Fatal crash in Schoharie, New York - 20 persons dead

[Brandon]

Wow, just wow. This is absolutely appalling. Is there anything on NY 30 at NY 7 instructing thru/truck traffic to turn right on NY 7?

Seems like the best solution would be to route NY 30 along existing NY 7 to NY 30A, and then truncate NY 30A to NY 7. Removing that segment of NY 30 from the State Highway system can't hurt. Also, NY 30 directly interchanging with I-88 can't hurt either. It actually makes a lot more sense than having the interchange with NY 30A.

I would fully agree with removing that part of NY 30 from the state highway system, turning it over to the lowest level of local governance in that area to be a local road.  It should not be a state highway.

Mike

Unfortunately, in this case, as it was a limo driver, I doubt that would have made any difference here.

[hbelkins]

Wow, just wow. This is absolutely appalling. Is there anything on NY 30 at NY 7 instructing thru/truck traffic to turn right on NY 7?

Seems like the best solution would be to route NY 30 along existing NY 7 to NY 30A, and then truncate NY 30A to NY 7. Removing that segment of NY 30 from the State Highway system can't hurt. Also, NY 30 directly interchanging with I-88 can't hurt either. It actually makes a lot more sense than having the interchange with NY 30A.

I would fully agree with removing that part of NY 30 from the state highway system, turning it over to the lowest level of local governance in that area to be a local road.  It should not be a state highway.

Mike

Unfortunately, in this case, as it was a limo driver, I doubt that would have made any difference here.

Nope. If it's the shortest distance between two points, and certain vehicles are not restricted from it, drivers are still going to use it.

[WNYroadgeek]

The son of the owner of the limousine company involved has been arrested: https://twitter.com/news4buffalo/status/1050054789592215552

[kalvado]

Wow, just wow. This is absolutely appalling. Is there anything on NY 30 at NY 7 instructing thru/truck traffic to turn right on NY 7?

Seems like the best solution would be to route NY 30 along existing NY 7 to NY 30A, and then truncate NY 30A to NY 7. Removing that segment of NY 30 from the State Highway system can't hurt. Also, NY 30 directly interchanging with I-88 can't hurt either. It actually makes a lot more sense than having the interchange with NY 30A.

I would fully agree with removing that part of NY 30 from the state highway system, turning it over to the lowest level of local governance in that area to be a local road.  It should not be a state highway.

Mike

Unfortunately, in this case, as it was a limo driver, I doubt that would have made any difference here.

Nope. If it's the shortest distance between two points, and certain vehicles are not restricted from it, drivers are still going to use it.

Well, locals would know the deal anyway. Non-locals may still follow either posted route or map/GPS.  Non-highway bypass may not be shown on common maps, or shown as a finer line discouraging drivers. Many GPS programs now have road tiers, and designating stretch as a local road with reduced speed limit would prevent routing to that until it is last resort bypass for traffic issues.
Last, but not the least: this is not a heavily traveled stretch. Traffic count is just 1100 per day.  Most traffic (6200 per day) goes to/from nearby interstate and to urban core  and doesn't use the stretch. Some local traffic on 30 is for grocery shopping and people know what to expect from a shortcut. Trucks are already rerouted. So that really leaves not that much traffic to be concerned about. Unfortunately, sometimes there is a stretch limo with brakes issues among those few vehicles...

[webny99]

Seems like the best solution would be to route NY 30 along existing NY 7 to NY 30A, and then truncate NY 30A to NY 7. Removing that segment of NY 30 from the State Highway system can't hurt. Also, NY 30 directly interchanging with I-88 can't hurt either. It actually makes a lot more sense than having the interchange with NY 30A.

I would fully agree with removing that part of NY 30 from the state highway system, turning it over to the lowest level of local governance in that area to be a local road.  It should not be a state highway.
Mike

Unfortunately, in this case, as it was a limo driver, I doubt that would have made any difference here.

Nope. If it's the shortest distance between two points, and certain vehicles are not restricted from it, drivers are still going to use it.

It might not make a literal difference, but it would make a symbolic difference. A State Route shield signifies at least some semblance of a standard for road quality, and that section of NY 30 just doesn't make the cut (IMO).

