Harry Monk:
What I suspect is that the chief cause of the accident was a drunken eastern European who stopped in lane 1 of the motorway for a snooze, and a sleep-deprived Indian who had had less than three hours rest before setting out to take a minibus full of passengers on a long journey, but that the authorities feel that it would be in the interests of “diversity” to rope in the innocent British national who got caught up in the mess.
Could you post more complete ■■■■■■■■. 
del trotter:
Harry Monk:
What I suspect is that the chief cause of the accident was a drunken eastern European who stopped in lane 1 of the motorway for a snooze, and a sleep-deprived Indian who had had less than three hours rest before setting out to take a minibus full of passengers on a long journey, but that the authorities feel that it would be in the interests of “diversity” to rope in the innocent British national who got caught up in the mess.Could you post more complete ■■■■■■■■.
-1
i think he is quite right and accurate,with a flair of posting for you to read between the lines as your not allowed to write things the way you would like to in here.
Juddian:
Has anyone seen a pic of the rear of the AIM logistics trailer?I’m wondering if its fairly new trailer and the old style Long Vehicle reflective plates were not fitted and instead had that silly little red (pointless) reflective strip round the back doors.
Christ, you really do hate every last thing about the modern world don’t you? Even down to reflective tape. The tape is way more effective than long vehicle plates in the dark, for one thing it indicates the full size of the vehicle
Is there any reasonable explanations that could cause a lorry to suddenly come to a halt on a live lane? (no chance getting onto hard shoulder)
if the engine completely locked up would it come out of gear in an auto ? if not it would stop pretty quick. (Not sure if modern engines fail in this way but Many years ago I had an engine completely seize but you could dip the clutch and knock it out of gear back then)
Harry Monk:
What I suspect is that the chief cause of the accident was a drunken eastern European who stopped in lane 1 of the motorway for a snooze, and a sleep-deprived Indian who had had less than three hours rest before setting out to take a minibus full of passengers on a long journey, but that the authorities feel that it would be in the interests of “diversity” to rope in the innocent British national who got caught up in the mess.
31 year old eastern european with 55mg in blood stream (3 to 4 pints ?) - I wouldn’t of thought he would have been that drunk. Clearly he shouldn’t have been driving but would he have been so drunk to do something so bizarre as to stop in a live lane for a sleep ?
I have nothing but sympathy for the people in the minibus, if the driver did get something wrong then he has already paid far too big a penalty.
biggriffin:
Dakota:
I’ve read most of the eighteen pages and clearly at this point none of us know what exactly happened.Quite a few people have said that if the FedEx truck was in lane two why did’nt he move over in to lane three when he saw the minibus. Maybe he could’nt?
There may well have been other vehicles involved, there could have been another vehicle alongside him. No doubt other vehicles saw this happen and may have been part of it but just did’nt stop
Also, I was talking to one of our drivers at work today about the crash. He said that there is a hardshoulder along that section. A question that nobody seems to be asking is, why was AIM stationary in lane one?
Surely if he had a mechanical fault he would have been able to coast on to the hard shoulder
I said whilst talking about this at work today, for all we know the minibus could have stopped also to see what the problem was and then FedEx hit both vehicles in lane one
RIP to all involved, this is truely one of the most awful crashes I’ve ever read about. I just hope something can be learnt from this that can hopefully save others. Some of the vehicles that we sell and that also come on for work have a breathalyser on them so you can’t even move them around the yard without blowing positive. These are coaches but why can’t trucks have them too. Yes I know there are probably way rounds it but it’s a step in the right direction
A very valid point,that seems to have been overlooked.
Which part of the prosecution case is that he mini bus driver attempted to make a lane change which caused the collision with the Fed Ex truck don’t you understand.
As for moving over to lane 3.A truck can’t make an emergency change of direction like a car.Even if there is time to react and confirm that lane 3 is clear.
As for worse road accidents.Mini bus drivers seem to have form in that regard.I passed the aftermath of this going South bound during a return trunk and no luxury of screens hiding the shocking sight from view then.Let’s just say that I found myself needlessly having to check the nearside mirrors to avoid it until I’d got past. 
