If the Fedex driver had seen the Polish lorry stationary which he should have done well in advance of any collision and he sat in lane 2 to overtake the lorry safely, he could well of trapped the mini bus in lane 1 and the mini bus hit the back of the stationary lorry, then the fedex driver is also at fault as he should have moved into lane 3 to allow the mini bus to overtake the ■■■■■■ up pole. Maybe the mini bus was either waiting or expecting this to happen or possibly sped up to get in front of the fedex lorry and the fedex driver sped up purposely trapping the mini bus in. It’s a possibility and likely for him to be prosecuted on 8 counts. You would see a stationary lorry in the lane well in advance of hitting it.
the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
truckyboy:
donkey: You might want to read the article again. Try it slowly, and out loud.I have read it twice, i can read about a Polish man…an english man…and 8 indians dead…yes they are different races…but for the life of me i cannot see the word RACE mentioned anywhere…please copy and paste the sentence…where the race card is being used…the trial has been adjourned because council wasnt present…and to give time for the relatives to bury their loved ones and grieve…if race was to be used, then surely it would be the prosecutors or defence teams that would mention it. anyway…time for a cuppa.
I’m sure that article originally mirrored the Sun’s report.In that Mazierak’s defence representative Laban Leake had actually made a comment,regarding the difference between the Fed Ex driver being granted bail,while his client was denied bail with the issue of their respective nationalities having been raised as part of that.The inference being obvious.Which seems to fit the definition of playing the race card.
Not to mention seemingly not a word of objection,by the same defence rep,concerning the ‘allegations’ ( facts ? ),related to the driver being parked in lane 1 and asleep.Let alone allegedly also over the drink drive limit and having no licence.
Carryfast you’re right. Not often that I say that…
+1
christ almighty.i was just going to say that myself before i scrolled down.
i wonder what the flipflop would face if he had broken down in lane 1. the reason for being in lane 1 is irrelevant as to why the bus got creamed as it wasnt him that hit the bus,though no doubt he is going to get crucified with the media looking for a victim. the white driver will hopefully just have been charged to appease the race card holders till plod get their instructions from the powers that be.same as the glesgae binny.
UKtramp:
If the Fedex driver had seen the Polish lorry stationary which he should have done well in advance of any collision and he sat in lane 2 to overtake the lorry safely, he could well of trapped the mini bus in lane 1 and the mini bus hit the back of the stationary lorry, then the fedex driver is also at fault as he should have moved into lane 3 to allow the mini bus to overtake the ■■■■■■ up pole. Maybe the mini bus was either waiting or expecting this to happen or possibly sped up to get in front of the fedex lorry and the fedex driver sped up purposely trapping the mini bus in. It’s a possibility and likely for him to be prosecuted on 8 counts. You would see a stationary lorry in the lane well in advance of hitting it.
I don’t know, I’ve a gut feeling that all three vehicles were in Lane 1.
There is of course, always the possibility that the Polish guy may be found unfit to plead - there seems to be a background of great strain in his personal life in the lead up to this accident - which indeed could have even contributed to the tragic events and may well have had some kind of mental collapse - having a kip in a live lane perhaps illustrates a lack of cognisance of his situation.
I don’t think his blood alcohol reading was high enough to render him insensible or unsteady on his feet etc but could have made him feel fatigue more.
The lack of a drivers licence - perhaps again not thinking straight, out of desperation.
They may well be remanding him so as to monitor his general wellbeing - for his own safety, possibly. As well as a flight risk of course.
UKtramp:
If the Fedex driver had seen the Polish lorry stationary which he should have done well in advance of any collision and he sat in lane 2 to overtake the lorry safely, he could well of trapped the mini bus in lane 1 and the mini bus hit the back of the stationary lorry, then the fedex driver is also at fault as he should have moved into lane 3 to allow the mini bus to overtake the ■■■■■■ up pole. Maybe the mini bus was either waiting or expecting this to happen or possibly sped up to get in front of the fedex lorry and the fedex driver sped up purposely trapping the mini bus in. It’s a possibility and likely for him to be prosecuted on 8 counts. You would see a stationary lorry in the lane well in advance of hitting it.
