kr79:
Carryfast your going down a cul de sac on abs if it has a problem it will be disable abs nothing else.
Just as an aside as I’ve not seen it mentioned remember if it run away you can go down gears but the range change won’t drop down to low unless it’s under a certain speed.
Let’s just say I wouldn’t want to send someone down for a truck crash caused by alleged brake inbalance without getting a clear answer to the questions I raised.Bearing in mind the details given.Which seems irrelevant assuming DVSA have backed down regarding the issue of the ABS warning being relevant anyway.
As for the idea of trying to put something into the right gear when it’s already run away the question is why wasn’t it in the right gear to start with before it ran away and what gear was it in before and when it did.
Ironically American information at least rightly stating the importance of advanced warning in that regard at the start.I’m not sure of the warnings in this case but I do know that the old Reigate Hill is a potential death trap in that regard for any unfamiliar driver going off the M25 into Reigate or from Kingswood for one example with no advanced warnings at all.
Edit to add the warning is clearly there in this case on google maps and I make it twice as steep as the run into Dewsbury.
Still no news on the actual gear it was in though.
PC Allan Kyne has been called back to the witness box.
Mr Vaitilingam is asking him questions.
PC Kyne said he wrote a report with four other experts, including Gary Ford, Darren Walsh, David Price and Robert Hawthorn.
He read from the report, which said Potter and Gordon drove in the same manner on their way to Bath, both reaching a top speed of 56mph.
“It is agreed any incidences of excess speed prior to joining Lansdown Road would not have had any effect on the subsequent collision,” he said.
Braking from a speed of 56mph to zero would generate “more heat” in the braking system than braking from 40mph, but there is no criticism of the way Potter braked on the approach to Lansdown Lane, he said.
The 300m from the start of Lansdown Lane to the top of the hill was not enough to allow “any significant cooling” to happen in the braking system, he said.
Own Account Driver:
Still no news on the actual gear it was in though.
PC Allan Kyne has been called back to the witness box.
Mr Vaitilingam is asking him questions.
PC Kyne said he wrote a report with four other experts, including Gary Ford, Darren Walsh, David Price and Robert Hawthorn.
He read from the report, which said Potter and Gordon drove in the same manner on their way to Bath, both reaching a top speed of 56mph.
“It is agreed any incidences of excess speed prior to joining Lansdown Road would not have had any effect on the subsequent collision,” he said.
Braking from a speed of 56mph to zero would generate “more heat” in the braking system than braking from 40mph, but there is no criticism of the way Potter braked on the approach to Lansdown Lane, he said.
The 300m from the start of Lansdown Lane to the top of the hill was not enough to allow “any significant cooling” to happen in the braking system, he said.
The 300 m from the junction to the top of the hill was not enough to allow any significant cooling of the brakes ?.
The previous evidence states that Gordon slowed for the junction in stages ( sequential downshifts using engine braking ? ) from a similar speed.While Potter braked from 43 mph,not 56 mph,to 4 mph in one move ( block change downshift brakes to slow gears to go ? ).IE hotter brakes at the start of the hill.Which leaves the question how do they explain Potter decelerating from 25 mph to 20 mph on Landsdown Lane and as you say what gear was the thing in.Bearing in mind the advanced warning of a 20% downgrade and even correct use of gears alone won’t hold a truck,with less heat capacity remaining in its brakes than that required,at least on a grade of that severity.
I think he’s almost certainly going to be found guilty of some charges. He does have some liability but I would have been happier if the crash investigation was of a better standard and proved unequivocally poor maintenance caused it.
I think he’s almost certainly going to be found guilty of some charges. He does have some liability but I would have been happier if the crash investigation was of a better standard and proved unequivocally poor maintenance caused it.
Blimey going by that it looks like he and/or his defence has accepted that it was a runaway caused by defective brakes and resulting brake inbalance which he was ultimately responsible for ?.The transport manager issue seems a bit inaccurate in that it’s the TM’s responsibility to ensure that the brakes are maintained properly not to actually do the maintaining itself.While it’s the Operator’s responsibility to ensure that he has a qualified TM to ensure that the maintenance is correctly carried out.In which case I’d agree he is probably toast and rightly so and should be made an example of accordingly.
Which leaves the question would the seemingly now accepted defective brakes in question have been obvious to the driver before the vehicle ran away ?.
I think he’s almost certainly going to be found guilty of some charges. He does have some liability but I would have been happier if the crash investigation was of a better standard and proved unequivocally poor maintenance caused it.
Blimey going by that it looks like he and/or his defence has accepted that it was a runaway caused by defective brakes and resulting brake inbalance which he was ultimately responsible for ?.The transport manager issue seems a bit inaccurate in that it’s the TM’s responsibility to ensure that the brakes are maintained properly not to actually do the maintaining itself.While it’s the Operator’s responsibility to ensure that he has a qualified TM to ensure that the maintenance is correctly carried out.In which case I’d agree he is probably toast and rightly so and should be made an example of accordingly.
Which leaves the question would the seemingly now accepted defective brakes in question have been obvious to the driver before the vehicle ran away ?.
Not really, he’s just got cornered under cross examination. Yes, I’m not sure what’s being talked about regarding the TM and brake maintenance it may be not reported accurately.
I think he’s almost certainly going to be found guilty of some charges. He does have some liability but I would have been happier if the crash investigation was of a better standard and proved unequivocally poor maintenance caused it.
Am I correct in understanding they spent the night after the crash sorting out the other trucks, before VOSA turned up?
