May 12, 2007
Why Was This Woman Driving a Bus?

The lede pretty much says it all in this case:

The Metro bus driver involved in a fatal crash last month was the subject of dozens of complaints about her driving -- many from alarmed motorists and passengers accusing her of speeding, the agency's records show.

We're not just talking about a mild assortment of complaints of a missed stop here or a late bus there. Here is but a sampling from the article:

In a 2001 report, for example, a rider said Olosky "became hysterical" when asked why the bus was two minutes late and asked police to remove the questioner from the bus.

In 2002, another rider complained that Olosky closed the bus door before his wife could board. That same year, the records say, another rider said Olosky passed by riders waiting at a stop, then denied it and said "I don't care" when asked if she was headed to a particular destination.

One report, in December 2006, claimed Olosky got on the bus loudspeaker to demand that customers show up on time.

In sum this women had a long series of complaints that when added all up paint a clear picture of a negligent driver wholly incapable of professional, customer service skills. Why was she driving?

The agency fired Olosky in 2005 for getting into a dispute with some riders and stopping the bus on the West Seattle Bridge, but the decision was not driving-related. It was overturned by an arbitrator and she returned to work last year.

Sounds like her union saved her hide when she shouldn't have been on the road. Now, someone is dead because a person who even the mentally challenged could understand shouldn't be in that job was driving a Metro bus.

The agency tries to defend itself:

While Olosky overall was "not as good as the overwhelming majority of our operators," she has a "very good record" for her years of driving based on accidents, Desmond said.

Does anyone believe based on what was reported from her file that she wasn't an accident waiting to happen?

Posted by Eric Earling at May 12, 2007 11:45 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Of course she was an accident waiting to happen, but she is also "protected" by the UNION, which has "steps" according to the news report I saw that must be followed in order to terminate drivers.
So sad that an innocent person lost their life and this slug of a human being is on "paid leave".
The family of the victim should sue the driver, King County and the Union!

Posted by: mimi on May 12, 2007 12:47 PM
2. Why? Union rules are stronger than law in this state. I agree the Union should be named in this lawsuit (which we know will be filed!)

Posted by: Old Sgt on May 12, 2007 01:41 PM
3. Unions defend incompetence, create high costs for labor, and remove the opportunity for employers to hire low end workers at their actual skill value, instead of the inflated union wage. All three lead to less, not more jobs. Unions may have served a purpose back in the day when there was little regulation and human life was not respected. Those days in the US are long gone.

All unions do now is line the pockets of their fat cat leaders and created opportunities for nepotism and lucrative jobs for the insiders and unions families.

And unions have created a sense of entitlement that has killed the low-end service industry, because everyone now thinks they are too good for the job.

Is it any wonder that illegals flood across our borders to under the table work in jobs that unions have otherwise destroyed?

Make WA a Right To Work state.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 12, 2007 03:35 PM
4. Answer: Because she couldn't get a job editing this blog?

Isn't there a tie SOMEWHERE between this bus driver and illegal voting in the 2004 election?

Posted by: Blog Editor want ads. on May 12, 2007 04:05 PM
5. Well, thank goodness the unions fight to keep bad eggs on the job anyway! /(sarcasm off)

Posted by: Misty on May 12, 2007 04:12 PM
6. Hey Blog Editor Want Ads, yes you Jim, it really is too bad this lady didn't meet you head on with her bus on that highway isn't it?

Posted by: Huh? on May 12, 2007 05:19 PM
7. Anybody who rides Metro has experienced drivers who should not be behind the wheel of a 20 ton bus. I've contacted Metro when a particular driver exhibits more than the ordinary bizarre behavior we've come to expect; they never reply.

Posted by: Organization Man on May 12, 2007 10:28 PM
8. Org Man, I hate being at the mercy of mass transit, which is a huge reason why I will stay in my car, thank you very much. your comment about never getting a reply is a great illustration of why! I called metro to report a bad move by a bus driver in an intersection and they just brushed me off!

