Bank Holiday Horror

[no_1_dave]

The drunk guy in the first lorry that was stopped was ultimately at fault

The minibus driver was an idiot, not at fault but he stupidly stopped behind the lorry instead of seeing there was a stopped lorry in front of him and moving to the middle lane. Pulling up behind the lorry and stopping was idiotic and got himself killed along with most of his passengers. He is not at fault for the accident but could have easily avoided it

The guy in the 3rd lorry on a hands free call should have been more aware but also did not cause the accident. He holds the same amount of responsibility as the dead minibus driver. Could have avoided the accident, but wasn't concentrating on the road.

I know the guy driving the minibus died, so all the news is trying to be a bit sensitive about his actions, but he should have seen the stopped lorry and would have had plenty of time to move to the middle lane. When you have a minibus full of people you have no excuse to not be concentrating 100% on the road. He should be held just as accountable as the 2nd lorry driver but instead all the media are acting like he did nothing wrong.

 

[Scania]

@jpaul

Yes it’s pretty much standard practice to be told or to sign a declaration stating you won’t use a mobile whilst driving an HGV.

Unfortunately though, it’s also standard practice for your traffic office to phone you when they know damn well your driving to see how your doing or advise of a plan change / whatever.

This to be fair is usually a very brief call and arguably relevant to the job.

Wagstaff was just chatting **** to a fellow driver by all accounts for over an hour prior to the collision which is wholly different and imo inexcusable.

The drunk guy in the first lorry that was stopped was ultimately at fault

The minibus driver was an idiot, not at fault but he stupidly stopped behind the lorry instead of seeing there was a stopped lorry in front of him and moving to the middle lane. Pulling up behind the lorry and stopping was idiotic and got himself killed along with most of his passengers. He is not at fault for the accident but could have easily avoided it

The guy in the 3rd lorry on a hands free call should have been more aware but also did not cause the accident. He holds the same amount of responsibility as the dead minibus driver. Could have avoided the accident, but wasn't concentrating on the road.

I know the guy driving the minibus died, so all the news is trying to be a bit sensitive about his actions, but he should have seen the stopped lorry and would have had plenty of time to move to the middle lane. When you have a minibus full of people you have no excuse to not be concentrating 100% on the road. He should be held just as accountable as the 2nd lorry driver but instead all the media are acting like he did nothing wrong.

I fail to see why the minibus driver just stopped, from the CCTV it wasn’t that busy in the grand scheme of things and stopping in a live lane on an otherwise flowing motorway is bordering on suicidal!

Why didn’t he go up the first trucks near side (hard shoulder) assuming he was watching the traffic behind him seeing a truck bearing down on him?

I feel for the guy, it wasn’t his fault lorry 1 had just stopped but he should - especially being in charge of a minibus- have been more aware of his surroundings and acted sooner.

Ironically because of the minibus driver stopping Wagstaff (Fed ex driver) is alive to face the consequences of his actions otherwise he would have not survived the impact of hitting a stationary HGV at 55mph, regardless of his punishment he’s got to live with the fact he killed 8 people and lived because they died, I have great empathy for him for that.

I still don’t see how his driving was merely careless given what happened and the aftermath.

 

[Dis86]

I think the whole thing just highlights one significant point. The appalling standards of some 'professional' drivers on our roads.

 

[Semple]

I fail to see why the minibus driver just stopped, from the CCTV it wasn’t that busy in the grand scheme of things and stopping in a live lane on an otherwise flowing motorway is bordering on suicidal!

Why didn’t he go up the first trucks near side (hard shoulder) assuming he was watching the traffic behind him seeing a truck bearing down on him?

I feel for the guy, it wasn’t his fault lorry 1 had just stopped but he should - especially being in charge of a minibus- have been more aware of his surroundings and acted sooner.

Having not read much about the minibus driver, i do wonder if lack of experience of driving a minibus, or even lack of knowledge of using the motorways could have been at play here.

As you quite rightly say, stopping on a flowing motorway is extremely dangerous and all it takes is one driver to have noticed too late before a fatality occurs.

 

[jpaul]

just Saw the motorway camera view (warning it is distressing) ref'd here

The mini-cab driver gets boxed by a car driver overtaking at speed, and another car boxes the lorry driver that crashed into it,
both of those contributed, they should have been aware and in the right hand lane or hanging back, did not see any mention of those 'drivers'.
(lorries are tall/big but they should have had visibility)

 

[One More Solo]

The guy in the 3rd lorry on a hands free call should have been more aware but also did not cause the accident. He holds the same amount of responsibility as the dead minibus driver. Could have avoided the accident, but wasn't concentrating on the road.

