Rick W:
I can’t understand why some are so keen to blame the mini bus driver for stopping where he did. There may have been a perfectly good reason and seeing none of you were actually there you are only surmising.
Not wise.
I can’t think of one. I’d be interested if anyone else could.
Because the majority of drivers can’t see beyond their bonnet. Probably never even realised it was stopped until on top of it. No forward planning or anticipation.
And I suppose you are Mr perfect.
Did you read about any of the circumstances about this accident?
You are bang out of order trying to blame the mini bus driver when you obviously do not know the circumstances.
I’ve read a lot that’s in the news and reported at the time.
So, not deflecting blame from the HGV drivers involved, give me one valid reason why the minibus would stop where it did.
Rick W:
And I suppose you are Mr perfect.
Did you read about any of the circumstances about this accident?
You are bang out of order trying to blame the mini bus driver when you obviously do not know the circumstances.
Perfect? No. Able to make decisions based on what’s safe and appropriate to do in the event of approaching a stationary vehicle on the motorway? Yes.
I don’t blame the minibus driver. He was alive until he was rammed from behind.
You seem to have a lot invested in this incident did you sign up just to post about it? Or was the minibus driver your mate? Anyone who dares question his judgement immediately gets a reaction from you.
Fundamentally in my opinion (and his own admission) Fedex driver is in the wrong. He was the one who ran into the back of the mini bus.
However as I posted previously I think it was a SERIOUS failing for a professional driver, with a duty of care to his passengers to allow himself to end up in that position behind the stationary truck. He should have moved out to lane 2 or if traffic is so busy that he cant get out the hard shoulder becomes his next option. I would also have expected him to have been thinking that if traffic is so busy that he can’t pull out to lane 2 surely lane 1 is not the place to be due to the risk of what has happened, happening.
Therefore I would say that whilst the accident was caused by the 2 truck drivers the minibus driver has to take some responsibility for getting himself and his passengers in that position
EDIT: Blue Day raised the same point in far less words whilst I was typing
Rick W:
I can’t understand why some are so keen to blame the mini bus driver for stopping where he did. There may have been a perfectly good reason and seeing none of you were actually there you are only surmising.
Not wise.
I can’t think of one. I’d be interested if anyone else could.
Because the majority of drivers can’t see beyond their bonnet. Probably never even realised it was stopped until on top of it. No forward planning or anticipation.
And I suppose you are Mr perfect.
Did you read about any of the circumstances about this accident?
You are bang out of order trying to blame the mini bus driver when you obviously do not know the circumstances.
I’ve read a lot that’s in the news and reported at the time.
So, not deflecting blame from the HGV drivers involved, give me one valid reason why the minibus would stop where it did.
Here’s a reason: not one I would call a very good one, but seeing a vehicle stopped in a live lane, not the hard shoulder, could he have believed he was first on the scene of an accident?
He treats the scene cautiously, and approaches slowly. He is not barrelling past what could be an accident.
I’m not saying I’d be as cautious as that, and it’s pure speculation about someone who can’t speak for himself. But it’s a possibility.
There are plenty reasons why it could have stopped there one being poor visibility as mentioned earlier in this thread. Another could have been busy lane 2 with the nose to tail brigade adamant nobody is changing lanes.
There are many other possible explanations but I like you do not know so better to stop surmising.
The last thing you expect is a stationary lorry in lane one.
Maybe he did very well to stop!
Rick W:
There are plenty reasons why it could have stopped there one being poor visibility as mentioned earlier in this thread. Another could have been busy lane 2 with the nose to tail brigade adamant nobody is changing lanes.
There are many other possible explanations but I like you do not know so better to stop surmising.
The last thing you expect is a stationary lorry in lane one.
Maybe he did very well to stop!
Perhaps his tiredness (3 hours sleep?) contributed to the indecision.
Would be interested in knowing how long he was supposed to have been stopped there. If more than a few seconds definitely culpable in my view. On the hard shoulder you are supposed to get out. In a live lane on a motorway, the risk is very very high of a rear end shunt.