I think he’s almost certainly going to be found guilty of some charges. He does have some liability but I would have been happier if the crash investigation was of a better standard and proved unequivocally poor maintenance caused it.
Am I correct in understanding they spent the night after the crash sorting out the other trucks, before VOSA turned up?
It’s what the prosecution are implying based on a labour invoice from the mechanic for 11 hours they found, dating to around the time, as far as I can gather. There doesn’t seem to be concrete evidence that is what it is for and to be honest without very good parts availability you would struggle to get 5 trucks from a bad state to a good state overnight. Not sure if I buy it or not, they may have had a once over but given there was a possibility VOSA could have swooped that night it would seem very risky getting caught working on the vehicles in the aftermath of the crash.
I have always been troubled though, right from the start of the trial, that the operator did not identify himself as the lad’s boss at the scene. Hard to say if he was panicking because he knew about the ABS fault and the poor state of the paperwork or if he knew about more serious issues.
I’m not surprised the prosecution would go that route as the condition VOSA found the other trucks in is one of the weakest links in the prosecution’s cowboy operator narrative.
dave docwra:
Looking at the pictures of the auto brake adjuster mechanisms, I would say they deserve everything that is going to be thrown at them…
It isn’t outside the realms of possibilty it occurred between inspections. I would never personally weld one and would replace if the bracket was fractured. There was mention of no greasing which wouldn’t help.
I think he’s almost certainly going to be found guilty of some charges. He does have some liability but I would have been happier if the crash investigation was of a better standard and proved unequivocally poor maintenance caused it.
Blimey going by that it looks like he and/or his defence has accepted that it was a runaway caused by defective brakes and resulting brake inbalance which he was ultimately responsible for ?.
Not really, he’s just got cornered under cross examination.
Personally I’d say catastrophically so from the point of view of the defence case.
Which I’d have expected to have gone along the lines of an adjournment called by the defence,on the grounds that it objects to the line of questioning,because it doesn’t accept that the admitted defects were of any relevance to the vehicle running away.
As opposed to what seems to me like what is effectively an admission of guilt in which case a change in plea to suit,to bring closure for the victims and maybe avoid what ( should be ) multiple sentences to run consecutively,to that of reduced to concurrently seems in order to me.Also bearing in mind the implied circumstances,by the prosecution,of the avoidance of checks on the other vehicles.Which ‘could’ possibly be viewed as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.Without that change in plea and on the basis of seeming to have damned himself in answer to the prosecution’s case against him,and ‘if’ as a result it goes the way it seems to be possibly going,I’d say then it maybe in the interests of justice if the judge then chucks the book at him in the form of sentenced to multiple counts to be served consecutively.
dave docwra:
Looking at the pictures of the auto brake adjuster mechanisms, I would say they deserve everything that is going to be thrown at them…
It isn’t outside the realms of possibilty it occurred between inspections. I would never personally weld one and would replace if the bracket was fractured. There was mention of no greasing which wouldn’t help.
I do not believe that happened over a safety inspection period…
I went to start our 8w this morning after it’d been stood since Friday and the red EBS light came on and refused to go out. I did run it up and down the yard at 10-20mph and the light wouldn’t go out so I wrote the fault on the defect note, put VOR on the sheet also and locked the truck up. Not difficult to do is it? I am lucky in that my boss sided with me, in light of the Bath incident.
All the evidence has now been presented. Yesterday the prosecution were trying to insinuate that the only way to assess wear correctly in a vehicle’s brake camshaft bearings is with the use of a dial test indicator. Absolute rubbish. Wiggy trying to impress the jury by referring to what no doubt sounded like a vital piece of test equipment used by every other person doing preventive maintenance inspections.
cav551:
All the evidence has now been presented. Yesterday the prosecution were trying to insinuate that the only way to assess wear correctly in a vehicle’s brake camshaft bearings is with the use of a dial test indicator. Absolute rubbish. Wiggy trying to impress the jury by referring to what no doubt sounded like a vital piece of test equipment used by every other person doing preventive maintenance inspections.
Regardless of all the strange inconsistencies in the prosecution case ( I didn’t even realise that it had stood by its case of the runaway,being caused by defective brakes resulting in inbalance and domino type fade,after the shambles of Ford’s presentation,until oao posted the recent cross examination and seeming ‘admission’ in that regard for example ).The fact is the defence seemed to show no robust opposition to any of that in the form of clearly saying that it doesn’t accept that the vehicle ran away owing to any of the alleged defects.While it would obviously also have made your type of view there clear to the jury.
Realistically it’s probably now just a question of was the driver implicated by the definitons required to show that he knowingly drove a defective vehicle.With possible grounds for appeal in that regard if they convict him based on the ABS warning and or 6’6’’ restriction.
Don’t see how they can convict him for the width restriction considering the signs were knocked over at the top of the hill. The council knew they were too.
cav551:
All the evidence has now been presented. Yesterday the prosecution were trying to insinuate that the only way to assess wear correctly in a vehicle’s brake camshaft bearings is with the use of a dial test indicator. Absolute rubbish. Wiggy trying to impress the jury by referring to what no doubt sounded like a vital piece of test equipment used by every other person doing preventive maintenance inspections.
That’s a joke isn’t it? On some trucks with nylon bushes the DTI would have ‘shown wear’ even with new bushes and shafts! Clutching at straws, or trying out the old system of ■■■■■■■■ baffles brains methinks!
