strongbowpeter:
should have been 10 years and banned for life
Why? it was an accident, sometimes it happens.
Dieseldog66:
strongbowpeter:
should have been 10 years and banned for lifeWhy? it was an accident, sometimes it happens.
In which case just remove all serious penalties related to such ‘accidents’ and then see what happens. 
It’s all about having a decent level of deterrent in place to stop people being killed on the roads by such examples as driving on hard shoulders or overtaking in the wrong place at the wrong time etc etc etc.If there is a problem it’s probably that the law aren’t making drivers sufficiently aware of the penalties which they face for driving in a criminally dangerous way. 
Carryfast:
Dieseldog66:
strongbowpeter:
should have been 10 years and banned for lifeWhy? it was an accident, sometimes it happens.
In which case just remove all serious penalties related to such ‘accidents’ and then see what happens.
It’s all about having a decent level of deterrent in place to stop people being killed on the roads by such examples as driving on hard shoulders or overtaking in the wrong place at the wrong time etc etc etc.If there is a problem it’s probably that the law aren’t making drivers sufficiently aware of the penalties which they face for driving in a criminally dangerous way.
I’m agreeing with CF here.
crap argument.
having a death penalty for the offence wouldn’t have prevented the accident.
del949:
crap argument.
having a death penalty for the offence wouldn’t have prevented the accident.
Quite true but a good deterrent would perhaps focus minds a little into taking the simplest part of the job, the keep of the lorry between the white lines, a bit more seriously ■■ 
billybigrig:
del949:
crap argument.
having a death penalty for the offence wouldn’t have prevented the accident.Quite true but a good deterrent would perhaps focus minds a little into taking the simplest part of the job, the keep of the lorry between the white lines, a bit more seriously ■■
^ This. 
del949:
crap argument.
having a death penalty for the offence wouldn’t have prevented the accident.
That’s just bonkers but a lifetime ban for failing to move over into lane 2 when there’s something on the hard shoulder might have.
No, it wouldn’t in this case.
The driver claimed a pain in his eye distracted him and no one on here can suggest any different, as they know zilch about the actual facts.
It could happen to anyone with a sudden attack of sneezing etc and no amount of deterrent punishment would alter that.
Look at the number on here who openly admit to speeding on SC’s even though a fatality caused by that could result in a death by dangerous driving charge.
Its easy for some to sit on a keyboard and claim he was fiddling with a phone , sat nav, making a cup of tea etc. especially when they have no knowledge except what you have read in the papers.
In the best run world, sometimes crap happens, and no amount of legislation will alter that.
del949:
No, it wouldn’t in this case.
The driver claimed a pain in his eye distracted him and no one on here can suggest any different, as they know zilch about the actual facts.
It could happen to anyone with a sudden attack of sneezing etc and no amount of deterrent punishment would alter that.
Look at the number on here who openly admit to speeding on SC’s even though a fatality caused by that could result in a death by dangerous driving charge.
Its easy for some to sit on a keyboard and claim he was fiddling with a phone , sat nav, making a cup of tea etc. especially when they have no knowledge except what you have read in the papers.
In the best run world, sometimes crap happens, and no amount of legislation will alter that.
Crap does happen but all to often it happens for a reason.
not always, and on the times it does will increasing the penalty stop it ?
In this instance there was no evidence of gross misbehaviour by the driver, that any threat of penalty would have had any effect on.
How on earth can you legislate for a seconds inattention?
How many of you can honestly put your hands up and claim never to have wandered from the lane?
it looks to me that it was an accident, the sort of thing that could happen to any one of us.
the poor bloke has been sent to jail because a police officer was killed due to standing on the hard shoulder and not paying attention. and before anyone says “how do you know? you wasn’t there”.
if the police officer paid attention to what was going on around him, then he would have got out of the way.
would the driver have got a custodial sentence if he’d ran over another lorry driver? no chance.
del949:
not always, and on the times it does will increasing the penalty stop it ?
In this instance there was no evidence of gross misbehaviour by the driver, that any threat of penalty would have had any effect on.
How on earth can you legislate for a seconds inattention?
How many of you can honestly put your hands up and claim never to have wandered from the lane?
He told Abernethy: “You hadn’t been paying attention to the road for a considerable period of time in driving terms, all the while, trundling along in that enormous truck at 50mph.”
the lorry had travelled down the hard shoulder for up to 10 seconds.
Hardly “a seconds inattention” to be fair though ■■?
del949:
not always, and on the times it does will increasing the penalty stop it ?
In this instance there was no evidence of gross misbehaviour by the driver, that any threat of penalty would have had any effect on.
How on earth can you legislate for a seconds inattention?
How many of you can honestly put your hands up and claim never to have wandered from the lane?
