercial driver's license.

 

A previous poster has cleared up the misstatement about MN seatbelt laws. In Kansas the following vehicles are exempt from seatbelt laws: Vehicles for over 10 people, and trucks over 12,000 lbs. The Kerber vehicle falls into both categories. Personally, I prefer to ride with seatbelts but I fail to see how a seatbelt could save anyone from that accident.

 

If an investigation proves that a more experienced driver could have avoided this tragedy, that's one thing. But since the actual cause of the accident is unknown at this point, I think it's too early to start pointing fingers at the driver, his parent, or at Minnesota/Kansas laws. What if the investigation proves a mechanical problem or physical road hazard caused the accident, and the driver avoided hitting other cars because of his skill and expertise?

 

 

Who is making accusations, Ranchgirl? I have asked questions, and used such qualifying terms as "if" and "may." I have not made any conclusive statements about the legality of the situation, because I have stated myself, the investigative process needs to continue. You can't make any definitive statements until that has complete. And simply discussing different legal scenarios is not the same thing as making a determining statement one way or the other.

[Aelwydd]

 

I don't know that I necessarily have to answer for my comment. Yes...I said stupidity. And....I said I'd probably get flammed for it.

 

 

April, I think you're taking my comment the wrong way. I wasn't saying it like you had to explain yourself. I didn't take your post the same way some others did, and so I didn't find it offensive. However, I don't feel I should interpret your words to someone else, when you are perfectly capable of doing so yourself!

[Aelwydd]

Do you come from a farm background? Your statement leads me to believe that you don't know what is involved in hauling hay and livestock, driving equipment, etc.

 

I don't understand how this equates to driving a 10-ton vehicle on an interstate, with many other trucks and cars, at 60+ mph, with several passengers.

 

My dad used to let me drive a car through some back farm roads near our house when I was 12 yo. I got pretty good. Did that mean I was qualified to drive that car on a road with many other people, with traffic lights and roads with boundaries that I had to stay within?

[SKL]

You know, some (if not all) of your kids are going to get into car accidents after they start driving. And some of those accidents are going to involve other people.

 

There are a lot of sad things members here post about that can easily be traced to their own bad choices. Somehow we manage to be compassionate about those things. But a mom who has lost so much apparently deserves no compassion, only scathing criticism. Why the difference? Could it be that deep down, we realize that we aren't perfect nor in complete control over our kids' safety, and we don't like realizing that we too could lose our kids?

 

They mentioned she was a homeschooler - I sure hope she's not a member here.

 

Oh, and by the way, I think maybe there should be a WTM subforum for perfect parents. You know, the ones who have never made a mistake that could lead to tragedy. Because apparently there are a number of parents like that on this board. I've never met one in real life, but that doesn't prove anything, right?

[Aelwydd]

You know, some (if not all) of your kids are going to get into car accidents after they start driving. And some of those accidents are going to involve other people.

 

There are a lot of sad things members here post about that can easily be traced to their own bad choices. Somehow we manage to be compassionate about those things. But a mom who has lost so much apparently deserves no compassion, only scathing criticism. Why the difference? Could it be that deep down, we realize that we aren't perfect nor in complete control over our kids' safety, and we don't like realizing that we too could lose our kids?

 

They mentioned she was a homeschooler - I sure hope she's not a member here.

 

Oh, and by the way, I think maybe there should be a WTM subforum for perfect parents. You know, the ones who have never made a mistake that could lead to tragedy. Because apparently there are a number of parents like that on this board. I've never met one in real life, but that doesn't prove anything, right?

 

 

To apply your logic, there should be no recognized qualitative difference between an accident that happens because someone simply sneezed and missed a curve in the road, and a situation where, say, a truck driver let his teenage son take the wheel of a big rig, after it had had some brake problems, for an extended days-long, exhausting drive, and subsequently ran head-on into a minivan full of kids.

 

Do I understand correctly? That I should regard the loss of my child's life at the hands of latter situation with the same equanimity and acceptance as the former?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You know, some (if not all) of your kids are going to get into car accidents after they start driving. And some of those accidents are going to involve other people.

 

There are a lot of sad things members here post about that can easily be traced to their own bad choices. Somehow we manage to be compassionate about those things. But a mom who has lost so much apparently deserves no compassion, only scathing criticism. Why the difference? Could it be that deep down, we realize that we aren't perfect nor in complete control over our kids' safety, and we don't like realizing that we too could lose our kids?

 

They mentioned she was a homeschooler - I sure hope she's not a member here.

 

Oh, and by the way, I think maybe there should be a WTM subforum for perfect parents. You know, the ones who have never made a mistake that could lead to tragedy. Because apparently there are a number of parents like that on this board. I've never met one in real life, but that doesn't prove anything, right?

