We have a 17 year old girl driving tractors with trailers down steep hills at work, she’s more capable than some of the bloke who work here of all ages who don’t go near any machinery / trucks but some of them will of been driving long than she’s been about!
cav551:
Quote from evidence given at the Sowerby Bridge inquest in 1994"The Bradford deputy coroner, Mark Hinchliffe, said: ‘It sounds like there wasn’t one serviceable brake which you would regard as in an efficient and serviceable condition.’
PC Williams replied: ‘That is correct. There may have been one or two giving some braking efficiency, but very little.’
The officer said he was quite certain the brakes would have shown excess wear when the lorry was serviced on 7 July, and could not have been assessed by an experienced mechanic as safe.
He believed the lorry driver, ******** ******, 63, who died in the crash, may have been driving the vehicle with good foresight and good use of his gears and brakes.
PC Williams said the driver would have had little indication that anything was wrong until he had to make some form of heavy or emergency braking. He believed the driver had attempted to use a secondary braking system, used to park the vehicle, but the braking from this was insignificant."
Realistically,as in that case,unless the law can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver in this case wasn’t driving the vehicle in accordance with reasonably expected standards of driving a heavy vehicle on a down grade I’d suggest he should be discharged.While if that can be proved then how would they differentiate a set of burnt out damaged brakes caused by bad driving as opposed to maintenance issues.Although having said that the former would likely leave evidence of severe heat damage to all the linings.While if the maintenance issues are as described then such heat damage obviously wouldn’t be a factor or at least only a factor on the few working brakes ?.In either case it’s difficult to see how the driver and the operator and the mechanic can all be to blame.It can only be the operator and/or mechanic or the driver. 
Not sounding good…
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38080743
^^^
Possibly never given delivery address and just told to: “follow me”’ ?
Wildy:
Not sounding good…
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38080743
It’s difficult to see how the seperate unrelated offence of ignoring a traffic restriction has any connection to the circumstances of the crash.IE the prosecution case would be understandable in that regard ‘if’ the road was subject to a blanket weight restriction for safety reasons.Not a width restriction ‘except for access’ to stop ‘rat running’ traffic.Even the definition of ‘access’ being arguable in the case of the driver being given second hand instructions by his boss regarding the destination point and required route.IE if the boss has given a route instruction for the driver to obey on the basis that the boss thinks it complies with an ‘except for access’ traffic order then the responsibility should be put on the boss if the delivery point is subsequently shown not to comply.
cav551:
^^^
Possibly never given delivery address and just told to: “follow me”’ ?
+1
toby1234abc:
On European, if you did two ten hour drives, and four nine hour drives, at 56 mph flat out, no delays, that equates to 3136 miles in one week .
Very soon racks up doesnt it…
There were different opinions on the Sowerby Bridge accident as well.
nollyprott.wordpress.com/2016/0 … -cover-up/
The company I worked for were a similar set-up to Fewston, maintenance had ‘dropped off’ since Tilcon owned the fleet (a full service every month including ALL filter changes, and engine oil as well of course, in Tilcon’s day) and I ran out of air on one steep hill and had to put the Foden into the bankside. It had been several weeks since it had a service and six brakes were relined (on well worn drums) however these had bedded in and were well out of adjustment by that time so all my air vanished part way down the hill and I had to ‘bankside it’ to stop. No harm done, I always carried a spanner with me after that to adjust them every couple of weeks and our maintenance was stepped up drastically after Sowerby. However, despite my experience, I hadn’t noticed that the brakes were that poor until I really needed them!
I assume that the Scania had disc brakes on the front two axles, do these adjust automatically like car hydraulic ones do?
Pete.