I couldn’t disagree more: the minibus driver was stupid for stopping behind a stationary vehicle, the lorry driver was negligent for not seeing the same situation. There is absolutely no excuse or explanation for driving into a stationary vehicle on the motorway if you are driving with due care and attention. He wasn’t.

 

[Orionaut]

I couldn’t disagree more: the minibus driver was stupid for stopping behind a stationary vehicle, the lorry driver was negligent for not seeing the same situation. There is absolutely no excuse or explanation for driving into a stationary vehicle on the motorway if you are driving with due care and attention. He wasn’t.

Well,

I was talking about this just the other day.

As I recall, the accident took place on an unlit section of motorway, at night

The minibus had its hazard lights on.

Now, if we assume that the truck driver was driving with dipped headlights, then all he would have seen in the distance would be the flashing hazard lights, possibly even the lights of the lorry parked just in front of it (Which actually makes things even more difficult for him if you think about it)

Most peoples initial assumption on seeing vehicle lights in the distance like this would be that the vehicles were parked on the hard shoulder, not L1, It would only become apparent that they were in fact in L1 once he was close enough for the dipped headlights to reveal the true situation, by which time it would be far too late to do anything about it.

There are plenty of people who could easily have made the same error even if they were not using a hands free phone at the time.

The problem with many accident scenarios is that even the best vision isn't really that good. What you "See" is based heavily on past experience rather than what is actually in front of you at the time.

I would expect that the driver would have seen the flashing lights from some distance away, but would have dismissed them asonly a minor hazard because past experience would suggest that they would have been on the hard shoulder. He would only have realised the true situation when he was probably only 2-3 seconds away from the collision.

It is easy to critisise people from the armchair of hindsight, but this was a very unusual set of circumstances, and even under ideal circumstances processing a totally novel situation takes a couple of seconds longer than dealing with a routine one. and in situation like this, those seconds make all the diference.

Personally I am sympathetic, Failing to quickly perceive the true nature of a very unusual situation may justify retraining, even withdrawal of a commercial vehicle license. But I do not really see it as being criminal.

 

[Rroff]

I would expect that the driver would have seen the flashing lights from some distance away, but would have dismissed them asonly a minor hazard because past experience would suggest that they would have been on the hard shoulder. He would only have realised the true situation when he was probably only 2-3 seconds away from the collision.

Have to say if driving and I see what I assume to be vehicles parked on the hard shoulder, especially with hazards on, my next thought is that they might infringe into lane one for whatever reason and take that into account as I approach - you see some people doing some truly daft things sometimes at the side of fast roads

 

[Orionaut]

Have to say if driving and I see what I assume to be vehicles parked on the hard shoulder, especially with hazards on, my next thought is that they might infringe into lane one for whatever reason and take that into account as I approach - you see some people doing some truly daft things sometimes at the side of fast roads

Oh, I agree, I wondered whether to add this in my earlier post. but I will move over to L2 whenever i see anything on the hard shoulder. Just in case.

But most people do not, It is difficult to regard failing to take precautions that "Most" people would regard as extreme to be an example of criminal negligence.

Having said that. I would prefer to see more "Public information films" of the old sort offering advise over issues like this.

There used to be a frequent thing on TV in the past offering advise on all sorts of aspects of driving, but I haven't seen anything like this for decades...

 

[jpaul]

My reproach was for the driver who overtook the minibus, car, lorry, car, lorry, convoy,
in the middle lane, at speed, potentially hindering the mini-bus driver from using it himeself to avoid being stuck behind the parked lorry.

The overtaking driver had nothing behind him, the overtaker wants to narrow the angle to see clearly the lorry convoy and even avoid someone pulling into his path from the convoy, lane 3 would have been the better option (from my office chair ), you have the prevariactors, and slowing folks, who are taking the exit, to avoid too.

 

[geekman]

The only driver I can’t understand is the minibus driver.

Truck 1: Drunk, no licence, easy to understand why he’d do something stupid like stopping in lane 1.

Truck 2: Most likely tired, a bit distracted, easy to understand why he might see the obstruction too late.