Posted by: Michele on May 12, 2007 11:24 PM
9. its not just the union at fault; heck airlines have union and generally the flight crews get fired when they behave poorly.

Its Metro/S. Transit; typical Puget sound big gov't that cares more for its own than for the public it serves (kind of reminds me of the elections department)

Posted by: righton on May 13, 2007 06:31 AM
10. I couldn't add anything to Jeff B.'s posting. He said it all.

Posted by: Saltherring on May 13, 2007 07:26 AM
11. Whether a grievance is pursued or not is put to a vote at a union meeting. If the person involved gets his or her friends to show up, the grievance is pursued. It has happened where union members, and probably union Local leadership, shake their heads when the vote goes to pursue an issue -- but that is how it is set up.

While the complaints posted above show a poor attitude, they don't necessarily show an unsafe driver. I once closed the door on someone, and then opened it again when I him coming out of a blind spot. He started to give me a hard time, and then he looked at the direction from which he came. He said, "You really can't see back there, can you?"

People get mad at drivers because they don't wait while aomeone takes a leisurely stroll the last block to the bus stop. I once had a complaint for not stopping for someone at a bus stop. I remembered that person – he was a good 50 feet away from the stop, made no effort to hurry up, did not indicate in any way that he wanted to catch the bus. I was supposed to know, somehow, that this person wanted to catch my bus -- and I was supposed to wait for him.

People cuss at drivers because the bus is late. People cuss at drivers because the bus is caught in traffic. One person will cuss at a driver for doing what another passenger cussed him out for not doing.

It bothers me when a driver makes no effort to be cordial – he is bringing problems on himself. However, there are passengers who will take advantage of the system, to the detriment of everyone else. A driver has to do what little he can to maintain control over the situation.

I am not defending the fact that a person was killed because of this driver – that is unforgivable. However, you said this driver “was the subject of dozens of complaints about her driving,” and then cited cases of this person being a jerk. I know people who are jerks, but are safe drivers. I know people who are nice, but are lousy drivers. Let the facts of the case speak for themselves. Don’t bring in extraneous details to confuse the issue.

Posted by: RadioMattM on May 13, 2007 10:12 AM
12. "Radio" I believe this to be more than a case of disgruntled passengers making complaints. I believe the news reported that this driver had been issued several SPEEDING TICKETS while driving the Metro Bus. Combined with complaints and other traffic citations, clearly this driver was an accident waiting to happen.
The tradgedy here is that this could have and SHOULD HAVE been avoided by having this driver FIRED and not REHIRED due to a "technicality".

Posted by: mimi on May 13, 2007 01:03 PM
13. Actually "Radio" it's far worse than a few angry passengers. According to an article posted online at King5.com yesterday, the driver has been involved in 5 ACCIDENTS, 1 which she was found responsible for. Also, she was FIRED not once, but TWICE. The first time was in 1997 for "gross negligence and misconduct." The second was eight years later for the complaint listed here. Both times she was rehired after filing a "grievance."
Real winner of a person.

Posted by: mimi on May 13, 2007 01:37 PM
14. I was responding to what was stated in the post. The post said she had serious complaints about the saftey of her driving, then only quoted cases of her being a jerk. Should she be fired? No doubt (short of everything that has been said in the news being totally untrue). But don't tell me someone is a mass murderer, then quote how he has many tickets for jaywalking to prove the point.

Posted by: RadioMattM on May 13, 2007 05:35 PM
15. I also wanted to point out that this driver was not rehired because of fat-cat union leaders ramming a dangerous driver down Metro's throat. If the membership at a meeting votes against pursuing a grievance, it is not pursued. If the membership votes to pursue a grievance, then the union must pursue it. If you want to talk about an arbitrator who is removed from the consequences of his decisions, then you get no argument from me. But to blame the union here is like saying murder suspects should not have legal representation because of the seriousness of the case.

