Was an Islamic Head-dress Responsible for the Fatal Calgary Bus Crash?

[M.Dancer]

And the bus driver HAS been charged now? Source please. And the charge is for driving with "blocked peripheral vision" due to having a headscarf on? Once again, source please.

From the original link

But a smaller hijab -- a scarf that surrounds the face.

In both glimpses, the bus driver's hijab was worn far enough forward that it clearly blocked her peripheral vision.

But to say so today is to be called Islamophobic -- even if the bus driver in question was not a Muslim.

The bus driver has been charged

Editted to add that a Globe Story today says that the police are still pending chages.

Edited October 23, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Guest American Woman]

Actually I was responding to the post by CLRV where he talked about Muslims being "down". My point is that it doesn't matter if she was a Muslim or a three legged toad. She was entrusted with the lives of these children and failed that trust. Since the cops were laying charges according to the news report last night I would think it is safe to assume that negligence of some sort was involved.

As for your mother wearing a scarf and never drifting off the road, well exactly how does that prove anything? The death of this child is a fact, who knows at this point if it was driver error or mechanical? My point is that the childs death is what matters. So what if she is, was, or may become Muslim, or Jewish, or Pastafarian. The childs death is what matters and as such charges should be laid, if, of course they are warranted.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

It helps clarify things as far as where you are coming from. It doesn't help clarify where the author of the OP cited is coming from. As I was commenting on in my post, he has taken this tragedy and made it into a rant against Muslims even though he has no clue if this woman is even a Muslim, and even if she is, he has no clue if her peripheral vision was, in fact, blocked. Yet he's basically saying everyone is just overlooking this self-proclaimed "fact" because they want to be PC or some such nonsense.

I find it disgusting that he would take the tragic death of an eight year old child and use it 1) as a rant against Muslims and 2) to cast this kind of doubt on the driver.

If he had serious concerns and felt the police weren't dealing with these concerns, that they are too stupid to look into every aspect of this accident, then he should be in contact with the police, not out eliciting more hard feelings against Muslims.

[Guest American Woman]

Editted to add that a Globe Story today says that the police are still pending chages.

Exactly. Which I had already posted.

Edited to add re: your quote:

But a smaller hijab -- a scarf that surrounds the face.

In both glimpses, the bus driver's hijab was worn far enough forward that it clearly blocked her peripheral vision.

First of all, he didn't see pictures of the woman until AFTER the accident. You think she couldn't have pulled the scarf up around her face more after she got out of the bus, when she was out in the elements, when there were cameras around?

Secondly, this guy's word means nothing to me. Surely you aren't taking his word as "proof?" I sure haven't seen any such pictures myself. Have you?

Edited October 23, 2007 by American Woman

[Shakeyhands]

I have to laugh at the swarms of leftists running to the defence of a driver who killed a child...and defending her only because she was a Muslim.

We're not defending her at all.... Why are you so obtuse?

[GostHacked]

I have to laugh at the swarms of leftists running to the defence of a driver who killed a child...and defending her only because she was a Muslim.

The fact about her being Muslim is pure speculation as of this point. So no, you are wrong. We are not defending her because she is speculated to be a Muslim. I would still hold her accountable in the death of a child. She is the driver of the bus. But keep on that path if you want. Call me an apologyleftist if you will. But you would be dangerously wrong here.

I have not defended her. I hold her and the employer responsible for the accident. Again if the employer knew the scarf or whatever she was wearing would restrict vision and cause a saftey concerns, why did they hire her in the first place? That puts the kids at risk before she even steps on the bus. But yes, see it so narrow as to it being all her fault. 100%, because she is speculated to be Muslim. In the article they

ScottSA, you have shown your true colours time and time again. They are not pretty colours either. They clash with the rest of the canvas.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...9/bus-folo.html

No mention of any muslim type dress in this report. Then again it does not seem to be an OPED piece.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/071018/n1018102A.html

Marklund said police had ruled out alcohol as a factor, but there was a fair amount of speed and little evidence of braking. The speed limit on the Crowchild is 70 kilometres an hour.

It does not take much to throw a vehicle out of control. If any of you have gotten into an accident where it was your fault, please tell me now if you were wearing a Muslim-Type-Headress.

I have been in 4 accidents, 3 where I was the driver. One was my fault, one was the other guys fault, and the other was pure crappy road conditions. One were I was a passenger in a truck, we were drving to another store, down a freshly snow covered road. He turns to me asks " Does my driving scare you?" "Nope" I replied, we rounded a corner, he changed up gears, back end of the pickup slipped, we did a 180, slid backwards in the other lane, and rolled down the bank twice before landing on the wheels again. He was not wearing anything on his head. He was just being an idiot and hit the gas to hard, he did not think at all, fresh snow, small pick up truck, hmmm might not be safe to speed.

