TTC driver charged in fatal Lawrence Ave. crash

[alexmst]

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1068569--ttc-driver-charged-in-fatal-lawrence-ave-crash?bn=1

A TTC bus driver involved in a fatal crash has been charged with criminal negligence causing death and possession of cannabis, police say.

William Ainsworth, 51, turned himself over to Toronto police Wednesday morning and appeared in the afternoon, said Const. Tony Vella.

The Aug. 30 crash occurred as the bus was westbound on Lawrence Ave. E. near The Donway E. behind a flatbed truck carrying a lowered crane on its trailer.

The driver “may have tried to swerve around the slower moving crane truck” in an attempt to pass it, Det. Const. Carl Andersen said last month.

Thirteen people were injured. Jadranka Petrova, 43, was killed. The mother of two was returning from booking an appointment for her G2 driver’s licence

“My body is here, but inside is empty,” Petrova’s 20-year-old daughter, Irena, said last month, calling her mother “perfect” and “my best friend.”

No one picked up the phone Wednesday at a Scarborough home registered to Ainsworth.

A source close to the TTC told the Star last month the driver has worked there for about 10 years and has been commended in the past for his job performance.

The TTC is conducting its own investigation, said spokesman Brad Ross.

“The charges laid today are very serious and the TTC will continue to cooperate with police with their investigation,” Ross said in an email.

“I can confirm that the employee is not at work, though his employment status is a personnel matter that we cannot discuss at this time. Again, the TTC offers its sincerest condolences to the family.”

The Petrova family’s lawyer, John McLeish, said a lawsuit is anticipated against the bus driver, the TTC itself and the driver of the truck.

 

[d_jedi]

Just waiting for the TTC union thugs to defend him..

He had marijuana for his, um.. glaucoma! Yup.. a bus driver with glaucoma.

(that would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

 

[fanofdo]

Just waiting for the TTC union thugs to defend him..

He had marijuana for his, um.. glaucoma! Yup.. a bus driver with glaucoma.

(that would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

Not exactly sure, but it was definitely for medicinal purposes.

Seriously, I know of private industry situations where it is legal to administer random drug tests where public safety is a concern - shouldn't this be implemented?

 

[elwoodinontario]

Not exactly sure, but it was definitely for medicinal purposes.

Seriously, I know of private industry situations where it is legal to administer random drug tests where public safety is a concern - shouldn't this be implemented?

Because it's is against our rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Private industries that deal with certain situations involving the U.S., i.e. international truck drivers, are tested to comply with USDOT regulations.

livluvlaf, police can't test for anything without probable cause. Just having a bag of pot doesn't mean he was driving impaired.

 

[d_jedi]

Because it's is against our rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Private industries that deal with certain situations involving the U.S., i.e. international truck drivers, are tested to comply with USDOT regulations.

livluvlaf, police can't test for anything without probable cause. Just having a bag of pot doesn't mean he was driving impaired.

RIDE checks are legal.. I'd argue the same logic applies..

 

[KBear]

Because it's is against our rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Private industries that deal with certain situations involving the U.S., i.e. international truck drivers, are tested to comply with USDOT regulations.

livluvlaf, police can't test for anything without probable cause. Just having a bag of pot doesn't mean he was driving impaired.

Cops can stop and test you if they see you driving away from a bar. Don’t know the laws, but would expect that causing a fatal accident, and being found with illegal drugs, or open cans of beer, etc, would also be probable cause.

 

[Jennifer_]

Not exactly sure, but it was definitely for medicinal purposes.

Seriously, I know of private industry situations where it is legal to administer random drug tests where public safety is a concern - shouldn't this be implemented?

a friend of one of my friends drives a truck. I know he goes through drug tests regularly and they do screen for marijuana.

A lot of people say they are fully-capable to drive while under the influence of weed.... I can't imagine it myself but I don't partake. We don't know if he was actually under the influence - as other posters said, without probable cause or permission, the police cannot do a drug test. (Regardless - doesn't weed stay in a person's system for a long time? I dunno how effective the test could be...)

I suppose the fact that he had it for medicinal purposes will add a few layers to his case if the fact that he had weed on him is influential on the criminal negligence charge...

It's interesting... I know of someone who lost their job with the TTC because of his Parkinsons disease. When an individual is unionized, where is the line drawn between who is fit to work and who is not? (just curious - I'm not saying the driver was unfit)

 

[Rockslinger]

In other news, an elderly pedestrian was hit and killed by a bus (not a bicycle) earlier yesterday.

 

[blackrock13]

a friend of one of my friends drives a truck. I know he goes through drug tests regularly and they do screen for marijuana.

A lot of people say they are fully-capable to drive while under the influence of weed.... I can't imagine it myself but I don't partake. We don't know if he was actually under the influence - as other posters said, without probable cause or permission, the police cannot do a drug test. (Regardless - doesn't weed stay in a person's system for a long time? I dunno how effective the test could be...)

I suppose the fact that he had it for medicinal purposes will add a few layers to his case if the fact that he had weed on him is influential on the criminal negligence charge...

It's interesting... I know of someone who lost their job with the TTC because of his Parkinsons disease. When an individual is unionized, where is the line drawn between who is fit to work and who is not? (just curious - I'm not saying the driver was unfit)

Having a couple of family members who have suffered from Parkinson's, if the person in a driver he'd better loose his 'position' but could be reassigned until the condition progresses beyond a point. I know I couldn't drive after a couple of puffs, let alone a joint. A professional driver is one person who should not allowed to work.