Do you really not think that the responsibility is on the so called supposed ‘trapped’ driver in lane 1 ( or on an entry slip road for that matter ) to stop in that case. 
the flipflop might not have known his licence was revoked by vosa…they cant address it to “mr taliban,sleeping in the back of a car in a layby.” he was kipping there last 6 month? prob never knew,though poss the doc shopped him if he was having mental issues coupled with drink.
he wont get bail because of flight risk,the difference is whether he would want to as he is no doubt depressed out of his box and prob just numb and dont give a toss what hapens to hi…itl only matter if his head clears and he gets the option of bail which is slim to non existent. he might have came to a halt in lane 1 and parked her up…but it wasnt him that ran into anyone.if he was parked because of a breakdown,then it would be the same accident.
the poor dudes life is wrecked and he will be crucified for it whether it was right or wrong for him to have been driving…desperate times call for desperate measures,and apparantly he was in dire straights.they generaly have a more relaxed attitude to drink driving anyway,so a few drinks coupled with a mouthfull of anti depressants if the doc gave him any and its easy enough to go comatose and sleepy byebyes…especially on the limiter on a quiet morning.
lose your marriage,lose your family,lose your house and job…sleep in a car for 6 month,and then judge the guy.
Washwipe:
I don’t know, I’ve a gut feeling that all three vehicles were in Lane 1.
The simplest explanation is often the best one.
But there just seems something a bit strange about all the details repeatedly being made clear and publicised,regarding where the AIM truck was before the collision and how it supposedly came to be there,resulting the subsequent events.But absolutely nothing regarding where the minibus and Fed Ex truck were in relation to each other and the stationary AIM truck. 
Carryfast:
Washwipe:
I don’t know, I’ve a gut feeling that all three vehicles were in Lane 1.The simplest explanation is often the best one.
But there just seems something a bit strange about all the details repeatedly being made clear and publicised,regarding where the AIM truck was before the collision and how it supposedly came to be there,resulting the subsequent events.But absolutely nothing regarding where the minibus and Fed Ex truck were in relation to each other and the stationary AIM truck.
hhmmmmmmmmm
this is the 2nd time tonight i agreeing with you,and…ive read all the post without losing concentration for a change…i wonder how long this will last? 
the fliflop stopped is why the bus hit him…irrespective of why he was stopped…is the onus not always on the rear shunting driver to be driving so they dont run up the ■■■ of someone in front of them? him being drunk has no bearing as to why the bus got creamed…the bus being squashed is the accident,not the stationary truck,it could have been stopped for a number of reasons though theyve charged him with 20 charges so they can haggle and drop 19 of them if he cops a guilty plea for the biggy to make it a easy deal for the crown prosecutor.
dieseldog999:
Carryfast:
Washwipe:
I don’t know, I’ve a gut feeling that all three vehicles were in Lane 1.The simplest explanation is often the best one.
But there just seems something a bit strange about all the details repeatedly being made clear and publicised,regarding where the AIM truck was before the collision and how it supposedly came to be there,resulting the subsequent events.But absolutely nothing regarding where the minibus and Fed Ex truck were in relation to each other and the stationary AIM truck.
hhmmmmmmmmm
this is the 2nd time tonight i agreeing with you,and…ive read all the post without losing concentration for a change…i wonder how long this will last?
the fliflop stopped is why the bus hit him…irrespective of why he was stopped…is the onus not always on the rear shunting driver to be driving so they dont run up the ■■■ of someone in front of them? him being drunk has no bearing as to why the bus got creamed…the bus being squashed is the accident,not the stationary truck,it could have been stopped for a number of reasons though theyve charged him with 20 charges so they can haggle and drop 19 of them if he cops a guilty plea for the biggy to make it a easy deal for the crown prosecutor.
