I agree with what juddian and Raymond’s has written and also the point frangais made about being on the phone is more likely to keep you awake than start nodding. I guess a lot if not most distance drivers will ring someone if they start to feel it setting in at some point, I know I did
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.
No ■■■■? 
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The jury should also remember that his licence had been revoked at the time.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.
scum
I’m happy for him to try and weasel out of what I suspect is an open and shut case. That way he’ll get more porridge. David Wagstaff on the other hand is taking it on the chin and will certainly get a discount although it might not help him to sleep any better.
Stanley Knife:
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.
Well, if we look at INTENT, on Wagstaff’s side there is none. He no doubt just rocked up for work as normal for another dull nightshift, then got over-chatty on the phone. He’s admitted his mistake, and he looks like a broken man, TBH.
The other truck driver though decided to work with a revoked licence and to drink on the job: there’s a world of difference between the two. He still seems unable/unwilling to explain his conduct or take any kind of responsibility for it.
TiredAndEmotional:
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The jury should also remember that his licence had been revoked at the time.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.
Are you sure?
scum
I’m happy for him to try and weasel out of what I suspect is an open and shut case. That way he’ll get more porridge. David Wagstaff on the other hand is taking it on the chin and will certainly get a discount although it might not help him to sleep any better.
Are you sure?
I don’t think he is!!!
Rick W:
I don’t think he is!!!
nor I
stevieboy308:
I agree with what juddian and Raymond’s has written and also the point frangais made about being on the phone is more likely to keep you awake than start nodding. I guess a lot if not most distance drivers will ring someone if they start to feel it setting in at some point, I know I did
You may wish to read this…nottinghampost.com/news/nott … 1-1272985s
Juddian… thanks for the clarification. Without reading all the stories again, if AIM had been parked up for 11 minutes, did nobody phone any of the authorities in that time, so at least HA could’ve put up ‘stranded vehicle’ on the matrix whilst the police made their way to the scene? It might not have made much difference but I feel that some of these messages make me subconsciously more aware…50mph, nobody takes much notice until brake lights start appearing (obviously further ahead of the car in front)…stranded vehicle/pedestrians in road makes me look a little bit harder and a lot further up the road ahead and taking more notice of what’s around me in case I need an escape route. I know some just barrel on regardless but I’d like to think many of us are quite ‘responsible’! I remember a few years back heading North up M40 towards the 42 one night, there was an artic stopped in the middle lane, no lights on, just sat there… I called it in and was told ‘someone will be there shortly’. I thought no more of it…left Cannock and matrix were showing M40 closed btwn 42/j15. Transpired this ‘parked’ artic had also hit a minibus, killing 2 or 3 and putting the bus down the bank, which is why I never called it as a RTC. If I hadn’t stopped in Warwick n/b for a few minutes, it might have been a different scenario. Don’t know if the driver was lashed up or anything, I’ll look for the story
It may be this one but I thought there were more fatalities but it is the right area tinyurl.com/y8pcz9xf
Well there’s your precedent as to where blame lies in this case.
"He (bus driver who stopped for no apparent reason) later claimed he had no memory of what happened, but was found guilty of causing her death by dangerous driving and jailed for nine months following a trial at Warwick Crown Court in December 2013.
The lorry driver was acquitted of careless driving over his part in the crash."
From Acrosman’s link.
Actrosman:
Juddian… thanks for the clarification. Without reading all the stories again, if AIM had been parked up for 11 minutes, did nobody phone any of the authorities in that time, so at least HA could’ve put up ‘stranded vehicle’ on the matrix whilst the police made their way to the scene? It might not have made much difference but I feel that some of these messages make me subconsciously more aware…50mph, nobody takes much notice until brake lights start appearing
I feel the same about this, that section of motorway is never dead, someone has driven past and would/should have “called it in”
What about the camera operators, where were they looking? What was on TV at the time?
If AIM had simply broken down and not had a drink, his lorry would have been in the same place, the mini bus driver would have still left home, possibly tired, maybe thought he could have 10 minutes over the wheel behind this parked lorry.
Neither of these two drivers have harmed anyone. (So far)
Wheel Nut:
Actrosman:
Juddian… thanks for the clarification. Without reading all the stories again, if AIM had been parked up for 11 minutes, did nobody phone any of the authorities in that time, so at least HA could’ve put up ‘stranded vehicle’ on the matrix whilst the police made their way to the scene? It might not have made much difference but I feel that some of these messages make me subconsciously more aware…50mph, nobody takes much notice until brake lights start appearingI feel the same about this, that section of motorway is never dead, someone has driven past and would/should have “called it in”
What about the camera operators, where were they looking? What was on TV at the time?