Was stupidity a factor in the bus crash?

Was mechanial a factor in the bus crash?

No it was those stupid Muslims again right ScottSA? Show us your colours again.

[guyser]

I have not defended her. I hold her and the employer responsible for the accident. Again if the employer knew the scarf or whatever she was wearing would restrict vision and cause a saftey concerns, why did they hire her in the first place? That puts the kids at risk before she even steps on the bus. But yes, see it so narrow as to it being all her fault. 100%, because she is speculated to be Muslim.

But you and others seem ready to convict based on not knowing the true details of the accident.

The fact is we have no idea what happened.

I do believe that she likely a ) fell asleep/nodded off. b ) was watching the kids when she should have been driving. c ) medical reason in which case we may never know the what happens. d) mechanical reasons.

If any of the above are true except "d" , the school bus employers are not at fault.

Scarves are worn all the time and are not considered a safety hazard that I have ever seen.There is no statute that she could be convicted on for wearing a scarf. She could however be charged, and I bet she is, with dangerous driving causing death or simple careless driving. I doubt impaired will come unless she has had a toxicology test done on her blood.

As for speculation as to why "hire her"...it is Alberta, they likely had no choice.

I have been in 4 accidents, 3 where I was the driver. One was my fault, one was the other guys fault, and the other was pure crappy road conditions.

Not to be picky, well maybe...

In those three accidents, two of them you were at fault , one was the other guys fault.

Road conditions cannot be used to assign blame under normal circumstances. Under very rare cases one could try, but it is hard to prove. The road is static, it does not thing, doesnt move, it just is.

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure a coroner's inquest will examine if applicable whether her filed of vision was hampered in any way.

[AngusThermopyle]

please tell me now if you were wearing a Muslim-Type-Headress.

I was in an accident once, t-boned by a seventeen year old kid. At the time I wasn't wearing a Muslim type head covering. It was more a Ghandi style breach clout with a big flamboyant Pirate hat and boots. I would have been wearing my rubber Banana suit but it was in the trunk at the time.

[GostHacked]

But you and others seem ready to convict based on not knowing the true details of the accident.

AngusThermopyle, your last post is being facetious? I cannot find an appropriate word for what you just did. But in response to your previous post.

No way!! You mean all of us do not know the details but some have already pegged her being a Muslim? And you reply to my point that is really about the same thing? Who knows what happened, I also said that other things could have been a factor. COULD HAVE, but are not definate.

Guyser

But you and others seem ready to convict based on not knowing the true details of the accident.

And others like ScottSA are ready to convict her due to the speculation of a Muslim type veil/headdress, without waiting for the final results. No no no dude. I hold her and her employer responsible for the accident. That is what it comes down to. I have not made any convictions. But it is the driver and the company who holds responsibility at this point, untill further notice. Pending the investigation.

I also said that other things could be a factor, but feel free to ignore that part of my post.

[GostHacked]

Road conditions cannot be used to assign blame under normal circumstances. Under very rare cases one could try, but it is hard to prove. The road is static, it does not thing, doesnt move, it just is.

Guyser, roads are static indeed HOWEVER, things that travel across that road are not. Sleet, hail, ice, snow, fog, ect ect ect. No matter how carefull a driver you are , crap happens, and on an icey road, even the best of drivers can ditch it. But I agree under normal good driving conditions, it would be hard to prove. Nitpick, but actually it does bring up a valid point.

[guyser]

Guyser

And others like ScottSA are ready to convict her due to the speculation of a Muslim type veil/headdress, without waiting for the final results. No no no dude. I hold her and her employer responsible for the accident. That is what it comes down to. I have not made any convictions. But it is the driver and the company who holds responsibility at this point, untill further notice. Pending the investigation.

I was not attacking you , merely using you to show the folly of anyone saying "it is XX's fault". We just dont know. She and her employer are not responsible for the accident at this point. All signs point to some culpability, but we cannot say for sure. Thats all, no attack meant on you.

I also said that other things could be a factor, but feel free to ignore that part of my post.

I mad e no attempt to ignore anything and admit I did not see that. Either way, it is not an ignore on my part.

But you do say..." other things could be a factor".....which then goes against your "I hold her and her employer responsible." See what I mean?

As for scotty, when the sun doesnt shine,or it rains , or the light turns red,invariably it is a

muslims fault. What do you expect?

[guyser]

Guyser, roads are static indeed HOWEVER, things that travel across that road are not. Sleet, hail, ice, snow, fog, ect ect ect. No matter how carefull a driver you are , crap happens, and on an icey road, even the best of drivers can ditch it. But I agree under normal good driving conditions, it would be hard to prove. Nitpick, but actually it does bring up a valid point.