[kalvado]

If anyone interested, local newspaper took a dashcam video of the stretch. My impression signage and road are not that bad if driver is paying some attention. Maybe I am just prepared to see the T at the end? Anyway, here it is:
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Video-Driving-route-from-Route-30-to-Route-30A-13292988.php

[cl94]

The thing is that, if a road is removed from the state system, it is far easier to place and enforce a weight/commercial vehicle restriction. Technically, a steep grade isn't a geometric constraint. There isn't really an enforceable way to ban commercial vehicles, etc. without adding an exception to vehicle and traffic law (and good luck with that, even in cases like this).

I'm quite familiar with these aspects of V&T law because I deal with them for work. The current signs, while a deterrent, are basically unenforceable because there isn't an exception for that stretch of road.

[seicer]

It might not make a literal difference, but it would make a symbolic difference. A State Route shield signifies at least some semblance of a standard for road quality, and that section of NY 30 just doesn't make the cut (IMO).

Why? It's well signed, well paved, and ends at another state highway at a very typical intersection. It's in better shape than some other state routes that currently exist in the system.

[jeffandnicole]

A lawyer for the company was on the news yesterday claiming the violations cited on the vehicle had been fixed, and they were minor in nature to begin with.

They don't arrest an owner of the company if there were no active violations on the vehicle.  Seems like Mr. Lawyer Dude didn't do a great job of spinning the facts here.

Also, in a few articles I've seen something similar to this:

The (lawyer) statement said Lisinicchia was "a loving and caring man who never would have knowingly put others in harm's way. The family believes that unbeknownst to him he was provided with a vehicle that was neither roadworthy nor safe for any of its occupants."

Anyone with a CDL knows the procedure:  It doesn't matter who owns the vehicle.  YOU are the driver.  It is the driver's responsibility to review the vehicle and look for issues.  The driver has to do what is necessary to check lights, wipers, brakes, fluids, etc.  If there are any issues, bring them up to the company, owner, etc.  If you believe the vehicle is unsafe to drive, don't drive it.  The minute you're on the road, you're the one responsible.

Of course, what if there's a safety issue and the driver doesn't want to drive it?  The owner will probably send him home, and he won't get paid. Or maybe, the owner says FU, and fires him from the job.  Sucks.  Big time.  The driver needs money to live.  He's caught in the middle.  But then again, such as in this case, he probably would still be alive, and so are his passengers.

The family is devastated no doubt.  But even if the driver was issued the vehicle to drive, he ultimately should have not driven it.

[jemacedo9]

The thing is that, if a road is removed from the state system, it is far easier to place and enforce a weight/commercial vehicle restriction. Technically, a steep grade isn't a geometric constraint. There isn't really an enforceable way to ban commercial vehicles, etc. without adding an exception to vehicle and traffic law (and good luck with that, even in cases like this).

I'm quite familiar with these aspects of V&T law because I deal with them for work. The current signs, while a deterrent, are basically unenforceable because there isn't an exception for that stretch of road.

One of the articles mentioned that the DOT "worked with lawmakers" back in '08 to restrict trucks from that part of NY 30. The implication was that in this case, NY 30 was legally restricted. It's an implication, no clue whether it's true

[Scott5114]

From the video, NY 30 doesn't look any more dangerous than any random state highway in eastern Oklahoma. I don't think NYSDOT has any fault here.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think it is as black and white as Jeffandnicole suggests where the driver's responsibility is concerned.  The crash could have been caused by defects that would not have been readily evident on a fluids/tire pressures/general appearance check.  Unsecured brake line has already been mentioned; also, one of the passengers complained about engine noise shortly before the crash, so compression braking might not have been available as a backup when the hydraulic brakes failed.  Ultimately there is not much a driver can do other than to quit when the vehicle owner does not have safety as his or her top priority.  This is an extreme solution to a problem that looks otherwise containable until the vehicle is out of control and it is too late.

[Beltway]

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has begun their investigation.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY19MH001.aspx

The state and/or local police will also have their own investigation.

[webny99]

It might not make a literal difference, but it would make a symbolic difference. A State Route shield signifies at least some semblance of a standard for road quality, and that section of NY 30 just doesn't make the cut (IMO).

Why? It's well signed, well paved, and ends at another state highway at a very typical intersection. It's in better shape than some other state routes that currently exist in the system.

I don't disagree - I get to drive NY 286 with some frequency, so am well aware! - but I'm thinking primarily of the track record of accidents at the bottom, not the actual condition of the road.
And the fact that continuing on NY 30 requires a turn, which is acceptable in a town or village, or as part of a concurrency, but less so in a rural area where drivers tend to be going faster and may not be expecting a stop sign, much less at the bottom of hill with little warning and at a T-intersection requiring a turn.