Carryfast:
Wildy:
Not sounding good…
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38080743It’s difficult to see how the seperate unrelated offence of ignoring a traffic restriction has any connection to the circumstances of the crash.IE the prosecution case would be understandable in that regard ‘if’ the road was subject to a blanket weight restriction for safety reasons.Not a width restriction ‘except for access’ to stop ‘rat running’ traffic.Even the definition of ‘access’ being arguable in the case of the driver being given second hand instructions by his boss regarding the destination point and required route.IE if the boss has given a route instruction for the driver to obey on the basis that the boss thinks it complies with an ‘except for access’ traffic order then the responsibility should be put on the boss if the delivery point is subsequently shown not to comply.
Add to that the allegation of speeding, lack of tacho breaks and abs light on…
Does seem like there may not be a bulletproof argument still and the prosecution relying on painting a picture of a cowboy operation who were an accident waiting to happen.
The ABS light being on is going to be hard to defend although if, and it’s a big if, the light indicated that ABS only wasn’t operating, and not a wider brake system malfunction that alone should not lead to a runaway.
The points so far seem to be, and how I would view them if I was on the jury. Which is going to differ a lot probably by being in the industry, having driven down the hill weekly in a grossed out 18T, prior to the restrictions, and also being involved in repair and maintenance.
-
Truck mileage - ok the truck’s seen better days but seems to be a fairly irrelevant smear
-
Safety Inspection frequencies - well yes the operator, and the fitter between them, should have been vigilant and increased frequency of inspections if the evidence suggested it was required but the inspection frequency, and maintenance arrangements, have been originally agreed by the TC. What will be interesting is the OCRS score and the extent of the monitoring and input from VOSA given he was a new. relatively young operator, in a sector of the industry that most would agree requires a lot of vigilance around maintenance. Also he was not a CPC holder.
-Transport Manager had resigned and not replaced - Again to the layperson it is going to scream cowboy. Did either the previous TM or the operator notify VOSA he had resigned. Obviously it does scream cowboy outfit if the operator has not replaced the TM and taken on the role himself, although unqualified. However, provided hours were being monitored and daily checks and periodic maintenance occurring to schedule I don’t view it as a particularly critical issue as restricted operators don’t require a TM at all. Having said that it doesn’t look promising on the drivers’ hours front.
-
Restrictions - Again paints a picture of flouting the rules but, as I understand it, the sign had been knocked over at the time of the accident. The restriction is fairly recent.
-
Speeding - Probably the biggest thing against them if there is evidence to suggest they were in any way racing each other which, as we all know, is very, very common when you get two trucks from the same firm in convoy. Also the possibility he had cooked the brakes, as an inexperienced driver, desperately trying to keep up with his boss.
-
ABS light - Probably the biggest issue, I’ve heard about, so far, key factors are going to be how long it had been on for, as a young driver did he know the significance, did his boss tell him to ignore it, was it recorded in driver’s daily checks and was it present at the start of the day or did it develop throughout the day.
If it turns out some major component ■■■■ itself randomly it’s hard to say the other factors caused it or if they were not present would have prevented a major accident and it was just an accident and bad luck. There’s questions about if a more experienced driver may have been able to stove the truck into something and prevent the incident escalating but that’s just guess work. Yes there was a restriction on the hill but there’s plenty of other hills in Bath that don’t and the same accident could have been repeated there.
I would be happier if there were less people on trial. It’s possible they are all culpable in some way, and it’s justified but, it gives the impression of an exercise in mud flinging in the hope of making some stick. However, the driver trying to get the charges thrown out, when he was driving with an ABS light on, was very optimistic and gives the impression of him trying to duck his responsibilty by exploiting his young age.
Is there a corner that these guys did not cut? Breaking the law by using an over-width vehicle, ABS light on, driving over their hours, speeding etc. Are they not atypical of a certain type of haulage operation that prevails in almost every area of the country? You know the type… there is always enough time to fit air horns, frilly curtains and extra lights, but never enough to service the things to an adequate standard, or drive them to a decent standard. Any experienced driver would more or less know straight away if the service brake performance was not up to standard. One tap of the brakes on a fully laden truck and you should know. 19 is too young, whatever anybody says. They may be able to drive the thing, but then a monkey could too. The finesse required sometimes in driving a HGV safely is under-rated. Especially by some on here. Try telling that to the under-writers of most insurance companies, who still insist on a minimum age of 25.