To be fair we all know that there’s a big difference,regarding blame,between a pile up resulting from stopping on a motorway/clearway to read a map or have a sleep or any other type of stop that contravenes motorway/clearway regulations.As opposed to a breakdown or traffic stopped ahead etc.While being found over the drink drive limit added to that will obviously just magnify those ‘issues’.
While the point regarding the selective ‘secrecy’ being applied in the case so far is more about the question as to what actually brought the Fed Ex truck into collision with the mini bus and stopped AIM truck.Than the fact that the AIM truck was stopped for whatever reason.On that note it’s obviously been no problem for the prosecution to enthusiastically make all the alleged ‘issues’ regarding the AIM truck clear.So why the big problem and secrecy in doing the same regarding the Fed Ex truck and where it was relative to the mini bus and AIM truck immediately before the collision. ?.
I think you will find that it has already been made public that the minibus driver had stopped prior to being hit by the FedEx driver. And that all vehicles were initially in lane 1
There’s more information on the road positions from the coroner here
miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/inqu … -1-8135360
The coroner’s officer Frederick Howe said an articulated lorry was stationary in lane one, the minibus slowed and stopped and a second lorry pushed into the rear of the minibus. Four people were taken to hospital and the remaining eight in the minibus died.
Read more at: miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/inqu … -1-8135360
It makes it easier to see why the FedEx driver was charged.
What I’d like to know is how a 44 tonne artic sat in the live lane of the M1 just after a junction with its driver asleep for 12 minutes doesn’t get picked up on the cameras by Highways England and relevant procedures put in place such as matrix signs flashing with " stranded vehicle lane 1" or somthing similar.
Surely someone would’ve rang them or the old bill to say there was a stranded vehicle in a live lane? Yes I know it was early morning but in them 12 minutes it took for the tragic consequences to occur there would’ve been enough traffic pass the ■■■■■■ sat in the live lane to warn the relevant authorities of the situation. Also there must be cameras there to monitor the flow of traffic as it’s just after the exit slip road for the junction where it happend.
There will be plenty more accidents like this in the future with these so called " smart motorways" cropping up albeit not with alcohol playing a part.
Roymondo:
Own Account Driver:
As mentioned, depends on the circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect operators to check licences prior to every drive.Reading the press articles, it would appear this particular licence was revoked in 2014 or earlier (It was revoked by VOSA, but they became DVSA in that year). So, either he was a new (to them) driver and they didn’t check, or he had driven for them before but they hadn’t checked his licence in three years…
Be interesting to see how much of that particular mud sticks in this case.
At the time of this offence VOSA [Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, which was replaced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency ( DVSA ) in 2014] had revoked his HGV licence,’ said Mr Ogborne.
I think it reads badly, that comment; I read it that the license had been revoked in 2014 initially.
At the time of the offence he didn’t have his licence, so three weeks ago. When it was revoked, we don’t know,but I heard that it was two months ago. If it was two months ago and AIM checked it three months ago, then they are covered. If it turns out the licence was revoked a long time ago, then they are in deep doo-doo.
Just playing devils advocate; if the driver in vehicle one was “stopped” in lane one for 12 minutes, and asleep.
Was he at that point in “charge” of the vehicle.
Or is this a factor of parking a vehicle in the incorrect location and becomes this a parking offence?
Not defending anybody, but a solicitor could make something different of it.
The charge of the 3rd vehicle could be "hitting a stationary obstacle "
Just wonder
caledoniandream:
Just playing devils advocate; if the driver in vehicle one was “stopped” in lane one for 12 minutes, and asleep.
Was he at that point in “charge” of the vehicle.
Or is this a factor of parking a vehicle in the incorrect location and becomes this a parking offence?Not defending anybody, but a solicitor could make something different of it.
The charge of the 3rd vehicle could be "hitting a stationary obstacle "Just wonder
Yes, if you have the keys, you are deemed ‘in charge of ’ the vehicle. For example, if you have drunk alcohol, and decide to sleep in your car ( or truck or campervan… 
) , but are in possession of the keys, you are deemed to be ’ in charge of’, and can be prosecuted just as if you where driving. This has happened to car drivers in pub carparks.
caledoniandream:
Just playing devils advocate; if the driver in vehicle one was “stopped” in lane one for 12 minutes, and asleep.