 

[Meesh]

Just waiting for the TTC union thugs to defend him..

FYI, the union has a legal OBLIGATION to defend him. Otherwise they could face charges of failure to represent.

 

[oldjones]

And we should remember that charges do not equate with guilt, or even with a provable case—as in the Former AG Mows Down Innocent Cyclist case, that there was so much ruckus about.

One witness was quoted in the media at the time as saying the crane truck had swerved left, apparently to avoid being trapped in the DVP on-ramp lane.

 

[diehard]

While I am in favor of legalizing MJ, the TTC driver put himself at risk by carrying MJ in his lunch bag.

Frankly... Smoke at home.

 

[Stoo]

While I am in favor of legalizing MJ, the TTC driver put himself at risk by carrying MJ in his lunch bag.
Frankly... Smoke at home.

Again, having pot in his lunch bag is no more proof of his being impaired than me driving home with a six-pack in my back seat, is proof that I am an impaired driver.

So many of you are quick to condemn this guy. It must me nice to be perfect.

 

[diehard]

Again, having pot in his lunch bag is no more proof of his being impaired than me driving home with a six-pack in my back seat, is proof that I am an impaired driver.

So many of you are quick to condemn this guy. It must me nice to be perfect.

Yes, you have a point. But again, I'm always careful when dealing with MJ even though society tolerates it informally. I wouldn't carry it around with me.

BTW, are cops allowed to search your belongings after a traffic accident?

 

[Stoo]

Yes, you have a point. But again, I'm always careful when dealing with MJ even though society tolerates it informally. I wouldn't carry it around with me.
BTW, are cops allowed to search your belongings after a traffic accident?

Fair enough. If nothing else, it makes you go "hmmmm"

It's my understanding that cops can search your belongings only of they have "reasonable cause". I suspect that this is open to pretty broad interpretation. I believe that's what happens at RIDE programmes. If you "look" like you might have been drinking, that gives them the excuse to make you blow. Likewise, if you say, "I had a couple of beers", that can also give them cause.

I'm sure there are people here more "qualified" to answer than me though.

 

[Rockslinger]

has to again rudely chime in to somehow try to minimize the importance of a conversation other people are having.

Guess who is "talking". Maybe this thread will benefit from your "wisdom" and insults just like the asshole, rim and idiot threads. Hee, hee, hee.

 

[Yoga Face]

I drove a truck and as soon as i started to cross the border I was subject to random drug checks which meant I had an hour to get to a clinic and pee in a bottle

Metabolities stay in your body for a month so that means no smoking

 

[wigglee]

While I am in favor of legalizing MJ, the TTC driver put himself at risk by carrying MJ in his lunch bag.

Frankly... Smoke at home.

the problem with testing is that it shows positive if you have smoked in the last month.....so you may have smoked a j 3 weeks ago at a party, but you are not currently driving a bus under the influence, yet you fail the drug test.

 

[GameBoy27]

as other posters said, without probable cause or permission, the police cannot do a drug test.

I would think finding a bag of pot in the driver's belongings would be probable cause for a drug test, as would requesting a breath sample after finding empty beer bottles in a car involved in a fatal car crash.

It should be noted that Officers at the scene did not conduct a police drug test because they had no reason to think the driver was intoxicated. They found the “substance” they believe “might have been marijuana” only when conducting an inventory of the bus seven hours later. Based on that I'm sure it will be hard to prove that he's was high.

However, "the driver refused a TTC drug test after the crash." I'm not sure how that will affect his trial but if you refuse a breathalyser, you're basically fucked.

"Under a drug program introduced in 2010, the TTC began to test new hires, workers suspected of being impaired on the job, and drivers involved in collisions." Yet he refused!

One thing for sure, it doesn't look good on him!

I suppose the fact that he had it for medicinal purposes will add a few layers to his case if the fact that he had weed on him is influential on the criminal negligence charge...

Where did you read/hear that he had pot for medicinal purposes?

Again, having pot in his lunch bag is no more proof of his being impaired than me driving home with a six-pack in my back seat, is proof that I am an impaired driver.

You're actually comparing a TTC bus driver found with an illegal substance in his belongings after crashing into a truck, killing one and injuring many more to you driving home with an unopened six-pack in your back seat? What have you been smoking???

the problem with testing is that it shows positive if you have smoked in the last month.....so you may have smoked a j 3 weeks ago at a party, but you are not currently driving a bus under the influence, yet you fail the drug test.

There's a simple solution wigglee. If you're worried about testing positive for pot, either don't smoke it or get a different job which doesn't have a testing program and where the lives of the public don't depend on your actions. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people who smoke pot but I'd like to think that the person driving the bus I'm on isn't high.

 

[buttercup]

Cops can stop and test you if they see you driving away from a bar.

No, they cannot, unless they observe you e.g staggering around, etc. Also, they can if you are involved in a traffic accident. Also they can if they see you commit a moving violation.

RIDE checks are legal.. I'd argue the same logic applies..

The RIDE program fits the charter provided everyone is stopped. On a RIDE, they can't test without cause, but now the cop is leaning in through the window, and he gets to smell the booze on you.