Minibus driver: Instead of using the hard shoulder to go around the truck, or at the very least stopping on the hard shoulder, just sits behind the truck. He was obviously paying enough attention not to hit it, so why didn’t he take any other sort of action? Anybody in their right minds knows that sitting in a live lane is stupid, particularly on a dark, unlit motorway.

 

[£15]

so from yesterday


was interested to see what the president is for being prosecuted when stationary/parked at the time of the accident (and understand you have
repsonsibility for the vehicle nonetheless)
an interesting related prosecution
Farmer convicted of dangerous driving despite not being in tractor

This has surprised and shocked me. It's always been my thinking that one should alter ones driving to the conditions and one should always be able to stop in time when confronted with an obstacle.

If you're driving on country lanes, or where you may expect agricultural machinery, then you reduce your speed so when you're confronted with a tractor, for example, either stationary or moving, you are able to stop in time. I'm making assumptions here, I know, but if a motorcyclist couldn't stop in time and went into that tractor with such force that he was killed and the motorcycle burst into flames, then he's at fault.

 

[£15]

Deleted

 

[Rroff]

This has surprised and shocked me. It's always been my thinking that one should alter ones driving to the conditions and one should always be able to stop in time when confronted with an obstacle.

At the same time you have a responsibility not to endanger other road users (something a lot of people are complacent about) - rather a tricky one in this case. IMO its a 50/50 one as even if we assume the motorcyclist was driving sensibly and avoided it that doesn't make what the farm manager did completely beyond reproach so I think a suspended sentence is a just outcome here.

 

[jpaul]

following related discussion in motors, saw this video
Volvo Trucks Automatic Emergency Brake System
there should be plans to mandate them ?.

 

[Tefal]

Wait linked from the tractor article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...s-driving-despite-not-being-at-the-wheel.html

Man found guilty of death by dangerous driving because this drunk wife crashed thier car and killed people.


Are women now so utterly considered children that when they crash while speeding while drink driving it is thier partners responsibility for letting them drive?

 

[jpaul]

Can the 'joint enterprise' law even be applied to situations like that ? sounds like a variant.

Interesting remark in the article

The 4.2 litre silver Jaguar's "black box" data recorder revealed Butres was travelling at 113mph, despite bad weather that had left the road covered in puddles.

 

[Jokester]

My only concern about that case is that the bloke was wasted as well so I don't feel comfortable with him being found culpable of not intervening to stop her driving dangerously.

 

[Tefal]

So will the girlfriend of every boyracer be being charged from now on as being a passenger?

 

[Scania]

Well,

I was talking about this just the other day.

As I recall, the accident took place on an unlit section of motorway, at night

The minibus had its hazard lights on.

Now, if we assume that the truck driver was driving with dipped headlights, then all he would have seen in the distance would be the flashing hazard lights, possibly even the lights of the lorry parked just in front of it (Which actually makes things even more difficult for him if you think about it)

Most peoples initial assumption on seeing vehicle lights in the distance like this would be that the vehicles were parked on the hard shoulder, not L1, It would only become apparent that they were in fact in L1 once he was close enough for the dipped headlights to reveal the true situation, by which time it would be far too late to do anything about it.

There are plenty of people who could easily have made the same error even if they were not using a hands free phone at the time.

The problem with many accident scenarios is that even the best vision isn't really that good. What you "See" is based heavily on past experience rather than what is actually in front of you at the time.

I would expect that the driver would have seen the flashing lights from some distance away, but would have dismissed them asonly a minor hazard because past experience would suggest that they would have been on the hard shoulder. He would only have realised the true situation when he was probably only 2-3 seconds away from the collision.

It is easy to critisise people from the armchair of hindsight, but this was a very unusual set of circumstances, and even under ideal circumstances processing a totally novel situation takes a couple of seconds longer than dealing with a routine one. and in situation like this, those seconds make all the diference.

Personally I am sympathetic, Failing to quickly perceive the true nature of a very unusual situation may justify retraining, even withdrawal of a commercial vehicle license. But I do not really see it as being criminal.

My default action upon seeing something on the hard shoulder has always been to move to lane 2 to keep my truck well away from any potential issues, it's good practice and stems from a woman stopped on the hard shoulder stepping back in to lane 1 one night in 2007 about 100yards from my fully loaded artic.....

Wagstaff didn't do anything whatsoever other than plough straight into the back of the stationary mini bus.

Far too preoccupied with his phone conversation and he'd allowed himself to forget what he was driving.