Sand Fisher:
Disagree. I think the skid marks are those of the minibus.
Then how does that account for the fact that the coroner has stated that the minibus had stopped behind AIM?
Sand Fisher:
If the AIM lorry was in lane 1 how come the skid marks are shown going into the hard shoulder?
Only if FedEx hit the minibus so hard that he shunted it onto the hard shoulder, but then would an out of control minibus with a dead driver have stopped before the verge?
If AIM was parked on the hard shoulder then the reports given on here are wrong and it would take some serious out of the box thinking as to how it all happened.
So many scenarios.
Irrational behaviour of AIM vehicle then minibus blinded to the danger of the stationary AIM vehicle by another vehicle that moves out the way leaving the minibus driver facing an emergency stop, FedEx driver then can’t stop in time tries to take evasive action but it’s to late.
All will be revealed, or made up to suit a particular agenda.
Roymondo:
Unfortunately, what I have been told doesn’t fit with the AIM driver being asleep in Lane 1…
So either what you have been told is wrong . . . or the AIM driver wasn’t asleep in lane one!
You pays your money . . .
The court has already established that the AIM truck was stopped in lane 1 with no objections from any side.So how does that possibly suddenly become stopped on hard shoulder.
Sand Fisher:
Disagree. I think the skid marks are those of the minibus.
Then how does that account for the fact that the coroner has stated that the minibus had stopped behind AIM?
Sand Fisher:
If the AIM lorry was in lane 1 how come the skid marks are shown going into the hard shoulder?
Only if FedEx hit the minibus so hard that he shunted it onto the hard shoulder, but then would an out of control minibus with a dead driver have stopped before the verge?
If AIM was parked on the hard shoulder then the reports given on here are wrong and it would take some serious out of the box thinking as to how it all happened.
It’s going to be an interesting court case.
Agree with you Stanley. On the other thread there were links to photos which clearly show AIM in Lane 1 jack knifed slightly to the left, with Fed Ex unit seriously jack knifed into AIM’s offside ie in Lane 2. There was also a photo of the Fed Ex trailer. The minibus appears in one video to be on the grass verge at right angles to the motorway with its roof missing (possibly cut off to extract the poor sods killed and seriously injured).
Whilst we may (that’s my beef) get the proper details in the press reporting the photos don’t support the assertion that all the vehicles were in Lane 1. They support that the Fed Ex truck and the minibus were possibly in the same lane or minibus half in Lane 1 and Lane 2 if AIM was in Lane 1 or AIM on hard shoulder and others in Lane 1, but if that was the case unless the minibus had stopped there would have been no accident.
The only other thing I suppose could be if Fed Ex hit the minibus on the off side corner but careered on in a jack knifed position to end up at right angles to the AIM truck’s trailer. I can’t see how all the vehicles were in lane 1 if Fed Ex ended up in off side of AIM in lane 2 jack knifed to the left. If he was jack knifed to the right that would fit, but to the left? Don’t get that unless the force of the impact pushed the front near side of the Fed Ex truck backwards causing it to jack knife to the left, but I would have thought the natural reaction of a driver would be to steer away from the danger i.e to the right (as there was AIM and a minibus which he’d just hit, to the left).
Anyhow we’ll see what plod actually reveals if it is reported properly.
Seems to me the most vital piece of evidence is in Fed Ex’s dashcam. If he had one, and it survived.
Regarding the minibus driver. I have read he only had 4 hours sleep before leaving Nottingham, not sure if that is proven or not, but more importantly, as he was not only the driver but also the boss, could he possibly have been working in the office all the previous day as well?
Fedex driver has pleaded guilty to death by careless driving
The court rejected the plea so he will be on trial for DBDD.
What isn’t now a doubt is that he accepts blame. Obviously DBCD would mean a lighter sentence hence his plea
Summary judgement also seems to provide a much lower sentence for that than being found guilty of DBCD at trial.Assuming he just ran into the unexpectedly stopped mini bus and AIM truck in lane 1 having noticed it too late to stop or change lanes maybe that would have been a fair outcome.Bearing in mind the previous precedent of the aquittal of the driver involved in the M62 collision in similar circumstances.
Blue Day:
My guess is he was otherwise distracted (phone maybe). So didn’t see the parked vehicles in time.
Just a guess
I’d view of the guilty to DBCD guilty plea his defence by definition must be in vehement disagreement with any major aggravating factors.Which should at least make for an interesting argument between his side v the prosecution.While assuming that according to the prosecution the AIM driver was stopped without good reason in lane 1 and bearing in mind the M62 mini bus verdict then the actions of the prosecution seem to be a bit ‘strange’ in not accepting the plea.
Blue Day:
My guess is he was otherwise distracted (phone maybe). So didn’t see the parked vehicles in time.
Just a guess
I’d view of the guilty to DBCD guilty plea his defence by definition must be in vehement disagreement with any major aggravating factors.Which should at least make for an interesting argument between his side v the prosecution.While assuming that according to the prosecution the AIM driver was stopped without good reason in lane 1 and bearing in mind the M62 mini bus verdict then the actions of the prosecution seem to be a bit ‘strange’ in not accepting the plea.
That’s something which puzzles me. Precedent has been set that running into the back of someone places you at blame, yet the minibus driver appears to have been absolved of all blame here. Also, what if the people on the bus had died in the initial impact? The second lorry couldn’t have killed anyone if they’re already dead.
Positive discrimination means that the minibus driver will not be blamed Cavey. It’s a shame that we live in a society where the truth needs to be distorted to suit various special interests. That’s not to say that the minibus driver was guilty of any error, just that even if he was we’ll never hear of it.
the maoster:
Positive discrimination means that the minibus driver will not be blamed Cavey. It’s a shame that we live in a society where the truth needs to be distorted to suit various special interests. That’s not to say that the minibus driver was guilty of any error, just that even if he was we’ll never hear of it.
I am sure the courts will know the full facts the prosecution and defender counsels will see to that.
The outcome and the apportion of blame maybe unpalatable to some.
the maoster:
Positive discrimination means that the minibus driver will not be blamed Cavey. It’s a shame that we live in a society where the truth needs to be distorted to suit various special interests.
If there’s any ‘distortion’ it’s more likely to be about equalising the blame with the AIM driver and the Fed Ex driver than the mini bus driver.On that note,bearing in mind the M62 minibus precedent,it’s difficult to see why the prosecution has nicked both the AIM driver and the Fed Ex driver for the same offence.Assuming,according to the prosecution,it was supposedly the actions of the AIM driver which kicked off the chain of events here and the prosecution has obviously provided the Fed Ex driver’s defence with no aggravating factors which should have made the Fed Ex driver’s a dangerous driving charge rather than careless,within the prosecution’s full disclosure.The prosecution then refusing the Fed Ex driver’s seemingly reasonable guilty plea,to the lesser charge,of careless,than the AIM driver’s,just adding to those questions.
In view of the M62 mini bus verdict and assuming a lack of aggravating factors provided to the defence,if I was the Fed Ex driver I’d already feel that I was being unjustly made a scapegoat of in this case with the refusal of that guilty plea.
)