I know only too well.

Weather is almost never a reason for a car accident. I guess a tornado throwing ones car into another is one case, but even then, only if the car is actually being driven at the time.

Do not confuse what the officer puts on an accident report sheet and the final outcome of fault being assigned in an accident.

[ScottSA]

Exactly. Which I had already posted.

Edited to add re: your quote:

First of all, he didn't see pictures of the woman until AFTER the accident. You think she couldn't have pulled the scarf up around her face more after she got out of the bus, when she was out in the elements, when there were cameras around?

Secondly, this guy's word means nothing to me. Surely you aren't taking his word as "proof?" I sure haven't seen any such pictures myself. Have you?

Lol...you're just gonna keep this fighting retreat up until you have no further place to go, huh?

[GostHacked]

I was not attacking you , merely using you to show the folly of anyone saying "it is XX's fault". We just dont know. She and her employer are not responsible for the accident at this point. All signs point to some culpability, but we cannot say for sure. Thats all, no attack meant on you.

Guyser, hard to show some emotion through words. I did not see it as an attack. It was a great point to bring up, at least I think. Compared to what others have said here, this is something that even I can overlook !!

But you do say..." other things could be a factor".....which then goes against your "I hold her and her employer responsible." See what I mean?

Yes, I can see that for sure. I would still want to wait for the formal investigation. But, at the same time, the driver and employer are initially held responsible in the mean time. If I owned a bus company, I would consider myself reponsible for what happened. It is my bus, my employee and last but not least, other people's childern that ride these busses I own.

But alright, I will wait for the formal investigation to be complete for a verdict.

ScottSA

Lol...you're just gonna keep this fighting retreat up until you have no further place to go, huh?

[guyser]

Yes, I can see that for sure. I would still want to wait for the formal investigation. But, at the same time, the driver and employer are initially held responsible in the mean time. If I owned a bus company, I would consider myself reponsible for what happened. It is my bus, my employee and last but not least, other people's childern that ride these busses I own.

But alright, I will wait for the formal investigation to be complete for a verdict.

If you owned that bus line I can assure you that you would not ever publicly utter any term of "responsibility". You would set yourself up for major headaches.

Now, I have no doubt that should it be your bus that you would feel horrible for the child and the childs family, and you would publically express that sentiment.

But certainly not say "I consider myself responsible"

Contrary to M dancer, I dont think a coroners inquest will be called for. For one, we know how the child died. And if I am not mistaken thats what a coroners inquest does. Calling a public enquiry is doubtful too since it is likely that the truth will come out as to the whys and hows of the accident. Since the bus had seat belts, the safety of the children is a known commodity. The last inquest I can remember had to do with the question of how much safer would our kids be with a seatbelt , and apparently not much. School bus lobby groups are pretty good at keeping them out.

And frankly, insurance companies really dont care since the exposure is minimal .

[Alexandra]

I was in an accident once, t-boned by a seventeen year old kid. At the time I wasn't wearing a Muslim type head covering. It was more a Ghandi style breach clout with a big flamboyant Pirate hat and boots. I would have been wearing my rubber Banana suit but it was in the trunk at the time.

Tell me, what do you do for an encore?

TOO, TOO, FUNNY!

Notice the fact that there is not one tsk tsking critic of the op article with a sense of humor?

Figures.

`

[jbg]

This should be a no brainer....public safety trumps religious freedom.

Not for people who place multicultural values over the proper, effective and even safe functioning of society.

Tell me, what do you do for an encore?

TOO, TOO, FUNNY!

Notice the fact that there is not one tsk tsking critic of the op article with a sense of humor?

Figures.

`

Engrish prease.

More to the point, are you the "post police"?

[Moxie]

I'm sure a coroner's inquest will examine if applicable whether her filed of vision was hampered in any way.

I hope so, I wear one in the winter and yes it impedes my vision. It's a valid question, did the head scarf impede her vision. The oh so sensitive left would never consider placing child saftey over pandering to immigrants. No I'm not Muslim but damn it doesn't smush my hair and it's really warm. I don't care what her religion is, I care about future accidents based on lack vision. Saudi Arabia baned women driving citing the Burka as the reason, well that and that Allah fella.

[AngusThermopyle]

AngusThermopyle, your last post is being facetious? I cannot find an appropriate word for what you just did. But in response to your previous post.

No way!! You mean all of us do not know the details but some have already pegged her being a Muslim? And you reply to my point that is really about the same thing? Who knows what happened, I also said that other things could have been a factor. COULD HAVE, but are not definate.

Ummm, yes, I was being facetious. I only wear my Pirate/Ghandi outfit in the privacy of my own home, not while driving.