Harry Monk:
What I suspect is that the chief cause of the accident was a drunken eastern European who stopped in lane 1 of the motorway for a snooze, and a sleep-deprived Indian who had had less than three hours rest before setting out to take a minibus full of passengers on a long journey, but that the authorities feel that it would be in the interests of “diversity” to rope in the innocent British national who got caught up in the mess.
I wasn’t sure if the mods understandably wouldn’t want to let anyone actually state that possibility and line of thought.
But + 1.
I’m not going to join in with TNCSI’s speculation about this terrible incident, but just post a little bit of recent history to give food for thought. I’m sure most of us remember the Pontefract hen party crash on the M62 in 2013 the truck driver involved was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and so was the minibus driver, in court the truck driver was found not guilty but the minibus driver who was found guilty was jailed for over 6yrs.
None of us really know what happened in the early hours of Saturday morning, but lets hope that the guilty parties are dealt with appropriately and that includes the dead minibus driver who might have to bear some of the blame when the inquest’s and court cases hopefully reveal the true details of this tragedy.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29761601
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30058344
Regards
Dave Penn;
del trotter:
Carryfast:
- ‘The Prosecutor said’.That the AIM vehicle was stationary in lane 1.The minibus was in the same lane and attempted to to get into the other lane to drive around the stopped AIM vehicle.
You keep saying this, show where the police/prosecutor said the minibus was in lane 1.
Don’t ask me that’s what sandfisher quoted from the Prosecutor’s evidence.
''It is the case that the defendents vehicle is stationary in lane one of the motorway for approximately 12 minutes.The Ford Transit Minibus is driving in the same lane and is attempting to get into the other lane to get round the defendents vehicle which had stopped there is then a collision with the third vehicle ‘’.
It shouldn’t be too much to expect the prosecutor to then state exactly which lane the third vehicle ( Fed Ex truck ) was in before and at the point of collision with the mini bus but obviously chose not to for some reason.
Carryfast:
Harry Monk:
What I suspect is that the chief cause of the accident was a drunken eastern European who stopped in lane 1 of the motorway for a snooze, and a sleep-deprived Indian who had had less than three hours rest before setting out to take a minibus full of passengers on a long journey, but that the authorities feel that it would be in the interests of “diversity” to rope in the innocent British national who got caught up in the mess.I wasn’t sure if the mods understandably wouldn’t want to let anyone actually state that possibility and line of thought.
We’ve allowed all the other speculative ■■■■■■■■ that’s been posted in this thread so why not that particular piece of made up nonsense
The fact is of course that none of us know what caused the accident, though it may become a little clearer when the Fed-Ex driver is in court next month.
Here’s a question for all TruckNet’s “legal experts”
A.I.M. driver is charged with 8 x death by dangerous driving and 8 x death by careless driving while over the limit.
Why is he only careless while over the limit and not dangerous?
wing-nut:
Here’s a question for all TruckNet’s “legal experts”
A.I.M. driver is charged with 8 x death by dangerous driving and 8 x death by careless driving while over the limit.
Why is he only careless while over the limit and not dangerous?
Careless drivine is driving which falls below the standards expected of a competent driver. Dangerous driving is driving which falls FAR below the standards of a competent driver.
I wasn’t aware you could be Careless AND dangerous at the same time for the same incident. Fair enough if plod are following and catch numerous different occasions, but the guy only parked up once.
tachograph:
Carryfast:
Harry Monk:
What I suspect is that the chief cause of the accident was a drunken eastern European who stopped in lane 1 of the motorway for a snooze, and a sleep-deprived Indian who had had less than three hours rest before setting out to take a minibus full of passengers on a long journey, but that the authorities feel that it would be in the interests of “diversity” to rope in the innocent British national who got caught up in the mess.I wasn’t sure if the mods understandably wouldn’t want to let anyone actually state that possibility and line of thought.
We’ve allowed all the other speculative ■■■■■■■■ that’s been posted in this thread so why not that particular piece of made up nonsense
The fact is of course that none of us know what caused the accident, though it may become a little clearer when the Fed-Ex driver is in court next month.
