So, Wagstaff was careless and not dangerous. He will still do time though. Up to five years I believe.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … iving.html
A lorry driver has been cleared of causing death by dangerous driving after eight people died in a horror crash on the M1.
Lorry driver David Wagstaff, 54, was found not guilty of eight counts of causing death by dangerous driving after the incident.
He admitted eight counts of causing death by careless driving during a trial at Reading Crown Court.
Yesterday a second driver Ryszard Masierak, 32, was found guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Masierak, who was drunk at the time, was one of two lorry drivers in the crash near Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, which left eight people dead and four seriously injured.
The court heard how Fed Ex driver David Wagstaff, 54, was driving on cruise control and was on the telephone to a friend when he ploughed into a minibus at 56mph on the M1 in the early hours of August 26 last year.
He told the court this week he could not remember what happened. The jury is still deliberating over Wagstaff’s culpability and will return to the court to continue these discussions tomorrow.
The court heard he crashed into a minibus driven by Cyriac Joseph, who was waiting with his hazard lights on for the chance to go around Masierak’s lorry.
When Wagstaff hit the minibus, which was taking passengers from Nottingham to London to catch a coach to Disneyland, it was forced into and under Masierak’s lorry.
Wagstaff, who had been an HGV driver for 12 years with a clean licence until the crash, has described in court that what happened was a ‘lack of concentration’ .
The jury reached unanimous verdicts on all counts against the Polish national after almost nine hours of deliberations.
The jury, which has retired for the day, will continue its deliberations tomorrow in respect of eight counts of death by dangerous driving, and four counts of serious injury by dangerous driving against Wagstaff.
Wagstaff, of Stoke on Trent, has already pleaded guilty to eight charges of causing death by careless driving and four counts of careless driving.
But he denies eight counts of causing death by dangerous driving and four counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Masierak, of Evesham, Worcestershire, faced a further eight charges of causing death by careless driving while over the prescribed alcohol limit, which he denied.
Masierak, speaking through a Polish interpreter, has described himself as a ‘careful driver’ despite other road users saying his driving was ‘erratic’.
He told the jury he had drunk alcohol before starting his delivery shift, but said he was not drunk.
The prosecution have said that a breath test at the scene and later at a police station showed he was ‘likely to have been in the region of twice the legal limit’ at the time of the collision.
The court also heard that Masierak had been stationary for 12 minutes in the slow lane of the M1 that day.
Prosecutor Oliver Saxby QC has told the jury they would have to carry out an objective analysis of the manner of driving that day and whether it had been dangerous rather than careless driving.
He said: ‘Driving is dangerous if in any way it falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver and exposes other road users to the danger of physical harm.’
The fatalities, six men and two women, were Mr Joseph, Panneerselvam Annamalai, Rishi Ranjeev Kumar, Vivek Baskaran, Lavanyalakshmi Seetharaman, Karthikeyan Pugalur Ramasubramanian, Subramaniyan Arachelvan and Tamilmani Arachelvan.
Four other minibus passengers, including a four-year-old girl, were seriously injured in the collision on the southbound M1.
(Copy and pasted direct from Daily Mail, any errors or discrepancies aren’t mine.)
Quite simply the jury had to decide if Fedex mans driving whilst using a hands free kit to make a call was dangerous or careless driving. They deliberated some time before coming up with their conclusion, careless not dangerous.
I tend to agree. He may still do time but not as much as AIM man
dieseldog999:
i never said it was ok,i said that over the years the media has brainwashed the general public the same way as they do with so many other issues that its a big deal to change the publics perception of it the same way as they are now trying to do with mobile phone use and speeding.
ireland isnt far ahead of eastern europe in that respect as its more laid back here and not seen as a big deal compared to the uk though they are trying hard to change the perspective albeit a lot slower.
mostly over here even the guards would think its ok to have a few pints and drive home so long as you dont rip the pish which is similar attitudes to living in the uk until the 90s
the flipflop was double the limit.thats 2 cans of cider,hardly baladdered drunk seeing as how 1 pint can have you over nowadays.
the fedex driver was on the phone,on the cruise,no doubt bored off his ■■■■ and on a night trunk.
i would think there would be a vast majority in here would be in his shoes right now apart from fate putting him in the wrong place at the wrong time.
as always in here though,thats not including the holier than thou brigade that never use the phone,never speed,never do 1 min over their time and all the rest of the halo wearing perfect truckie life they apparantly live.
Firstly my memory of the old school regime here was that yes it was generally considered as ok a have a few but as you say don’t take the ■■■■.It generally also worked fine.While ironically not being a million miles away from what we’ve actually got with the current drink drive limit in England and not the stupid Scottish one.
However it was also generally rightly the unwritten rule that fast driving/riding or truck driving and alcohol didn’t mix.Which is why we had transport cafes full of trucks and motorbikes and sometimes ‘sports cars’ with their drivers all drinking tea,coffee or dairy stuff.But not the pubs. 
While I’d guess that even today twice the limit would mean around 3-4 pints and possibly more depending on when the test was carried out.Although it’s anyone’s guess what it takes for someone to decide to stop in lane 1 of a motorway to sleep it off. 
On that note 1960’s/70’s motorways were definitely all about speed and how fast the thing would go and not ■■■■■■ drivers parked up in lane 1 trying to sleep off too much booze.
