Terminated For Gross Negligence

[UPS Lifer]

That is your opinion.... I will always know it was not my fault. How did I pull out in front of the cycle when I never saw him.. What do you work for management???

I read through all the posts. My first reaction was the same as everybody's ...we are not getting all the facts. My gut feeling was that L was either traveling through a yellow or a red light to be charged with gross negligence. My next thought was where did the motorcycle hit the vehicle.... the exact location. This will also tell a piece of the missing info. Not sure it is necessary anymore.

Dannyboy - you did a fantastic job on your assessment however I think that this needs to be looked at as SIMPLY as possible in regards to any UPS liability of L's job.

FACT (as we know it!) L did not have the right of way. It is as simple as that. He proceeded into the intersection and it was his obligation to make sure the intersection was clear PERIOD END OF STORY!. It does not matter to UPS what any of the other circumstances are based on what we know at this point. The arbitrator also must have agreed with the same concept.

I disagree with 705 - I think if 100 other UPS drivers were in the same position that this would not have happened to them. I have that much confidence in all of your professionalism on the road. I would bet one of my checks on it!

Just because L did not see the MC does not make it OK or relieve him of the responsibility. Some failure caused L not to adequately clear the intersection. We were not there and will probably never know the entire story.

My guess is that UPS took into consideration L's record and the fact that the MC was also a contributing factor to his own fatality, and that is why the combo job was offered.

 

[dannyboy]

I agree with your viewpoints. The cycle struck the package car between the passenger side door and the rear wheel, per the accident report. It did cause quite a bit of damage to the package car, and totaled the cycle, not to mention the rider.

While training drivers, I could not happen to notice that when you enter an intersection, the methods say glance left, right, left. I always felt, especially when crossing four lanes, that the second glance to the right as you were begining to enter the last two lanes a good idea.

Had L looked L twice, and then proceeded into the intersection, and while crossing the first two lanes, looked right again, he might have avoided being struck.

One of the witnesses did mention, that while she can not be 100% sure, she thought that the cyclist was speeding up trying to beat the UPS truck through the intersection, until it went into his pathway(most likely when the driver switched gears).

He proceeded into the intersection and it was his obligation to make sure the intersection was clear PERIOD END OF STORY

THat is why I felt he was lucky not to have been charged with Failure to yeild. The fact that he did not see him at all does not releive him of the responsibility that the cycle was indeed coming.

And I do agree that with the mitigating issues, that UPS tried to do the right thing by the driver when they offered the job. I dont know who or what affected the decision that L made, but it should not have been taken that lightly.

Statement made at the scene, and video of the accident, somewhere in that or other information that has not been made public is the answer as to why the arbitrator ruled like they did.

Or it could be that when questioned repeatedly, the driver insisted that because he didnt see the cycle, he was not at fault in any way, much like he has here. It is my opinion, and is confirmed by several others on and off this site, that L has some serious emotional issues with this wreck/death, and rightly so.

As for it never happening to professional drivers, it can. And very quickly. We had one here many years ago, head on where our driver did everything to avoid the accident. The cyclist was also killed, and the driver was off for over 4 months with pay dealing with the aftermath. So please, know that while at times I seem cold on this issue, I know it is very painful for you L. You have my thoughts and prayers.

d

 

[UPS Lifer]

Dannyboy,

I have a hunch from everything that L posted. This may seem cold but I think it may be closer to the truth than L would have us believe...partially because his mind may have suppressed any memory of wrong doing. There have been too many inconsistencies in the story.

Again - keeping it simple....

L said the bike was weaving in and out of traffic. So - He did not have the right of way and apparently there was traffic coming. My theory is that he tried to shoot the gap. He thought that he could clear the vehicles that were blocking the bike from his sight so he made a run for it. The next theory is ( this is more gruesome) that he saw the bike and figured he could make it before the bike could get to the intersection. He misjudged the bike's speed.

His mind has repressed this part of the story.

L you need to get help. Do not take this the wrong way. You need to get this behind you. You need to come to the reality that you have blame and let it go. If you do not come to terms with this and accept it for what it is; it will haunt you for the rest of your life. You have to go through a grieving process just like the victim's family.

