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
[/quote]
Totally understand your point - at night your eyes can deceive you esp on unlit roads. You don’t imagine coming up to a parked vehicle in a live lane.
However his actions in being on the phone for almost an hour totally condemn him. It obviously wasn’t an important call, he was chatting to a mate (yep I’ve done it too). It’s inexcusable.
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.
Yes it is an option but IIRC from one of the stills he would have been very close to the apex of the chevrons separating the n/s lane and the junction exit he had just passed. Perhaps thought that too risky too. My guess is he was simply confused and just dithered too long.
Is it possible that the FedEx driver ‘might’ have assumed (wrongly in this case) that the 2 vehicles were actually stopped on the hard shoulder (due to them having their hazards on) and instead of moving out, held his line because he couldn’t or is one that chooses not to? Is that stretch of road straight or is it curved…I’m not overly familiar with that stretch. In the dead of night curves can play tricks on the mind, like hidden dips can on a long, straight road
Actrosman, the road is straight, but the only lights are those on the roundabout over the top of the motorway some 2/00 yards after the crash site, so as you approach the slip road would have been visible all the way up due to those lights semi reflecting on the road, but the motorway itself would have been dark, not helped by the lights over the roundabout effectively making the shadow darkness worse for trying to work out what was stopped where.
The crash happened maybe 100 yards after the exit slip for jct 14 southbound, so the hard shoulder had only just resumed and our half ■■■■■■ hero was parked in the bloody live lane beside it.
I’m at a complete loss as to why some here are so desperate to heap blame on the minibus driver, he stopped behind the lorry, which is more than can be said for the driver which smashed into them.
I see no reason that a single charge could have been laid against the minibus driver had he survived, he stopped.
So why do lorry drivers expect skilled lorry driver standards of road situation assessment and instant correct reactions from people who are not professional/vocational/commercial drivers.
Yes us lorry drivers wouldn’t have stopped behind that parked AIM lorry, but why wouldn’t we have stopped there i ask?, because we’re terrified of far too many of our compatriots in other lorries who can’t be bloody trusted to be in control of their vehicles, to the extent that increasingly automated systems have to be fitted to try and protect the public from the buggers.
Juddian:
Actrosman, the road is straight, but the only lights are those on the roundabout over the top of the motorway some 2/00 yards after the crash site, so as you approach the slip road would have been visible all the way up due to those lights semi reflecting on the road, but the motorway itself would have been dark, not helped by the lights over the roundabout effectively making the shadow darkness worse for trying to work out what was stopped where.
The crash happened maybe 100 yards after the exit slip for jct 14 southbound, so the hard shoulder had only just resumed and our half ■■■■■■ hero was parked in the bloody live lane beside it.
I’m at a complete loss as to why some here are so desperate to heap blame on the minibus driver, he stopped behind the lorry, which is more than can be said for the driver which smashed into them.
I see no reason that a single charge could have been laid against the minibus driver had he survived, he stopped.
So why do lorry drivers expect skilled lorry driver standards of road situation assessment and instant correct reactions from people who are not professional/vocational/commercial drivers.
Yes us lorry drivers wouldn’t have stopped behind that parked AIM lorry, but why wouldn’t we have stopped there i ask?, because we’re terrified of far too many of our compatriots in other lorries who can’t be bloody trusted to be in control of their vehicles, to the extent that increasingly automated systems have to be fitted to try and protect the public from the buggers.
Juddian are you aware that the minibus driver was the owner of a business with a restricted minibus licence? He wasn’t Mrs Sweeting out with the Brownies. He ran a commercial enterprise.
This is such a tricky one to justify for Mr Wagstaff. Let’s just assume for a moment that there had been and accident ahead of the AIM lorry and both the Aim lorry and minibus had stopped because they had no choice, it happens every day on a motorway somewhere. In this instance surely only the Fedex driver could be to blame as he was clearly negligent in his duty to see the vehicles in front and react in an appropriate way. No one in this situation would blame either of the other two drivers. Now, what we are trying to do is piece together why the other two vehicles were stopped so we can apportion some blame to them in some way also, but this in no way excuses the negligence of the Fedex driver. If you run into the back of someone then it matters largely not why they were stopped but why you didn’t! I am interested to see how this pans out so lessons can be learnt.
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
Totally understand your point - at night your eyes can deceive you esp on unlit roads. You don’t imagine coming up to a parked vehicle in a live lane.
However his actions in being on the phone for almost an hour totally condemn him. It obviously wasn’t an important call, he was chatting to a mate (yep I’ve done it too). It’s inexcusable.
[/quote]
I’ve an argument with your assertion that being “on the phone for an hour chatting” condemns the FedEx driver.
I’d suggest that chatting on the phone would keep someone more alert than listening to the radio. He was in a call not trying to make a new one. I’d accept that having an argument on the phone could be distracting but not a gossip with a mate.
FedEx was obviously not paying attention, in any way, but the phone probably wasn’t big factor.
I don’t agree “chatting on the phone with a mate condemns” the FedEx driver.
Chatting is probably keeping someone alert more than passively listening to music.
He was in a call, not fiddling with the phone making a new call. It was a mate, so it wasn’t an argument with the office.
Whatever was happening with him, and something was, I’d doubt it was the phone to blame.
