FAI: Glasgow Bin Lorry Crash

Had not been following the case so didn’t know he had a history of previous incidents.

Why the hell are they not prosecuting him and just leaving it for the family to do?

If it was me (one off incident rather than a repeat occurrence) I don’t see any problem with saying sorry to the family even if it had an negative impact on my case. By refusing to answer questions he is in effect admitting his own guilt. Doesn’t always make sense to follow the advice of the lawyers.

Problem is there are people out there who kill a child and plead not guilty. They’ve got nothing to lose. Better treated on remand awaiting trial. They don’t give two ■■■■■ what they put families through. Should be a rule if you plead not guilty and are then found guilty add a few more years to sentence.

I’d say for most of us the fact we killed six people would torment us to our dying day and so a private prosecution wouldn’t exactly hold much fear. He seems totally lacking remorse and instead of doing the right thing by the families is trying to save his own skin. He’s pathetic.

quote … ‘Should be a rule if you plead not guilty and are then found guilty add a few more years to sentence.’

I thought there already was, or less time for pleading guilty.

When this accident first happened, I just couldn’t comprehend how anyone could learn to live with themselves after causing so much grief and heartache to others, and couldn’t imagine how bad I would feel if I had had some sort of medical problem and then woke up to see all the devastation that I had caused. Now I think, hang the ■■■■■■■■

Look up Sociopath on line - wikihow summarises it quite nicely.

I know if the vehicle I was in charge of killed or seriously injured one person, I would be distraught beyond belief for the rest of my days, never really coming to terms with it.

Not far from where I live on a single carriageway A road quite recently, two artics together were making steady progress eastbound when inexplicably, a Seat hatchback with an elderly couple on board going in the opposite direction, crossed over the white line. The car hit the first truck bounced off into the hedge, back across the road and head on into the second truck. The old dears were killed instantly. At the inquest it was stated that both these professional truckers never drove again for a living, such was the traumatic experience for them.

Mr Clarke says “Where’s me licence then?” :open_mouth: :open_mouth:

The whole circus is all about compensation. The families of the victims will be entitled to some and so will those who were injured. The question is - who will pay?

If it is found to be the driver’s fault entirely, he probably has no means to pay anything. What they really need is to shift the blame onto the council that failed to check his history before putting him at the wheel of a lethal weapon.

Whilst not supporting the bin lorry driver, I wonder how many of the “hang 'em high” brigade would have told the same lies to keep their licence.
Being brutally honest, I am not certain that I would have been any more honest, I would like to think so… but with hand on heart I couldn’t swear that I would have told the truth.

del949:
Whilst not supporting the bin lorry driver, I wonder how many of the “hang 'em high” brigade would have told the same lies to keep their licence.
Being brutally honest, I am not certain that I would have been any more honest, I would like to think so… but with hand on heart I couldn’t swear that I would have told the truth.

Anyone who does shouldn’t have a licence. It’s part of the responsibility we have. Lets not forget he’s been blacking out for 30 years, this isn’t a one off

del949:
Whilst not supporting the bin lorry driver, I wonder how many of the “hang 'em high” brigade would have told the same lies to keep their licence.
Being brutally honest, I am not certain that I would have been any more honest, I would like to think so… but with hand on heart I couldn’t swear that I would have told the truth.

Surely you mean the “hang 'em high hypocrites”, for that’s what most of the knuckledragging unwashed of TNUK truly are.

I wouldn’t wish, what most here are wishing on that driver, on anyone.

Of course, like the rest of you I am angry about what has happened. It’s just that I feel that most folk are directing their anger in the wrong direction.

Who should they be directing it at then :question:

bazza123:
Who should they be directing it at then :question:

All of the fee’s we pay + all of the tax’s on our incomes is supposed to pay the wages of the folk we entrust to do the things we haven’t got time for. We pay them fukkerz to sort this ■■■■■ out before it should happen.

How many more Glasgow bin lorry drivers are out on the roads?

Don’t direct your anger at the driver, direct it at the system you thought was in place to prevent this.

