Killer Lorry's

[big_kev]

Another lorry driver has again walked free from a court despite the evidence.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7110331.stm

 

The definite Facts

 

1: Overladen...apparently the court decided this was not an offence even thought the law says it is.

 

2: Driving too fast...took the roundabout in the offside lane at between 31-37mph

 

3: The trailer was incorrectly loaded, light stuff on bottom, heavy on top

 

 

The Disputed facts

 

1: Witnesses say he jumped the lights at speed on Amber.

 

2: Witnesses say the wagon was going far to fast to make the bend.

 

 

The driver said he did not know that the he was overladen or that the load was also unsafe.

 

That makes it ok then apparently... :lol:

[gregers]

i was always led to believe that if you are in charge of any vehicle then anything the police find wrong with it,then the blame is yours and yours alone.

[big_kev]

I think we are in the hands of the Labour "more rights for the criminal and less for the victims" again with this one.

 

The law is clear and yet the Judge instructs the Jury otherwise once again.

[Beyond Help?]

I really don't think party politics has much to do with it. It is not true that the truck was overloaded, that means that the MAM of the vehicle had been exceeded, more that his truck was badly loaded and too top heavy.

 

There is nothing in any of the news stories to suggest that the driver even supervised the loading of the trailer, indeed it could have been done in his absence. His load did not shift, nor was it insecure as previous to the accident it all stayed in the trailer, so the possible charges with respect to the loading of the vehicle would have been exhausted.

 

The CPS then decided to prosecute for causing death by dangerous driving.

 

"A person drives dangerously when:

The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" (Wilkinson 5.04)

 

In other words,

 

The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver

 

AND

 

It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

 

Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be "dangerous" within the meaning of Section 2A(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

 

There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property: (Section 2A(3) RTA 1988). Additionally, (Section 2A(2) RTA 1988) provides that a person is to regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. When considering the state of the vehicle, regard may be had to anything carried by or attached to the vehicle: (Section 2A(4) RTA 1988).

 

A defence to this is that under normal circumstances the driving would not have been dangerous and a sudden unexpected event took place, the toppling of the trailer. So the jury have to decide that, beyond all reasonable doubt that he knew that it was obvious the trailer would overturn. The driver had covered that route many many times and not had any problems previously.

 

The jury (who heard ALL the evidence) could not decide, so were asked to consider a charge of Careless driving, which puts a lesser test on the drivers' actions:

 

"This offence is committed when the accused's driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case." (Wilkinson, 5.41 to 5.82)

 

So perversely, if the jury were unable to decide on a more clearly outlined charge of Causing Death By Dangerous Driving then they were highly unlikely if they behaved correctly to convict him of careless driving. They did not do so and he walked free from court.

 

That is the legal aspect of the case as I see it. But was the outcome just? As 12 people who saw all the evidence could not decide that the driver was guilty then that really is not for us to say.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Beyond Help?

[tiny]

Now thats a reply!

[big_kev]

The following are examples of driving which may support an allegation of dangerous driving:

 

Speed, which is highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions.

 

" Far too fast to go around the roundabout according to several witnesses and a police expert"

 

Disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;

 

"Several witnesses said he booted it through the lights well on Amber"

 

and finally

 

Driving a vehicle with a load which presents a danger to other road users.

 

" This last one is very important as shown below"

 

The drivers responsibilty under the law regarding vehicle load weight and security.

A driver should check his load before setting out....He failed to do this....if the load was incorrectgly balanced under the law it is the drivers responsibilty.

 

If the driver is in any doubt about the load...weigh the vehicle and try to establish axle weights. If you cannot do this, take advice but remember that the responsibility is yours, not that of those giving the advice....public weighbridges are available....there would most likely have been one where he picked the load up from although there is no statement to this....the driver failed to do this.

 

 

 

To summarise

 

The vehicle was "in the drivers opinion" badly loaded which is the drivers responsibility under the law....the jury were obviously misled on this fact.

