M1 crash-court update

[santa]

In the circumstances he didn’t do any better than the FedEx driver. He came to a stop in a minibus directly behind the stationary truck, stopping a freighted artic or taking evasive action takes a lot more time and room than a minibus. If he’d of noticed it sooner and driven around it instead of stopping behind it then that would probably of alerted the FedEx to a problem ahead and disaster averted. The minibus driver is just as much to blame as the FedEx if not more as he had a clear view of the road ahead. Depending on the distance between them the minibus could of been blocking the taillights of the AIM truck leaving only the top markers visible

We don’t know that - Mr Joseph may have run straight into the back of the AIM truck before Fedex arrived - he was short on sleep.

[toby1234abc]

If the mini bus driver had survived, would he be now be charged for numerous offenses ?

[carryfast]

slowlane:
Something that’s been bothering me after this is what’s happened to the convention of moving one lane over to pass a stranded vehicle?

Whenever I spot someone on the hard shoulder, I’m straight in the mirrors and make a move into lane 2. I’m sure I used to see lorries do this as a matter of course when I was a youngster - it was so noticeable that I copied it when I first learned to drive a car - but now it seems to have fallen out of fashion. It’s now completely normal to see 2 or 3 lorries in front / behind you shave past some poor breakdown worker on his knees trying to change a tyre.

‘Moving over’ a lane for hazards on the hard shoulder etc was certainly the usual practice during my time in the job.Which as I’ve said in this case would have ideally mean’t at least using lane 3 to pass the stopped truck at a crawl on the basis of not knowing why it’s stopped there at that point.

That’s all on the premise that the driver is reading the road ahead correctly providing enough time to react to read the situation correctly and to adjust speed and/or to make the required lane change/s.On an unlit motorway you’d need to factor in the question of the regular use of main beam headlights as part of that as just relying on tail lights and hazard lights ahead,at the type of distance required,while using dipped headlights,creates too many possibilities for error.While I am/would be be very surprised that an old school night trunker got caught out by such a silly basic error.

As for traffic ‘moving over’ for hazards ahead.The whole thing seems to now be anarchy of drivers not reading the road far enough ahead if at all let alone cooperating.IE it didn’t stop at just moving over for hazards on the hard shoulder.It often also meant the driver in lane 2 seeing the hazard too if not first and aborting the overtake and flashing out the driver in lane 1 and the driver in lane 1 being on the ball enough to understand and acknowledge the situation.Which as you’ve then rightly said resulted in car drivers then respecting that type of professionalism and following it themselves.

[roymondo]

Santa:
We don’t know that - Mr Joseph may have run straight into the back of the AIM truck before Fedex arrived - he was short on sleep.

“Coroner’s officer Frederick Howe said an articulated lorry was stationary in the inside lane, the minibus slowed and stopped, then a second lorry pushed into its rear.” Has been reported as being stated in open court.

[reef]

Roymondo:
“Coroner’s officer Frederick Howe said an articulated lorry was stationary in the inside lane, the minibus slowed and stopped, then a second lorry pushed into its rear.” Has been reported as being stated in open court.

‘IF’! that is fact (and I’m not doubting you Roymondo) then that by far is the most reasonable explanation of why both drivers are up for equal amounts of DBDD

[carryfast]

Reef:

Roymondo:
“Coroner’s officer Frederick Howe said an articulated lorry was stationary in the inside lane, the minibus slowed and stopped, then a second lorry pushed into its rear.” Has been reported as being stated in open court.

‘IF’! that is fact (and I’m not doubting you Roymondo) then that by far is the most reasonable explanation of why both drivers are up for equal amounts of DBDD

How difficult can it be to state ‘in open court’ ‘’ the minibus slowed and stopped in lane 1 and a second lorry also in lane 1 pushed into its rear ‘’ in that case.

[terry_t]

Dr Damon:
He may not have reacted correctly but under the circumstances he did better than others.