Will this incident shine the light on these man and a van service mechanics winding the brakes up of a weekend and putting a bit of grease on trucks and trailers. Service brake performance is still the main reason why most trailers fail their MOT and always near the top of reasons for units etc.
Janos:
Is there a corner that these guys did not cut? Breaking the law by using an over-width vehicle, ABS light on, driving over their hours, speeding etc. Are they not atypical of a certain type of haulage operation that prevails in almost every area of the country? You know the type… there is always enough time to fit air horns, frilly curtains and extra lights, but never enough to service the things to an adequate standard, or drive them to a decent standard. Any experienced driver would more or less know straight away if the service brake performance was not up to standard. One tap of the brakes on a fully laden truck and you should know. 19 is too young, whatever anybody says. They may be able to drive the thing, but then a monkey could too. The finesse required sometimes in driving a HGV safely is under-rated. Especially by some on here. Try telling that to the under-writers of most insurance companies, who still insist on a minimum age of 25.
Will this incident shine the light on these man and a van service mechanics winding the brakes up of a weekend and putting a bit of grease on trucks and trailers. Service brake performance is still the main reason why most trailers fail their MOT and always near the top of reasons for units etc.
Bear in mind it’s the prosecution case, at the moment, but I agree it’s not painting a good picture.
I agree, that a small number or posters, on this thread, are off their ■■■■ re younger drivers. They started driving when they were young, and were responsible or they know a 19 year old who’s really responsible doesn’t mean zip. I could probably find two ninety year old drivers who are really good but I bet they wouldn’t say let all ninety year olds loose in an artic.
I also agree that the man with a van safety inspections are an issue but it is possible to do them reliably with road tests, the right kit and an assistant available. I don’t personally think trucks need roller brake testing every inspection. In some ways real world testing with a load, combined with a laser thermometer, is superior to roller brake testing.
I would like to see VOSA introduce a scheme that could be opted into by anyone who wanted to, and mandatory for new operators, or ones where serious issues had been identified, whereby they have the truck MOTed every quarter and the card downloaded and the hours monitored at the same time. Anyone who opted in could then be guaranteed a green light on OCRS if everything was generally in order.
toby1234abc:
On European, if you did two ten hour drives, and four nine hour drives, at 56 mph flat out, no delays, that equates to 3136 miles in one week .
Yes but not in a quarry or landfill with iffy wheelwashes spraying gritty water up inside the braking systems.
muckles:
Socketset:
Ok, so so far we have a very steep hill, a very inexperienced driver and only 25% braking efficiency.It really wasn’t going to end well, was it.
It remains to be seen which, out of the two trucks (presumably both eight wheelers) had the worst brakes.
If the “boss” knew the brakes were worse in the other lorry (which looks quite possible as the he had managed to stop) then shame on him for giving a kid a death trap.
Beyond words, really.
I don’t want to seem ageist but maybe younger guys and gals should be restricted to 7.5t then 18t etc so as to be over twentyfive by the time they get to 44t.
As eager said at the age of nineteen you don’t have enough general driving experience with any vehicle.
Yes its shocking and considering how long it’s taken to come to trial I think we’ll hear a lot more shocking stuff from this.
As for age being a factor, well it sounds similar to the Soweby bridge crash years ago and that driver was 63, so I don’t think there is a need to review the age because of this incident.As Carryfast said how do you get experience if you can’t get behind the wheel? You’re not going to learn it in a car.
You can learn plenty about driving by getting valuable road experience in smaller lighter vehicles that cause less damage if things go wrong. Certainly the blokes in the car would have lived if it had been a runaway Transit van.
cav551:
^^^
Possibly never given delivery address and just told to: “follow me”’ ?
