Charges pending results of toxicology tests in Rayburn crash
State police are awaiting toxicology results to determine if alcohol was a factor in a three-vehicle crash that injured three people last week on Route 28/66 in Rayburn.
The accident happened just before 6 p.m. Friday when a Chevy pickup heading south on the road sideswiped a Dodge pickup heading in the opposite direction. The Chevy, driven by Ronald Cox of Kittanning, then collided head-on with a Subaru Outback in the northbound lane driven by Keith Alcibade of Ford City.
The incident happened near Mechling Road, about five miles north of Route 85.
Cox and Alcibade were taken to Pittsburgh hospitals by helicopter, according to state police. A 7-year-old child, whose name was not released, was taken by helicopter to Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh.
“It was a horrendous crash. But everyone is going to live, from what we're told,” said Cpl. Christopher Robbins of the state police in Kittanning.
The Dodge pickup's driver, David Kline of Ford City, was not hospitalized, according to Robbins.
“He was lucky, but his vehicle was totaled. I think he was shook up mostly,” he said.
Rayburn and Valley volunteer firefighters redirected traffic off the road, which was closed until nearly midnight as crews cleaned up the crash site.
Robbins said it could take up to a month for police to get results of toxicology tests. Charges are pending results of those tests, he said.
Julie E. Martin is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-543-1303, ext. 1315, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.