trevHCS:
But of course it’s the HGV driver who’s apparently automatically at fault regardless
Well it was the truck driver that had his trailer partially across a high speed road in the dark.
If the trailer wasn’t in the road then the accident wouldn’t have happened.
The Audi driver didn’t have his seatbelt on and maybe he was speeding. He would still be alive today had it not been for the truck drivers actions.
I would strongly disagree!
Its no doubt that lorry drivwr caused accident, but death side is on car driver not paying attention.
High speed road doesnt mean you drive fast where you can not see!
trevHCS:
But of course it’s the HGV driver who’s apparently automatically at fault regardless
Well it was the truck driver that had his trailer partially across a high speed road in the dark.
If the trailer wasn’t in the road then the accident wouldn’t have happened.
The Audi driver didn’t have his seatbelt on and maybe he was speeding. He would still be alive today had it not been for the truck drivers actions.
I would strongly disagree!
Its no doubt that lorry drivwr caused accident, but death side is on car driver not paying attention.
High speed road doesnt mean you drive fast where you can not see!
It’s means exactly that to a lot of car drivers. Remember that massive pile up near Witney the other Christmas in the fog. Car drivers excuses were things like “all of a sudden cars were stopped in front of me and I couldn’t stop”… well if you couldn’t stop then why the bloody hell were you ploughing on at full speed through fog when ANYTHING could be ahead of you?
The key thing here is you drive to the conditions. You should drive so that you can stop if you see an obstruction. What if the lorry stopped in the carriagewayto avoid an accident and the audi crashed into the back of it. The audi driver would be at fault. The point is if you cant see over the brow of the hill and react to stop at 70 in the dark then you shouldnt be going 70.
Beanbonce:
The key thing here is you drive to the conditions. You should drive so that you can stop if you see an obstruction. What if the lorry stopped in the carriagewayto avoid an accident and the audi crashed into the back of it. The audi driver would be at fault. The point is if you cant see over the brow of the hill and react to stop at 70 in the dark then you shouldnt be going 70.
So if the Audi driver was going too fast for the conditions (which accident investigators could easily find out) why have the judge and jury put the lorry driver away for 2 years? It would be a 6 of one and half a dozen of the other situation if that’s the case. Something doesn’t seem right still.
Beanbonce:
The key thing here is you drive to the conditions. You should drive so that you can stop if you see an obstruction. What if the lorry stopped in the carriagewayto avoid an accident and the audi crashed into the back of it. The audi driver would be at fault. The point is if you cant see over the brow of the hill and react to stop at 70 in the dark then you shouldnt be going 70.
So if the Audi driver was going too fast for the conditions (which accident investigators could easily find out) why have the judge and jury put the lorry driver away for 2 years? It would be a 6 of one and half a dozen of the other situation if that’s the case. Something doesn’t seem right still.
Because, as I said above, we don’t know all the facts. The car’s speed, if it braked (can they tell these days with anti-lock?), or where exactly the trailer was and how much of the carriageway it obstructed.
To my mind, to have been hit in the first place, he can’t have used the reservation area to best advantage.
On the other hand, it could be, as also suggested by others, pure prejudice. A bit like my mate who was done for an insecure load when in fact his securing chains held it from leaving the trailer but faulty manufacture of the vessel meant that it shifted on the bed.
It would be helpful for us to see photos of the scene immediately afterwards, not just a bald police report of the conviction. Without that we can only speculate. And we are
Beanbonce:
The key thing here is you drive to the conditions. You should drive so that you can stop if you see an obstruction. What if the lorry stopped in the carriagewayto avoid an accident and the audi crashed into the back of it. The audi driver would be at fault. The point is if you cant see over the brow of the hill and react to stop at 70 in the dark then you shouldnt be going 70.
So if the Audi driver was going too fast for the conditions (which accident investigators could easily find out) why have the judge and jury put the lorry driver away for 2 years? It would be a 6 of one and half a dozen of the other situation if that’s the case. Something doesn’t seem right still.
Because, as I said above, we don’t know all the facts. The car’s speed, if it braked (can they tell these days with anti-lock?), or where exactly the trailer was and how much of the carriageway it obstructed.
To my mind, to have been hit in the first place, he can’t have used the reservation area to best advantage.
On the other hand, it could be, as also suggested by others, pure prejudice. A bit like my mate who was done for an insecure load when in fact his securing chains held it from leaving the trailer but faulty manufacture of the vessel meant that it shifted on the bed.
It would be helpful for us to see photos of the scene immediately afterwards, not just a bald police report of the conviction. Without that we can only speculate. And we are
All valid questions the news report does not address.
Yes ABS do leave marks.