Himself along with 7 other people were killed. Not sure how it could’ve been much worse to be honest. For him it certainly can’t get any worse, he’s dead. Crushed to the point of needing to be finger printed to determine who he was.

Literally any other option would’ve been preferable.

Yes, he stopped. And if Fedex had been on the ball they’d all be alive. But he didn’t, and the people in the minibus paid the price. You have to factor in other people’s stupidity when driving these days. Assume everyone else is a moron and you’ll get on much better.

[carryfast]

Terry T:
Assume everyone else is a moron and you’ll get on much better.

The problem then being what can you do in the case of actually having no other option than to stop for whatever reason in a live lane of a motorway or any other type of relatively high speed road.Or for that matter approaching a left hand bend not knowing if yet another nutter is cutting it on the wrong side of the road from the opposite direction.Or driving through narrow sections of road among idiots who can’t judge vehicle width etc etc etc.

[gembo]

TiredAndEmotional:

Darkside:

the nodding donkey:

Quinny:
One assumes his employer, if he actually worked for them and not an agency, will be done for corporate manslaughter for allowing him to drive unlicenced.

Ken.

I missed that…

That might wake a few companies up. My licence hasn’t been checked since I started (it was then).

Most companies have licences checked by a third party, permission given by the driver by signing a form.

It may well have been among the mountain of signatures it now takes to drive a lorry.

Perhaps it’s time in this computer age for DVSA to issue daily reports to companies informing them of all drivers who lose their licence asap.

Seems fairly strange that as soon as your cars MOT or insurance has expired, its “live” for all to see yet some plank can drive a truck with no forking license for a few weeks and its not even on the radar!
You couldn’t make it up!!!

[roymondo]

Carryfast:

Reef:

Roymondo:
“Coroner’s officer Frederick Howe said an articulated lorry was stationary in the inside lane, the minibus slowed and stopped, then a second lorry pushed into its rear.” Has been reported as being stated in open court.

‘IF’! that is fact (and I’m not doubting you Roymondo) then that by far is the most reasonable explanation of why both drivers are up for equal amounts of DBDD

How difficult can it be to state ‘in open court’ ‘’ the minibus slowed and stopped in lane 1 and a second lorry also in lane 1 pushed into its rear ‘’ in that case.

Proving (from witness accounts from the survivors in the minibus, corroborated by the tachograph speed traces of all three vehicles involved) that the minibus stopped for several seconds (maybe longer, maybe not) and was then hit by another vehicle is relatively straightforward. Showing which lane(s) the vehicles were in at the point(s) of impact(s) takes a bit more work - especially when being stationary is a binary thing, while being in a particular lane is subject to an awful lot of variability (entirely within the lane, in the process of moving to another lane, over the line by a few inches, a foot, a yard or more).

Do you actually have any experience of collision investigation or Coroner’s inquests?

[carryfast]

Roymondo:

Carryfast:
How difficult can it be to state ‘in open court’ ‘’ the minibus slowed and stopped in lane 1 and a second lorry also in lane 1 pushed into its rear ‘’ in that case.

Proving (from witness accounts from the survivors in the minibus, corroborated by the tachograph speed traces of all three vehicles involved) that the minibus stopped for several seconds (maybe longer, maybe not) and was then hit by another vehicle is relatively straightforward. Showing which lane(s) the vehicles were in at the point(s) of impact(s) takes a bit more work - especially when being stationary is a binary thing, while being in a particular lane is subject to an awful lot of variability (entirely within the lane, in the process of moving to another lane, over the line by a few inches, a foot, a yard or more).

The question was the Fed Ex truck in lane 2 or lane 1 is a binary one and straddling lanes 1 and 2 doesn’t fitting the definition of being ‘in lane 2’ and vice versa in the case of the mini bus in that straddling lanes 1 and 2 wouldn’t fit the definition of being in lane 1.

