Last week I wrote about a rollover crash in rural McHenry County that never made it to the media. Early information to me indicated that alcohol had been a factor; later information to me indicated that alcohol was not a factor.
And then today i received a response to my FOIA request. Alcohol is not mentioned at all - either its presence or absence. The presumption then must be that alcohol was not a factor.
In fact, the crash report is vague enough that it's hard to determine much about the crash.
As soon as a primary report starts with "In summary,..." it begs for closer attention. The primary report should not be a summary of a crash. It should report the details of the crash investigation. Subsequent reports might begin with "In summary, ..."
The driver and sole occupant of the pick-up truck was Bryan Henning, 25, who is a corrections officer at the McHenry County Jail. Henning told Dep. Patrick Dillon that he had been northbound on Alden Road, approaching McGuire Road, when he swerved to avoid hitting an animal that ran across the road from his right.
The report fails to mention what type of animal or its size, or where the animal was when he first saw it. The report says Henning left the roadway, over-corrected, turned sideways on the road and over-turned in the northbound lane. Tire marks are indicated in the crash diagram in the southbound lane near the shoulder, although no path of the vehicle is drawn in the crash report. Only the final position of the over-turned truck is indicated on the report. The report doesn't state whether the vehicle ran off the right side or left side of the roadway or how far it traveled on the shoulder or in the ditch.
In one section it is reported that Woodstock Fire Rescue responded and that transport for medical care was refused. In another section it indicates that Harvard Rescue was enroute for evaluation. The type of crash is reported as "B Injury" type. Henning, who told Deputy Dillon that he was okay, was treated on the scene and released, according to Deputy Dillon's report. Glad you were wearing your seatbelt, Bryan!
Henning was given a ride to his Harvard residence by Deputy Dillon. Midas Touch got the tow. of Henning's vehicle, which was reported as totaled.
The issue for me about this crash is that it was not reported to the press. Because MCSD reports crashes involving civilian drivers to the press, it ought to report crashes by employees. Is a crash to avoid an animal unavoidable? Some are, such as when a deer leaps across the road in front of a vehicle and is hit (or almost hit) or lands on the car. This report does not mention a deer; it doesn't describe the type of animal at all.
Other crashes involving MCSD employees have supposedly been caused by animals that then vanished into thin air. Stories have been passed along to me that include laughter at the point where the "driver said a deer jumped in front of his vehicle."
In the early morning hours (or late afternoon or perhaps at any time) drivers in the country should be on the look-out for running animals that might cross the road. Maybe you slow down, even though the speed limit is 55. Just today, about noon, a deer ran across Greenwood Road in front of my motorcycle. Of course, this was during daylight hours, and the corn in the field had already been harvested, so the sight distance was good.
What CALEA standard has MCSD set for reporting single-vehicle, non-injury crashes to the press?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Maybe it was a pink elephant...
Been waiting for this one to come out. Maybe you can go back and re-read what you previously posted and eat some crow. Since it appears that Notawannibe doesn't have any egg to wipe off his face, perhaps he'll loan you that napkin you suggested he grab. It might help keep the feathers from the crow from choking you. Seems like all the air has been let out of your balloon and all you have left is a one-car crash. How we coming along on the big bounty that you were yapping about? Don't give us that "wait until January 1st" stuff either. You'd be a helluva lot more effective at whatever it is you do if you kept your mouth shut until all the facts were in and you knew what you were talking about.
I’m vindicated…on Nov 3 I stated and you posted to your blog “Neither you nor I know the cause of this crash or as you call them accident. Animal, other vehicle, mechanical; there are many reasons other than drunk.” I guess I hit the nail on the head. Your information was WRONG as usual, and your witch hunt failed. Now you try and find fault with the report. Just a normal accident so get over it.
Obviously you either OVERLOOKED my post or REFUSE to post it. WHY? I see others posted after I sent mine in. I'll try again. Afriad to admit you're wrong and Notawannabee is right?
+==============================+
Well Gus I was correct about your hyperbole.
Earlier I posted on your original gripe session
[QUOTE] “ Supposedly....Apparently....Is there any rule at MCSD.... Do we want an intoxicated or impaired deputy driving a patrol car.... If this is true...