Doesn’t excuse the Fedex driver but minibus driver contributory negligence possibility? After all in a plane crash if its pilot error to any extent just because he died in the crash doesn’t absolve him/her from blame with subsequent impact on insurance payouts. Why should it be different here?
An update too from yesterday’s proceedings. Wagstaff failed to react to minibus in front of him despite having 250m and 9 to 10 secs to do so. He could have stopped in 5 seconds (mind that would have put him in danger too). Mind why on earth the minibus had his hazards rather than his offside indicator in will be interesting for the court to assess.
Rick W:
There are plenty reasons why it could have stopped there one being poor visibility as mentioned earlier in this thread. Another could have been busy lane 2 with the nose to tail brigade adamant nobody is changing lanes.
There are many other possible explanations but I like you do not know so better to stop surmising.
The last thing you expect is a stationary lorry in lane one.
Maybe he did very well to stop!
We’ll disagree. I’m not gonna go on about it, I’ll wait for the judges comments whether he says the bus driver was to blame to some extent.
But My opinion won’t change. Stopping in a live lane like that is just not justified, especially in a bus with passengers on board. Maybe because he died people find it difficult to imagine he did anything wrong at all.
Rick W:
There are plenty reasons why it could have stopped there one being poor visibility as mentioned earlier in this thread. Another could have been busy lane 2 with the nose to tail brigade adamant nobody is changing lanes.
There are many other possible explanations but I like you do not know so better to stop surmising.
The last thing you expect is a stationary lorry in lane one.
Maybe he did very well to stop!
Perhaps his tiredness (3 hours sleep?) contributed to the indecision.
Would be interested in knowing how long he was supposed to have been stopped there. If more than a few seconds definitely culpable in my view. On the hard shoulder you are supposed to get out. In a live lane on a motorway, the risk is very very high of a rear end shunt.
Doesn’t excuse the Fedex driver but minibus driver contributory negligence possibility? After all in a plane crash if its pilot error to any extent just because he died in the crash doesn’t absolve him/her from blame with subsequent impact on insurance payouts. Why should it be different here?
An update too from yesterday’s proceedings. Wagstaff failed to react to minibus in front of him despite having 250m and 9 to 10 secs to do so. He could have stopped in 5 seconds (mind that would have put him in danger too). Mind why on earth the minibus had his hazards rather than his offside indicator in will be interesting for the court to assess.
Exactly. His hazards on. So he wasn’t attempting to pass. In all honesty he might have thought he was doing the right thing, maybe thought he was in a que on traffic, maybe his lack of sleep muddled his thinking. Still inexcusable esp for a professional driver
Oh dear, no I ain’t going on about it anymore either.
Yes it may be unacceptable for a professional driver but you can’t even begin to accept he may not have had a choice.
Rick W:
Oh dear, no I ain’t going on about it anymore either.
Yes it may be unacceptable for a professional driver but you can’t even begin to accept he may not have had a choice.
Why do you think he may not have had a choice?
Without any ‘formal’ evidence of how long he was stationary (can’t recall if that has been reported or not yet) he has two logical choices and one of those is dangerous. He either overtakes the AIM truck and carries on or he remains stationary. The only logical reason for the latter is that for a short while he was confused as to what the AIM truck was doing. Once it was established he was stopped surely you’d overtake? Now it may be that in the minibus driver’ mind there was an element of confusion (compounded by lack of sleep?) as to what he was faced with, but any sensible driver surely would have overtaken. It may be that his tiredness added to his confusion. It may be that he thought the driver of the AIM truck had a problem (he did, he was drunk) but surely if he wanted to help you would drive past the lorry and then pull in on the hard shoulder (although still highly dangerous with a bus load of punters IMO). What you wouldn’t do, surely, is stop and not move at all.
Given that the prosecution states that Wagstaff had 9-10 seconds to see this guy the minibus one presumes was stood all that time. I’d want to know why? Because that is getting on for quite a long time to evaluate a problem in a very high risk situation.
The prime concern of a PCV driver is the safety and comfort of your passengers. I am not sure the minibus driver exercised that.
Rick W:
Oh dear, no I ain’t going on about it anymore either.
Yes it may be unacceptable for a professional driver but you can’t even begin to accept he may not have had a choice.
