Local News

Students Hurt as Head Start Bus Overturns

Posted October 16, 2007
Updated October 17, 2007

Editor's Note: An earlier report said Tina Rhiles' vehicle hit the bus causing it to overturn. Upon investigation, her vehicle did not cause the accident.

Several students were hurt Tuesday afternoon when a bus carrying Head Start students overturned in Fayetteville, police said.

The bus was carrying eight students from Lake Rim Head Start, an adult chaperone and the driver when it was involved in a collision at about 2:50 p.m. and overturned near the intersection of Reilly Road and Dental Lane, about two blocks south of Morganton Road, police said.

Police closed Reilly Road between Morganton and Cliffdale roads to handle the accident.

A southbound car driven by 20-year-old Colton F. Battle struck the driver's side of the northbound bus, and a second car driven by 29-year-old Tina M. Rhiles hit the bus from behind. Another van was also struck by debris from the accident.

"I just jumped into the bus and started taking seat belts off kids and passing kids off to other people to get them out of there," said Army Sgt. Samuel Hill, who witnessed the wreck.

"I have two kids of my own here in Fayetteville, and you just want to keep kids safe," Army Sgt. Jory Curry said.

A half-dozen minor injuries were reported among bus passengers, with the chaperone suffering the most serious injury, witnesses said. But none of the injuries warranted medical treatment at a hospital, police said.

Parent John Hall said he panicked when the school called him to notify him of the wreck.

"I didn't know what was going on," Hall said as he hugged his son. "I'm just glad he's OK."

Battle and his passenger, who was not identified on the accident report, were taken to Cape Fear Valley Medical Center for treatment, police said.

Crews had the bus righted and pulled off the side of the road by 5 p.m. But they continued to clear the scene of debris, including the bus' front axle, which had separated from the chassis in the wreck.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • boingc Oct 17, 2007


    You have to take 12% of 700%: ((700%-(700% X .12)), not 700% - 12%. I stand by my math. You are reducing the probability by 12%, it doesn't matter what numbers you use. So you are going from being 7 times more likely to being just over 6 times more likely.

  • Harrison Bergeron Oct 17, 2007


    "If you reduce the number of blacks that commit a crime (7) by 12%" then you are correct, however, the source indicated that Head Start reduced the likelihood by 12%. That's a probability value, not a raw number, so I stand by my original calculation.

    Agreed. As with most generalizations, there are always exceptions and I have never denied anecdotal success. As with most government programs the bureaucracy gets in the way of their noble pursuits. We are obviously at polar ends but I always appreciate civil debate.

  • boingc Oct 17, 2007

    In this case, there are numerous studies and statistics that do little more than confound the real purpose of the program--to help those who need it get a good start in life and towards becoming a productive member of society.

    You are correct that personal attacts do little to facilitate any meaningful discussion.

  • boingc Oct 17, 2007


    You're getting a bit more for your money. If blacks are 700% more likely to commit a crime then your ratio is 7:1. If you reduce the number of blacks that commit a crime (7) by 12%, then you have 6.16. Your ratio is now 6.16:1, or 616%. It's a pretty easy error to make, so I won't hold it against you.

    It is apparent that you are an intelligent individual. I'd like to say that I've only continued to respond because you have. At this point, it's not getting anywhere. I think you are willing to admit that some disadvantaged people are helped by Head Start. I'm willing to admit that government waste is an ongoing problem in our society. We just have different opinions as to what constitues a justified expenditure of taxpayer dollars. cont.

  • Harrison Bergeron Oct 17, 2007


    These two data points you are referring to came from your 2000 source paper.

    Ok, first of all the study indicated that it lowered the likelihood of a black person to commit crime by 12%, not that it reduced the raw prison population of blacks by 12%. Likelihood is probability normed to population. So, since the likelihood of blacks to commit crime is ~700% higher than it is for whites, the reason that I don't find the reduction significant is that the new total is now ~688%. I expect much more for my money.

    Also, you left of that those who were 28% more likely to attend college were white, as with most of the other long term academic effects, the source only indicated impact on whites. Given that white children make up only ~27% of the Head Start program, I find that to be an inadequate measure of "success".

  • boingc Oct 17, 2007

    "First, yes I do consider a 12% decrease in likelihood of blacks to commit crime to be insignificant when you consider that that are 800% more likely to commit robbery and 700% more likely to commit murder than whites."

    Wait a minute, reducing the number of blacks in prison by 12% is not significant? I don't really understand how you can say that? Plus, it has nothing to do with there being more blacks in prison that whites. If anything, that makes it more significant because it is, in fact, closing the gap.

    I think the information from the 2006 study does contradict you, because it is a more recent study--that simple.

    A 28% increase in the number who attend college seems like a long term benefit doesn't it? I mean, if head start is for 3-4 year olds, and they are still reaping the benefits after 15 years that would seem long term to me...

  • Harrison Bergeron Oct 17, 2007


    Well, your objectivity was rather short lived. You're implication that I am intentionally distorting data is un-founded and borders on the absurd. The '85 did indeed shake the establishment AT THE TIME. That was the first time the HHS admitted there might be a problem. The studies are still pointing to short-term gains that as shown previously will attenuate over time. The term inconclusive came up when discussing the GAO's ability to show impact (i.e. success); the burden of proof for showing success was on the HHS.

    You'll notice this all started because someone asked what Head Start was, I answered as an aside to my initial comment. The only reason I continued to post was because you and boingc couldn't stop with the vitriolic attacks; condemning me for not showing compassion while YOU attack my character has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen.

  • Harrison Bergeron Oct 17, 2007

    Well, I see you two have been busy. Let me see:


    First, yes I do consider a 12% decrease in likelihood of blacks to commit crime to be insignificant when you consider that that are 800% more likely to commit robbery and 700% more likely to commit murder than whites.

    Second, the lengthy quote you provided from the 2006 Impact Study does indeed show small gains, something I already posted near the start of this thread, something I said the HHS already admitted while also saying that the short-term gains do not last. They said it in '85 and again in '03 before the senate. What you are providing is not contradicting this.

    I actually agree with you about the money we spend for our wars, but that is completely beside the point.

    My conclusion hasn't changed: Have they made small short-term gains? Sure. Are there anecdotal success stories? Sure, there always are standouts. But, the goal of this program was to close the gap. It hasn't. More money won't help.

  • Phlootang Oct 17, 2007


    More important than me and Harry, is that the children are safe and well. THAT is what is important here.

  • Phlootang Oct 17, 2007

    We must consider an ad hominem argument for the fact that Harry has contributed at least 12 posts without ever mentioning the well-being of these particular children. It demonstrates a fallacy in character that can not be overlooked. Furthermore, this limitation of character may help explain the poster’s need to skew and distort information (the story is about Harry, not the children, after all). Initially, Harry claimed that the 1985 study “shook the establishment with its dire findings.” Nice try, kid. Then, despite later admitting that he understood the concept of ‘inconclusive’, Harry claims “it’s been shown conclusively through exhaustive studies that Head Start has little long-term impact on its beneficiaries.” Harry ‘says’ he knows what inconclusive means but then demonstrates that he does not have full grasp of the concept. It seems fruitless and needless to fact check all of Harry’s distortions. More important than me and Harry, is that the children are s