 

 

Nonsense. Accidents happen. Some accidents are due to inexcusable negligence. This might be one of those cases.

[Tammyla]

:grouphug:Too sad.

[SKL]

To apply your logic, there should be no recognized qualitative difference between an accident that happens because someone simply sneezed and missed a curve in the road, and a situation where, say, a truck driver let his teenage son take the wheel of a big rig, after it had had some brake problems, for an extended days-long, exhausting drive, and subsequently ran head-on into a minivan full of kids.

 

Do I understand correctly? That I should regard the loss of my child's life at the hands of latter situation with the same equanimity and acceptance as the former?

 

Do you even know for a fact how well/poorly this kid generally drove compared to the average driver, how long he was at the wheel (there were other licensed drivers aboard; why would they not take turns); or whether even the best, most mature driver available would not have had the same accident under the same conditions? No. But what I'm pretty sure of is that the mother has been punished enough.

 

As far as I know, everyone in that van was either old enough to make his own decision, or had his parents there to decide for him, whether to be in that situation with that driver at the wheel. So I guess this family could not have hurt YOUR child since you would not have let your kid be in the situation in the first place. Kudos to you! To be honest, I probably wouldn't either.

 

Were other drivers on the road endangered by this particular driver? I don't know, but if that is the case, maybe it needs to be illegal for ANY 17yo to drive on the freeway. Or anyone, for that matter, since fatal highway accidents have occurred with all kinds of drivers.

 

Why are some of you so angry? You lost nothing to this accident. The person you are condemning has lost more than you can imagine losing. So like I said before, I really don't understand this thread. When was the last time this kind of condemnation of a bereaved mother ever made a positive difference?

[Aelwydd]

Do you even know for a fact how well/poorly this kid generally drove compared to the average driver, how long he was at the wheel (there were other licensed drivers aboard; why would they not take turns); or whether even the best, most mature driver available would not have had the same accident under the same conditions? No. But what I'm pretty sure of is that the mother has been punished enough.

 

 

And have you even read any of what I have said on this thread? I have said, more than once, that I am not pushing for the mother to be punished, because no one outside her family was harmed. However, IF, IF, IF that had not been the case, then I would certainly understand the other victims' families taking exception to the premise that they should just forgive and understand, it was all just a mistake.

 

As Chocolate said, there is such a thing as gross negligence. Is that a factor in this case? I don't know, and I have stated such, again repeatedly.

 

What I do strongly disagree with is the tone you and others have used in a kind of "shame on you" tactic for even hinting that the mother and other older adults could have any sort of culpability for creating/aiding/supporting a dangerous situation. We don't know if any of it was illegal. We don't know all the facts, nor have I even once stated such. But there is nothing wrong about discussing those facts that we do have.

 

What I am saying is that this situation deserves very close scrutiny, not because I want the mom or others locked up, but because any misinformation, poor judgment, negligence, etc., should be identified as such. And then those findings should be discussed and shared, so hopefully, others won't make such an egregious mistake and cost more lives.

 

 

Finally, you didn't answer my question in my last post. Did you mean in your previous post to suggest that there is absolutely no difference in how one should feel about losing a loved one to a purely circumstantial accident, as opposed to one set into action as a direct result of someone's negligence?

[OH_Homeschooler]

Do you even know for a fact how well/poorly this kid generally drove compared to the average driver, how long he was at the wheel (there were other licensed drivers aboard; why would they not take turns); or whether even the best, most mature driver available would not have had the same accident under the same conditions? No. But what I'm pretty sure of is that the mother has been punished enough.

 

As far as I know, everyone in that van was either old enough to make his own decision, or had his parents there to decide for him, whether to be in that situation with that driver at the wheel. So I guess this family could not have hurt YOUR child since you would not have let your kid be in the situation in the first place. Kudos to you! To be honest, I probably wouldn't either.

 

Were other drivers on the road endangered by this particular driver? I don't know, but if that is the case, maybe it needs to be illegal for ANY 17yo to drive on the freeway. Or anyone, for that matter, since fatal highway accidents have occurred with all kinds of drivers.

 

Why are some of you so angry? You lost nothing to this accident. The person you are condemning has lost more than you can imagine losing. So like I said before, I really don't understand this thread. When was the last time this kind of condemnation of a bereaved mother ever made a positive difference?

 

Whoa, I'm not angry but she just described two different situations leading to accidents as an example of why it is important to ask questions. Even if this family did absolutely nothing wrong, there are still things to be learned from this accident. If they followed the law down to the letter of course you can't blame them, BUT you can ask that the law be changed to help prevent future tragedies.

 

Asking questions is not the same as condemnation. Not at all.