Why do you think he may not have had a choice?
Without any ‘formal’ evidence of how long he was stationary (can’t recall if that has been reported or not yet) he has two logical choices and one of those is dangerous. He either overtakes the AIM truck and carries on or he remains stationary. The only logical reason for the latter is that for a short while he was confused as to what the AIM truck was doing. Once it was established he was stopped surely you’d overtake? Now it may be that in the minibus driver’ mind there was an element of confusion (compounded by lack of sleep?) as to what he was faced with, but any sensible driver surely would have overtaken. It may be that his tiredness added to his confusion. It may be that he thought the driver of the AIM truck had a problem (he did, he was drunk) but surely if he wanted to help you would drive past the lorry and then pull in on the hard shoulder (although still highly dangerous with a bus load of punters IMO). What you wouldn’t do, surely, is stop and not move at all.
Given that the prosecution states that Wagstaff had 9-10 seconds to see this guy the minibus one presumes was stood all that time. I’d want to know why? Because that is getting on for quite a long time to evaluate a problem in a very high risk situation.
The prime concern of a PCV driver is the safety and comfort of your passengers. I am not sure the minibus driver exercised that.
There’s a thjird option. I said before, if I found myself in that position, presumably thinking slow vehicle not stopped vehicle and getting trapped*, then I’d not even attempt from a stop to get into lane 2, I’d go onto the hard shoulder and build up speed before re-joining.
*i’d like to think I wouldn’t end up in that position, but we are all human, we make mistakes, mostly they have no consequences.
Terry T:
AIM Logistics Driver - Absolute menace for stopping in lane 1 whilst drunk. Guilty.
Minibus Driver - Clearly wasn’t looking up ahead and then stopped behind HGV in lane 1 on an empty motorway with hazards on. Should’ve gone past down hard shoulder as a last resort. Guilty.
Fedex - On phone also not looking up ahead. Guilty.
Not much else to discuss really.
AIM DRIVER GUILTY
MINIBUS NOT GUILTY
FED EX GUILTY
So if one of your loved ones was killed in that minibus you’d be happy that the driver wasn’t to blame in any way.
Hypothetically, if he survived, you’d be ok seeing him and telling him it wasn’t his fault ?
Terry T:
AIM Logistics Driver - Absolute menace for stopping in lane 1 whilst drunk. Guilty.
Minibus Driver - Clearly wasn’t looking up ahead and then stopped behind HGV in lane 1 on an empty motorway with hazards on. Should’ve gone past down hard shoulder as a last resort. Guilty.
Fedex - On phone also not looking up ahead. Guilty.
Not much else to discuss really.
AIM DRIVER GUILTY
MINIBUS NOT GUILTY
FED EX GUILTY
So if one of your loved ones was killed in that minibus you’d be happy that the driver wasn’t to blame in any way.
Hypothetically, if he survived, you’d be ok seeing him and telling him it wasn’t his fault ?
So because someone’s relative is killed the driver must automatically be some way at fault.
Get a grip.
The court heard that when a lorry in front of Wagstaff indicated and moved into another lane of the motorway to avoid the minibus, the defendant had an unobstructed view of the eventual crash site for 250 metres and nine to 11 seconds.
That, more or less, condemns Wagstaff. The driver in front of him has seen the problem and reacted and he hasn’t.
Rick W:
So because someone’s relative is killed the driver must automatically be some way at fault.
Get a grip.
No, not at all. But some people seem to suggest that the minibus driver is totally blameless. I’m just saying, maybe you’d feel different if it was your wife or child he’d gotten killed.
Coz he has, his actions contributed to the deaths of 8 people. There’s a heap of things he could’ve done different to manoeuvre his vehicle around the AIM truck but he chose to sit behind a stationary vehicle in a live lane on an empty motorway. Unlike every single driver that managed to get past in the 12 minutes leading up to the collision.
Rick W:
So because someone’s relative is killed the driver must automatically be some way at fault.
Get a grip.
No, not at all. But some people seem to suggest that the minibus driver is totally blameless. I’m just saying, maybe you’d feel different if it was your wife or child he’d gotten killed.
