The fact is, we don’t have enough info on this. We don’t know how fast the car driver was travelling. We don’t know if he was driving without due care and attention, and will never know unless someone comes out of the woodwork with a time stamped dashcam record (highly unlikely).
If he was going too fast and not paying attention, even if he was unable to stop, the collision may have been less severe and it may well be in that case that the wearing of a seatbelt may have had a different outcome.
We also don’t know from the published report if the lorry driver had made full use of the space available in the central reservation (without sophisticated measuring check the lengths of the parked artics against the angled space available in there). The reservation widens at that point specifically I would have thought for precisely this reason. If he, for instance, just poked his nose in and left the full length of his trailer (we don’t know that either) across the full width of the carriageway, then he is guilty.
If it was me, and knowing how I would have tackled it, I would definitely seek an appeal.
But one very clear lesson is for the road authority, why on earth did you recognise the need for a waiting lane for vehicles westbound turning into the cafe, and then not do the same for those leaving it in the same direction? Do it now.
One last thought. In the old days before the dual carriageway, we had to turn right across the full width of the road in one go and I for one, night or day, never had a ‘moment’ in either direction. Now, of course, the distance to travel is even further (across/through the reservation) so imperative to make a 2 stage crossing safe by providing adequate space for that action.
RIPPER:
Did not hear about this but this is the verdict, i notice the car driver was not wearing a seatbelt and must have seen the truck across the carriageway in front of him if he was looking…maybe i’m wrong■■?
End of the day someone has lost their life so I won’t judge without knowing the facts. From the facts I do know something doesn’t seem right. If an artic as time to pull out half way across, see something coming and stop, and then a car to hit and be fatal that says the car barely slowed down if at all. Why? What I’m saying is the truck didn’t start pulling out and instantly SMASH as he’s just not seen the car. For him to get to the middle and pause there is at least 2-3 seconds, which conveniently is what the Highway Code is the safe gap to stop. So either the car didn’t slow down at all, or there’s much more too it than what we know.
crucified by a jury that will know absolutely nothing about truck driving and reality stopping distances,and a female judge that will know even less.
if the driver was rich his defence would have taken the jury out to the stainmore and 1 at a time had them come out in the passenger seat to turn right.
bus at usual its easy meat and the driver is penalised way ott.
your meant to be able to drive withing your stopping distance. a kid in an audi at 5-20 in the morn no doubt would have been a regular traveler on that road and should be aware of his surroundings and driving accordingly which obviously he wasnt,hence its his fault entirely.
x ray vision and being clairvoyant isnt part of a drivers dcp,and you can see blind spots easier at night because of headlights being used.
the kid wasnt observant enough and got killed due to that fact.
no doubt he did see them but if you want to wait for a completely clear deserted 66 coming out of the cafe when turning right, then you might as well book back in for your tea along with everyone else behind you waiting to get out.
apparantly the audi didnt see 45 foot of 13 foot high trailer across the road and creamed himself where 100 yards of brake pedal would have meant some mean shaking at most.
dieseldog999:
no doubt he did see them but if you want to wait for a completely clear deserted 66 coming out of the cafe when turning right, then you might as well book back in for your tea along with everyone else behind you waiting to get out.
apparantly the audi didnt see 45 foot of 13 foot high trailer across the road and creamed himself where 100 yards of brake pedal would have meant some mean shaking at most.
Everyones at fault but the hgv driver…yeah right 5.20 in the mornimg hardly rush hour eh.
He has been found guilty on the evidence produced but hey no wait a minute it was the Audi drivers fault. Get real
at 5-20 then if theres nothing on your own side and your looking at waiting a few secs for the westbound to clear,then it wouldnt be unreasonable to jump across and wait in the middle.unfrtunately for this dude,some kid in an audi culd see whats 400 yards in front of him and creamed himself.
he wont be blamed as he is milanda bread hence truckie gets the usual crucifixion similar to turban boy getting no blame and the fedex and flipflop getting it bigtime last new year from the m1
dieseldog999:
at 5-20 then if theres nothing on your own side and your looking at waiting a few secs for the westbound to clear,then it wouldnt be unreasonable to jump across and wait in the middle.unfrtunately for this dude,some kid in an audi culd see whats 400 yards in front of him and creamed himself.
he wont be blamed as he is milanda bread hence truckie gets the usual crucifixion similar to turban boy getting no blame and the fedex and flipflop getting it bigtime last new year from the m1
RIPPER:
Did not hear about this but this is the verdict, i notice the car driver was not wearing a seatbelt and must have seen the truck across the carriageway in front of him if he was looking…maybe i’m wrong■■?
Accidents are usually a number of things coming together , speed being a main factor , but not being able to see any hazard even travelling at the legal maximum would not have altered the outcome .
Maybe some High Intensity floodlights around the junction giving on coming drivers a little more warning may have changed the outcome of this accident . Road Planners sometimes need to look at themselves when this happens .
mick palmer:
Accidents are usually a number of things coming together , speed being a main factor , but not being able to see any hazard even travelling at the legal maximum would not have altered the outcome .
Maybe some High Intensity floodlights around the junction giving on coming drivers a little more warning may have changed the outcome of this accident . Road Planners sometimes need to look at themselves when this happens .
The jury were taken out to stainmore 2 weeks ago. The police put in a rolling road block and demonstrated the position of the vehicles outside the cafe.
Wildy:
The jury were taken out to stainmore 2 weeks ago. The police put in a rolling road block and demonstrated the position of the vehicles outside the cafe.
and obviously rolling road block did not see obstacle across the road!
Probably the HGV is technically the one at fault but I’d say prison is a bit over the top/harsh considering it’s a dangerous and poorly designed junction, and considering his trailer was out in the road and it would appear the Audi driver for whatever reason didn’t react to that. Supposed to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, even at 70mph. Why that didn’t happen we will never know. I often say sentences for things are way too soft. Serious assaults, ■■■■, burglary etc etc. For this I say it’s too harsh considering all circumstances…but then perhaps we don’t know all of them like with all these things.
What’s the bet that the jury were all your average HGV hating car driver who thinks HGVs should get of our roads?