Now, as to your next statement. I actually referred to her as Muslim because of the title of the thread, a little short sighted of me I must admit. However, after seeing her on the news the other night I would say she is either Muslim or has started dressing for Halloween a little bit early. The news report stated that she was using her cell phone at the time the accident occurred. No mention of head dress at all. The cell phone reason seems entirely probable to me.

The final result however was that a child died because of her negligence (or so it would appear at this point in time). If such is the case then as I said ealier it doesn't matter if she is Muslim or a Clown shoes wearing Politician, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Just ban cell use in vehicles, they're more problems than they are worth. At the very least, if one must use a cell while driving then get a Bluetooth ear piece.

[Guest American Woman]

I hope so, I wear one in the winter and yes it impedes my vision. It's a valid question, did the head scarf impede her vision. The oh so sensitive left would never consider placing child saftey over pandering to immigrants. ... I don't care what her religion is, I care about future accidents based on lack vision.

Good grief.

If you care about accidents based on lack of vision, why in God's name do YOU wear a headscarf that impedes your vision-- as you go on about the LEFT and "pandering to immigrants?" !!

The news report stated that she was using her cell phone at the time the accident occurred. No mention of head dress at all. The cell phone reason seems entirely probable to me.

I haven't found a news source that said she was using a cell phone. Do you have a link for that?

Edited October 25, 2007 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

I clicked on the OP's link and got the following:

Oops - There's something wrong with that link

To which I thought "well, yeah: it's a link to an Ezra Levant story." But it turns out that the Sun pulled the piece. Is the notoriously right-leaning and sensationalist Calgary Sun caving to the all-powerful forces of Political Correctness? Or are they displaying a rare modicum of journalistic integrity and pulling piece due to it's totally speculative nature and the more recent revelations re: the driver's alleged cell phone use? Both seem improbable, but given that Ezra wouldn't be out of place as a passenger on the bus in queston, I'm leaning towards the latter.

<tuba>wah-WAH</tuba>

[Guest American Woman]

It's good to see that the article was pulled. It's just to bad it was printed in the first place.

Levant's response

Hi there. The Sun obviously approved the story -- they accepted it from me, edited it, laid it out on the page, wrote the headline, sent it to press, etc., etc.

I guess they just didn't like the heat they got from it -- which is really weird, because it was fairly innocuous, and the heat I've seen has been a few hard-left permanent-complainers.

Looks like political correctness has infected even the Sun -- who knew?

----------------

Too bad this man didn't call the police earlier:

Motorist says school bus tailgating day before fatal crash

"Police haven't determined what caused the crash, but they will consider the statement by a Calgary man who came forward and said he saw the same bus making aggressive lane changes and tailgating the day before it collided with a parked dump truck.

The man said he copied the vehicle's licence plate number and saw Third Academy's name and phone number on its side."

[ScottSA]

It's good to see that the article was pulled. It's just to bad it was printed in the first place.

Levant's response

Hi there. The Sun obviously approved the story -- they accepted it from me, edited it, laid it out on the page, wrote the headline, sent it to press, etc., etc.

I guess they just didn't like the heat they got from it -- which is really weird, because it was fairly innocuous, and the heat I've seen has been a few hard-left permanent-complainers.

Looks like political correctness has infected even the Sun -- who knew?

----------------

Too bad this man didn't call the police earlier:

Motorist says school bus tailgating day before fatal crash

"Police haven't determined what caused the crash, but they will consider the statement by a Calgary man who came forward and said he saw the same bus making aggressive lane changes and tailgating the day before it collided with a parked dump truck.

The man said he copied the vehicle's licence plate number and saw Third Academy's name and phone number on its side."

Ahhhh...so this was a personal Jihad, and not the fault of a hijab, eh? We should ban Islam and not have to worry about either. *snicker*

[Moxie]

I still think he raised a valid issue, did the veil restrict her vision. Sadly the PC police decided the issue of the veil was a non-issue lest the media offend imaginary offended people. I guess the media has ensured, by removing the story, that the issue of head coverings can or cannot impede vision and cause accidents isn't news worthy.

I can only shake my head, I guess pandering and appeasing is more important than children and the public's safty. WE COULD be at risk from drivers with impeded vision because of a head covering visa vie a veil or burka but that's not politically correct to discuss.

[Guest American Woman]

I still think he raised a valid issue, did the veil restrict her vision.

Now a headscarf has become a veil? Amazing how things escalate. And I still haven't seen any sourced cited saying she is a Muslim.

But it sounds as if this woman's competency to drive a bus is what should be in question. From what I've read, people who are not competent/qualified are being hired as school bus drivers in Calgary. Seems to me that would be a bigger issue than a headscarf and of more concern.

I wonder if it was her headscarf that was causing her to drive badly the day before the accident?

Edited October 27, 2007 by American Woman