Loader driver defends actions

SCOTT ERICKSON SAYS HE WASN’T CONCERNED ABOUT SUN GLARE ON WHOOP-UP DRIVE

If motorists travelling west up Whoop-Up Drive on the afternoon of Nov 13, 2015 didn’t see the front-end loader removing snow in front of them, it was their own fault, Scott Edward Erickson testified Friday.

Erickson, who is on trial for a single charge of dangerous driving causing death, told court glare from the setting sun had nothing to do with motorists’ inability to see him operating the loader in the fast lane of Whoop-Up Drive.

“They weren’t paying attention,” he told court shortly after his lawyer, Balfour Der, began his case for the defence.

However, several witnesses, including police officers, testified earlier in the trial that the sun was almost blinding as they drove along the roadway around 3 p.m. Nov. 13. Many witnesses said they didn’t see the loader until they were almost upon it, and one couple testified they came within feet of the loader before they saw it and swerved at the last second to avoid hitting it.

Alan John Johnston didn’t see the loader until it was too late as he drove his minivan along the busy roadway. Court heard he saw the loader about one second before he struck it from behind and was killed.

Erickson, who was operating the loader from where he sat about 12 feet off the ground, testified he didn’t believe the sun was causing any problems for motorists because he saw them move out of his lane farther down the road. He said the sun would cause problems “later on” when it was lower in the sky, but at the time he wasn’t concerned about glare and there weren’t any close calls.

The accused was picking up snow by the concrete barrier along the median, and moving it across three lanes to the north side of the roadway where he dumped it on the grass. He told court he was concerned that the snow would melt, then freeze on the road, causing icy conditions for motorists.

“My belief was I was making the road safer,” he testified.

Erickson also contradicted evidence presented by his superiors who earlier testified that they didn’t know he was using a snowplow to remove snow. They said only high-speed snow plows are used on WhoopUp Drive because of heavy traffic and the speed motorists travelled.

But Erickson said he specifically told two supervisors he wanted to pick up snow on the busy roadway with a loader. He testified one supervisor in particular, Ed Vervloet, even asked why he needed the loader, then simply said, “OK.”

Vervloet testified Thursday that had Erickson told him what he planned, he would have said, “absolutely not.”

Erickson was part of a fourman snow storm watch crew tasked with routinely checking the city’s highest priority roads to check for snow and ice. The crew also checked weather forecasts so they knew what to expect and could prepare for it. When Erickson saw snow along the median on Whoop-Up Drive, he decided to clear it before water melting on the road could freeze.

Erickson thought it would only take him five minutes to clear, but he was there more more than 30 minutes before Johnston struck him. He told court that as Johnston approached he could see the 72-year-old man looking downward toward his windshield wipers, and he had a “glazed” look in his eyes only moments before the collision.

Another member of the snow storm watch crew, Michael Seltenhammer, testified that using a loader was the best way to remove the snow and he would have done the same thing, even during the same time of day.

“I’m glad that was my day off,” he said. “It could have been me.”

He said he’s used a loader on Whoop-Up Drive to move snow, and he’s seen at least one other city worker in the past 10 years doing the same thing, but both times it was late at night. When he used the loader, two “blocker trucks” with flashing warning lights were set up to divert traffic around the work site.

Erickson testified he didn’t believe warning signs, pylons or lights were warranted for the job, and blocker trucks wouldn’t have worked because he was travelling back and forth across three lanes of traffic.

Defence is expected to call one more witness before wrapping up its case, which is scheduled for June 18.

The expert witness, who is currently out of the province, is expected to provide evidence relating to traffic reconstruction, which could refute evidence presented previously by an accident reconstruction specialist with the Lethbridge Police Service. That officer presented evidence about the angle of the sun and elevation of the roadway, and concluded glare from the sun played a major role in the accident.

Follow @DelonHerald on Twitter