I’m not following you. Are you saying that even if Mom had been home and available to drive the kids as scheduled, she should have somehow “known” not to leave right then so as to avoid the accident? If not, then exactly what are you saying?
Somehow I don’t think so. Besides that would have gone to the daughter, not the mother.
It is possible, I suppose (and that’s SUPPOSE, not GUARANTEE) that the mother could be charged with negligence (I don’t know the criteria), but the sentence (if any) would be suspended.
And now Grandpa is there to lead them to the land of milk and honey, so I guess it all worked out okay… :rolleyes:
Man, I wish I could believe that shit, because then I could find a way to rationalize life’s tragedies instead of getting pissed off at reckless idiots who send innocent people to an early grave. If God’s eternal, He can fucking well wait.
I am saying that the children did not necessarily HAVE to go when they did or at all. I don’t know what the children’s schedule was. If they were going to go at that specific time, adult or no adult, then they would all be dead (probably).
Um, I’d like to point out the the OP isn’t actually angry, here, or even bent out of shape. My earlier responses in this thread were out of line. The OP merely asked why this girl was allowed out on the street, and he didn’t seem to get the basic answer, “because that’s how the world works.” And we didn’t get that he didn’t (or chose not to) understand that.
People break laws. They drive faster than the speed limit. They cheat on taxes. They commit murder. And sometimes 15 year olds with learners permits take their six siblings on a drive.
How does it happen? It just does.
When this kind of thing comes up and people question why God would allow this to happen, the response I get is “You aren’t supposed to question God or his motives.”
Like me, you always wondered what the origin of that catch phrase (I burning your dog!) was, and now you know, right?
And I support Kitchen Wench’s point. I haven’t the vaguest idea why the collective wisdom of Doperdom has permitted this thread to devolve into a Blue Sky-guided discussion of the motivations of the late eldest adoptive daughter-driver and her parents, as opposed to being a right proper Pitting of the tractor-trailer driver, whose inexcusable negligence caused the deaths in the first place, and who is inexplicably not in custody, instead of being charged with seven counts of vehicular homicide! :mad:
As long as we’re considering hypotheticals, imagine if that girl had been six months or a year older, and a licensed driver, transporting four adoptive siblings and two siblings-in-the-process-of-adoption home from school at her parents’ request. Would that affect whose dudgeon is being raised about what here?
I know it just happens, but it doesn’t make it suck any less.
I was actually surprised that a Pit thread hadn’t been started. There’s always plenty of insane shit like this going on that the Pit hamsters would be the ones bursting into flames if a thread was started for each event. The driver is far too easy a target.
I can only hope this guy gets what he deserves. Anybody know what the penalty is for vehicular homicide in Florida?
This is all I am saying. All else being equal, who was driving and whether they were licensed was irrelevant.
So you took it upon yourself to start this thread because no one else was filling the bill? Blue Sky, I’ve always had a high opinion of you. I’m a bit disappointed now.
This seems more based in rational thinking. There is hope for you yet. 
The truck driver is still hospitalized and the investigation is continuing. I suspect that if/when law enforcement can determine that he was at fault, he will be arrested. He’s not going anywhere just now.
You wouldn’t be the first to be disappointed and you won’t be the last. I thought about starting the thread about the driver and including my original question, but I imagine it would take the same direction.
Ah, the silver lining. 
I agree. It’s just my odd take on subjects that has lead me to this point. I’m all about nitpicky details rather than the big picture.
There are plenty of wackos frequenting this board. LOVABLE wackos, mind you. Don’t wanna get flamed, here… Let’s not put you in the same class. Straight sailing from now on. Deal?
The focus in this thread is on the wrong person and the wrong vehicle.
I have very little information, but I would speculate that the truck driver was under pressure and possibly over tired.
The trucking industry in the U.S. has been reduced to a sweatshop on wheels. The overwhelming number of drivers get paid by the mile and that isn’t very much. They do not get paid for time spent getting loaded and unloaded, nor for time spent between loads waiting for dispatch, but they are very often on a tight schedule to deliver once dispatched. A typical company driver gets around 30 to 35 cents a mile.
A few years ago the USDOT tried to institute new rules for a drivers Hours of Service (HOS), there was a court challenge and it took a couple of years to rewrite the rules.
Under the old rules a driver could drive/work 10 hours before being required to take an 8 hour sleep break. This could also be split, so that the driver could work 5 hrs. and sleep 4.
The new rules give the driver a 14 hour work day and then a 10 hour break w/ 8 hrs. being in the bunk.
There is no more splitting the time, once the 14 hours starts, nothing stops it except a 10 hour break.
Of course nothing was done about the compensation side of the equation, drivers still get paid by the mile and any other duties go uncompensated.
In addition to loading/unloading, there are many other duties that may go uncompensated, ie: daily safety inspection (even though it’s required by law), fueling, stopping for repairs, stopping for inclimate weather, installing/removing chains, etc., etc.
Long haul truck drivers are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Until this changes there will continue to exist this dangerous situation where drivers must constantly push the time envelope to earn a decent wage.
You’re obviously not the only one.
Thanks, but you’re a bit late to the party. I understand the error of my ways, but I agree the industry needs a shakeup.
It won’t happen, but it does need it.
The purpose of age restrictions on drivers is not to keep children from being transported on highways, or to keep them from attending school, or from attending church. The purpose is to reduces crashes by limiting the numbers of persons who operate motor vehicles without understanding cause and effect (e.g. reckless behaviour causes crashes).
Mr. Blue Sky, you should be banned from driving, for you do not understand cause and effect.
I hate to disagree with you, but I disagree with you.