The sooner you come to terms with this the soon you will start to heal. I am not a professional but I have had my share of pain and I know that you can get this behind you.

Please heed my advice. I am with you in mind and spirit.

 

[dannyboy]

Lifer

I have to disagree a bit with the scene you painted.

I have viewed the intersection in question at length, from several different angles. The time apears to be before noon, and in the area from where the cycled was coming, there are shadows since there are many large trees on both sides of the road.

Now, change the angle of the shadows to reflect it being 2:30PM. There are some very dark areas where I could suspect a person just taking one look to the right, where I could understand him not seeing the cyclist, if he took just one look.

Also, according to the witness statements, this cyclist had been weaving in and out of traffic since 58th street. I did a rough measurement of the distance, and it was about 2 miles.

This road is very flat and straight.

Now, if I remember the training correctly, look left right left, then proceed into the intersection. Right?

All is well through the first two lanes you cross. But if you only looked one time to the right, and missed the cycle, then you would never have a clue what was coming your way. Only by looking the second time could you have seen, and then judged the speed of oncoming traffic.

To keep it simple, as you state, it was our drivers error to see the cyclist coming at him at a high rate of speed. I dont know if he looked only once and missed him, or looked more than that and still did not see him (I find that very unlikely). Because, had he looked to the right before going across the last two lanes, he would have seen the cyclist less than 150 away approaching at a high rate of speed.

Only L knows what he did or did not see, and how many times he looked. But I can see how, if he only looked right once, with the large shadows across both oncoming lanes, how he could have missed the cycle.

But then we get back to what evidence the arbitrator had that we dont.

Best

d

d

 

[laurietito]

I read through all the posts. My first reaction was the same as everybody's ...we are not getting all the facts. My gut feeling was that L was either traveling through a yellow or a red light to be charged with gross negligence. My next thought was where did the motorcycle hit the vehicle.... the exact location. This will also tell a piece of the missing info. Not sure it is necessary anymore.

Dannyboy - you did a fantastic job on your assessment however I think that this needs to be looked at as SIMPLY as possible in regards to any UPS liability of L's job.

FACT (as we know it!) L did not have the right of way. It is as simple as that. He proceeded into the intersection and it was his obligation to make sure the intersection was clear PERIOD END OF STORY!. It does not matter to UPS what any of the other circumstances are based on what we know at this point. The arbitrator also must have agreed with the same concept.

I disagree with 705 - I think if 100 other UPS drivers were in the same position that this would not have happened to them. I have that much confidence in all of your professionalism on the road. I would bet one of my checks on it!

Just because L did not see the MC does not make it OK or relieve him of the responsibility. Some failure caused L not to adequately clear the intersection. We were not there and will probably never know the entire story.

My guess is that UPS took into consideration L's record and the fact that the MC was also a contributing factor to his own fatality, and that is why the combo job was offered.

I have always been very professional and SAFE on the road.. That is why
I have a clean driving record. I did not try to beat anyone.. These are slow diesel trucks.. I am smart enough to know I would have never made it... It is very easy for everyone to judge.. shoulda, coulda, woulda... You never know what will happen until you are in my shoes and in that situation... Once something happens, you cannot change it... If the intersection was not clear.. I would have not proceeded... I could have easily died in this accident, too.. There are no winners in this situation..

 

[dannyboy]

L

You are correct. One split second sooner, and the cyclist and most likely the cycle itself would have come into the cab with you. So yes, you could have been badly injured or worse very easily.

I for one am not suggesting that you are not a safe driver. But the bottom line is

If the intersection was not clear.. I would have not proceeded..

That the intersection was not clear. And you did go. A mistake/oversight on your part. The fact that you did not see the cycle does not mean it is not there.

Now, I have posted my views as to why you could very easily have not seen him. I could very well see that the shadows on the street would have played a part in the ability to see the cycle.

d

 

[trplnkl]

L



Now, I have posted my views as to why you could very easily have not seen him. I could very well see that the shadows on the street would have played a part in the ability to see the cycle.

d

L.... read this, know this, learn this.