 

In the "police experts opinion" the vehicle was overladen...I have not seen any quotes about evidence to the contrary....again this is the drivers responsibily...again the jury were misled.

 

In the "opinion of the Department of Transport" the lorry was overladen....they probably know what they are talking about.

 

 

 

The jury were no doubt bamboozled by clever courtroom talk which is usually the case with accusations of dangerous driving....I have no idea how on earth the case for careless driving was dropped....

[Bigjeeze]

Strangely for me - I am with Beyond help on this one - The law is the law and in this case is specific and clear - and the Jury did what it's collective abilities dictated. Now a separate and far more interesting discussion might be a situation where we remove juries and leave the decisions up to people specifically trained to administer the law rather than the current adversarial system that relies on the lawyer's ability to hold and or sway an audience. As a layman I have always been upset by what I see as a lawyers quibble or equivocation - following the spriti of the law is what we want not an academic point scoring game as is currently the case.

[mikeohope]

What about the foreign trucks that do not put blind spot mirrors on the right hand side of their trucks. I drive around 100 miles on the M25 every day and hardly a day goes by when I don't see an incident involving a foreign truck that has side swiped some poor soul in a small car due to its inability to see what is down alongside it.

[fosterman]

Whilst not being a driver "by profession" I still take road safety as a high priority.

 

I have on occasions towed a trailer, no comparison to an HGV, I accept, however, I take time to ensure all lights are working correctly and that the carried load is as secure as can be, with heaviest goods at the bottom and therefore unlikely to shift.

 

I feel no matter what a court deems appropriate, the onus is on the driver to ensure the load is safe. The responsibility lies soley with the person in control of the vehicle at the time.

 

As regards foreign truckers who have no blindspot mirrors, I have seen disgusting acts by professional drivers on both motorways (M6 & M5) and 'A' roads (East Lancashire Road) by both domestic and foreign trucks.

 

....And before anyone says I only drive a car, I have driven 'tranny' vans regularily, and also 7.5 tonne trucks, though not HGV, or PSV.

[mumof4]

Did have a Galaxy, ran out of patience (and money) now running Renault Grand Scenic 1.9 Dci, no overheating, red in colour, very comfortable, liked site, hope you won't kick me off 'cos found you lot really good and helpful.

 

HUn just noticed your sig, course we wont kick you off, hope that you will stick around.When did the old gal go?

[Neils TDi again]

I am in the same boat as Mike I travel 100 miles a day on the motorway and this week alone i have only just managed to skid to an almost halt as a Polish lorry pulls into the middle lane as a queue of traffic was passing alongside, I was less than 2 inches from the rear protection bar of his trailer as he moved out.

 

I see this every day and am normally vigilant in overtaking foreign lorries but this was in heavy traffic at normal speeds the outside lane was fullas well as both middle and slow lanes.

 

Why do we accept poor standards of driving safety from HGV drivers licensed outside our own conditions, should we only allow UK passed HGV licence holders to drive on UK roads.

[big_kev]

What about the foreign trucks that do not put blind spot mirrors on the right hand side of their trucks. I drive around 100 miles on the M25 every day and hardly a day goes by when I don't see an incident involving a foreign truck that has side swiped some poor soul in a small car due to its inability to see what is down alongside it.

 

A very good point.

 

Personally I think all left hand drive vehicles should be banned from our roads as they are inherently dangerous.

 

Yeh, I now that this is impratical due to the requirements of fright vehicles going to and from the continent.

 

I seem to remember that some vehicle e.g. kerb cleaning and drain cleaning vehicles have big stickers on the back saying " warning Left hand Drive " or similar.

Why can't they have this on all left hand drive vehicles ( and ditto for right hand drive going abroad ).

Surely they can have some graphical symbol to denote this ?

 

 

 

 

p.s. I know I spelled frieght wrong earlier but somehow it seemed more appropriatte so I left it in.

