I think this is probably going to be dealt with severely. It’s a high profile case with a horrific end result. They are going to use this to send a message.
Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
kcrussell25:
Blue Day:
kcrussell25:
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 mindsI 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
Really can’t see that happening. How do you ban something that’s installed in virtually every vehicle being built for the past 5 years?
Blue Day:
kcrussell25:
Blue Day:
kcrussell25:
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 mindsI 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
Really can’t see that happening. How do you ban something that’s installed in virtually every vehicle being built for the past 5 years?
Yeah that would be like telling people to buy diesel cars and then tell them not to and punish them with city bans and higher tax rates. Never happen would it
Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Punchy Dan:
Apologogies if this has been mentioned as I not read everything on this but is there dash cam footage from the FedEx lorry or the scania or motorway cctv that’s being used in court ?
Believe so, I heard that the jury were shown footage with the sound turned off to make it less horrific - guess it must be Fedexs’.
bugcos:
It’s just been on the local news, that the aim driver denies being drunk, said he was unwell and pulled up on the hard shoulder!
In trying to see this as a jury might my first thought is you’ve had how many months to come up with a reason that sounds like an excuse to save your neck. It explains the engine running and him being asleep but the fact he denies being drunk just gloss’s over the situation as though he is trying to say he is completely innocent in all of this.
I find it amazing that his legal team have gone down the route of him denying his drunken state.
Stanley Knife:
bugcos:
I find it amazing that his legal team have gone down the route of him denying his drunken state.
I’d be more amazed if his brief wasn’t slumped disillusioned on the bench facepalming and muttering WTF’s under his/her breath 
He can deny…
Being drunk all he likes but, the police can provide proof that he was in charge of the vehicle whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit.
The jury should also remember that his licence had been revoked at the time. He shouldn’t have been there at all!
This man is as guilty as they come. He could have at least put his hands up and admitted his mistake.
Now he’s possibly trying to weasel out of it.
scum
Im not an expert on these things, but, what charge if any could be levelled at the 3 drivers? The AIM.. being over the limit. Illegally stopping on the motorway. Driving whilst disqualified?....he didnt kill anyone.
Minibus driver? I cant think of anything illegal he did. Certainly not provable anyway. He didnt kill anyone.
Fedex? Causing death by dangerous/careless driving.
cheekymonkey:
Im not an expert on these things, but, what charge if any could be levelled at the 3 drivers? The AIM.. being over the limit. Illegally stopping on the motorway. Driving whilst disqualified?....he didnt kill anyone.
Minibus driver? I cant think of anything illegal he did. Certainly not provable anyway. He didnt kill anyone.
Fedex? Causing death by dangerous/careless driving.
You could start by looking at the charges which have been levelled at the two surviving drivers…
cheekymonkey:
Im not an expert on these things, but, what charge if any could be levelled at the 3 drivers? The AIM.. being over the limit. Illegally stopping on the motorway. Driving whilst disqualified?....he didnt kill anyone.
Minibus driver? I cant think of anything illegal he did. Certainly not provable anyway. He didnt kill anyone.
Fedex? Causing death by dangerous/careless driving.
Bus driver - ata guess driving without due care and attention as a minimum. Parking his bus in lane 1 of the M1
Rick W:
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.
I saw an advert for a car recently, can’t remember what type mind. Anyway, one of the selling features of this "intelligent vehicle was it’s ability to display your favourite phone apps on its screen.
Car makers going backwards I think.
yourhavingalarf:
He can deny…Being drunk all he likes but, the police can provide proof that he was in charge of the vehicle whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit.
The jury should also remember that his licence had been revoked at the time. He shouldn’t have been there at all!
This man is as guilty as they come. He could have at least put his hands up and admitted his mistake.
Now he’s possibly trying to weasel out of it.
And Wagstaffe now claiming loss of memory and PTS as you say scum the pair of them
scum
Roymondo:
cheekymonkey:
Im not an expert on these things, but, what charge if any could be levelled at the 3 drivers? The AIM.. being over the limit. Illegally stopping on the motorway. Driving whilst disqualified?....he didnt kill anyone.
Minibus driver? I cant think of anything illegal he did. Certainly not provable anyway. He didnt kill anyone.
Fedex? Causing death by dangerous/careless driving.You could start by looking at the charges which have been levelled at the two surviving drivers…
Yes! fair point. I havent read all about it so maybe I shouldve butted out. I`ll have a look and see what the charges are.
mattecube:
And Wagstaffe now claiming loss of memory
Which would make any difference to his plea of guilty to causing dbcd,or the legal question as to whether his standard of driving met the definition of dangerous or careless,how ?.
Realistically he is being subjected to a needless show trial when that simple question could/should be decided by a panel of judges at the supreme court regardless of his memory of the situation. 
Carryfast:
mattecube:
And Wagstaffe now claiming loss of memoryWhich would make any difference to his plea of guilty to causing dbcd,or the legal question as to whether his standard of driving met the definition of dangerous or careless,how ?.s
Realistically he is being subjected to a needless show trial when that simple question could/should be decided by a panel of judges at the supreme court regardless of his memory of the situation.
You appear to of missed my point in the context of my reply to the post I replied to.
That aside I am sure the legal experts know what path to follow in a tried and trusted justice system.
I hear Wagstaffe is also claiming PTSD (Wiggle wiggle or maybe not if you had slain 8 innocent people)
Carryfast:
mattecube:
And Wagstaffe now claiming loss of memoryWhich would make any difference to his plea of guilty to causing dbcd,or the legal question as to whether his standard of driving met the definition of dangerous or careless,how ?.
Realistically he is being subjected to a needless show trial when that simple question could/should be decided by a panel of judges at the supreme court regardless of his memory of the situation.
You don’t think he’s entitled to trial by jury, then?
Captain Caveman 76:
Rick W:
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.I saw an advert for a car recently, can’t remember what type mind. Anyway, one of the selling features of this "intelligent vehicle was it’s ability to display your favourite phone apps on its screen.
Car makers going backwards I think.
Exactly. I was told once on a driving course that ANYTHING you do whilst driving that is not connected to driving (tuning radio etc) is against the law.
Juddian:
Stanley Knife:
I find it amazing that his legal team have gone down the route of him denying his drunken state.I’d be more amazed if his brief wasn’t slumped disillusioned on the bench facepalming and muttering WTF’s under his/her breath
Fair point.
GasGas:
You don’t think he’s entitled to trial by jury, then?
In CF’s world Wagstaff is being victimised for making a tiny little mistake that anyone could make.