It just occurred to me that many volatile chemicals pass through our towns on trucks and by rail. Maybe the trucks should take alternate routes that are less populated. If the evacuation zone in Kane was expanded to a two mile radius, had this thing blown, this could have easily been the biggest disaster this area has seen since the train wreck in Custer City in the early eighties. No doubt with many more casualties.

Bradford is less populated.

Putting trucks off of main routes to avoid going through populated areas would actually increase the risk of something happening and hamper response. Besides, as a group, truck drivers are the safest drivers on our roadways.

Not to be facetious but a two mile radius would be all of Kane would it not? Safely resolving this incident must have been very arduous being such a small community. Good job to all those involved.

Right on all counts~~~Good thinking!

Flashback, im going to have to say on this one that your response is wrong on all points and flies in the face of common sense. You cant tell me that if a truck loaded with thousands of gallons of Butane crashed and burned in a downtown area versus a sparsely populated rural area it would be somehow be better? Why not send that truck around Kane on the Johnsonberg, Twin lakes road that comes out on 6 below Kane? There are several ways around Kane depending on where you are going. Bradford is sparsely populated? Believe me, a Butane explosion might not be such a bad thing around here under different circumstances... how would putting hazardous materials on sparsely populated roads increase the odds of an accident? Longer response time is your only point that has merit. The truck driver defense is pretty weak considering. I dont think the driver of that truck was very safe, remember the gasoline tanker that rolled on the Owens Way entrance of 219? sorry i just cant agree.

They already route hazmat trucks on separate routes. Making them avoid every town would be impossible and making them go around most of them would mean repaving and reconditioning those side roads to be wide enough and to withstand the weight of the trucks. Not to mention that the price on every hazmat product would skyrocket due to the HUGE jump in cost to operate the truck.

This accident occurred because of a stupid driver. He realized his turn was coming up and instead of going by and turning around (or at 4:30 am he could have come to a stop and backed up to that street) he decided to crank the wheel and hit the brakes. A good driver would have done it completely differently.

Luckily for the people of Kane, trucks that haul hazmat do have protections against things that would make it blow up. It's not impossible for them to blow, but it is unlikely in a slow speed rollover.

By the way, a truck burning in a wooded area would affect nearby residents as well when it starts a forest fire.

With all due respect, you guys are just taking the counterpoint now. Im talking about sending them on similar milage routes that bypass towns. The road i mentioned passed Kane handles tons of truck traffic, and big oil certainly has the money to improve roads. what we are debating is a dollar value on human lives. If that truck had blown it would have most likely killed people, starting with the driver. Watch this clip, then picture this happening at Kanes main downtown intersection. Yep... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 4Ej77JHA5k

With even more respect, funneling traffic down that road won't help that much, there is traffic coming north on 66, and more traffic coming from 6, east and west. It isn't similar mileage, it only is if you're going that certain direction. You don't think it's more mileage for traffic coming from Kane and headed toward Smethport or Bradford to go to Wilcox first?

People on rural roads complain when the trucks are allowed on their roads.

Hazmat loads need delivered in Kane.

I looked at Twin Lakes Road. There is no way I'd take a truck down that winding road. Trailers off track through corners. To make a corner like the ones on twin lake road, you'd be going around those blind corners with the trailer in the opposing lane, not safe for the driver, and not safe for traffic coming the other way. Not to mention how nasty that would be in the winter.

This is the problem that the transportation industry is facing. People see a big truck wrecked and although it was driver error, they want more and more regulations, but then still complain when they pay higher prices on EVERYTHING. You cannot buy a single thing that was not on a truck at one point. That means if they have to charge more because it costs them more, you pay more.

A car could have easily drove through that building and ruptured a natural gas line. Should we shut down Kane to all traffic completely just in case? No, we make sure that officers are trained and ready to enforce existing laws, or use devices already in place. There is a traffic light right there. I bet if that were a flashing red light in all four directions this argument would never have happened.

That may be statistically true when you calculate miles driven on a national level, but the drivers driving for the new Marcellus industry and in general the oil and gas producers around here it is another story. There are many stories like these. Stories about blatantly reckless drivers and accidents. Only SOME of the many accidents are reported.

As for this particular accident, I was told by a local resident who lives just a block or so from this intersection that the normal "red light" switches after a certain hour (10PM possibly?) to a flashing red light. This person tells me that the trucks routinely speed through this intersection. Rt 66 "blends into" Rt 6 at an angle (call it a dog leg). The drivers assume that nobody is coming from the other direction and they often speed through this intersection without slowing down.

In this particular accident, the driver took the turn SO FAST that the truck rolled onto it's side. So much for using common sense or driving responsibly, or even considering the safety of other drivers on the road or the safety of the citizens of the town.


But it may not have been the total fault of the driver. Some of these guys are pushed by their bosses to get their deliveries done as fast as possible.

I've talked to several drivers and almost all report that they are overworked and working under very stressful conditions. Some tell me that almost all drivers use those "artificial caffeine", speed, or uppers to be able to keep up with the job demands.

A while back a young tank driver ran off the road and into a tree killing himself. Reports are (from family and friends) that he was driving 90 hours a week!

Also consider when the state police did a focused "sting" on the oil and gas industry trucking their stops find violations (permit or mechanical) in about 70 to 80 percent of trucks they stop. A very high percentage of violations are for equipment failure that results in the police taking the vehicle out of service on the spot.

So, no, Flash the truckers around here working for the oil and gas industry are not the safest drivers on the road. That may be true in some areas for over the road truck drivers, but not for those hauling dangerous chemicals in our area.


Now! Next subject ...... How much did this reckless driver cost the community? Or us taxpayers? Wanna guess? CAN the total amount even be calculated?

All the emergency responders and moving one thousand people in the middle of the night? Well, early morning. Or how about all of downtown and most business in town having to close for the whole day? All the Penn DOT employees called out to re-route traffic? All the police and other agencies who had to work the scene?

Did this cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars? Will the truck driver or his company pay for the lost money? Part of it?

WE the taxpayers will end up paying for this drivers mistake. And it will cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars!

The reason these marcellus drivers are so horrible is because they're all new. These companies that hire these drivers will take anyone, get them a cdl, and then give them 2-3 days of training and then send them out on their own.



The insurance company and the company that owned the truck will be responsible for most.

Citizen...I agree with your assessment but add that hazmat routes are established and for many reasons, the most important being safety and response. Holding a hasmat endorsement as I do I can state with absolute fact that routes don't make sense all of the time. Ask your federal government why a truck is routed through a town when a by-pass is readily available.

As to being wrong about the truck driver safety portion of my statement I point you to the FARS which year after year after year states that accidents involving trucks and cars, I know, this one didn't, personnal vehicles are responsible from 70-85% of the time. By far, drivers of personal vehicles are more dangerous than truck drivers. Within the site you can also see the drug and alcohol usage reports which also bust the myth that truck drivers are coked up, speed hyped, drunk menaces on the road. In fact, the opposite is true - personal vehicle drivers are.

On a side note, no accident involving a truck hauling nuclear material has resulted in release of any radiation. Have you seen how they test those containers? Speeding locomotive right into it - no leaks. Dropped from thousands of feet in the air - no leaks. Doused in gasoline and lit on fire - no leaks. Explosives set off under it - no leaks. I want one for something, don't know what yet, but I want one.

A bomb shelter for the inevitable zombie apocalypse?