That’s fair enough.But surely it’s understandable that anyone who uses the roads needs to know now if it’s possible to end up on the wrong end of a dangerous driving charge for failure to avoid a collision with a vehicle making a dodgy lane change in all cases.
While without the prosecutor providing clear evidence as to which lane the Fed Ex truck was actually in.Then wouldn’t it have been reasonable to expect the judge to rule,that the reference to the mini bus driver having attempted a lane change and that being linked in any way with the resulting collision,was inadmissable on the grounds of it being irrelevant and conjecture at this time until which lane the Fed Ex vehicle was actually in has been established and stated ?. 
Captain Caveman 76:
wing-nut:
Here’s a question for all TruckNet’s “legal experts”
A.I.M. driver is charged with 8 x death by dangerous driving and 8 x death by careless driving while over the limit.
Why is he only careless while over the limit and not dangerous?Careless drivine is driving which falls below the standards expected of a competent driver. Dangerous driving is driving which falls FAR below the standards of a competent driver.
I wasn’t aware you could be Careless AND dangerous at the same time for the same incident. Fair enough if plod are following and catch numerous different occasions, but the guy only parked up once.
What I was getting at was the alcohol bit. Why is he not getting done for death by dangerous driving while over the limit?
Carryfast:
That’s fair enough.But surely it’s understandable that anyone who uses the roads needs to know now if it’s possible to end up on the wrong end of a dangerous driving charge for failure to avoid a collision with a vehicle making a dodgy lane change in all cases.While without the prosecutor providing clear evidence as to which lane the Fed Ex truck was actually in.Then wouldn’t it have been reasonable to expect the judge to rule,that the reference to the mini bus driver having attempted a lane change and that being linked in any way with the resulting collision,was inadmissable on the grounds of it being irrelevant and conjecture at this time until which lane the Fed Ex vehicle was actually in has been established and stated ?.
I assume the point of the hearing was to ensure that the AIMs driver was held in custody awaiting trial, all they had to do was to show that he was over the dd limit and stationary in a live lane, and that his actions were instrumental in causing the deaths of 8 people.
The hearing had little to do with the Fed-Ex driver, frankly I doubt it had that much to do with the position of the mini-bus, all they need to show is that the dangerous parking of the AIMs driver, possibly caused by his alcohol consumption, resulted in the loss of life.
What, if any, part the Fed-Ex driver played in the accident will no doubt be brought out, to some extent at-least, when he goes to court in September.
There could be a multitude of reasons the Fed-Ex driver has been charged, it could be that the police have reason to believe he could have avoided hitting the bus but his attention wasn’t on the driving, personally I hope for his sake he did nothing wrong and the charges are dropped but we’ll just have to wait and see.
wing-nut:
Captain Caveman 76:
wing-nut:
Here’s a question for all TruckNet’s “legal experts”
A.I.M. driver is charged with 8 x death by dangerous driving and 8 x death by careless driving while over the limit.
Why is he only careless while over the limit and not dangerous?Careless drivine is driving which falls below the standards expected of a competent driver. Dangerous driving is driving which falls FAR below the standards of a competent driver.
I wasn’t aware you could be Careless AND dangerous at the same time for the same incident. Fair enough if plod are following and catch numerous different occasions, but the guy only parked up once.What I was getting at was the alcohol bit. Why is he not getting done for death by dangerous driving while over the limit?
Doesn’t seem to be a charge of causing death by dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol only careless.The penalty levels seem around the same regardless. 
drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/drink_ … hments.htm
Unless there’s good reason why he was stopped in lane 1 leaving just a case of drink driving at a level of less than 85 to answer he’s probably toast.Sad story for all concerned.
wing-nut:
Captain Caveman 76:
wing-nut:
Here’s a question for all TruckNet’s “legal experts”
A.I.M. driver is charged with 8 x death by dangerous driving and 8 x death by careless driving while over the limit.
Why is he only careless while over the limit and not dangerous?Careless drivine is driving which falls below the standards expected of a competent driver. Dangerous driving is driving which falls FAR below the standards of a competent driver.
