Bus driver who "murdered" snowman resigns

[Scooter]

And the bus driver knew what he was hitting?

Apparently he did, since his actions had exactly the desired effect.

He was sure it posed no danger to his passengers when he swerved across the road and hit it?

See above.

And what if it was snow over a pile of rocks or rebar, how could he know?

Gee, I don't know, maybe because it was a perfectly formed snowman and looked absolutely nothing like a pile of snow concealing some hidden danger underneath. Maybe because he saw a group of kids laughing and carrying on at the side of the road and videotaping the whole thing?

Does he have a right to endanger his passengers to do something which, while important, should be handled by those best equipped to deal with the situation.

Where is the evidence that the passengers were in anyway endangered (as they already had been when a car had to veer into the path of the bus in order to avoid the snowman)? Why should he have left it to chance that the passengers on another bus coming down the same road would be endangered by another driver performing the same manoever?

Sure, nothing happened, but the point is that it could have

And nothing happened when that car veered into the path of an oncoming bus, but it could have, and it could have happened again and again whenever two oncoming vehicles found themselves approaching that segment of the road.

and IMHO, his actions were unnecessary as he easily could have called the police and gotten a plow (or a cop car) to knock it down. Yes it was a danger to others, but he had no right to endanger his passengers to remove it.

And how many other passengers on how many other buses would have been endangered until it was removed?

ETA:

And what if it was snow over a pile of rocks or rebar, how could he know?

Let's be generous and assume the twits could have hidden five pieces of rebar in that snowman. So what? The bus would have hit them, maybe the bumper would have been scratched, they would have been knocked to the ground and run over. Or lets say that the bottom piece was mainly a pile of rocks covered with the thinnest shell of snow. Again, so what, same thing.

A passenger car that accidently hit either because it couldn't swerve out the the way, however....

Maybe he should have anticipated that it could have been a dirty bomb planted by Al Qaeda, just waiting for a bus to come by and smash it so it would detonate. The way some people are reacting in this thread...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Do we know he had pasengers? Maybe he was off duty and returning to the depot.

[Crackpot]

I was just playing devils advocate. Either way the "punishment" didn't fit the "crime".

[oldr_n_wsr]

I was just playing devils advocate. Either way the "punishment" didn't fit the "crime".

I agree. Let him retake whatever training course they give to bus drivers.

ETA
Isn't there some kind of law these kids could be charged with? You can't just put obstacles in the roadway.

[Crackpot]

Yes. Problem is Identifying them.

[Big RR]

Big RR wrote:
And the bus driver knew what he was hitting?
Apparently he did, since his actions had exactly the desired effect.

He was sure it posed no danger to his passengers when he swerved across the road and hit it?
See above.

Gee Scooter, and maybe if he drove at 100 mph and nothing happened we could say the same thing? Or if he took a curve faster than the speed posted? Or if he ran a red light? Or maybe ran a stop sign? Certanly you're not serious.

oldr--

Do we know he had pasengers? Maybe he was off duty and returning to the depot.

I guess we don't, and that certainly would have changed some of the analysis; the question would then be whether he had a right to put the bus in position where it could be damaged for this purpose (and this would change further if the bus was onwed by him). I'll leave it to others to argue this.

I do agree with your retraining, however; IMHO he has to know what's expected of him and who he owes a responsibility to. I'm pretty sure the kids could be charged with any number of crimes and I hope they are.

[Rick]

If it had never been videoed by the perps would it have been an issue?

Proly not...

[oldr_n_wsr]

In my yngr_n_dmbr days we used to drive up on peoples lawns and drive over their snowmen.

[Scooter]

Gee Scooter, and maybe if he drove at 100 mph and nothing happened we could say the same thing? Or if he took a curve faster than the speed posted? Or if he ran a red light? Or maybe ran a stop sign? Certanly you're not serious.

I'm trying to imagine the hidden dangers that would have put his passengers at risk by hitting the snowman. The ones you came up with, for reasons I have already stated, would not have done so.