While ‘stationary’ can also be subject to a lot of variability.IE slowed and stopped then went to make a botched lane change with a vehicle approaching in lane 2 then stopped again too late straddling lanes 1 and 2 with no time for the driver in lane 2 to react and avoid a collision ?.

While if there’s supposedly no confirmation,as to the exact circumstances leading up to the collision between the mini bus and Fed Ex truck,in terms of which vehicle was in which lane,then there doesn’t seem to be much point in court action regarding the cause of it except the AIM truck driver at this point ?.

[tachograph]

All this talk about what’s been released and what hasn’t is a bit puzzling to be honest

Apart from the 2 lorry drivers the other people now involved are the prosecution and the drivers defence solicitors, the prosecution and the defence have jobs to do but no part of their job is to keep the public informed about what happened, in fact I’d go as far as to say that unless they have overwhelming evidence of guilt or innocence it’s not in their interests to speak too much to soon.

The one job that they all have in common is to see that the drivers get a fair trial, and that’s not necessarily consistent with informing the public of more than we need to know.

[blue_day]

MTM12:
Any bloke that is so out of it (for whatever poxy reason) he stops his wagon in the live lane of the M1 in the dark so people run into the back of him doesn’t give flying [zb] about anyone, let alone himself, why would he worry about informing DVLA of any new residence? The bloke is a muppet, no excuses, no ifs, no buts, and I hope they disqualify him from driving any sort of vehicle (not that he will take any notice), over here for life, along with a long prison sentence! Bellend!

MickM

It seems by all reports that the mini bus driver stopped behind the AIM lorry in Lane 1 - although the driver sadly died, does that make him just as stupid / culpable as the class 1 fella?

[dieseldog999]

Blue Day:

MTM12:
Any bloke that is so out of it (for whatever poxy reason) he stops his wagon in the live lane of the M1 in the dark so people run into the back of him doesn’t give flying [zb] about anyone, let alone himself, why would he worry about informing DVLA of any new residence? The bloke is a muppet, no excuses, no ifs, no buts, and I hope they disqualify him from driving any sort of vehicle (not that he will take any notice), over here for life, along with a long prison sentence! Bellend!

MickM

It seems by all reports that the mini bus driver stopped behind the AIM lorry in Lane 1 - although the driver sadly died, does that make him just as stupid / culpable as the class 1 fella?

i wouldnt imagine the media will want to portray it that way…they need a sick puppy,and a hung out to dry victim for further crucifixion…thatl be the way that works

[mtm12]

Blue Day:

MTM12:
Any bloke that is so out of it (for whatever poxy reason) he stops his wagon in the live lane of the M1 in the dark so people run into the back of him doesn’t give flying [zb] about anyone, let alone himself, why would he worry about informing DVLA of any new residence? The bloke is a muppet, no excuses, no ifs, no buts, and I hope they disqualify him from driving any sort of vehicle (not that he will take any notice), over here for life, along with a long prison sentence! Bellend!

MickM

It seems by all reports that the mini bus driver stopped behind the AIM lorry in Lane 1 - although the driver sadly died, does that make him just as stupid / culpable as the class 1 fella?

That’s a very good point. Not sure on the points of law that would make him culpable though, we don’t know much about what he was doing leading up to incident (can’t think of a better word), that will all come out in the ongoing investigation. But whatever he did I’m sure it’s trumped by the bellend in the AIM wagon, who was stopped in a live motorway lane, drunk, asleep, and driving without a licence.

We shall see.

MickM

[hurryup_amp_wait]

tachograph:
All this talk about what’s been released and what hasn’t is a bit puzzling to be honest

Apart from the 2 lorry drivers the other people now involved are the prosecution and the drivers defence solicitors, the prosecution and the defence have jobs to do but no part of their job is to keep the public informed about what happened, in fact I’d go as far as to say that unless they have overwhelming evidence of guilt or innocence it’s not in their interests to speak too much to soon.