If AIM had simply broken down and not had a drink, his lorry would have been in the same place, the mini bus driver would have still left home, possibly tired, maybe thought he could have 10 minutes over the wheel behind this parked lorry.
Neither of these two drivers have harmed anyone. (So far)
Then came along automatic inattentive Wagstaffe! 1
mattecube:
Wheel Nut:
Actrosman:
Juddian… thanks for the clarification. Without reading all the stories again, if AIM had been parked up for 11 minutes, did nobody phone any of the authorities in that time, so at least HA could’ve put up ‘stranded vehicle’ on the matrix whilst the police made their way to the scene? It might not have made much difference but I feel that some of these messages make me subconsciously more aware…50mph, nobody takes much notice until brake lights start appearingI feel the same about this, that section of motorway is never dead, someone has driven past and would/should have “called it in”
What about the camera operators, where were they looking? What was on TV at the time?
If AIM had simply broken down and not had a drink, his lorry would have been in the same place, the mini bus driver would have still left home, possibly tired, maybe thought he could have 10 minutes over the wheel behind this parked lorry.
Neither of these two drivers have harmed anyone. (So far)
Then came along automatic inattentive Wagstaffe! 1
Unfortunately yes!
My thinking is that if drivers came upon a vehicle stopped (and naturally assumed it to have broken down, why would you think otherwise?) in a ‘live lane’ they would expect that its driver had already called for assistance using either his phone or a Motorway one? I would have assumed that anyway and not given a thought that the driver was parked up asleep so would have kept going. 
Maybe the minibus driver stopped behind to offer assistance but never got the chance to get out of his vehicle due to volume of traffic, who knows?
Pete.
GasGas:
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?
Everyone is entitled to the ‘option’ of trial by jury or by judge.In this case what’s the point of trial by jury when he’s actually entered a plea of guilty to dbcd with the prosectution’s case just resting on the legal question as to the standard of his driving v the legal definition of dangerous driving.
In which case not only is he being subjected to a pointless trial by jury to answer just that specific and complicated legal question which the jury obviously aren’t qualified to do.All the irrelevant diversionary bs such as you’ve described is also likely to interfere with any answer to that question when the jury provides it and therefore harm his defence not help it.So yes as I said a badly advised show trial which goes against his interests and the right to a fair trial in that in this case a trial by jury isn’t the right reference point.Bearing in mind that the jury could very well take into account his totally irrelevant claim of PTS or memory loss and use it against him just as you have,regarding just answering the specific question did he drive dangerously or carelessly which is all that needs to be answered in his case and which neither you nor any jury are qualified to answer being a question of legal definitions.
windrush:
My thinking is that if drivers came upon a vehicle stopped (and naturally assumed it to have broken down, why would you think otherwise?) in a ‘live lane’ they would expect that its driver had already called for assistance using either his phone or a Motorway one? I would have assumed that anyway and not given a thought that the driver was parked up asleep so would have kept going.Pete.
thats partly why i theorize he Was reversing/or planning to. the drivers who passed him tooted horns cos they too thought being so close to the slip he was trying that. they wouldnt have tooted if they merely thought he was broken down, nobody toots passing a broken down vehicle . the minibus pulling up behind thwarted that idea to reverse but instead of pulling away he sat tight, the minibus sat tight -likely hoping hed pull off- but eventually minibus motored out into lane 2- im thinking that the Pole put his reversing lights on so minibus had no option to move on out
corij:
windrush:
My thinking is that if drivers came upon a vehicle stopped (and naturally assumed it to have broken down, why would you think otherwise?) in a ‘live lane’ they would expect that its driver had already called for assistance using either his phone or a Motorway one? I would have assumed that anyway and not given a thought that the driver was parked up asleep so would have kept going.Pete.
1 thats partly why i theorize he Was reversing/or planning to. 2the drivers who passed him tooted horns cos they too thought being so close to the slip he was trying that. they wouldnt have tooted if they merely thought he was broken down, nobody toots passing a broken down vehicle . 3 the minibus pulling up behind thwarted that idea to reverse but instead of pulling away he sat tight, the minibus sat tight -likely hoping hed pull off-4 but eventually minibus motored out into lane 2- im thinking that the Pole put his reversing lights on so minibus had no option to move on out
1:- Corij, why do you keep on theorizing that he was reversing or about to ■■? Complete madness !!