The question no one appears to of asked yet. “How long was he stationary with the trailer across the carriageway”
The key data a collision investigator looks at is speed data. A digital VU records speed normally at 1Hz, so 1 speed reading a second, however there is other speed data they can download at 4Hz, so 4 speed readings every second.
Given he pleaded to Death by Due care, he accepted his driving fell below that of s careful and competent driver (would you do it on you HGV driving test? If No then it’s below acceptable standard)
The court decided it was Dangerous (fell FAR below that if a careful and competent driver)
The question no one appears to of asked yet. “How long was he stationary with the trailer across the carriageway”
The key data a collision investigator looks at is speed data. A digital VU records speed normally at 1Hz, so 1 speed reading a second, however there is other speed data they can download at 4Hz, so 4 speed readings every second.
Given he pleaded to Death by Due care, he accepted his driving fell below that of s careful and competent driver (would you do it on you HGV driving test? If No then it’s below acceptable standard)
The court decided it was Dangerous (fell FAR below that if a careful and competent driver)
Thanks for the clarifications TR,
Without re-reading the report I don’t think it said that he pleaded guilty to ‘without due care’ imo he could hardly have avoided that, but merely that he denied ‘dangerous’. An important point.
In view of your ‘ABS do leave marks’, we don’t know if they found any. If not then it would appear that the lorry driver was not the only one ‘without due care’.
We also don’t know how much of his trailer was ‘hanging out’.
Nevertheless I would think that at least an appeal against sentence would be in order. The poor bloke made an error of judgement, and at, if I remember correctly, 56 years of age, he will be unlikely to be employed as a driver again.
Franglais:
From the link, without any other input. I dont know the section of road at all. A driver pulls onto one lane of a dual carriageway, stops across the carriageway to let the other lane clear, so he can join that far lane? Would you pull across a road if the road or lane you wish to enter isnt free? And in the dark, too?
Didnt the car driver see the side markers? Didnt the truck driver see the headlights?
Wasnt he relying on other road users to make allowance for his error of entering one side of the dual carriageway without a safe exit? If there is a bend, or brow of hill or whatever here, I repeat I dont know the road, then he was taking a gamble.
Bet lost. One lost a life, one lost two years.
You don’t know the road!
To me if a seat belt wouldn’t have helped even if he had worn one it suggests speed.
Stainmore Cafe and The Punch Bowl were the only safe refuge across the North Pennines
“Only safe refuge across the northern pennines”! Are you auditioning to be a script writer for Ice Road Truckers? -
Stopping across a 70limit road, in the dark, is more than a momentary lapse in concentration, or a minor error.
It is taking a positive action and expecting others to take avoiding actions if necessary.
That’s how I see it.
Was the Audi going fast? Probably. How fast do YOU drive on dual carriageway in the early morning? And don’t we expect most people to drive pretty quickly then?
Seat belt would have made little difference? Do you need a graphic picture? Side guards will deflect a glancing blow, but won’t stop a side impact. Above the window line the car would pass under the trailer chassis…
I’ll leave that there.
Beanbonce:
The key thing here is you drive to the conditions. You should drive so that you can stop if you see an obstruction. What if the lorry stopped in the carriagewayto avoid an accident and the audi crashed into the back of it. The audi driver would be at fault. The point is if you cant see over the brow of the hill and react to stop at 70 in the dark then you shouldnt be going 70.
So if the Audi driver was going too fast for the conditions (which accident investigators could easily find out) why have the judge and jury put the lorry driver away for 2 years? It would be a 6 of one and half a dozen of the other situation if that’s the case. Something doesn’t seem right still.
Because, as I said above, we don’t know all the facts. The car’s speed, if it braked (can they tell these days with anti-lock?), or where exactly the trailer was and how much of the carriageway it obstructed.
To my mind, to have been hit in the first place, he can’t have used the reservation area to best advantage.
On the other hand, it could be, as also suggested by others, pure prejudice. A bit like my mate who was done for an insecure load when in fact his securing chains held it from leaving the trailer but faulty manufacture of the vessel meant that it shifted on the bed.
It would be helpful for us to see photos of the scene immediately afterwards, not just a bald police report of the conviction. Without that we can only speculate. And we are
All valid questions the news report does not address.
Yes ABS do leave marks.
The question no one appears to of asked yet. “How long was he stationary with the trailer across the carriageway”
The key data a collision investigator looks at is speed data. A digital VU records speed normally at 1Hz, so 1 speed reading a second, however there is other speed data they can download at 4Hz, so 4 speed readings every second.
Given he pleaded to Death by Due care, he accepted his driving fell below that of s careful and competent driver (would you do it on you HGV driving test? If No then it’s below acceptable standard)
The court decided it was Dangerous (fell FAR below that if a careful and competent driver)
Sent from my COL-L29 using Tapatalk
I do not have much faith in UK investigators at all!