 

p.p.s. ...possibly you could also have a symbol for a woman driver as well... :blink:

[Dave-G]

WARNING

POSSIBLE PMT DRIVER

 

:22: :( :blink:

[big_kev]

I think it needs to be graphical and therefore understandable in all languages.

 

Some suggections below.

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect this is not a female lorry driver although the idea is good !

 

[Beyond Help?]

A lot of the problems with the foreign drivers is also down to the huge volume of traffic and different car driver attitude. When your driving a truck abroad and see a gap, you indicate and any car drivers see this and back off. Over here the opposite is true, you put your indicator on and the car driver will accelerate into the space blocking you in behind the slower vehicle you want to pass. This is why many lorry drivers either don't indicate or indicate as they start to move.

 

As to the main topic of the thread the driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, that carries a custodial sentence so a jury trial is used for a not guilty plea. To remove the jury from the system because the can be 'bamboozled' by a clever defence barrister simply shows that the CPS's quality of barrister is poor or the evidence does not meet the strict and high standards of a jury trial.

 

If the driver had simply been charged with dangerous driving then it would have been heard at a lower court before a bench of magistrates who require a much lower standard of evidence to secure a conviction. OK, he could not have received a custodial sentence, but would have got a ban at least.

[Bigjeeze]

To remove the jury from the system because the can be 'bamboozled' by a clever defence barrister simply shows that the CPS's quality of barrister is poor or the evidence does not meet the strict and high standards of a jury trial.

 

 

 

That is my point entirely - Because the ability of the advocate can & will vary that means to me, that justice will vary also - So if we take away the "variation" and just deal with the actual facts with no clouding of the issue we will get a fairer more robust result - and Big Kev will be happier.

[big_kev]

Bring back hanging that would make me happy............ok not in this particular case.

[steve67car]

what do you have against lorry drivers? As you seem to be on a one man cruisade to ridicule a very very important distrubution net work!

i do believe that with the amount of trucks on the road from the humble escort/transit brigade to the thundering great 40footers there is going to be mistakes and acts of misjudgements made !

but the same goes to the car driver like us aswell

I have seen countless cars bounce of the armco or the kerb by driver not taking notice or nodding off, but yes i know when a lorry does it the sitution is greater and the actions of the driver can cause a lot more damage but when the vehicle is removed from the situation the driver is the same and that is a human being and as such we make mistakes

so please if you have an issue with a certain type of driver come out with it instead of high lighting certain cases because a tennager/bike rider or rep case with simular statistics will be 10 fold in the amount of cases happening

so please list any cases not just lorry drivers for debate on this a great subject

regards steve

[big_kev]

what do you have against lorry drivers? As you seem to be on a one man cruisade to ridicule a very very important distrubution net work!

 

I thought it was the legal system I was ridiculing ?

 

What made you think I had anything against lorry drivers.

[steve67car]

because all you have done is brought up lorry drivers and their incidents

nothing about any other drivers and their easy escapes from jail?

so i needed to ask the question

[big_kev]

Good point !

 

I think its just because the incidents have been more severe....as you would expect with a larger vehicle....obviously the car and small van drivers cause a lot more incidents.

 

The vast majority of lorry drivers are fine...its just the few dodgy ones that give the others a bad name.

 

I suppose a lorry driver is a bit like being a goalkeeper, its usually not your fault, but when it is everyone notices.

[El Dingo]

A colleague just got hit by a foreign registered LHD artic on the M25.

 

The truck pulled into his lane and hit the rear end of his car, spinning the car onto the front of the cab. The truck driver, presumably half asleep having driven half way across Europe, then continued 'for some distance' before stopping, with the car embedded in the front of the cab.

 

My colleague is shaken and stirred but fortunatley not hurt.

 

When will our lame government please legislate on blind spot mirrors for foreign truckers?

[El Dingo]

So true MadBaz.

 

In the case of my colleague, I think that the truck driver might just have nodded off. After the collision he contined to drive on for another 500m before lifting off. Seems to me that he was either homicidal or just asleep.

 

Legislation is long overdue.