Even going by the excuse of a momentary lapse in concentration for uncontrolled reasons there’s no way that the law can sit by and effectively let people drive on the hard shoulder,wiping someone out in the process,without imposing some strong detrrent to ( try to ) stop them doing it.
In this case,if it’s all about prevention and deterrents and saving lives,then it would be far better to impose strong penalties for being in lane 1 at all while passing something/someone on the hard shoulder.In which case ‘if’ he really did have ‘something in his eye’ or whatever then he just would have just crossed the lane divider with no effect whatsoever instead of crossing the hard shoulder divider just enough to wipe someone out.
It’s my bet in this case that,with that law in place,obviously having removed his defence of split second loss of concentration for medical reasons,he then would have had no answer to what the zb was he doing in lane 1 at all and therefore has to face up to the fact of hands up he’s toast and going to jail.
Unfortunate accident,
On a different note though, maybe it will make police only stop cars on slip roads for tickets etc ?
Or maybe not 
Frankydobo:
Apparantly there is a syndrome where heavy vehicles have struck others parked on the hardshoulder and despite stringent investigations no reason has come forward as to why, all the usual possibilities have been looked into such as tiredness, using phones etc and rejected.Boffins say it could be something like momentary fixation where the driver is drawn towards the stopped vehicle yet his brain is telling him to move into line with this vehicle and follow it, something HGV drivers do more than other drivers is to return to the lane they have been in after overtaking, count how many times you will pass and move back into the lane during a days driving, its conditioned into a lorry driver.
In motorcycling, they call it target fixation, if you look at those chevrons on a sharp bend you will probably hit them. Part of the training is teaching you to look where you want to go and not at an object. Look where you go, or go where you look.
Sad for the kid, sad for the family, even sad for the lorry driver, at the end of that particular day it was a dreadful accident, we don’t know the starting position of the two vehicles, of the policeman or the lady, we only have various newspaper stories to go on. The Jury obviously had something else.
and if CF had his idea put into law, how long would it be before every other thread would be “I was trying to pull into lane 2 to give space to hard shoulder, but couldn’t owing to car drivers and then i got nicked for it”
Incidentally, the powers that be have decided that a large section of the M62 should have no shoulder, so any breakdown etc will be in a live lane.Pulling out there would require moving 2 lanes…when its busy… I would suggest no chance.
if stricter penalties were than answer, how come that now company directors can be charged with corporate manslaughter we still see an increase in maximum hours working, if strict penalties achieved anything you would expect to see less pressure on drivers hours.
There but for the grace of god, as the saying goes, which of us hasn’t been guilty of nodding off at some time, these two poor lads both the driver and the policeman where in the wrong place at the wrong time, Jailing the driver is not going to bring the policeman back.
What is needed is more off road laybyes like on the continent, this would lessen the risk of being broken down on the hard shoulder.
del949:
and if CF had his idea put into law, how long would it be before every other thread would be “I was trying to pull into lane 2 to give space to hard shoulder, but couldn’t owing to car drivers and then i got nicked for it”
The idea is already in law.It’s just a case of widening it to include lane 1 closed do not proceed in it in the event of something being parked on the hard shoulder and increasing the penalty to the point of a liftetime ban for ignoring it.
drivingtesttips.biz/images/m … signal.jpg
Hitting something or someone that’s broken down in a live lane is no different because that’s a case of either moving over in time having seen the obstruction ahead and/or the rule don’t travel at speed at which you can’t pull up in the space you can see to be clear ahead applies in the case of not being able to move over in time.In all cases hitting the obstruction or someone near it isn’t an option.
the sign you post is hardly relevant to the context of where the accident happened.
It has relevance to the issue of the m62 managed section…
However that would still only apply when the signal operators have seen /been told, that there is an incident and have switched the sign on.
it still wouldn’t cover the majority of motorways which are still unmanaged.
There are several sections where it is almost impossible to move out of lane 1 without having to actually force your way out.
but to be honest as I no longer drive trucks i can leave it to those who will be affected by such a change to take it up with you, as it is now Beer’O’Clock 
rocky 7:
There but for the grace of god, as the saying goes, which of us hasn’t been guilty of nodding off at some time, these two poor lads both the driver and the policeman where in the wrong place at the wrong time, Jailing the driver is not going to bring the policeman back.
What is needed is more off road laybyes like on the continent, this would lessen the risk of being broken down on the hard shoulder.
There are often miles of hard shoulder situations which involve the hazards of obstructions or people close to the carriageway between the breakdown telephone refuge laybys on the continent and they’re more about allowing space for people to phone than clearance for people around stopped vehicles.
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.0 … 3,0,18.51
It’s a long way between that one and the next one for example.
The same applies it’s always best to move over and allow a full lane of clearance wherever possible.