Rob K:
Certainly not condoning what he did, but is it just me that’s failing to see the connection between the highlighted bit and the cause of the crash?
Distraction whilst driving
Which is no connection between the highlighted bit and the cause of the crash. Something which happened two moths prior to the incident is not connected.
It does show that the driver is prone to driving whilst distracted - it could be that those were the only times they the driver was distracted but, IMO, very unlikely - more like they were the only times when caught
Is it likely that a driver with 9 points for speeding on their licence only sped 3 times?
No, but unless he was actually using the phone at the time of this incident then it shouldn’t have been brought up and only makes people jump to conclusions., as you have just done.
Around 51 years ago I used to regularly crap myself, doesn’t mean I am likely to do it today. Oh, hang on, back in a minute…
Rob K:
Certainly not condoning what he did, but is it just me that’s failing to see the connection between the highlighted bit and the cause of the crash?
Distraction whilst driving
Which is no connection between the highlighted bit and the cause of the crash. Something which happened two moths prior to the incident is not connected.
It does show that the driver is prone to driving whilst distracted
That’s pure speculation ROG and should have no place in the British judicial system.
The law says that you’re innocent until proven guilty, the only thing that speculation proves is that there’s a lack of sound evidence.
Given that none of us were at the trial and therefore did not hear the evidence, anything posted on here can only be opinion.
That said, running into the back of a line of slow moving or stationary traffic on a straight road in dry and clear weather conditions is going to take some explaining.
I did smile gently to myself when I read the driver’s reasons for doing so as both being distracted by an insect and suffering a sneezing fit are textbook examples of automatism, a statutory defence to both careless and dangerous driving.
It would appear that the jury did not accept the explanation.
ncooper:
Given that none of us were at the trial and therefore did not hear the evidence, anything posted on here can only be opinion.
That said, running into the back of a line of slow moving or stationary traffic on a straight road in dry and clear weather conditions is going to take some explaining.
I did smile gently to myself when I read the driver’s reasons for doing so as both being distracted by an insect and suffering a sneezing fit are textbook examples of automatism, a statutory defence to both careless and dangerous driving.
It would appear that the jury did not accept the explanation.
Regards,
Nick
But the opinions that are forming are that the media printed a brickbat or an untruth to make the big bad truckers part of a lawless society, there are hundreds and thousands of sales reps driving up the motorway everyday and when they have a mishap, the BBC don’t mention that they were caught speeding last month or were seen with a phone clamped to their ear .
I would be the last to defend the BBC’s news coverage which years ago used to set the standard for objective reporting, no longer, I am afraid.
However,with reference to the mention of the mobile phone, this court appearance was for sentencing, the driver having been convicted on 25th August.
At this type of appearance, it is perfectly in order to mention previous convictions prior to the sentence.
I can see no suggestion in the article that his previous conviction for using a mobile while driving was in any way connected to this accident.
I don’t feel anything in common with the unfortunate Mr Bothamley, even though we both are (or were in his case) lorry drivers.
None of the tar on his brush is being splattered on me or anyone else on this forum.
Have a read of this, where the fact that she is a hopeless alcoholic is there for the world to read
but it’s another hearing for sentence, not a trial.
I think there is a world of difference, she was still ■■■■■■ when she drove the wrong way down the M5 and admitted all charges in a hearing last month. This Bothamley bloke was caught answering the phone 2 months before his accident
I think there is a world of difference, she was still ■■■■■■ when she drove the wrong way down the M5 and admitted all charges in a hearing last month. This Bothamley bloke was caught answering the phone 2 months before his accident
A lorry driver who drank 20 measures of vodka in 90 minutes as he drove along the A9 has been jailed for four months and banned from the road for six years.
Sheriff Lindsay Foulis noted that Walker had another identical conviction three years ago and said there was no option but to send him to prison.
The sheriff said: "It’s not just driving a vehicle - it is a motor lorry. The A9 is never quiet, but this was at 1.20pm slap-bang in the middle of the holiday period.
“Around 51 years ago I used to regularly crap myself, doesn’t mean I am likely to do it today. Oh, hang on, back in a minute…”
Well Coffee i will be the 1st to admit i have had a few “crap myself” times during the last 46 years!!
this was just up the road from me, and as a result was held up in traffic for 45 mins, whilst trying to get to the East Coast Truckers Charity Float in the Lord Mayors Procession… i just made it
I think there is a world of difference, she was still ■■■■■■ when she drove the wrong way down the M5 and admitted all charges in a hearing last month. This Bothamley bloke was caught answering the phone 2 months before his accident
A Judge in a Crown Court has, after a jury of 12 people found him guilty, sentanced the driver to 5yrs, you have to believe that there was a bit of evidence that the bloke was not driving as he should’ve been, the fact that he ran into a line of stationary traffic kind of adds weight to that
Unfortunately many lorry drivers are involved in fatal crashes every year, not many of them get locked up for it
Rob K:
Certainly not condoning what he did, but is it just me that’s failing to see the connection between the highlighted bit and the cause of the crash?
Distraction whilst driving
Which is no connection between the highlighted bit and the cause of the crash. Something which happened two moths prior to the incident is not connected.
It does show that the driver is prone to driving whilst distracted
That’s pure speculation ROG and should have no place in the British judicial system.
The law says that you’re innocent until proven guilty, the only thing that speculation proves is that there’s a lack of sound evidence.
The jury heard ALL the evidence and found him guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. To arrive at that decision would have required sufficient evidence in the eyes of the jury. The chit chat on hear is just that.