From the video, NY 30 doesn't look any more dangerous than any random state highway in eastern Oklahoma. I don't think NYSDOT has any fault here.

I don't think NYSDOT is at fault per se, and I don't think the road itself is dangerous. But again, the "through" route does require a left turn - which doesn't always mesh well with driver expectations - and not to mention at the bottom of a long hill on a cross-state route that otherwise maintains continuity.

At a minimum, that stop sign - and associated left turn - are an unexpected setback on an otherwise high-quality state highway. The average driver almost certainly isn't expecting to come to a complete stop between NY 7 and Schoharie.

[webny99]

But even if the driver was issued the vehicle to drive, he ultimately should have not driven it.

I don't think it is as black and white as Jeffandnicole suggests where the driver's responsibility is concerned.  The crash could have been caused by defects that would not have been readily evident on a fluids/tire pressures/general appearance check.  Unsecured brake line has already been mentioned; also, one of the passengers complained about engine noise shortly before the crash, so compression braking might not have been available as a backup when the hydraulic brakes failed.  Ultimately there is not much a driver can do other than to quit when the vehicle owner does not have safety as his or her top priority.  This is an extreme solution to a problem that looks otherwise containable until the vehicle is out of control and it is too late.

I tend to agree with JN here, only because I know plenty of people who operate vehicles all the time with limited knowledge of potential issues and how to handle them. And in their own vehicles, much less a vehicle for which a third party is responsible for maintenance and so forth.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't think it is as black and white as Jeffandnicole suggests where the driver's responsibility is concerned.  The crash could have been caused by defects that would not have been readily evident on a fluids/tire pressures/general appearance check.  Unsecured brake line has already been mentioned; also, one of the passengers complained about engine noise shortly before the crash, so compression braking might not have been available as a backup when the hydraulic brakes failed.  Ultimately there is not much a driver can do other than to quit when the vehicle owner does not have safety as his or her top priority.  This is an extreme solution to a problem that looks otherwise containable until the vehicle is out of control and it is too late.

A CDL driver, as part of their pre-trip inspection, is required to check fluid levels.  They are required to check tire pressure.  They are required to check windshield wipers.  They are required to make sure every light on that vehicle lights up.  They are required to check their air brakes. They are required to check airbrake safety systems by pumping their brakes to let the air out, which should result in an alarm going off at about 60 psi, and the air brakes automatically engaging at 30psi (not applicable to limos, but possibly limo buses if equipped with air brakes).  There's at least 10 things to look at before taking the truck out on the road.  These are all requirements on the driver.  A dangling brake line may be trickier to see, but if the passengers hear an issue, most likely the driver does also.  If that's the case, pull over and don't continue the drive.  Even if the trucking company has a team of people looking at the truck prior to it going on the road, ultimately the driver should be part of that team, or still do their own inspections.

Honestly, most CDL drivers don't do all their basic checks, or they ignore issues, and that's why we have so many dangerous trucks on the road.  That's why we need weigh stations, and they frequently put trucks out of service when there's an issue.  That creates a lot more headaches - it's way easier and cheaper to do repairs at a truckers' warehouse or depot than in a parking lot of a rural highway.   

Does it take additional time to do these inspections?  Yep.  But it needs to be done.  Because ultimately, you're the driver of the vehicle, not the kid inspecting a fleet of vehicles, or a guy sitting behind a desk at the warehouse or office.  And because ultimately, you want to be alive and make it home at the end of your day.  In this instance, the driver, 17 passengers, and 2 people not associated with this party whatsoever are being buried this week.

[kalvado]

But even if the driver was issued the vehicle to drive, he ultimately should have not driven it.

I don't think it is as black and white as Jeffandnicole suggests where the driver's responsibility is concerned.  The crash could have been caused by defects that would not have been readily evident on a fluids/tire pressures/general appearance check.  Unsecured brake line has already been mentioned; also, one of the passengers complained about engine noise shortly before the crash, so compression braking might not have been available as a backup when the hydraulic brakes failed.  Ultimately there is not much a driver can do other than to quit when the vehicle owner does not have safety as his or her top priority.  This is an extreme solution to a problem that looks otherwise containable until the vehicle is out of control and it is too late.

I tend to agree with JN here, only because I know plenty of people who operate vehicles all the time with limited knowledge of potential issues and how to handle them. And in their own vehicles, much less a vehicle for which a third party is responsible for maintenance and so forth.