 

[toonertoo]

I am not nearly as smart about this stuff as all of you. I read but did not see, if the mc had its light on. I know newer bikes automatically do, but older ones do not. In my own car, I almost pulled in front of a bike that was coming through tree cover, with rays of sunshine coming through. I did not see him or his light. I didnt drive for days, and it wasn't real close but too close for me. My best wishes for a good turnout.

 

[2Slow]

I saw the picture of the motorcycle. It was a green late model sportbike of some sort. DOT has had all motorcycles sold in the US for a long time have automatic-on headlights. So unless there was a malfunction, the bike would have had it's lights on.

 

[trickpony1]

I saw the picture of the motorcycle. It was a green late model sportbike of some sort. DOT has had all motorcycles sold in the US for a long time have automatic-on headlights. So unless there was a malfunction, the bike would have had it's lights on.

....that may be true and I have been trying to squeeze an answer from anyone about the headlight since this thread began.
However, we may be forgetting that the "rat racers" of today that seem to enjoy riding on one wheel (front or rear) may have disconnected the light.
I also mentioned, early on, that the image of the cyclist may have been obscured by the doorpost and mirror on the "blindside" of the vehicle.
I also don't believe the PC driver was offered an inside combo job after the accident because the company loves him. I think the company offered the inside job so when the PC driver tried to sue for "wrongful termination" the company could say, "....but your honor, sir....we offered him another 8 hour job." when the case goes to court.
The company doesn't love anyone.

 

[tieguy]

....that may be true and I have been trying to squeeze an answer from anyone about the headlight since this thread began.
However, we may be forgetting that the "rat racers" of today that seem to enjoy riding on one wheel (front or rear) may have disconnected the light.
I also mentioned, early on, that the image of the cyclist may have been obscured by the doorpost and mirror on the "blindside" of the vehicle.
I also don't believe the PC driver was offered an inside combo job after the accident because the company loves him. I think the company offered the inside job so when the PC driver tried to sue for "wrongful termination" the company could say, "....but your honor, sir....we offered him another 8 hour job." when the case goes to court.
The company doesn't love anyone.

You guys are doing a terrific job of throwing up doubt in this case. UPS brings in professionals for an accident investigation involving a fatality and exhaustively research all aspects including obstructed view. Your tone here again sells the evil conspiracy to fire the poor up employee concept. You also forget the motorcyclists was traveling at a high rate of speed and I'm sure making quite a bit of noise on a june day when this guy had his doors open. when you're done completely alibing this guy and making the company sound like the villian here then how about working on the motorcyclist next. Perhaps you can so thoroughly alibi his actions and so thoroughly blame the company for his death that we can bring the man back to life.

the job offer was a terrific deal for this guy. How you can possibly try to twist it into something evil is crazy. If the guy took the offer he would be a combo person for a little while and eventually earn back everything his inattention lost. If you are going to complain about management integrity then at least show us some here. the combo job offer was a gift that the guy should have taken not an evil plot.

Thus my point again trick that you clearly have the lp mentality against management and this company.

 

[laurietito]

....that may be true and I have been trying to squeeze an answer from anyone about the headlight since this thread began.
However, we may be forgetting that the "rat racers" of today that seem to enjoy riding on one wheel (front or rear) may have disconnected the light.
I also mentioned, early on, that the image of the cyclist may have been obscured by the doorpost and mirror on the "blindside" of the vehicle.
I also don't believe the PC driver was offered an inside combo job after the accident because the company loves him. I think the company offered the inside job so when the PC driver tried to sue for "wrongful termination" the company could say, "....but your honor, sir....we offered him another 8 hour job." when the case goes to court.
The company doesn't love anyone.

Good point!!So they can cover there asses the combo positition was offered. It was offered before both panels.... I had to fight for what I believe in. Why would I take a pay cut/ ty hours/no overtime/no driving for three years and give up my route when I had no idea what the outcome of the panel would be???? Life's too short... I have to live with this the rest of my life....