Juddian are you aware that the minibus driver was the owner of a business with a restricted minibus licence? He wasn’t Mrs Sweeting out with the Brownies. He ran a commercial enterprise.
Indeed, i’m also aware he and his passengers are the innocent parties here, all being alive and well until they found our mate having forty winks on the carriageway and the arrival of a certain Fedex lorry.
over the years iv read of several accidents where someone motoring along normally has ploughed into the rear of a truck or car that was parked up in a layby with its lights on. the person obviously assumed the lights were moving. are absolutely convinced they are,[until its too late] because its against the norm for them not to be. that too could be the case ,dunno if thatd be any defence though i spect anyone following this thread will now look and double look while this case is still in their minds
Mr minibus may have been in exactly the same situation as Wagstaff - bimbling along, minding his own business, vehicle (in all probability a truck at that time of night) travelling ahead of him indicates and pulls out to pass the AIM wagon. As the vehicle ahead moves to the right, he sees the stationary AIM truck and has just a few seconds to assess exactly what is going on. Bear in mind he’s approaching an on-slip and we all know that traffic in Lane 1 often has to slow significantly, or even briefly stop, due to the merging traffic. So he stops. Hazard flashers on to warn following drivers. By the time he has realised that the AIM wagon isn’t going anywhere, he’s somewhat stuffed. He waits for an opportunity to pass, but before his opportunity arrives, Wagstaff does…
I’m not saying he couldn’t have done things better, but I am saying that he has reacted in pretty much the same way as anyone else would in those circumstances.
corij:
over the years iv read of several accidents where someone motoring along normally has ploughed into the rear of a truck or car that was parked up in a layby with its lights on. the person obviously assumed the lights were moving. are absolutely convinced they are,[until its too late] because its against the norm for them not to be. that too could be the case ,dunno if thatd be any defence though i spect anyone following this thread will now look and double look while this case is still in their minds
I think that Fedex driver will say that he thought the hazards on the minibus was a fitters van for a broken down truck on hard shoulder. Something that we have all seen and he misjudged it. All he has tried to do is defend dangerous driving as opposed to careless. I believe that the definition of dangerous is standard that falls far below the standard of a competent driver. Is a misjudgement far below? I don’t know but I think the fact he was in a truck as opposed to a car makes dd more likely. Personally I think he will be found guilty and that there will also be some sort of law change on phone use
Juddian are you aware that the minibus driver was the owner of a business with a restricted minibus licence? He wasn’t Mrs Sweeting out with the Brownies. He ran a commercial enterprise.
Indeed, i’m also aware he and his passengers are the innocent parties here, all being alive and well until they found our mate having forty winks on the carriageway and the arrival of a certain Fedex lorry.
That all seems to have missed the point that Wagstaff’s defence rightly hasn’t attempted to divert any blame whatsoever onto the minibus driver.
His case is just does getting forward observation and planning all messed up,notwithstanding the ‘legal’ use of hands free phone and cruise control, constitute the same standard of driving as someone causing carnage in an urban area by driving at 70 mph in a 30 mph area,for example or even driving while tired.IE insufficient care taken regards observation as opposed to driving dangerously.
corij:
over the years iv read of several accidents where someone motoring along normally has ploughed into the rear of a truck or car that was parked up in a layby with its lights on. the person obviously assumed the lights were moving. are absolutely convinced they are,[until its too late] because its against the norm for them not to be. that too could be the case ,dunno if thatd be any defence though i spect anyone following this thread will now look and double look while this case is still in their minds
I think that Fedex driver will say that he thought the hazards on the minibus was a fitters van for a broken down truck on hard shoulder. Something that we have all seen and he misjudged it. All he has tried to do is defend dangerous driving as opposed to careless. I believe that the definition of dangerous is standard that falls far below the standard of a competent driver. Is a misjudgement far below? I don’t know but I think the fact he was in a truck as opposed to a car makes dd more likely. Personally I think he will be found guilty and that there will also be some sort of law change on phone use
Don’t see how the law can change really. It’s illegal to use a hand help device whilst driving, even with a hands free kit.
corij:
over the years iv read of several accidents where someone motoring along normally has ploughed into the rear of a truck or car that was parked up in a layby with its lights on. the person obviously assumed the lights were moving. are absolutely convinced they are,[until its too late] because its against the norm for them not to be. that too could be the case ,dunno if thatd be any defence though i spect anyone following this thread will now look and double look while this case is still in their minds
I think that Fedex driver will say that he thought the hazards on the minibus was a fitters van for a broken down truck on hard shoulder. Something that we have all seen and he misjudged it. All he has tried to do is defend dangerous driving as opposed to careless. I believe that the definition of dangerous is standard that falls far below the standard of a competent driver. Is a misjudgement far below? I don’t know but I think the fact he was in a truck as opposed to a car makes dd more likely. Personally I think he will be found guilty and that there will also be some sort of law change on phone use
Don’t see how the law can change really. It’s illegal to use a hand help device whilst driving, even with a hands free kit.
I think they will ban hands free use. Don’t know how they will enforce it but that’s my expectation
I think they will ban hands free use. Don’t know how they will enforce it but that’s my expectation.
Apparently been on the cards for a while.
It will definitely happen but as usual those that think they are above the law will carry on. Its more probable mobiles will be made so they will not function whilst in a moving vehicle.