Geese Gus could you find anymore weasel words to avoid facing facts that it is UNTRUE but you love to cast unfounded aspersions and you are truly the king of hyperbole. Crafted just vague enough to avoid libel….. [End Quote]
You replied
Notawannabee, you may want to find your napkin and get ready to wipe the egg off your face. When I confirm the name of the driver AND the names of the deputies and supervisors involved, I wonder if you'll be singing a different tune. Probably not, but at least all will know you are off-key.
That was on Nov 3, 2010 10:57 AM
Well Gus, no evil cabal here. Once again just a normal accident and NO DRUNK COVER UP. Your wrong, no messy egg in fact I eat oatmeal. Still you try and dissect the report like something is missing.
On traffic reports, usually it is a summary of events. This wasn't a "who done it." Simple car vs. animal report.
Lastly you are wrong about all report being released to the newspaper. Reports are put out for the media and they select which ones are published. VERY FEW are published. If they published each and every crash report the paper would need another half page just for the minor stuff. It’s not news.
NO COVER UP.
At 4:00AM on a Sunday morning there is no such thing as a "normal accident."
That's like making a "routine" traffic stop.
Nota, there might be some very interesting information still coming on this crash.
Animals that vanish into thin air? I'm going to draft a memo to all the wildlife in the northern Illinois area telling them that should they cross the travel lanes of a road and cause a vehicle accident that they should remain on scene until the police arrive. Maybe I'll use nixle.
"Nota, there might be some very interesting information still coming on this crash"
Oh Please Gus...is WRONG in your vocabulary? You wrongly accused this driver and blogged away with another erroneous story. Mr. Henning did nothing to deserve being targeted by your blog other than working for the MCSO….Is that a crime in your book? If I were him, I’d be mucho Po’d
OK, QWA. I know you know what I mean about an animal that "vanished into thin air." No NIXLE broadcast will be necessary...
Nota, were you at the party or the crash scene?
Nota, were you at the party or the crash scene?
Gus, look into your crystal ball and look for me...Oh jeeze, I guess the all powerful Gus has limitations. So far your sources have given you bad info. Better Windex that crystal ball.
Take a lesson from Sgt. Joe Friday... “Just the facts, ma'am"
Not gossip, not what I heard, not a little birdie told me...wait for FACTS before you publish something.
We both know that, if I waited for the facts from MCSD, I'd never write anything.
Frankly, I've got the facts. And I believe that some information was not put in the report of the crash. Can I prove it? Not yet.
The facts? Why didn't MCSD report the crash to the media? And don't give me the "they don't report every crash" bit. Suspicion increases when they withhold information, as it should.
Why don't you call the NWH and ask if they have access to them and select which ones they want to publish. The report are not hidden, the news agencies just CHOOSE not to report them all.
It seems strange to me that the diagram in the crash report did not include any distances or even which ditch the truck entered, before it returned to the roadway and overturned. The path of the vehicle to its stopping point is not drawn.
Distance measurements might have helped to estimate the speed of the vehicle, which could be compared with the driver's statement that he was driving 55MPH (the speed limit).
Were there trees or a fence in the ditch? While a reflex action would be to jerk the wheel back toward the roadway, other drivers might ride it out and slow down before attempting to return to the roadway. If a driver is alert, wide awake, attentive, he might be able to regain control and avoid overturning a vehicle.
OK face it Gus. Police DO NOT CSI every crash. As was said earlier, it was not a whodunit. It's a simple one car accident. Many reports have NO DIAGRAM. It is not required by any rule regulation or law. Some jurisdictions don't even complete crash reports. They give a packet to the drivers to complete. Unless there is a reason to believe a violation occurred that needs the corroboration of a diagram, none is done. In this case there was obviously nothing to indicate it was anything other than what the driver stated had occurred. There was no witness to say anything contrary. Why then would the police take an simple accident where there is only one victim, being the driver, and try and prove he is lying? No indication of negligence. Do you expect them to call out AIU and do a reconstruction for a car vs animal? Get real. What’s the point?
Why waste police resources on something that will be settled by an insurance adjuster. Cops don’t work for the insurance companies....OH WAIT...didn't Gus work for an insurance company...OH WELL
Post a Comment