I can’t help think that inexperience is as much at play here as the poor brakes. Approaching ANY significant downhill section in a vehicle, regardless of whether it is a truck or a car, naturally has you aware of the consequences of descending too fast.
There are many signs littered around the country telling you to select a low gear etc, but to an experienced driver its natural and common sense.
It’s impossible for a 19 year old lad to have the required level of driving experience, roadcraft, and maturity to safely pilot a 32 tonne tipper around the gaff. Add to that the dubious pay structure with these tipper firms, and you end up unfortunately with a recipe for trouble.
Muckaway:
Agree with what Kr79 said, another tinpot tipper firm happy to run rejects from Truck Trader, hauling for much bigger firms for much smaller rates. Just the same around here, firms buy bargain bin clapped out tippers, stick a few silly lights and badges on, open up a facebook page and away they go…On £400/ day rates.
Except they found no safety critical defects on the other five trucks on a surprise yard visit the next day, not even a tyre defect. I would also presume they were green light on OCRS or I would have thought it would have been mentioned by the prosecution otherwise.
Just had a quick read through the paper reports and it certainly sounds as if the defence council has made pulled apart a lot of what the dvsa examanier has said.
I was involved in a court case with vosa about 10 years s ago and there was that many mistakes in the vosa case it was thrown out of court by the judge.
From experience of the tipper industry I think there is a fair chance poor maintenance has to be at least partly to blame but at the end of the day there are no winners whatever way this case goes.
The tc will hound the owner or any linked associated people out of the industry if they are found not guilty the driver has to live with it and the victims family’s have lost there loved ones.
A sad tale all round
kr79:
Carryfast I think you are getting carried away. The truck was a 4 series Scania which if I remember correctly had drums all round and a more basic abs system than current models with ebs etc.
There’s no way a abs fault caused the brakes to fail like they are alleged to have.
Anyone who has any experience of driving tippers or any kind of trucks in and out of quarry’s and landfill sites will have had an abs fault and earning light come on.
99% of the time it’s either a wheel sensor pulled off or damaged by debris it’s picked up or water ingress from m going through a wheel wash or having wheels steam cleaned.
It certainly doesn’t stop brakes working.
Firstly it has to effectively ‘stop the brakes from working’ by releasing them against a driver’s brake input,to actually work. So exactly what’s stopping it from doing that in the case of an ECU or sensor fault ?.While if not then there was no need for the prosecution to use an ABS warning as evidence of dangerous driving in the case of ignoring it and continuing a journey.
There was no need to mention the abs fault if it was just a dodgy sensor but like mentioning the unsealed tachometer it sounds good to paint a certain picture to a jury who the law of averages would suggest would know sod all about hgv brakes
eagerbeaver:
I can’t help think that inexperience is as much at play here as the poor brakes. Approaching ANY significant downhill section in a vehicle, regardless of whether it is a truck or a car, naturally has you aware of the consequences of descending too fast.
There are many signs littered around the country telling you to select a low gear etc, but to an experienced driver its natural and common sense.
It’s impossible for a 19 year old lad to have the required level of driving experience, roadcraft, and maturity to safely pilot a 32 tonne tipper around the gaff. Add to that the dubious pay structure with these tipper firms, and you end up unfortunately with a recipe for trouble.
The first day/week/month/year etc of driving a truck is the same whether a driver is 19,21 or 25 or 30 +.With,as I said,the 4 wheeler 18 tonner being the most brake capacity critical design.While the only way to get experience is by driving from a point of having no experience.As for the importance of the instinctive use of engine braking as I said that should be learn’t before driving anything and has nothing to do with ‘experience’ and everything to do with the driver training regime.Ironically that regime doing exactly the opposite in stamping out such instinctive driving on the mantra of gears to go brakes to slow usually manifested in the idea of block change downshifts at least.
kr79:
There was no need to mention the abs fault if it was just a dodgy sensor but like mentioning the unsealed tachometer it sounds good to paint a certain picture to a jury who the law of averages would suggest would know sod all about hgv brakes
Assuming that ABS can only fail safe there was no need to mention it at all in the case of a truck runaway.Bearing in mind the DVSA’s own advice to drivers to continue a journey in the case of an ABS warning.
