Dangerous driving surely is an action that has been taken - like a really stupid overtake or trying to jump the lights etc.
But careless could be like taking a fraction too long searching for a radio station or looking to plug in your sat nav lead. A moments inattention sort of thing.
Well, thats how I see things - maybe, just maybe, Mr Wagstaff will be found not guilty of dangerous driving.
He’s clearly shouldering some of the blame for this tragedy.
Funny thing is a guy at our place ran into the back of two stationary vehicles (telematics said speed at impact was 50.2 mph) and ended up writing off three off - luckily and amazingly, no serious injuries. The first vehicle he hit was an empty Fiat Doblo van which made a very effective crumple zone.
Cops arrived and breathalized him which was clear and announced no further action and drove away.
This was in broad daylight, on a straight A road just after lunch on a sunny day.
Socketset:
Dangerous driving surely is an action that has been taken - like a really stupid overtake or trying to jump the lights etc.
To be fair driving while distracted or while tired reducing reaction times and/or tailgating contributing to a collision that was even instigated by someone else,for two examples could possibly make the difference.
The big question is the contradiction between the defence obviously seeing the evidence provided as being careless and advising a guilty plea on that basis v the prosecution throwing that out and seeing it as dangerous.IE what are the aggravating factors that make the difference and why is it that the defence doesn’t see them in the evidence it had to have been provided with by the prosecution ?.
Another thought that struck me would be the composition of the jury - a selection of librarians, bank clerks and planet saving tree hugging lentil suckers won’t be, shall we say understanding, or worse have little empathy. Someone who occasionally borrows his Mums Micra will have little understanding of the dynamics of it all.
Trucks and truckers have little good press these days and it has to be said some of it is deserved by the standards of driving we’ve witnessed and discussed on this forum many times as well as what is regularly posted on social media.
But this needs to be set aside when the trial begins.
Socketset:
Another thought that struck me would be the composition of the jury - a selection of librarians, bank clerks and planet saving tree hugging lentil suckers won’t be, shall we say understanding, or worse have little empathy. Someone who occasionally borrows his Mums Micra will have little understanding of the dynamics of it all.
Trucks and truckers have little good press these days and it has to be said some of it is deserved by the standards of driving we’ve witnessed and discussed on this forum many times as well as what is regularly posted on social media.
But this needs to be set aside when the trial begins.
In this case the Fed Ex driver’s fate is probably now more in the hands of how good his defence team is v the prosecution one.
Socketset:
Another thought that struck me would be the composition of the jury - a selection of librarians, bank clerks and planet saving tree hugging lentil suckers won’t be, shall we say understanding, or worse have little empathy. Someone who occasionally borrows his Mums Micra will have little understanding of the dynamics of it all.
Trucks and truckers have little good press these days and it has to be said some of it is deserved by the standards of driving we’ve witnessed and discussed on this forum many times as well as what is regularly posted on social media.
But this needs to be set aside when the trial begins.
In this case the Fed Ex driver’s fate is probably now more in the hands of how good his defence team is v the prosecution one.
And the evidence to support his case or condemn his case!
Carryfast:
In this case the Fed Ex driver’s fate is probably now more in the hands of how good his defence team is v the prosecution one.
And the evidence to support his case or condemn his case!
I’d guess that if his defence team advised him to plead guilty to careless on the evidence provided to them by the prosecution.Then there obviously would have been every reason to advise him to plead guilty to dangerous instead ‘if’ that’s what it showed.As I said the defence obviously sees something different in the evidence to the prosecution.The big question then is why.
It has been some time since I last used this section of the M1 so I am struggling to recall whether it is lit or not at night. If it is not and any existing lights have been deliberately switched off, then then that may well have a considerable bearing upon this court case.
cav551:
It has been some time since I last used this section of the M1 so I am struggling to recall whether it is lit or not at night. If it is not and any existing lights have been deliberately switched off, then then that may well have a considerable bearing upon this court case.
As they advertise in Scotland “drive to the conditions”
cav551:
It has been some time since I last used this section of the M1 so I am struggling to recall whether it is lit or not at night. If it is not and any existing lights have been deliberately switched off, then then that may well have a considerable bearing upon this court case.
It is not, there is none, so nothing to be deliberately switched off. So no, it won’t.
Which brings us back to the point Carryfast was making about the M62 crash, except that occurred in daylight.
Carryfast:
[
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.
cav551:
Which brings us back to the point Carryfast was making about the M62 crash, except that occurred in daylight.
Carryfast:
[
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.
The 2 are not the same one was caused by the driver of the vehicle the other caused by the driver of another vehicle yes both will be dbdd but thats where the similarity ends
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.
.
It’s been stated, the minibus driver, had started work at 1000am, what’s not to prove, that he wasn’t asleep at the time of impact and hadn’t seen the aim truck.
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.
.
