Survivor of deadly Oss Stint crash testifies as operators admit false safety claims

The deadly Stint crash in Oss on September 20, 2018, which resulted in the death of four children, has left lasting physical and emotional scars on the families involved. Indy, who survived the accident at 11, testified in Den Bosch court about her enduring injuries and the loss of her younger sisters, Dana, 8, and four-year-old Liva. “I will have to live with these limitations. The pain is constant, and that will never go away,” she said. On Wednesday, Stint business owners Edwin Renzen and Peter Noorlander confessed in court to providing false information in the vehicles’ user manuals.

The tragic accident also took the lives of Fleur, 6, and Kris, 4. Fleur’s mother expressed her hope that the defendants would accept the court’s decision and refrain from appealing. Indy shared the same sentiment: "I bear no hatred and want to do everything possible to remain positive in life."

A few days before the train crash, Indy had been in a Stint that stopped on the tracks. "Fortunately, there was no train coming," she recalled. She shared this with her father at the hospital after waking from her coma. Reflecting on the incident, he said, "It wasn’t just an ordinary accident for me anymore." He praised the leader who survived the crash as a hero, saying, "She did everything she could to prevent the accident."

The girls’ mother described the profound impact on her own life. “My life fell apart, and I haven’t been able to piece it back together as I wish. I see a glimmer of hope, but I can’t reach it,” she said in the Den Bosch court.

The father of the fractured family criticized the Stint operators for their silence. "This was negligence, and it can never be undone," he stated in his victim impact statement. His daughter, Indy, echoed him: "I don’t want any more apologies or expressions of sympathy. It’s too little, too late."

The Stint’s driver suffered serious injuries. Her victim impact statement, read aloud by her lawyer, explained that she could not bring the Stint to a stop. "This accident has ruined my life. I wasn’t alone; I was carrying other people’s most precious possessions."

Parents brought framed photos of their children to the courtroom, sharing memories of their brief lives. Kris’s father ended his statement by saying, "I hope it is now clear what our family has endured, and that the court will do justice."

Stint entrepreneurs Edwin Renzen and Peter Noorlander admitted in court that they had provided false information in user manuals. They claimed, incorrectly, that the electric cargo vehicle met European safety standards.

According to the Public Prosecution Service (OM), they also falsely reported in an application to the Ministry of Infrastructure that the Stint fulfilled the necessary safety requirements. The prosecution suspects the pair of crimes, including forgery.

The OM stated that the defendants claimed in the Stint manual that the electric cargo vehicle met the safety standards of the European Machinery Directive, which sets mandatory safety criteria for machines. "We should have worded that differently in the user manual," Noorlander admitted.

In July 2011, the manufacturer asked the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (IenW) to classify the Stint as a special moped. The OM says the manufacturer incorrectly claimed in the submission that the Stint had completed the CE certification process, when it had not.

On the second day of the six-day Stint trial, the entrepreneurs acknowledged this. They also admitted that the CE mark was not present on the cargo vehicle. Noorlander explained, "It was never my intention to mislead anyone. I simply wanted to show that we had taken the Machinery Directive guidelines into account."

During the trial, a judge suggested to Renzen that certain phrases may have been left in the manuals "to create the impression that you were offering a safe product." Renzen replied that this was never a selling point for him, admitting, "I did not give enough attention to the user manuals."

The presiding judge apologized on Wednesday to the lawyers representing the Stint entrepreneurs. This move averted a possible recusal request from attorneys Geert-Jan Knoops and Carry Knoops.

During the second day of the trial, the presiding judge referenced the statement of the Stint’s driver, who said that shortly before the deadly accident on September 20, 2018, the vehicle completely failed to respond to her braking attempts and rolled onto the railway crossing. The court questioned the Stint entrepreneurs about whether an emergency stop button could have made a difference in that scenario.

Knoops said that the judge treated the scenario as fact, despite investigations showing no defects in the Stint involved. He described this as potential bias by the judge. The presiding judge then apologized, after which Knoops expressed his confidence in the court, allowing the trial to continue.

The presiding judge confirmed that investigators had found no defects in the Stint involved in the collision. "I only referred to the driver’s statement that nothing was functioning. If you perceived it differently, that was not my intention. It is understandable that you would comment on this."

The trial is set to resume on Monday, with the Public Prosecution Service set to argue that the defendants introduced a hazardous vehicle to the market.