At which point any decent defence would be expected to point out that contradiction in the prosecution’s case.
[/quote]
Firstly it has to effectively ‘stop the brakes from working’ by releasing them against a driver’s brake input,to actually work. So exactly what’s stopping it from doing that in the case of an ECU or sensor fault ?.While if not then there was no need for the prosecution to use an ABS warning as evidence of dangerous driving in the case of ignoring it and continuing a journey.
[/quote]
ABS doe’s not stop the brakes from working totaly, it releases air from the locked wheel circuit through an electricly operated solenoid valve & also the reduces air pressure to the opposite wheel if required to allow the vehicle to carry on stopping in a straight line,this is all done in milliseconds, If the ABS light is displayed this will then trigger the ABS system to shut down & at this point the braking system is fully back under the control of the driver with no braking force loss. This is on vehicles fitted with wheel sensors rather then the old Maxamed systems working off propshafts.
From reading the paper reports it sounds like the defence legal eagle is picking holes but it doesn’t mean the other side won’t say it as they hope it will stick in people’s minds.
Any prosecution council will use such a tactic wether you are up for shop lifting or murder hoping mud sticks.
cav551:
If the fitter is cute when it comes for him to give evidence he will be mentioning the old common practice of dealing with a lorry which just fails to make the required brake readings but which is known to be OK . Take the lorry for a blast up the road and give the brakes a caning. Come back in with the linings not far off smoking and hey presto a dramatic improvement. A fairly normal problem for vehicles which very rarely carry their plated weight. That should get the jury wondering.
What we did before every MOT date, chuck 15 tonnes on an eight legger and launch it down some local hills to get the buggers almost on fire and then when they cooled down and were readjusted they would stop you dead. Burns all the crap off of them that had accumulated over the past months and also the ■■■■ that the steam cleaner had washed into the drums.
Not looking good for any of those involved though, the prosecution will explore every possible avenue to make an example of the company it seems, and faced with hard facts they don’t appear to have much in the way of a defense against the allegations. If, as Muckaway says, the truck could be earning £400+ a day then there should have been funds to keep it pretty well up to scratch maintenance wise, we managed it ok earning half that amount.
Firstly it has to effectively ‘stop the brakes from working’ by releasing them against a driver’s brake input,to actually work. So exactly what’s stopping it from doing that in the case of an ECU or sensor fault ?.While if not then there was no need for the prosecution to use an ABS warning as evidence of dangerous driving in the case of ignoring it and continuing a journey.
[/quote]
ABS doe’s not stop the brakes from working totaly, it releases air from the locked wheel circuit through an electricly operated solenoid valve & also the reduces air pressure to the opposite wheel if required to allow the vehicle to carry on stopping in a straight line,this is all done in milliseconds, If the ABS light is displayed this will then trigger the ABS system to shut down & at this point the braking system is fully back under the control of the driver with no braking force loss.
[/quote]
If it releases air pressure at the actuator that by definition means that brake is no longer working regardless of the nature of that release time in the case of a working ABS system.The question then being what is the guarantee that the system always shuts down in the case of a malfunction.As opposed to a corrupted control system just releasing brake pressure randomly and on an uncontrolled basis.Bearing in mind previous reports of intermittent ABS issues and runaway scenario/s which cleared itself/themselves.
While at best leaving the question if it can only fail safe then it has no business being introduced by the prosecution as evidence regarding a truck runaway.
kr79:
From reading the paper reports it sounds like the defence legal eagle is picking holes but it doesn’t mean the other side won’t say it as they hope it will stick in people’s minds.
Any prosecution council will use such a tactic wether you are up for shop lifting or murder hoping mud sticks.
