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.
Would have been a bit of a coincidence two drivers not knowing what the hard shoulder is for meeting like that.
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.
Awwww, Newbies have their own forum, maybe you oldies should, a virtual care home
Being serious though the long vehicle plate and red tape are made from the same reflective material anyhoo
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.
Tbh the straw department wants the straws back, you said you would only be 5 mins with them.
I get where you are coming from and if they asked have you been drinking and he said yes, and they ask how did you get here and he said driving. Then that is surely all they would need to charge him with driving whilst under the influence. I’m sure they will have charged him with the right offences with the correct evidence, although I would love to hear a barrister try and argue in court on a technicality as he was parked in a live lane of the motorway. Anywhere else and maybe they could argue it in court.
There is a short video on you tube shot by a driver coming northbound on m1 as all the emergency crews are there and it Clearly slows Aim truck with front lights and side lights on?
With what’s been said has the driver turned them on because of the impact or Was they on from the start?? Or would police had turned them on?
The more I read and put together other peoples and my own thoughts i can onky see a likely scenario where the minibus is to blame. Obviously the stationary truck is getting hammered for the over limit thing but the Fed Ex dude appears to have taken the correct position. Unless he and the Minibus came out at the same time and as happens a lot the minibus chucked on the breaks to have a good look.
Being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink
You may get:
3 months’ imprisonment
up to £2,500 fine
a possible driving ban
Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink
You may get:
6 months’ imprisonment
an unlimited fine
a driving ban for at least 1 year (3 years if convicted twice in 10 years)
I’m sure the police know what they’re doing. They interviewed the driver before charging him, so they’ll have charged him according to the evidence and his statement.
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.
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.
Well, I’ve not been banned for making the suggestion on this thread that the police might do just as you’ve just described out of PCness…
As time goes on, I’m more convinced that the worst possible outcome (for Dave Wagstaff) after all this is over - is for some jobsworth like Furlong to give him the bullet after he’s had charges dropped/been acquitted according to how much money the CPS wants to waste on this one.
Although totally different sequence of events, this case is similar to the Bath tipper crash with multiple fatalities.
The young driver , we all thought, was going to jail but was not charged .
No doubt, both Fed Ex and Aim have had thorough investigation of tacho and maintenance records off all their vehicles and drivers .
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.
good for you.i was assuming it would have got pulled for the tone of really just stating a reasonable speculative suggestion,though from an angle not in the minibus drivers favour.
plod will have doubled up the charges to the max,so that they can wave the usual carrot of dropping some of them to entice whoever to plead guilty and save money,as they will be under pressure to make sure theres a sacrificial goat especially with so much media attention and to the origin of the minibus crowd.
its all speculative tosh,but itl make 20 pages minimum of tncsi pish and waffle.
In reference to the alcohol part of this case I did read somewhere that the alcohol reading he was changed with was taken 2 hours after the accident . If true what did he blow at scene ?
A cyclist I know was hit from behind by a car and she left him for dead on the side of the road and went home . Police turned up at her house and she refused to open the door. When she finally opened the door she did a breath test and failed .
Her defence was she went home in shock and started drinking and produced bottle of wine. She was charged by the court on the reading she blew . We will never know if she had gone home and not drunk if she would have blown clear . Personally am glad she got done because she has ruined more than one persons life
H4L:
The more I read and put together other peoples and my own thoughts i can onky see a likely scenario where the minibus is to blame. Obviously the stationary truck is getting hammered for the over limit thing but the Fed Ex dude appears to have taken the correct position. Unless he and the Minibus came out at the same time and as happens a lot the minibus chucked on the breaks to have a good look.
If you look at the remains of the minibus the majority of the damage that can be deduced is on the off side. One can’t tell totally conclusively what happened from the pics because I suspect the fire service cut the roof away to get at the occupants, so you can’t see the rear of the bus although when it is on the recovery truck maybe parts of the bumper are showing. But the front near side is reasonably intact, so I suggest that that piece of the vehicle did not strike the rear of the AIM trailer after being hit.
As posted before there is a video which shows the minibus at right angles to the m-way on the verge. This suggests to me that it was bashed about 120 degrees off the front and then careered off the motorway. Whether the off side impacted the back of the AIM trailer I couldn’t see from the video.
A scenario could be that Fed-Ex hit the minibus as it was pulling out (at possibly a very slow speed?) and then as the Fed-Ex driver was braking the Fed-Ex truck jack-knifed into the position seen by the stills. Maybe the minibus driver was confused by the AIM lorry in the n/s lane. Had he slowed right down to get a better view as to whether he was stopped or not. Or possibly he was not concentrating either (we’ll never know) and pulled out at the last minute having failed to check his mirrors.
The force of that impact and possibly the minibus hitting the rear of the AIM trailer caused the AIM lorry to jack-knife too.
Looks like ABC Travel was a taxi operator running on a restricted licence. I wonder if the tacho was being used? Mind possibly mangled in the crash but a thought.
On a lighter note it irks me that when I read about this in the paper they referenced j14 as being near Newport Pagnell. Which it is but surely Milton Keynes should have the mention.
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.
If you and Carryfast agree with it, that confirms it is complete ■■■■■■■■.
I’m going to chuck a curveball in here, let’s imagine that the Syrians have fitted an alcohol interlock system in the lead vehicle! The driver or his boss blew into the mouthpiece to start the vehicle in Evesham.
The system was sourced from the USA which requires a rolling test.
“Most states require that ignition interlock users perform random re-tests while driving the vehicle. At certain times while on the road the device will beep, signaling the driver to deliver a breath sample. If alcohol is detected, the ignition interlock will not turn the engine off while the vehicle is in motion. Usually it will signal the driver to stop by blowing the horn and flashing the lights.
The rolling re-test ensures that a driver does not consume alcohol after performing the initial breath test.”
Maybe the Pole had a swig out of his Wodka on the M1 and was asked to perform a rolling re-test, this started his horn blowing and lights flashing so he panicked and pulled up, he didn’t realise where he was, not because he was ■■■■■■ but because the strange happening disoriented him.
It’s as bigger load of ■■■■■■■■ as the previous 59 pages [emoji12]
Dimlaith:
Just a thought, but, if the FedEx drivers tacho showed a serious infringement would that be grounds for dangerous driving?
I don’t know what the tachograph could show that by itself would justify a charge of dangerous driving
Generally a tachograph record will be used as evidence to back up other ccharges, it will not by itself be used to prove an offence other than offences that fall under the EU or UK domestic drivers regulations.