 

[laurietito]

You guys are doing a terrific job of throwing up doubt in this case. UPS brings in professionals for an accident investigation involving a fatality and exhaustively research all aspects including obstructed view. Your tone here again sells the evil conspiracy to fire the poor up employee concept. You also forget the motorcyclists was traveling at a high rate of speed and I'm sure making quite a bit of noise on a june day when this guy had his doors open. when you're done completely alibing this guy and making the company sound like the villian here then how about working on the motorcyclist next. Perhaps you can so thoroughly alibi his actions and so thoroughly blame the company for his death that we can bring the man back to life.

the job offer was a terrific deal for this guy. How you can possibly try to twist it into something evil is crazy. If the guy took the offer he would be a combo person for a little while and eventually earn back everything his inattention lost. If you are going to complain about management integrity then at least show us some here. the combo job offer was a gift that the guy should have taken not an evil plot.


Thus my point again trick that you clearly have the lp mentality against management and this company. [/quot


U.P.S. DOES NOT GIVE GIFTS UNLESS YOU MEAN A TURKEY ONCE A YEAR.....

 

[dannyboy]

The cycle was a 2000 Kaw. As to the functialability of the headlight, that I can not say. What I can say is that during the time of day, there were shadows over the two lanes of oncoming traffic, and the sun could have very well been in L's eyes.

But even if both were true, that still would not be grounds for failing to yeild right of way. Just because you dont see it, does not mean you have no fault in the issue.

As far as love for employees, I think they were trying to remove him off the road for what ever reason. Personally, I think it ought to be manditory on a fatality to be inside the building for a week or so, while you get a chance to deal with the death, and to let the hoopla die down over the accident. I would suspect some strong feelings on the part of the dead cyclist's family if they saw the same UPS driver out the next day or two delivering.

d

 

[trickpony1]

I am still trying to get someone to answer this question:

Was a toxicology report done on the cyclist and what were the results, if any?

 

[dannyboy]

Not to my knowledge. Might not have been enough fluids left to do one.

interesting on this case, they did not require one from L. But he did not show any reason on site for that to be needed, so they did not do one, to my knowledge.

Like I said, the cyclist was there, just not seen, for what ever reason.

I have not had any other offers of additional information, even though L has all the needed stuff there. Including the video, police recordings that were made at the scene etc.

So there we are.

Pretty hard to help someone who asks for it, but withholds valuable and critical evidence from those who seek to help.

And It seems I gathered some he did not have a clue about, but I shared that with him via PM

d

 

[brett636]

To help quell the motorcycle headlight debate all motorcycles built for the U.S. since 1978 has to have the headlight come on automatically when the engine is running. My bike does just that.

As a rider who has taken rider education classes, and studied detailed techniques on riding will say a motorcycle on a normal day, moving at normal speeds will appear to move slower than it actually is. The small footprint a motorcycle leaves in someone's vision range sometimes doesn't even register as a moving vehicle, but maybe reflected sunlight. As a rider I take these things into account when I ride and try not to put myself into the position this rider obviously did.

As this video shows, a motorcycle is hard to spot when riding in a legal manner. Riding at extreme speeds on city streets only increases the odds that this will happen.

Think UK - how close (motorcycle accident)

 

[tieguy]

To help quell the motorcycle headlight debate all motorcycles built for the U.S. since 1978 has to have the headlight come on automatically when the engine is running. My bike does just that.

As a rider who has taken rider education classes, and studied detailed techniques on riding will say a motorcycle on a normal day, moving at normal speeds will appear to move slower than it actually is. The small footprint a motorcycle leaves in someone's vision range sometimes doesn't even register as a moving vehicle, but maybe reflected sunlight. As a rider I take these things into account when I ride and try not to put myself into the position this rider obviously did.

As this video shows, a motorcycle is hard to spot when riding in a legal manner. Riding at extreme speeds on city streets only increases the odds that this will happen.

YouTube - Think UK - how close (motorcycle accident)

If you replay it a couple times the driver stops in the lane the first time so i can't see the motorcyclist since the driver in the car is blocking most of the view. He correctly stops before the intersection the second time and you can clearly see the headlight from the motorcyclist coming down the road.

 

[tieguy]

U.P.S. DOES NOT GIVE GIFTS UNLESS YOU MEAN A TURKEY ONCE A YEAR.....

L they offered you a gift and I wish you had swallowed your pride and taken it.

 

[UPS Lifer]

L they offered you a gift and I wish you had swallowed your pride and taken it.

DITTO!