The one job that they all have in common is to see that the drivers get a fair trial, and that’s not necessarily consistent with informing the public of more than we need to know.

I couldn’t agree more.

Indeed a very sleazy performance by the authorities here which takes from the fair trial concept. Then again they are only truck drivers and not proper citizens.

Probably more integrity here on the forum with our very own TN CSI, Illegal Eagles, Judges and Juries not to mention the few hecklers in the gallery.

Carry on men!! (Oops!.. and women).

[tomcrin]

My two penny’s worth
AIM driver asleep in Lane 1. Mini bus driver is behind him stationary in lane 1 with hazards on offering AIM some protection. FED EX man distracted and piles into mini bus and AIM wagon.

[roymondo]

IF (and I stress the word IF) what I have been told about this from “a source very close to the investigation” is true, I would have no doubt at all that the FedEx driver’s charges are perfectly in order and would expect to see him convicted and imprisoned. IF what I have heard from the same source is true about the circumstances leading up to the initial collision are correct, the theories being put forward by TN CSI are well wide of the mark.

Unfortunately, what I have been told doesn’t fit with the AIM driver being asleep in Lane 1…

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[carryfast]

Roymondo:
IF what I have heard from the same source is true about the circumstances leading up to the initial collision are correct, the theories being put forward by TN CSI are well wide of the mark.

The potential theories here cover all the bases from the Fed Ex truck being in lane 1 and ran into the back of the stationary mini bus,or clipped it during a too late lane change,or was in lane 2 and hit the mini bus the mini bus having made a botched lane change from lane 1 to lane 2.Are you saying that there’s the potential possibility of a fourth different scenario that doesn’t fit any of those three ?.

[sand_fisher]

Stanley Knife:

bloodoodle:

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.

I posted this photograph nearly three weeks ago on the other thread. The skid marks show the twin wheels of the drive wheels of the FedEX unit. The offside marks are virtually continuous but the nearside ones are more random. The offside skid marks are only just into lane two suggesting that FedEx was in lane one following the minibus and when the minibus stopped FedEx didn’t. He then hit the minibus pushing it into the rear of AIM. For twelve minutes traffic went past the AIM lorry without hitting it. Mr Joseph not only saw it but stopped yet Wagstaff saw neither. It’s no surprise that he has been charged.

Why Joseph stopped his minibus in a live lane with passengers on is beyond me. You are trained that the safety of your passengers is paramount, even to the point where it’s included in a specific module on the PSV version of the dCPC. Only the four survivors will be able to shine some light on what he was thinking.

As for Masierak it will be interesting to hear why he stopped in a live lane on a motorway, never mind for twelve minutes. With a reading of 55mg he was certainly over the limit but, as a man with a drink problem, it doesn’t suggest he was paraletic, as some have marked him down. When his licence was revoked and for what reason will reveal more about his attitude and situation.

The authorities also have questions to answer. It is inconcievable, even in the early hours, that not one phone call was received from a vehicle who passed the stricken AIM lorry. Maybe they didn’t have time to get someone to the scene, or there was no-one available, but why wasn’t the lane Red X’d? If no-one did phone in then it speaks volumes about modern society!

A sad state of affairs all round in which eight people are dead, four seriously injured, three drivers culpable to a greater or lesser degree, and two drivers with a lot of questions to answer.

Disagree. I think the skid marks are those of the minibus.

The photo of the AIM lorry show the Merc jack knifed into its off side down the trailer. If the AIM lorry was in lane 1 how come the skid marks are shown going into the hard shoulder?

Also wasn’t it reported that Mr Joseph ‘had had only for hours sleep’, yet this guy was a restricted PCV O licence holder.

The only excuse for not seeing the AIM truck was that it had no lights on, but surely if Mr Joseph was watching his mirrors and a truck was behind, why didn’t Mr Joseph put his hazards on? Maybe he did.