I wasn’t aware you could be Careless AND dangerous at the same time for the same incident. Fair enough if plod are following and catch numerous different occasions, but the guy only parked up once.What I was getting at was the alcohol bit. Why is he not getting done for death by dangerous driving while over the limit?
Don’t know the answer to that one. I also don’t know why he’s been done for driving over the limit. He wasn’t driving if he was stationary (unless maybe his engine was running). From memory, shouldn’t it be ‘drunk in charge of a vehicle’?
There’s an awful lot about the technicalities of law that I don’t know. I do know that all the charges have to be technically correct for them to hold.
Captain Caveman 76:
wing-nut:
Captain Caveman 76:
wing-nut:
Here’s a question for all TruckNet’s “legal experts”
A.I.M. driver is charged with 8 x death by dangerous driving and 8 x death by careless driving while over the limit.
Why is he only careless while over the limit and not dangerous?Careless drivine is driving which falls below the standards expected of a competent driver. Dangerous driving is driving which falls FAR below the standards of a competent driver.
I wasn’t aware you could be Careless AND dangerous at the same time for the same incident. Fair enough if plod are following and catch numerous different occasions, but the guy only parked up once.What I was getting at was the alcohol bit. Why is he not getting done for death by dangerous driving while over the limit?
Don’t know the answer to that one. I also don’t know why he’s been done for driving over the limit. He wasn’t driving if he was stationary (unless maybe his engine was running). From memory, shouldn’t it be ‘drunk in charge of a vehicle’?
There’s an awful lot about the technicalities of law that I don’t know. I do know that all the charges have to be technically correct for them to hold.
It’s pretty obvious he had been driving prior to stopping on the M1 in lane 1. He was breath tested at the scene of the accident like would be standard procedure. Therefore it stands to reason driving a vehicle while over the limit.
switchlogic:
Juddian:
Has anyone seen a pic of the rear of the AIM logistics trailer?I’m wondering if its fairly new trailer and the old style Long Vehicle reflective plates were not fitted and instead had that silly little red (pointless) reflective strip round the back doors.
Christ, you really do hate every last thing about the modern world don’t you? Even down to reflective tape. The tape is way more effective than long vehicle plates in the dark, for one thing it indicates the full size of the vehicle
Well, I agree with Juddian and I have a front-loading VHS player, and everything.
davepenn54:
I’m not going to join in with TNCSI’s speculation about this terrible incident, but just post a little bit of recent history to give food for thought. I’m sure most of us remember the Pontefract hen party crash on the M62 in 2013 the truck driver involved was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and so was the minibus driver, in court the truck driver was found not guilty but the minibus driver who was found guilty was jailed for over 6yrs.None of us really know what happened in the early hours of Saturday morning, but lets hope that the guilty parties are dealt with appropriately and that includes the dead minibus driver who might have to bear some of the blame when the inquest’s and court cases hopefully reveal the true details of this tragedy.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29761601
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30058344Regards
Dave Penn;
To be honest I think there seems to be a worrying trend, where fatalities are involved, of slinging mud and seeing what sticks in court rather than properly investigating and forming a conclusion regarding responsibility. There is also an element of someone being crucified seemingly for the benefit of grieving relatives (I don’t really agree with victim impact statements either). It’s very rare, where a fatality is involved, for some sort of knock for knock type judgement to be reached.
In this instance I have a feeling all three drivers share some culpability. Yes, Mr Drunk Pole was very guilty of stopping in an exceptionally dangerous manner highly likely to induce a serious collision but it is equally possible a disabled vehicle might be forced to stop in a live lane and other motorists be required to take action.
simcor:
It’s pretty obvious he had been driving prior to stopping on the M1 in lane 1. He was breath tested at the scene of the accident like would be standard procedure. Therefore it stands to reason driving a vehicle while over the limit.
Possible scenario. Driver has one can whilst driving. Not enough to put him over the limit. He stops on motorway and has second can. He’s now over the limit, but the vehicle hasn’t moved. Can it be proven that he WAS over the limit whilst the vehicle was in motion. Unless he admits to it, no. He was however in charge of the vehicle whilst over the limit.
Hang on, I’m getting a call from he straw clutching department! But like I said, charges have to be technically accurate or people get away with stuff they shouldn’t.