Everybody slaughtering the driver on the daily mail…
Own Account Driver:
The operator probably also regrets paying to train and take on young drivers.XFMatt on here, also with plenty of encouragement from on here, took on a young inexperienced driver and he put the wagon on its side could easily have been a similar scenario if a family in a car had been next to it.
Realistically in this case the prosecution had to ‘either’ prove that the vehicle ran away because of bad driving ‘or’ because of defective brakes.It couldn’t possibly have been both.Assuming the latter it then needed to prove that the defects were obvious to the driver if it wanted to continue the line of a defective vehicle in the prosecution of the driver.As I said the driver really should have been discharged at that point with the agreement of the prosecution.While as we’ve seen the operator effectively destroyed his own defence under cross examination regards the alleged defects not to mention the unarguable deficiencies in the maintenance regime and by implication thereby taking the mechanic with him.
But don’t see how either the driver’s age and/or inexperience were relevant regardless.While unless you’re saying that all inexperienced drivers have to undergo significant off road training first how do you intend to deal with the issue of inexperience at any age.When the only way to get experience is by driving the thing hopefully with plenty of good advice by more experienced drivers.In which case advice like you can turn a truck over just as easily with the wrong steering inputs,or by clipping kerbs with the rear wheels,as with the wrong throttle inputs and forget all about the idea of brakes to slow gears to go,are valuable/essential pieces of advice regardless.
eagerbeaver:
I will tell you how Darkbrain, clearly not enough light penetrates your skull.IF a council KNOWINGLY fails to replace a sign that RESTRICTS lgv’s in any way, the driver cannot get prosecuted from using that route because there is NO SIGNAGE to indicate otherwise.
You then get unsuitable vehicles going down unsuitable roads, which the whole point in the first place was to avoid because of safety concerns. Sounds like potential partial blame to me.
If you are still struggling, let me know and I will draw a picture for you with your new crayons that you have for Christmas
If the idea of the restriction in this case was ‘safety’ it would have been danger steep hill 7.5 t not 6’ 6’’ except for ‘access’.
Why do you think there is a restriction on that road then Councillor CF?
eagerbeaver:
Why do you think there is a restriction on that road then Councillor CF?
Obviously not because of the fear of a run away truck or even because vehicles over 6’ 6’’ can’t use it.
SouthEastCashew:
Everybody slaughtering the driver on the daily mail…
Surprising 
as it’s widely accepted that many of those who contribute to the Daily Mail comments have such balanced and rational opinions and great expertise in many subjects especially road transport. 
So in other words CF, YOU DON’T KNOW.
AT LAST WE HAVE IT. Something that CF doesn’t know folks…
muckles:
SouthEastCashew:
Everybody slaughtering the driver on the daily mail…Surprising
Hmm baffles me the majority of them have probably never set foot in a cab so wouldn’t have a clue really… what was the poor driver suppose to do carry a spanners skateboard and examine all the axle & under carriage etc…?!
muckles:
SouthEastCashew:
Everybody slaughtering the driver on the daily mail…Surprising
In an ideal world we’d have Unite calling for strikes and East Euro drivers parking up in solidarity with him on the grounds that drivers here are being seen as not worthy of the accepted norms of justice in which being cleared by a jury means innocent. 
Carryfast:
eagerbeaver:
I will tell you how Darkbrain, clearly not enough light penetrates your skull.IF a council KNOWINGLY fails to replace a sign that RESTRICTS lgv’s in any way, the driver cannot get prosecuted from using that route because there is NO SIGNAGE to indicate otherwise.
You then get unsuitable vehicles going down unsuitable roads, which the whole point in the first place was to avoid because of safety concerns. Sounds like potential partial blame to me.
If you are still struggling, let me know and I will draw a picture for you with your new crayons that you have for Christmas
If the idea of the restriction in this case was ‘safety’ it would have been danger steep hill 7.5 t not 6’ 6’’ except for ‘access’.
+1
Thanks for the name calling and all that Eagerbeaver. Is it not possible to answer a question without being childish?
All the presence of signs would have done would have allowed the driver to be prosecuted for ignoring them.
Apart from the standard rolling brake test at the start of a shift, or any obvious problems with initially driving a truck that should be reported and vehicle not being used, I don’t know what else the driver could have done regarding the braking side of things.
I reckon the driver will struggle to get future driving work. The Titanics’ surviving officers went on to successful careers but none became Captains, mud sticks.
Wrong Darkbrain I am afraid. The fact that the sign was not present would mean that a driver KNOWS he/she can use a road that they are not supposed to without any action taken against them.
If the sign was present, then the driver KNOWS that they are pushing their luck, and in an age of mobile phones with camera’s (especially as it’s next to a school) there may well have been a chance that the boss would NOT have shown the young lad this route as it would not have gone well for a new ‘O’ licence holder.
And there may well be people alive today that sadly are not. I suspect that a Scania tipper is wider than 6’ 6".
Happy now? Or are you going to carry on making an invalid point just to argue like your new best mate Carguefast?
No mate you’re missing the point. What are we saying Fire engines and Dust carts can’t go there? I think you are over thinking this. The fault is with the truck not the Council, and the verdict seems to point to this.
You are right mate. You can’t educate pork.
Cheerio.
Just desserts, its right the Operator and mechanic were jailed, both in it together to cut corners and save money. As for the driver he was just a ■■■■ in all of this, being taken on as a young inexperienced driver probably on min wage being given a defective truck to drive and in all likelyhood wouldnt have had a clue whether the brakes were working as they should or not. It will stay with him for life and a jury absolving him was only just and right…
AndrewG:
Just desserts, its right the Operator and mechanic were jailed, both in it together to cut corners and save money. As for the driver he was just a ■■■■ in all of this, being taken on as a young inexperienced driver probably on min wage being given a defective truck to drive and in all likelyhood wouldnt have had a clue whether the brakes were working as they should or not. It will stay with him for life and a jury absolving him was only just and right…
+1 ^^^
I’ve been following this thread with interest. Thank you all, especially Own Account Driver, for posting all the details, along with your own sensible comments and opinions…
I do feel sorry for Potter. I was actually hoping he would be shown some leniency because he was clearly put in a difficult position by his boss. I’m sure there are lots of us with experiences of bosses just like that but not all of us have/had the confidence to stand up to them. My first boss was a little like that but I learnt very fast, from some of the old hands on the firm, and he didn’t try it on at all after I started standing up for myself. He won’t want to return to driving lorries, I’m sure - he will be reliving those moments every day for a lot of years to come…
There certainly aren’t any winners here, nor any real justice. Not only the victims, God rest them, but their families too, friends and colleagues, Potter and his family - so many lives have been destroyed and for what? It is so very sad and all of it completely needless…
RIP to the victims. I hope all the innocent parties can now find some closure…
Muckaway:
I reckon the driver will struggle to get future driving work. The Titanics’ surviving officers went on to successful careers but none became Captains, mud sticks.
I doubt he’ll want to step foot in a lorry again let alone drive one.
The width restriction signs were all replaced within a week of the accident, plus the council installed chicanes half way down the hill to force people to use their brakes down there.
This is the sign the lorries passed turning off the main road leading to the crash sight. Apart from the weight limit the only other road is the width limit which is six foot now I beleive. Does the not suitable for heavy vehicles sign indicate that you should not pass this sign at . You should not with a heavy as there is nowhere to go with a heavy. It is not very clear is it.