They can use such tactics.But it obviously then leaves the case open to appeal on the grounds of the jury being misled by prejudicial,irrelevant or just incorrect evidence.In this case bearing in mind the circumstances we’d expect to see the prosecution and the defence united in getting unquestionable justice for everyone including the victims.With a reminder to the jury that the prosecution’s burden of proof is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.In which case by now we’d expect to have at least seen physical evidence consistent with brake inbalance causing catastrophic heating to the remaining working brakes ( more than 250 C on those brakes ? ).Together with unarguable evidence regarding the vehicle’s pre accident braking performance being consistent with a 34% braking efficiency which would hopefully be expected to be contained in the tacho trace.
Firstly it has to effectively ‘stop the brakes from working’ by releasing them against a driver’s brake input,to actually work. So exactly what’s stopping it from doing that in the case of an ECU or sensor fault ?.While if not then there was no need for the prosecution to use an ABS warning as evidence of dangerous driving in the case of ignoring it and continuing a journey.
[/quote]
ABS doe’s not stop the brakes from working totaly, it releases air from the locked wheel circuit through an electricly operated solenoid valve & also the reduces air pressure to the opposite wheel if required to allow the vehicle to carry on stopping in a straight line,this is all done in milliseconds, If the ABS light is displayed this will then trigger the ABS system to shut down & at this point the braking system is fully back under the control of the driver with no braking force loss. This is on vehicles fitted with wheel sensors rather then the old Maxamed systems working off propshafts.
[/quote]
Read it again CF. FFS, it’s been explained I don’t know how many times, yet still you argue with it. Failed ABS does not render brakes ineffective. It simply means that if it’s failed and you give the pedal a good stomping, you’re liable to lock a wheel or wheels up and it/they won’t go round any more until you lessen the pressure or it/they hit a surface with more grip. It’s a modern, much faster and more efficient method of cadence braking.
Firstly it has to effectively ‘stop the brakes from working’ by releasing them against a driver’s brake input,to actually work. So exactly what’s stopping it from doing that in the case of an ECU or sensor fault ?.While if not then there was no need for the prosecution to use an ABS warning as evidence of dangerous driving in the case of ignoring it and continuing a journey.
ABS doe’s not stop the brakes from working totaly, it releases air from the locked wheel circuit through an electricly operated solenoid valve & also the reduces air pressure to the opposite wheel if required to allow the vehicle to carry on stopping in a straight line,this is all done in milliseconds, If the ABS light is displayed this will then trigger the ABS system to shut down & at this point the braking system is fully back under the control of the driver with no braking force loss. This is on vehicles fitted with wheel sensors rather then the old Maxamed systems working off propshafts.
[/quote]
Read it again CF. FFS, it’s been explained I don’t know how many times, yet still you argue with it. Failed ABS does not render brakes ineffective. It simply means that if it’s failed and you give the pedal a good stomping, you’re liable to lock a wheel or wheels up and it/they won’t go round any more until you lessen the pressure or it/they hit a surface with more grip. It’s a modern, much faster and more efficient method of cadence braking.
[/quote]
I know it’s a very fast acting electronically controlled cadence braking control system.
To my knowledge no one has ever asked the question ‘is it possible’ for ABS not to fail safe.Or for that matter exactly what is the safeguard built into the system that stops a possibly corrupted ABS control signal from causing the system to just remove the brake input from an actuator/s instead of it applying an on/off cadence input ? .IE stuck on a signal for off with no signal for back on in just the same way that the fuel pump latching can intermittently fail to come back on,on a fuel injection ECU,shutting the engine down.Or a crankshaft position sensor and/or associated ECU circuitry fault can cause a misfire or total loss of ignition.On that note how does supposedly mechanically defective brakes create intermittent random brake failure.Also bearing in mind that the intermittent failure in question seems to be connected with repeated ABS warnings.IE check out the horse and rider incident and the problem then being cleared.Or the MOT example of failing then being taken back and passing with no detailed reasons for the failures or the itemised actions taken to rectify them.To the point of previous driver/s saying they are ‘frightened’ of ‘that’ ‘specific’ truck.
kr79:
From reading the paper reports it sounds like the defence legal eagle is picking holes but it doesn’t mean the other side won’t say it as they hope it will stick in people’s minds.