Coz he has, his actions contributed to the deaths of 8 people. There’s a heap of things he could’ve done different to manoeuvre his vehicle around the AIM truck but he chose to sit behind a stationary vehicle in a live lane on an empty motorway. Unlike every single driver that managed to get past in the 12 minutes leading up to the collision.
iv not seen it said anywhere the motorway was empty. if id have had to guess id wager it was busy as hell being bank holiday . mr Fedex could have had several vehicles ahead of him passing him in lane 2 his eyes glancing at their rear lights as they went by . and the truck ahead of him,that spotted a gap and took it [to overtake the scene] moves into lane 2 yet again it could be natural for your eyes to look at where he was going
corij:
iv not seen it said anywhere the motorway was empty. if id have had to guess id wager it was busy as hell being bank holiday . mr Fedex could have had several vehicles ahead of him passing him in lane 2 his eyes glancing at their rear lights as they went by . and the truck ahead of him,that spotted a gap and took it [to overtake the scene] moves into lane 2 yet again it could be natural for your eyes to look at where he was going
It was 3am. No matter what day it was that stretch of motorway would’ve been very quiet. I drive nights 4 on 4 off and regularly travel up and down the whole length of the M1 in the middle of the night. There’s just no excuse for what any of those drivers have done.
AIM was drunk and stopped in a live lane. Mr minibus also stopped in a live lane. Fedex was on the phone.
Even if the road was busy he had the hard shoulder as an escape which he failed to take.
8 people are dead because 3 drivers all made mistakes.
Rick W:
So because someone’s relative is killed the driver must automatically be some way at fault.
Get a grip.
No, not at all. But some people seem to suggest that the minibus driver is totally blameless. I’m just saying, maybe you’d feel different if it was your wife or child he’d gotten killed.
Coz he has, his actions contributed to the deaths of 8 people. There’s a heap of things he could’ve done different to manoeuvre his vehicle around the AIM truck but he chose to sit behind a stationary vehicle in a live lane on an empty motorway. Unlike every single driver that managed to get past in the 12 minutes leading up to the collision.
iv not seen it said anywhere the motorway was empty. if id have had to guess id wager it was busy as hell being bank holiday . mr Fedex could have had several vehicles ahead of him passing him in lane 2 his eyes glancing at their rear lights as they went by . and the truck ahead of him,that spotted a gap and took it [to overtake the scene] moves into lane 2 yet again it could be natural for your eyes to look at where he was going
The fedex driver was sat in cruise control, chatting on the phone, approaching a parked lorry and a minibus with its hazards on. It’s already been said in court Wagstaff made no attempt to stop, slow down or even change lanes. In many ways he’s as guilty as the AIM driver for sheer neglect
Rick W:
So because someone’s relative is killed the driver must automatically be some way at fault.
Get a grip.
No, not at all. But some people seem to suggest that the minibus driver is totally blameless. I’m just saying, maybe you’d feel different if it was your wife or child he’d gotten killed.
Coz he has, his actions contributed to the deaths of 8 people. There’s a heap of things he could’ve done different to manoeuvre his vehicle around the AIM truck but he chose to sit behind a stationary vehicle in a live lane on an empty motorway. Unlike every single driver that managed to get past in the 12 minutes leading up to the collision.
iv not seen it said anywhere the motorway was empty. if id have had to guess id wager it was busy as hell being bank holiday . mr Fedex could have had several vehicles ahead of him passing him in lane 2 his eyes glancing at their rear lights as they went by . and the truck ahead of him,that spotted a gap and took it [to overtake the scene] moves into lane 2 yet again it could be natural for your eyes to look at where he was going
The fedex driver was sat in cruise control, chatting on the phone, approaching a parked lorry and a minibus with its hazards on. It’s already been said in court Wagstaff made no attempt to stop, slow down or even change lanes. In many ways he’s as guilty as the AIM driver for sheer neglect
i know he is, but iv been thinking when im driving at night i do see and look at the lights of the vehicles just past me but not ever give any thought to any lights farther down the field . and i Know he had ten seconds to register that the lights ahead were stationary . i can recall a few near misses over the years when iv changed lanes and come across rear lights that are moving bit slower than what was typical