Was he at that point in “charge” of the vehicle.
Or is this a factor of parking a vehicle in the incorrect location and becomes this a parking offence?Not defending anybody, but a solicitor could make something different of it.
The charge of the 3rd vehicle could be "hitting a stationary obstacle "Just wonder
It’ll need a bloody good brief to get him off with just a parking ticket 
the nodding donkey:
caledoniandream:
Just playing devils advocate; if the driver in vehicle one was “stopped” in lane one for 12 minutes, and asleep.
Was he at that point in “charge” of the vehicle.
Or is this a factor of parking a vehicle in the incorrect location and becomes this a parking offence?Not defending anybody, but a solicitor could make something different of it.
The charge of the 3rd vehicle could be "hitting a stationary obstacle "Just wonder
Yes, if you have the keys, you are deemed ‘in charge of ’ the vehicle. For example, if you have drunk alcohol, and decide to sleep in your car ( or truck or campervan…
True in case of a car, but in a truck it’s slightly different.
Otherwise it would be a good earner for the police to charge at least quite a few drivers who have a pint or two with their meal.
I never been charged, even when I was speaking to the police when weekended op north while having a few to many heavies.
They even asked me to move the truck the next morning when I was sobered up again.
I just wonder what will come out of this case, what will the defence bring on the table, will the mini bus driver be charged, as he was stopped behind the vehicle etc etc
dieseldog999:
i wonder what the flipflop would face if he had broken down in lane 1. the reason for being in lane 1 is irrelevant as to why the bus got creamed as it wasnt him that hit the bus,though no doubt he is going to get crucified with the media looking for a victim. the white driver will hopefully just have been charged to appease the race card holders till plod get their instructions from the powers that be.same as the glesgae binny.
Complete ■■■■■ as usual, up to your usual standard.
bald bloke:
caledoniandream:
Just playing devils advocate; if the driver in vehicle one was “stopped” in lane one for 12 minutes, and asleep.
Was he at that point in “charge” of the vehicle.
Or is this a factor of parking a vehicle in the incorrect location and becomes this a parking offence?Not defending anybody, but a solicitor could make something different of it.
The charge of the 3rd vehicle could be "hitting a stationary obstacle "Just wonder
It’ll need a bloody good brief to get him off with just a parking ticket
I certainly agree, but after being found guilty in an accident that never happened, and all the people in the car had a whiplash, nothing surprises me any more.
UKtramp:
If the Fedex driver had seen the Polish lorry stationary which he should have done well in advance of any collision and he sat in lane 2 to overtake the lorry safely, he could well of trapped the mini bus in lane 1 and the mini bus hit the back of the stationary lorry, then the fedex driver is also at fault as he should have moved into lane 3 to allow the mini bus to overtake the ■■■■■■ up pole. Maybe the mini bus was either waiting or expecting this to happen or possibly sped up to get in front of the fedex lorry and the fedex driver sped up purposely trapping the mini bus in. It’s a possibility and likely for him to be prosecuted on 8 counts. You would see a stationary lorry in the lane well in advance of hitting it.
Would you though? Would you see it SOON enough to react when your not expecting it?
I was coming up m6 a few Saturdays ago and a van was stopped in lane one with haZards on but they had also dragged some cones from the roadworks to put behind them, the cones actually blocked the hazards meaning I didn’t realise it was stopped until late. Yes I still had enough time to move lanes and had I not have been able to get into lane 2 then if I’d slammed the anchors on I would have JUST stopped before it, but that was in almost light. This FedEx driver was in the dark. I’m not trying to make excuses for him if he’s done wrong and if he was purposely not letting the mini bus out, but if all he’s done is not see something soon enough in the dark his charges seem a bit harsh. So perhaps there’s more to it than that. Hopefully we will find out. Are FedEx units fitted with dash cams?