Any prosecution council will use such a tactic wether you are up for shop lifting or murder hoping mud sticks.
Problem is if they get the witness back-pedalling, caught exaggerating or just getting prickly/defensive too many times the jury just views them as an unreliable witness. It doesn’t matter if they have one very valid point if the barrister causes them to lose credibility, in the eyes of the jury, pretty much all their testimony becomes worthless.
My heart sank with the quality of the investigation when it pretty much started with the statement ‘the brake temperatures were measured four hours after the crash’.
Firstly it has to effectively ‘stop the brakes from working’ by releasing them against a driver’s brake input,to actually work. So exactly what’s stopping it from doing that in the case of an ECU or sensor fault ?.While if not then there was no need for the prosecution to use an ABS warning as evidence of dangerous driving in the case of ignoring it and continuing a journey.
ABS doe’s not stop the brakes from working totaly, it releases air from the locked wheel circuit through an electricly operated solenoid valve & also the reduces air pressure to the opposite wheel if required to allow the vehicle to carry on stopping in a straight line,this is all done in milliseconds, If the ABS light is displayed this will then trigger the ABS system to shut down & at this point the braking system is fully back under the control of the driver with no braking force loss. This is on vehicles fitted with wheel sensors rather then the old Maxamed systems working off propshafts
Read it again CF. FFS, it’s been explained I don’t know how many times, yet still you argue with it. Failed ABS does not render brakes ineffective. It simply means that if it’s failed and you give the pedal a good stomping, you’re liable to lock a wheel or wheels up and it/they won’t go round any more until you lessen the pressure or it/they hit a surface with more grip. It’s a modern, much faster and more efficient method of cadence braking.
I know it’s a very fast acting electronically controlled cadence braking control system.
To my knowledge no one has ever asked the question ‘is it possible’ for ABS not to fail safe.Or for that matter exactly what is the safeguard built into the system that stops a possibly corrupted ABS control signal from causing the system to just remove the brake input from an actuator/s instead of it applying an on/off cadence input ? .IE stuck on a signal for off with no signal for back on in just the same way that the fuel pump latching can intermittently fail to come back on,on a fuel injection ECU,shutting the engine down.Or a crankshaft position sensor and/or associated ECU circuitry fault can cause a misfire or total loss of ignition.On that note how does supposedly mechanically defective brakes create intermittent random brake failure.Also bearing in mind that the intermittent failure in question seems to be connected with repeated ABS warnings.IE check out the horse and rider incident and the problem then being cleared.Or the MOT example of failing then being taken back and passing with no detailed reasons for the failures or the itemised actions taken to rectify them.To the point of previous driver/s saying they are ‘frightened’ of ‘that’ ‘specific’ truck.
I can’t decide if the brake failure witness evidence is reliable. One was a new young licence holder drama queen, of the variety we regularly get starting threads on here about non-issues, who had no credibility as clearly was inexperienced with trucks and came across like an aggrieved former employee relishing sticking the boot in just a bit too much. The other instance I worry was cooked up by the operator and the witness to add an element of uncertainty.
Own Account Driver:
My heart sank with the quality of the investigation when it pretty much started with the statement ‘the brake temperatures were measured four hours after the crash’.
If you think that’s an issue try comparing Ford’s stated brake temperature observations with the real world.IE he says smoke appears at far lower temps than it should while 250 C also doesn’t seem to be consistent with the hottest temps regarding a few working brakes cooked to that point of destruction.When 250 C would be that expected of withstandable brake temperatures in severe conditions within a balanced braking system.Actually being the recommended type max temperatures for safe passage of typical US passes.Scroll to safe speed research near the end.