2:- Who knows that other drivers were sounding their horns, unless they come forward as witnesses.
3:- Would he have seen in his mirrors that there was a minibus behind him? Probably not
4:- Where on earth have you got this information from ?
corij:
thats partly why i theorize he Was reversing/or planning to. the drivers who passed him tooted horns cos they too thought being so close to the slip he was trying that. they wouldnt have tooted if they merely thought he was broken down, nobody toots passing a broken down vehicle . the minibus pulling up behind thwarted that idea to reverse but instead of pulling away he sat tight, the minibus sat tight -likely hoping hed pull off- but eventually minibus motored out into lane 2- im thinking that the Pole put his reversing lights on so minibus had no option to move on out
It’s impossible to see how Wagstaff would have been advised to plead guilty if he had been confronted by a reversing AIM vehicle and/or collected the minibus in lane 2 while the minibus was carrying out a botched/forced lane change as part of that.Nor does that scenario seem to fit the facts of the case agreed by all sides.
Having said that ‘if’ the AIM driver’s destination was shown to be off at that specific junction and with it any possibility that the AIM truck was reversing,as opposed to it being stationary,and/or any evidence that the collision took place in lane 2,would be expected to have been a game changer regarding the prosecution and defence case.
Carryfast:
GasGas:
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?
Everyone is entitled to the ‘option’ of trial by jury or by judge.In this case what’s the point of trial by jury when he’s actually entered a plea of guilty to dbcd with the prosectution’s case just resting on the legal question as to the standard of his driving v the legal definition of dangerous driving.
In which case not only is he being subjected to a pointless trial by jury to answer just that specific and complicated legal question which the jury obviously aren’t qualified to do.All the irrelevant diversionary bs such as you’ve described is also likely to interfere with any answer to that question when the jury provides it and therefore harm his defence not help it.So yes as I said a badly advised show trial which goes against his interests and the right to a fair trial in that in this case a trial by jury isn’t the right reference point.Bearing in mind that the jury could very well take into account his totally irrelevant claim of PTS or memory loss and use it against him just as you have,regarding just answering the specific question did he drive dangerously or carelessly which is all that needs to be answered in his case and which neither you nor any jury are qualified to answer being a question of legal definitions.
I am sure the forum will benefit from you advising what legal precedents and proceedings that you have advised on in courts of law not withstanding I am fairly convinced all legal teams involved in this case and the judge will benefit from your thoughts. Maybe not eh,of course they will get a fair trial within a fair and proper legal system.
Carryfast:
GasGas:
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?
Everyone is entitled to the ‘option’ of trial by jury or by judge.In this case what’s the point of trial by jury when he’s actually entered a plea of guilty to dbcd with the prosectution’s case just resting on the legal question as to the standard of his driving v the legal definition of dangerous driving.
In which case not only is he being subjected to a pointless trial by jury to answer just that specific and complicated legal question which the jury obviously aren’t qualified to do.All the irrelevant diversionary bs such as you’ve described is also likely to interfere with any answer to that question when the jury provides it and therefore harm his defence not help it.So yes as I said a badly advised show trial which goes against his interests and the right to a fair trial in that in this case a trial by jury isn’t the right reference point.Bearing in mind that the jury could very well take into account his totally irrelevant claim of PTS or memory loss and use it against him just as you have,regarding just answering the specific question did he drive dangerously or carelessly which is all that needs to be answered in his case and which neither you nor any jury are qualified to answer being a question of legal definitions.
The Judge will explain to the jury the legal differences between ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ as defined in the relevant act.
The prosecution will try to identify aspects of the driver’s behaviour that were ‘dangerous’ which the defence will try to counter. The judge will sum up both arguments and remind the jury of what the law says/means.
The jury then have to sort the final verdict for themselves behind closed doors. If they get stuck on a point of law, they can ask the judge for advice. No doubt some will maintain the driver’s conduct was dangerous and others will not. They will try to convince each other. It’s how the legal system works…and its used for cases where the legal arguments are far more complex than they will be here. Trial by jury was probably invented in England, by the Saxons. Most other English-speaking nations have taken it up. It’s a pretty fair way of doing things, really.