Remember years ago my mate destroyed unit and trailer when he went of the A15 doing 56mph…back then it was 40mph speed limit…
they never looked at his tacho and he walked away without points or fine…needed to find new employer tho…
I’ve not read the ins and outs of this particular case but tbh and furthermore to be brutally honest I don’t really care as it in no way, shape or form does it affect me. There is however one thing that pops into my mind when I read each post and that is something I remember; I don’t know whether I was taught it or whether there is something in the Highway Code regarding it, but my thought is that you should never drive at a speed exceeding the distance at which you can see and be able to stop in. To put it simply the Audi was travelling at a greater speed than he aught to have done to stop in the event of it all going ■■■■ up.
If two vehicles had collided in front of him and come to rest across the carriageway would he have been able to stop? If not and he’d collided with them then who would be to blame?
the maoster:
I’ve not read the ins and outs of this particular case but tbh and furthermore to be brutally honest I don’t really care as it in no way, shape or form does it affect me. There is however one thing that pops into my mind when I read each post and that is something I remember; I don’t know whether I was taught it or whether there is something in the Highway Code regarding it, but my thought is that you should never drive at a speed exceeding the distance at which you can see and be able to stop in. To put it simply the Audi was travelling at a greater speed than he aught to have done to stop in the event of it all going ■■■■ up.
If two vehicles had collided in front of him and come to rest across the carriageway would he have been able to stop? If not and he’d collided with them then who would be to blame?
What you say is true.
And many people do drive too fast and too close all the time. Everyday we see tailgating. Isn’t that the same thing?
Vehicle in front stops for any reason and it’s a collision. It happens.
In this case the obstruction could have seen and avoided if the car driver was going slow. True.
But that obstruction, the stationary trailer, shouldn’t have been there.
It is two wrong things coming together to cause an accident, yes. It normally isn’t one single cause is it?
Both drivers are paying for their errors.
Franglais:
“Only safe refuge across the northern pennines”! Are you auditioning to be a script writer for Ice Road Truckers? -
Stopping across a 70limit road, in the dark, is more than a momentary lapse in concentration, or a minor error.
It is taking a positive action and expecting others to take avoiding actions if necessary.
That’s how I see it.
Was the Audi going fast? Probably. How fast do YOU drive on dual carriageway in the early morning? And don’t we expect most people to drive pretty quickly then?
Seat belt would have made little difference? Do you need a graphic picture? Side guards will deflect a glancing blow, but won’t stop a side impact. Above the window line the car would pass under the trailer chassis…
I’ll leave that there.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
There are not many roads in England that they close with a permanent steel barrier when it’s windy or snows. That trailer could have been a fallen tree or sheep, a lorry is much easier to see.
I think it’s very harsh that the lorry driver faced jail, if you’ve not seen how the weather can change, it’s difficult to explain the road, it was single carriageway for much of its length.
if a tree or lampost fell across the road with no lights and you ran into it,then the only person to blame is yourself.
skelping along a basically deserted a66 at 5-20 am in your car and not being able to stop or avoid hitting a 60 foot truck with lights on it that shouldnt really have been there in a perfect world would basically be the same scenario.
the flipflop on the m1 at xmas shouldnt have been sitting stopped but thats all he did the same was as if there was an obstruction in front of him,turban boy shouldnt have been sitting behind him when everyone else drove around him,and fedex man should have stopped.
fedex got reamed,audi kid blameless.somethings definately not right there methinks.
The question no one appears to of asked yet. “How long was he stationary with the trailer across the carriageway”
The key data a collision investigator looks at is speed data. A digital VU records speed normally at 1Hz, so 1 speed reading a second, however there is other speed data they can download at 4Hz, so 4 speed readings every second.
Given he pleaded to Death by Due care, he accepted his driving fell below that of s careful and competent driver (would you do it on you HGV driving test? If No then it’s below acceptable standard)
The court decided it was Dangerous (fell FAR below that if a careful and competent driver)
Thanks for the clarifications TR,
Without re-reading the report I don’t think it said that he pleaded guilty to ‘without due care’ imo he could hardly have avoided that, but merely that he denied ‘dangerous’. An important point.
In view of your ‘ABS do leave marks’, we don’t know if they found any. If not then it would appear that the lorry driver was not the only one ‘without due care’.
We also don’t know how much of his trailer was ‘hanging out’.
Nevertheless I would think that at least an appeal against sentence would be in order. The poor bloke made an error of judgement, and at, if I remember correctly, 56 years of age, he will be unlikely to be employed as a driver again.
“His tachograph showed he was stationary there for 15 seconds - leaving his 40ft-long furniture-laden trailer obstructing the eastbound carriageway.”
so the truck was stopped for 15 seconds, how hard would it be to see that from 400 years away if you were paying attention when it had lights on and a lit up unit in front of it when your on a good road?