What we really need to know is what gear the vehicle was in on the hill and an accurate description of its brake temperatures bearing in mind that the figures given so far don’t seem to add up.In addition to its braking performance taken from tacho evidence before the crash.
cav551:
If the fitter is cute when it comes for him to give evidence he will be mentioning the old common practice of dealing with a lorry which just fails to make the required brake readings but which is known to be OK . Take the lorry for a blast up the road and give the brakes a caning. Come back in with the linings not far off smoking and hey presto a dramatic improvement. A fairly normal problem for vehicles which very rarely carry their plated weight. That should get the jury wondering.
What we did before every MOT date, chuck 15 tonnes on an eight legger and launch it down some local hills to get the buggers almost on fire and then when they cooled down and were readjusted they would stop you dead. Burns all the crap off of them that had accumulated over the past months and also the [zb] that the steam cleaner had washed into the drums.
Not looking good for any of those involved though, the prosecution will explore every possible avenue to make an example of the company it seems, and faced with hard facts they don’t appear to have much in the way of a defense against the allegations. If, as Muckaway says, the truck could be earning £400+ a day then there should have been funds to keep it pretty well up to scratch maintenance wise, we managed it ok earning half that amount.
Pete.
400 a day is rock bottom rates for an 8 wheeler round here and you will be running on a shoe string to keep going working at that rate for any period of time but many do.
130 a day wages
120 a day fuel
120 for lorry costs
Leaves 40 quid a day for profit and any emergency fund
That’s what one of my best mates told me are the rough costs and he runs 8 of his own and does most of his own fitting work.
kr79:
From reading the paper reports it sounds like the defence legal eagle is picking holes but it doesn’t mean the other side won’t say it as they hope it will stick in people’s minds.
Any prosecution council will use such a tactic wether you are up for shop lifting or murder hoping mud sticks.
Problem is if they get the witness back-pedalling, caught exaggerating or just getting prickly/defensive too many times the jury just views them as an unreliable witness. It doesn’t matter if they have one very valid point if the barrister causes them to lose credibility, in the eyes of the jury, pretty much all their testimony becomes worthless.
My heart sank with the quality of the investigation when it pretty much started with the statement ‘the brake temperatures were measured four hours after the crash’.
Agreed it does sound as they are out of there depth.
To used of giving evidence to the traffic commissioner who is on there side as judge jury and executioner
kr79:
From reading the paper reports it sounds like the defence legal eagle is picking holes but it doesn’t mean the other side won’t say it as they hope it will stick in people’s minds.
Any prosecution council will use such a tactic wether you are up for shop lifting or murder hoping mud sticks.
They can use such tactics.But it obviously then leaves the case open to appeal on the grounds of the jury being misled by prejudicial,irrelevant or just incorrect evidence.In this case bearing in mind the circumstances we’d expect to see the prosecution and the defence united in getting unquestionable justice for everyone including the victims.With a reminder to the jury that the prosecution’s burden of proof is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.In which case by now we’d expect to have at least seen physical evidence consistent with brake inbalance causing catastrophic heating to the remaining working brakes ( more than 250 C on those brakes ? ).Together with unarguable evidence regarding the vehicle’s pre accident braking performance being consistent with a 34% braking efficiency which would hopefully be expected to be contained in the tacho trace.
In that case everyone in prison should appeal as mud slinging is what barristers do.
I haven’t read everything reported as I’m loosening the will to live.
Had he in panic rammed it in to a lower gear or reverse to slow that quick or hit something that slowed it down
It seems to me that the prosecution has been using sensationalism, half of the stuff they brought up as contributory factors would have had little effect on the cause of the crash.
4hrs to take brake temperatures and half of the wheels up in the air allowing them to cool faster, a slack adjuster 3mm out of whack, which is no big deal and possibly caused by the lorry crashing anyway.
From what I’ve seen up to now, my conclusion would be that the young lad was driving like young lads do and ran out of talent and brakes at the same time, the condition of the lorry was borderline and the firm had cut a few corners.
Death by dangerous driving, nothing more, nothing less.
So exactly what’s stopping it from doing that in the case of an ECU or sensor fault ?.While if not then there was no need for the prosecution to use an ABS warning as evidence of dangerous driving in the case of ignoring it and continuing a journey.