I ve not read that who stated that?
It’s been stated, the minibus driver, had started work at 1000am, what’s not to prove, that he wasn’t asleep at the time of impact and hadn’t seen the aim truck.
Socketset:
Another thought that struck me would be the composition of the jury - a selection of librarians, bank clerks and planet saving tree hugging lentil suckers won’t be, shall we say understanding, or worse have little empathy. Someone who occasionally borrows his Mums Micra will have little understanding of the dynamics of it all.
Trucks and truckers have little good press these days and it has to be said some of it is deserved by the standards of driving we’ve witnessed and discussed on this forum many times as well as what is regularly posted on social media.
But this needs to be set aside when the trial begins.
In this case the Fed Ex driver’s fate is probably now more in the hands of how good his defence team is v the prosecution one.
And the evidence to support his case or condemn his case!
Dr Damon:
The only distorted thing on this thread is you…
Carryfast.
Just admit you got it all wrong as usual.
Got exactly what ‘wrong’ out of all the different potential scenarios resulting in the collision I’d actually referred to.
I seem to remember you going on and on and on and on and on trying to defend the Fedex driver when like everyone else on here you have absolutely no idea what happened.
Now things have progressed it seems your unbalanced theory was wrong.
This will likely be putting us ALL on trial here - if you think about it.
The big issues at stake are:
Who’s fault is it if you rear-end someone unexpectedly halted in a live lane whilst travelling at 56mph in the middle of the night?
Is any night driver truly wide awake at 3am? - H&S might attempt to move an amendment to WTD via the EU court for “Let’s ban night driving in the UK” for safety reasons.
Are Fedex running some of their drivers ragged, whilst others have truly got an easy street duty?
(I hated the “Leicester Trailer Swap” duty on agency - but they couldn’t keep a full timer on that seat long enough to get it warm, thus the practically permanent agency cover required for that job!)
Are Fedex management discouraging drivers from taking breaks en-route, a standard “ban from site” issued to offending agency drivers? - More tiredness.
Are UK hauliers making it too easy for drivers of dodgy background to get driving work in the country today, taking advantage of “positive discrimination” to get past the normal checks and balances?
Don’t read that as a criticism of immigrant drivers. None was meant. I am criticizing the way “drivers with previous” (convictions or points on licences) are waved through - because it’s considered politically incorrect to make an actual level playing field for drivers that are foreign/of colour/of other religion/long term unemployed/half way house/whatever - that does seem to result in some kind of positive
(rather than ‘no’) discrimination.
The above issues should be looked at all the more closely, should the court later hear of the Defendant’s prior spotless work record (or lack of one…)
Winseer:
This will likely be putting us ALL on trial here - if you think about it.
The big issues at stake are:
Who’s fault is it if you rear-end someone unexpectedly halted in a live lane whilst travelling at 56mph in the middle of the night?
Is any night driver truly wide awake at 3am? - H&S might attempt to move an amendment to WTD via the EU court for “Let’s ban night driving in the UK” for safety reasons.
Are Fedex running some of their drivers ragged, whilst others have truly got an easy street duty?
(I hated the “Leicester Trailer Swap” duty on agency - but they couldn’t keep a full timer on that seat long enough to get it warm, thus the practically permanent agency cover required for that job!)
Are Fedex management discouraging drivers from taking breaks en-route, a standard “ban from site” issued to offending agency drivers? - More tiredness.
Are UK hauliers making it too easy for drivers of dodgy background to get driving work in the country today, taking advantage of “positive discrimination” to get past the normal checks and balances?
Don’t read that as a criticism of immigrant drivers. None was meant. I am criticizing the way “drivers with previous” (convictions or points on licences) are waved through - because it’s considered politically incorrect to make an actual level playing field for drivers that are foreign/of colour/of other religion/long term unemployed/half way house/whatever - that does seem to result in some kind of positive
(rather than ‘no’) discrimination.
The above issues should be looked at all the more closely, should the court later hear of the Defendant’s prior spotless work record (or lack of one…)
.
How very true.
There’s also the bums on seats problem, and lack of due diligence by employers and agency’s checking drivers credentials.
cav551:
Which brings us back to the point Carryfast was making about the M62 crash, except that occurred in daylight.
The 2 are not the same one was caused by the driver of the vehicle the other caused by the driver of another vehicle yes both will be dbdd but thats where the similarity ends
By the prosecution’s own evidence In this case the collision was ‘caused’ by the driver of the AIM truck.In just the same way that the ‘collision’ in the case of the M62 incident was ‘caused’ by the driver of the minibus.The precedent set by the M62 verdict was that running into traffic stopped without good reason in a live lane of a motorway doesn’t necessarily make the driver who runs into it guilty of any offence.Let alone in this case when that driver quite reasonably takes responsibility by pleading guilty to careless for not avoiding it.