Posted by: RadioMattM on May 13, 2007 05:45 PM
16. RadioMattM - You're objecting to the fact my post didn't repeat the information contained in the article I linked to. The article speaks for itself, I simply pulled out one easy-to-understand passage to describe that this woman doesn't appear to be the sort of person one would want to keep employing.

The article I linked to covered the specific complaints about her actual road safety. As does the KING 5 coverage noted in the comments, including this bit:

Since 1997, Olosky has had 26 complaints for careless driving, 28 for discourteous conduct, and six for speeding.

In that time she has also been involved in five accidents – one she was deemed responsible.

That doesn't pass the smell test for most people, and as others have mentioned about the KING 5 report, Metro tried to fire her twice. She shouldn't have been driving that bus.

Posted by: Eric Earling on May 13, 2007 05:47 PM
17. Am I the only one who watched these busses in Seattlelike a hawk when driving in the city?

They pull out right in front of you and you damn well better dodge. Not sure if it is true, but I was told by someone (don't remember now) that in any altercation with a buss you are automatically guilty. From the way a lot of these things drive I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

Union issues are an entire another festering scab.

Posted by: Fox3 on May 13, 2007 06:19 PM
18. Fox3, no that isn't true. Even if the accident is found to be your fault, the bus driver is charged with a "preventable accident." That can be held against him if he or she wants a promotion or any other change of position within Metro. (A full-time driver who retires and wants to drive part-time have to be “rehired.” If his or her record is not clean enough, they don’t make it.) That accident can also follow that driver if that he or she wants to get another driving job elsewhere. The Seattle Police Department would just as soon cite a Metro driver as look at him.

Posted by: RadioMattM on May 13, 2007 11:01 PM
19. Fox3- I suspect that what the person meant by "you are automatically guilty" is that, since you are required to yield to a bus pulling out from a stop, you are presumed guilty if you hit a bus from behind. Similarly, you're presumed guilty for hitting any vehicle from behind because by definition that means you weren't leaving a safe following distance. But I assume there can be extenuating circumstances in any of these situations. Caveat: I'm not an expert, so the above is just my belief.

Posted by: Bruce on May 14, 2007 10:06 AM
20. sfnxpuw mkdoxt xyhteuap rkvlodgh clwnshvga xpbw yjedi

Posted by: tbyuik gsnzd on May 16, 2007 10:42 PM
21. sfnxpuw mkdoxt xyhteuap rkvlodgh clwnshvga xpbw yjedi

Posted by: tbyuik gsnzd on May 16, 2007 10:42 PM
22. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

I'm passing beside these thing and they just pull out, not like I am running into the back of them :-).

It is like they don't have to bother to check, they just go and you had better hope there is no one beside you boxing you in.

Now that said, while this is not uncommon neither does it seem like every bus driver does it. It is common enough that one expects them to do it and acts accordingly when passing a stopped bus.

My car has been badly enough trashed by the druggie, drunkie, homeless (or whatever they really are) that I don't need to contribute to making it worse, I drive defensively all the time.

I'll replace my vehicle once I get out of this stinking sewer, not before.

Posted by: fox3 on May 18, 2007 06:46 PM
23. The misinformation is posted here is simply amazing. Will all the distortions personal attacks, and conclusion jumping it feels like democratic underground here.

This driver has the same type of record as lost of Metro drivers. Why? Because over the many years of doing this type of service drivers encounter all types of people and have good and bad interactions. 26 complaints in 10 years are nothing when you consider the driver has interacted with at least a million passengers in that time frame. She also has 1 at fault accident after driving millions of miles. How does everyone else’s driving record here stand up to those types of numbers? I understand how sad the family is over this accident and I feel for them. This was not an intentional act is was an accident. You all act as if she drove the bus into that young man on purpose.

One last note, the article list that she got many speeding complaints yet also got complaints she was late. Pick one because both can’t be true. The bus stops are timed to the speed limit and stops. If she was speeding she would be early not late.

Posted by: Grubber on May 18, 2007 07:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?