However, there is one complicating factor:
Driver was ticketed for lack of proper license (passenger endorsement on a CDL)  for the job - yet continued to operate beyond his license. That is something the driver should be aware of without any doubt. This IS black and white.

[jemacedo9]

I don't think it is as black and white as Jeffandnicole suggests where the driver's responsibility is concerned.  The crash could have been caused by defects that would not have been readily evident on a fluids/tire pressures/general appearance check.  Unsecured brake line has already been mentioned; also, one of the passengers complained about engine noise shortly before the crash, so compression braking might not have been available as a backup when the hydraulic brakes failed.  Ultimately there is not much a driver can do other than to quit when the vehicle owner does not have safety as his or her top priority.  This is an extreme solution to a problem that looks otherwise containable until the vehicle is out of control and it is too late.

A CDL driver, as part of their pre-trip inspection, is required to check fluid levels.  They are required to check tire pressure.  They are required to check windshield wipers.  They are required to make sure every light on that vehicle lights up.  They are required to check their air brakes. They are required to check airbrake safety systems by pumping their brakes to let the air out, which should result in an alarm going off at about 60 psi, and the air brakes automatically engaging at 30psi (not applicable to limos, but possibly limo buses if equipped with air brakes).  There's at least 10 things to look at before taking the truck out on the road.  These are all requirements on the driver.  A dangling brake line may be trickier to see, but if the passengers hear an issue, most likely the driver does also.  If that's the case, pull over and don't continue the drive.  Even if the trucking company has a team of people looking at the truck prior to it going on the road, ultimately the driver should be part of that team, or still do their own inspections.

Honestly, most CDL drivers don't do all their basic checks, or they ignore issues, and that's why we have so many dangerous trucks on the road.  That's why we need weigh stations, and they frequently put trucks out of service when there's an issue.  That creates a lot more headaches - it's way easier and cheaper to do repairs at a truckers' warehouse or depot than in a parking lot of a rural highway.   

Does it take additional time to do these inspections?  Yep.  But it needs to be done.  Because ultimately, you're the driver of the vehicle, not the kid inspecting a fleet of vehicles, or a guy sitting behind a desk at the warehouse or office.  And because ultimately, you want to be alive and make it home at the end of your day.  In this instance, the driver, 17 passengers, and 2 people not associated with this party whatsoever are being buried this week.

Agreed...and worse, in this case, I believe the initial vehicle was a limo bus/van, which broke down; and this limo was a mid-trip replacement vehicle.  How many drivers would do a full check in this situation, with passengers standing around frustrated?

And as pointed out above...the driver wasn't CDL licensed anyway...

[kalvado]

And as pointed out above...the driver wasn't CDL licensed anyway...

he did have a CDL.  There was no passenger endorsement, though, so he had no right to operate that limo.

[jemacedo9]

And as pointed out above...the driver wasn't CDL licensed anyway...

he did have a CDL.  There was no passenger endorsement, though, so he had no right to operate that limo.

That's an important clarification...thanks! 

[jeffandnicole]

And as pointed out above...the driver wasn't CDL licensed anyway...

he did have a CDL.  There was no passenger endorsement, though, so he had no right to operate that limo.

That's an important clarification...thanks! 

Another important clarification here: How many people was the limo designed to hold?

I'm also trying to figure out when the Passenger endorsement is required.  Clearly if there were more than 15 people in the vehicle, it was required.  But, was it required just operate a limo?  It doesn't appear so.  Was it required to operate a limo only if it could seat more than 15 people, regardless of the number of people in it? Possibly.  So technically, if the limo was only designed to hold 15 or fewer people, the driver may not have needed the endorsement to drive the vehicle, if he only permitted 15 or fewer people in the limo.  Once he had 16 or more in there, not only was the P endorsement necessary, but then he's overloading the vehicle as well.

[kalvado]

And as pointed out above...the driver wasn't CDL licensed anyway...

he did have a CDL.  There was no passenger endorsement, though, so he had no right to operate that limo.

That's an important clarification...thanks! 

Another important clarification here: How many people was the limo designed to hold?

I'm also trying to figure out when the Passenger endorsement is required.  Clearly if there were more than 15 people in the vehicle, it was required.  But, was it required just operate a limo?  It doesn't appear so.  Was it required to operate a limo only if it could seat more than 15 people, regardless of the number of people in it? Possibly.  So technically, if the limo was only designed to hold 15 or fewer people, the driver may not have needed the endorsement to drive the vehicle, if he only permitted 15 or fewer people in the limo.  Once he had 16 or more in there, not only was the P endorsement necessary, but then he's overloading the vehicle as well.