TheBorg:
most folk are directing their anger in the wrong direction.

Yes of course. 30 years of having black outs, lying on his license form, lying to medics, refusing to answer questions at a FAI, applying to get his license back 4 months later despite the blackouts obviously still being a problem and lying to his employers regarding his medical history. Your right, the drivers innocent in all this :unamused:
Sure the system has a pretty big flaw in relying on someones honesty. But exploiting this loophole and killing 6 people then not appearing to even care doesnt mean the system is to blame. Its the one who lied so he could keep driving a 26 tonne vehicle through crowded streets

Thank you Borg. not sure that I would have described the “hang em” section as you do, but am certain that some are just the same as this bin driver. I wish I could say that if it had been me then I would have confessed all, but I don’t state that I would definately have done so. Given some circumstances I’m not sure.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call someone hypocrites, but feel certain that they are not being entirely honest with themselves.
You only have to read some of their posts, where they brag about tailgating other vehicle flashing lights etc,refusing to change lanes etc, or using the size of the vehicle to intimidate other drivers when they feel that they are in the right. Or to view some of the dashcam videos where they are certain that the incident shown shows them as being pearly white
Any non HGV driver would leave these forums with a distinct perception of the quality of the truck drivers on the road, and it’s not certain that it would be a good one.
I for one, being a retired driver, who drove for a living not a hobby (as some seem to do) am surprised at some of the stuff I read on here, most of which bears little resemblance to my days on the road.

del949:
Thank you Borg. not sure that I would have described the “hang em” section as you do, but am certain that some are just the same as this bin driver. I wish I could say that if it had been me then I would have confessed all, but I don’t state that I would definately have done so. Given some circumstances I’m not sure.

The fact is the rail unions or employers would never allow such a situation to take place among train driving staff.Being that both sides remove any incentive for any such medical lies by proper pre and current employment medical checks and making sure that drivers have decent income protection cover in the event of being medically retired while doing the job.On that note I am sure. Having taken that view myself and having viewed the job as no different regards my responsibilities as those expected of a train driver.The question in this case being why the double standards applied by all concerned regards road transport drivers as opposed to train drivers :bulb:

Which still leaves the questions in this case regarding the failure of the medical profession.Who were well aware of this driver’s condition but for some reason chose not to automatically inform the DVLA. :unamused:

The-Snowman:

TheBorg:
most folk are directing their anger in the wrong direction.

Yes of course. 30 years of having black outs, lying on his license form, lying to medics

The issue of him supposedly ‘lying to medics’ seems to be a red herring to divert attention away from the doctor/s concerned.IE why would it make any difference as to ‘where’ a driver blacked out,wether actually behind the wheel or not,concerning the decision to then inform the DVLA.

With regards to the comments about doctors responsibility to contact the DVLA.
A few years ago now it became apparent that my mother was no longer safe behind the wheel, she had’nt been herself since my father died and had also been unwell but she was adament she was’nt going to to give up the car. As her next of kin I contacted her doctor looking for help or advice and was told it was no longer the resposibility of the GP to contact the DVLA as it was now deemed as breaching doctor/patient confidentiality all he could do was get her in and advise her that she should consider giving up her licence, he could not force her.
Not saying thats what happened in this tragic case or what my mothers doctor said was right or wrong but it could shed some light as to why his own doctor did not report any issues with his ability to drive.

alfa man:
With regards to the comments about doctors responsibility to contact the DVLA.
A few years ago now it became apparent that my mother was no longer safe behind the wheel, she had’nt been herself since my father died and had also been unwell but she was adament she was’nt going to to give up the car. As her next of kin I contacted her doctor looking for help or advice and was told it was no longer the resposibility of the GP to contact the DVLA as it was now deemed as breaching doctor/patient confidentiality all he could do was get her in and advise her that she should consider giving up her licence, he could not force her.
Not saying thats what happened in this tragic case or what my mothers doctor said was right or wrong but it could shed some light as to why his own doctor did not report any issues with his ability to drive.