I mean, we have Jarl saying he shouldn't have been travelling on the wrong side of the road, and you saying he shouldn't have hit the snowman. Here's a thought, what was a bus driver coming from the opposite direction then supposed to do? Sit there in front of the snowman blocking traffic until a snowplow arrived?

ETA - And bus vs. pedestrian collisions happen all the time. Anyone ever hear of a bus passenger being hurt as a result? I can't even remember a story about one that even bothered to acknowledge that none of the passengers had been hurt. Why? Because it's a given that a bus can withstand a collision with a 160lb object without endangering its passengers.

[Big RR]

Here's a thought, what was a bus driver coming from the opposite direction then supposed to do? Sit there in front of the snowman blocking traffic until a snowplow arrived?

How about call the police and let them handle it? that's there job, and he should stick to doing his. I guess you think that there was no danger in what he did, and if there was none to his passengers I would agree with. I just don't think swerving into the oncoming traffic lane and purposefully hitting an object is safe. Not much more to argue about.

[Scooter]

I just don't think swerving into the oncoming traffic lane and purposefully hitting an object is safe.

As opposed to requiring cars travelling in the opposite direction to continue swerving into the oncoming traffic lane in order to avoid it? As opposed to continuing to have a two way street reduced to one lane? As opposed to a car that would be unable to stop/swerve in time because of road conditions, hitting the snowman, and temporarily losing visibility due to the snow that blankets his/her windshield? All of those scenarios posed a far greater risk of damage and injury than what the bus driver did.

[Long Run]

Why is having a snowman in the road treated any differently than if another obstruction was in the road? Also irrelevant to determining whether the bus driver acted prudently or negligently is how the obstruction got there (unless it was something the road maintenance or police put there). If a load of heavy styrofoam had fallen off a truck in the opposite lane would we think it okay that a bus or any other driver swerves over to that side and knocks the styrofoam off the road? The best way to deal with this would be for people to stop their cars safely, get out and remove the obstruction if they can do so safely; if they can't do it safely, then call the police to take care of it. Based on the limited information we have, this is a poor decision by the bus driver but not one that by itself rises to the level of forcing a resignation.

[oldr_n_wsr]

The bus driver should have driven up the hill and run over the idiots who put the snowman out there in the first place. At least that would be a resignable (is that a word?) offense.

[Rick]

Maybe they should be tied to a flag pole...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Now that's funny

[rubato]

"... If a load of heavy styrofoam had fallen off a truck in the opposite lane would we think it okay that a bus or any other driver swerves over to that side and knocks the styrofoam off the road? ... "

? heavy styrofoam ?

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

I just don't think swerving into the oncoming traffic lane and purposefully hitting an object is safe.

As opposed to requiring cars travelling in the opposite direction to continue swerving into the oncoming traffic lane in order to avoid it? As opposed to continuing to have a two way street reduced to one lane? As opposed to a car that would be unable to stop/swerve in time because of road conditions, hitting the snowman, and temporarily losing visibility due to the snow that blankets his/her windshield? All of those scenarios posed a far greater risk of damage and injury than what the bus driver did.

Yes, at least as it applies to the bus passengers, since the bus would have safely passed the obstruction. Again, the safety of the passengers is the primary responsibility of the driver.

[Scooter]

So to hell with the passengers on every other bus travelling in both directions that would have either had to swerve to avoid the thing or deal with cars coming at them head-on because they were swerving to avoid it.

[rubato]

The driver correctly saw that this was a traffic hazard which was causing people to swerve into the oncoming lane to avoid it and removed it.

Good job.

The video proved he was right, too. A car did swerve, on a surface covered with ice and snow, into oncoming traffic because of it.

Only a stupid person would criticize him for it.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Andif he crashed into a pile of concrete covered with snow and injured his passengers; only an arrogant asshole would challenge the intelligence of someone pointing out that danger danger. If the shoe fits...