Once again quote from the local newspaper: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Prestige-drove-Excursion-for-months-after-13292860.php

The driver of a limousine that crashed in Schoharie and killed 20 people last weekend was stopped by a state trooper in Saratoga Springs in late August and – after transporting 11 people in the same limo – cited for operating the vehicle without a proper license, according to a police report obtained by the Times Union.

It appears state police assumes passenger endorsement is required for the vehicle even with less than 15 people.

[jeffandnicole]

And as pointed out above...the driver wasn't CDL licensed anyway...

he did have a CDL.  There was no passenger endorsement, though, so he had no right to operate that limo.

That's an important clarification...thanks! 

Another important clarification here: How many people was the limo designed to hold?

I'm also trying to figure out when the Passenger endorsement is required.  Clearly if there were more than 15 people in the vehicle, it was required.  But, was it required just operate a limo?  It doesn't appear so.  Was it required to operate a limo only if it could seat more than 15 people, regardless of the number of people in it? Possibly.  So technically, if the limo was only designed to hold 15 or fewer people, the driver may not have needed the endorsement to drive the vehicle, if he only permitted 15 or fewer people in the limo.  Once he had 16 or more in there, not only was the P endorsement necessary, but then he's overloading the vehicle as well.

Once again quote from the local newspaper: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Prestige-drove-Excursion-for-months-after-13292860.php

The driver of a limousine that crashed in Schoharie and killed 20 people last weekend was stopped by a state trooper in Saratoga Springs in late August and – after transporting 11 people in the same limo – cited for operating the vehicle without a proper license, according to a police report obtained by the Times Union.

It appears state police assumes passenger endorsement is required for the vehicle even with less than 15 people.

Further down in the article:

Lisinicchia had a CDL-A license that allowed him to drive trucks but he lacked the additional permit needed to legally drive a vehicle capable of holding more than 15 passengers.

So that's definitely when it's needed - when the vehicle can hold more than 15.

[webny99]

But even if the driver was issued the vehicle to drive, he ultimately should have not driven it.

I don't think it is as black and white as Jeffandnicole suggests where the driver's responsibility is concerned.

I tend to agree with JN here, only because I know plenty of people who operate vehicles all the time with limited knowledge of potential issues and how to handle them. And in their own vehicles, much less a vehicle for which a third party is responsible for maintenance and so forth.

However, there is one complicating factor:
Driver was ticketed for lack of proper license (passenger endorsement on a CDL)  for the job - yet continued to operate beyond his license. That is something the driver should be aware of without any doubt. This IS black and white.

Certainly - I agree, but that is a separate discussion.
To be clear, I am not seeking to defend the driver, but he isn't necessarily 100% responsible. Primarily responsible, yes, but not necessarily wholly responsible based on what limited evidence we have.

[kalvado]

But even if the driver was issued the vehicle to drive, he ultimately should have not driven it.

I don't think it is as black and white as Jeffandnicole suggests where the driver's responsibility is concerned.

I tend to agree with JN here, only because I know plenty of people who operate vehicles all the time with limited knowledge of potential issues and how to handle them. And in their own vehicles, much less a vehicle for which a third party is responsible for maintenance and so forth.

However, there is one complicating factor:
Driver was ticketed for lack of proper license (passenger endorsement on a CDL)  for the job - yet continued to operate beyond his license. That is something the driver should be aware of without any doubt. This IS black and white.

Certainly - I agree, but that is a separate discussion.
To be clear, I am not seeking to defend the driver, but he isn't necessarily 100% responsible. Primarily responsible, yes, but not necessarily wholly responsible based on what limited evidence we have.

A part of the question is if the driver knew about inspections and their outcomes as well as previous issues with the vehicle. And remember, driver was ticketed on same vehicle 2 months ago - so definitely it was not the first time driver saw it on the day of accident.   
DOT says vehicle lacked proof of inspection in September -and driver should be able to see the sticker without lengthly walkaround;  and that it had bald tires during inspection. There is a possibility that both were since corrected - but again, we had same driver who was driving same vehicle in August, and inspection happened on 9/4. Until inspection expired at the end of August and tires suffered unusual wear within a month, driver should be aware of vehicle condition from previous trips...

All these doesn't prove driver is at fault, but my impression driver was likely aware of the situation.