But is an occupation like a HGV driver not classed as a notifiable occupation where the doctor is required by law to contact the DVLA if he deems someone unfit to hold their licence on health grounds?

damoq:
But is an occupation like a HGV driver not classed as a notifiable occupation where the doctor is required by law to contact the DVLA if he deems someone unfit to hold their licence on health grounds?

Dont know mate you could be correct, I’m not right up on the legislation.

His lying to keep working over the years is 1 thing but his actions since the tragedy are despicable no apology wanting his licence back scumbag

alfa man:

damoq:
But is an occupation like a HGV driver not classed as a notifiable occupation where the doctor is required by law to contact the DVLA if he deems someone unfit to hold their licence on health grounds?

Dont know mate you could be correct, I’m not right up on the legislation.

I’ve looked it up and it seems that it’s not the doctors responsibility based on the confidentiality thing you referred to when you were worried about your mum. Its up to the DVLA to decide based on the info the doctor provides on the D4.
I’ve copied this from a gov website:

Doctors Liability in Certifying Fitness to Drive

The responsibility for determining the fitness to drive of an individual rests with the DVLA. All licence holders have a responsibility to inform the DVLA if they develop a medical condition or if an existing one worsens which may affect their fitness to drive. Doctors may be asked to provide a report for the DVLA, but his will not include an opinion on the patient’s fitness to drive.

The DVLA has the statutory responsibility for certifying individuals as fit to drive Group II vehicles. Doctors are required to undertake no more than the examination and completion of form D4. The form does not ask for an opinion on fitness to drive.

The responsibility for licensing Hackney Carriage and Private hire Vehicle Drivers, and for compliance with local conditions, rests with the local authority. Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicles are not PCV’s under the provisions of the Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, however, doctors may be asked to certify fitness to drive to the satisfaction of the local authority. Doctors may also be asked by their patients to provide a certificate of fitness to drive for an insurance company. Such an examination and certification falls outside a doctor’s NHS responsibilities and may attract a fee.

Doctors providing certificates for local authorities and insurance companies, where they know of no medical condition which would render the patient unfit to drive, should be aware of potential liability.

Third party motor insurance damages are compulsorily payable by insurers who can reclaim costs from others who are negligent. A doctor certifying a person as fit, without due care and skill, or contrary to national guidelines, could be found negligent and be held liable for the costs incurred by the motor insurer.

Doctors facing allegation of this nature may look to their defence organisation in the usual way to provide discretionary indemnity.

CONFIDENTIALITY

All doctors owe their patients a duty of confidentiality. This duty may be enforced by the General Medical Council (GMC). Difficulties may arise when a doctor feels the need to breach confidentiality in the public interest and this may occur particularly with regard to fitness to drive.

The GMC recognises that on rare occasions a doctor may breach confidentiality in the public interest where failure to do so may place the patient or some other person at risk of serious harm or death. In the first instance, the doctor should advise the patient to inform the DVLA of any condition, or deterioration in an existing condition, which may affect the patient’s fitness to drive. However, it may come to the doctor’s attention that the patient may have failed to do so or may continue to drive contrary to the doctor’s advice , pending a determination by the DVLA.

The patient should be challenged, and where appropriate, advised that the doctor will inform the DVLA directly. Only in exceptional circumstances will the doctor inform the DVLA without first warning the patient and/or on the basis that the source of the information will not be revealed by the DVLA to the patient.

The doctor might become aware that the patient’s licence has been revoked by the DVLA, but that he continues to drive. It may be appropriate for the doctor to inform the local police.

Doctors should only breach confidentiality in good faith and after careful thought. Members of a defence organisation are recommended to discuss such cases with a medico-legal adviser in advance.

Notwithstanding the above, when a patient has a serious medical condition likely to make them a danger to themselves and others if they drive, the doctor should confidentially inform a DVLA Medic Adviser without delay (telephone number 01792 783686) where the condition of the patient is such that they are unable or unlikely to be able to notify DVLA (eg demented or psychotic patients).