Not likely when working for this “Wiltshire quarry.” The ticket would have it clearly written on it, more likely a case of “let’s have a convoy and talk ■■■■■■■■ on the cb on the way.”
So Mods, why was “Shorncote” censored? 
shep532:
Muckaway:
We certainly don’t have a brake test every inspection, and you shouldn’t need one. A decent driver should be able to tell if his brakes aren’t upto scratch.I’m not sure I agree with the ‘decent driver’ bit. I think if we drive the same vehicle all the time we don’t notice deteriation of performance so much.
However - As long as you pass MOTs and no problems at roadside the lack of brake tests won’t matter. I have customers have failed MOT on brakes, been investigated, no brake tests, sent to TC.
The new guidance came out 2014
If everyone roller brake tests it will likely be without load so just a pointless pass on locks. Several very big blue chips use man with a van fitters for inspections and they just do skid tests in the yard, for brakes. I’m not impressed but it’s not a lot different to a pass on locks roller brake test in reality.
This has always been the glaring flaw in OCRS. Maintenance regimes have suffered really by and unnecessary obsession with MOT first time pass rate which is meaningless as far as the broader maintenance picture. So an operator can have a truck worked on for a week, do a couple of voluntaries, often on the same test lane, and then pass it’s MOT first time, well big whoop.
In the meantime while the workshop is over focused on getting one particular truck through the MOT first time the rest of the fleet suffers.
Own Account Driver:
Does seem like there may not be a bulletproof argument still and the prosecution relying on painting a picture of a cowboy operation who were an accident waiting to happen.The ABS light being on is going to be hard to defend although if, and it’s a big if, the light indicated that ABS only wasn’t operating, and not a wider brake system malfunction that alone should not lead to a runaway.
The points so far seem to be, and how I would view them if I was on the jury.
Speeding Also the possibility he had cooked the brakes, as an inexperienced driver, desperately trying to keep up with his boss.
- ABS light - Probably the biggest issue, I’ve heard about, so far, key factors are going to be how long it had been on for, as a young driver did he know the significance, did his boss tell him to ignore it, was it recorded in driver’s daily checks and was it present at the start of the day or did it develop throughout the day.
However, the driver trying to get the charges thrown out, when he was driving with an ABS light on, was very optimistic and gives the impression of him trying to duck his responsibilty by exploiting his young age.
I’d say any or all of that could be a deal breaker regarding the driver’s responsibility.On that note it’s up to the prosecution to provide the details of the actual relevance of the ABS warning regarding to the vehicle running away.Also was the vehicle’s speed above that expected of a careful and competent driver at the start of and/or during the descent ‘before’ the vehicle ran away.When it seems a convenient coincidence if they are saying it was a case of both.
Together with some serious implications regarding the design of ABS systems if there is any possibility of them not being able to fail safe.IE leave the vehicle without brakes and/or block the driver’s brake inputs.In which case a warning light obviously isn’t going to fix that. 
Is there a possibility that the driver missed a gear going down the hill, he may have not got it back in gear to reduce speed, the accident happened.
Then they found out the maintenance issues.
As he lost control, he then had brake fade.
In all honesty he tried to stop his truck by going in to the wall then it tipped over .
For all three to deny manslaughter, there is still something not right .
Own Account Driver:
I agree, that a small number or posters, on this thread, are off their ■■■■ re younger drivers. They started driving when they were young, and were responsible or they know a 19 year old who’s really responsible doesn’t mean zip.
Are you seriously suggesting that driving a transit or 7.5 tonner at most until the age of 25 will mean zip either if/when that driver is given the keys of a two axle 18 tonner or four axle 32 tonner for the first time.The fact is responsibility and experience are not totally age dependent.While any compromises that might exist in that regard just mean that responsibility and experience is gained sooner rather than later in the case of starting out sooner.
Well I might be sounding a little dense here but surely the ABS light would come on anyway after the wiring was destroyed when the axle was ripped out?
Pete.