Blue Day:
Quite simply the jury had to decide if Fedex mans driving whilst using a hands free kit to make a call was dangerous or careless driving. They deliberated some time before coming up with their conclusion, careless not dangerous.I tend to agree. He may still do time but not as much as AIM man
Very fair decision.Which hopefully might do some good in encouraging drivers to up their game regarding the responsibilities of the job in terms of forward observation and planning and binning the cruise control and hands free as part of that.
dieseldog999:
my mate …
he is a rep making over £1000 a year
He might want to consider HGV driving, he’ll make that in a month!
ezydriver:
dieseldog999:
my mate …
he is a rep making over £1000 a yearHe might want to consider HGV driving, he’ll make that in a month!
If he does 100 hours a week
Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
I must admit I am surprised he has been cleared of death by dangerous driving.
Whatever the cause he did not see stationary vehicles and made no attempt to slow down or go round them.
Is that dangerous or careless driving? As for the interpretation of the law that’s one thing, but his driving was well under par of what could be considered as careful driving IMHO.
I also don’t believe people can use the argument of night driving being the cause. You have to be well rested whether you work days or nights regardless.
The problem I see it as is people working nights who try to burn the candle at both ends, or people who are far too inattentive whilst they are driving.
Mr Wagstaff was clearly very inattentive, if he hadn’t have been on a phone call would he have seen it or not, would he have still plowed on regardless.
I still fail to see how other vehicles managed to avoid the obstruction and go round it yet the sleep deprived minibus driver stopped and inattentive drive Mr Wagstaff ran into them.
You see a lot of inattentive driving at all times but I do see worse at night a lot from car drivers who look no further than the end of their bonnet and also truck drivers too who seem to react to lane closures etc at the very last second with plenty of warning.
I wonder who the jury consisted of during the case, I imagine the defence team will play the race card over the verdicts in any appeal. Personally I fail to see how you can come to a verdict of dbdd and dbcd for two different drivers who both had equal blame for causing the deaths of those people. And I still believe that had Mr Joseph survives given the lack of sleep he would also be on trial.
Blue Day:
Quite simply the jury had to decide if Fedex mans driving whilst using a hands free kit to make a call was dangerous or careless driving. They deliberated some time before coming up with their conclusion, careless not dangerous.I tend to agree. He may still do time but not as much as AIM man
My understanding of dangerous driving is that the jury had to decide whether or not Wagstaffs driving was likely to cause harm or injury to other people, the fact that he was presumably so engrossed in a conversation and completely switched off as far as the driving was concerned that he was unaware of what was going on in front of him suggests that he was in fact driving dangerously.
I’m sort of pleased that he got off with causing death by careless driving but I think he was lucky, another jury on another day and it could have been so much worse for him.
i dunno how id get on with life after that experience , possibly couldnt face driving at night on a Motorway even in a car,or even as a passenger . but people do get on with life,maybe theres counselling on offer to all involved where you learn coping strategies
This is worth looking at on a computer in its entirity
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … iving.html
There are 2 dashcam videos contained in the report which shows the parked lorry and also the minibus waiting to go around … it looks busy and confusing and I have to say the minibus looks like it didn`t have much of a choice but to wait for a break in traffic in lane 2
RIP TO ALL INVOLVED
To be honest I’d imagined that there was less traffic but from the link above it looks like Mr Wagstaff was in a row of traffic and still completely unaware of what was going on around him.
It really is quite shocking that a lorry driver would be so switched off whilst driving in traffic that he never cottoned on to the fact that the vehicles in front were moving out to lane 2 for a reason.
If driving into the back of a mini bus with no attempt to avoid it and killing eight people isn’t dangerous driving I don’t know what is and I think the verdict is disgusting. I would like to hear the juries reason for coming to that conclusion.
I also find it strange that some on hear are still saying the minibus driver is at fault. He at least saw a stationary vehicle in front of him, he put his hazards on as he is supposed to, he brought his vehicle to a halt safely and well clear of the stationary and waited for a safe period to overtake. Where is the fault?. Sadly he never got the chance as a few seconds later Wagstaff killed him.
Can’t recall if matrix signs were ever mentioned in court. One of videos clearly shows they’re on although only showing times to junctions. Makes me wonder if CCTV operator could have done something to try and prevent this happening
knight2:
If driving into the back of a mini bus with no attempt to avoid it and killing eight people isn’t dangerous driving I don’t know what is and I think the verdict is disgusting. I would like to hear the juries reason for coming to that conclusion.
Driving at 70 mph in a 30 mph limit in a built up area and not hitting anything or anyone at all or driving while tired and incapable etc is dangerous driving.Not getting the forward observation and planning zb’d up on a motorway and running into a stationary obstruction in a live lane ultimately caused by a spaced out ■■■■■■ driver.On that note you did check out the verdict of the M62 mini bus incident which actually cleared the truck driver totally. 
Amazing decision. Oh to be a fly on the wall whilst they were deliberating.
knight2:
If driving into the back of a mini bus with no attempt to avoid it and killing eight people isn’t dangerous driving I don’t know what is and I think the verdict is disgusting. I would like to hear the juries reason for coming to that conclusion.
I also find it strange that some on hear are still saying the minibus driver is at fault. He at least saw a stationary vehicle in front of him, he put his hazards on as he is supposed to, he brought his vehicle to a halt safely and well clear of the stationary and waited for a safe period to overtake. Where is the fault?. Sadly he never got the chance as a few seconds later Wagstaff killed him.
I’ve been driving on and off for a long time and I’m pretty sure that I have been lucky a couple of times and by sheer good fortune, something I’ve done stupidly, hasn’t ended up worse. And I think most people can think back to a time when their driving is below optimum. And unlike Simcor, I do think it’s fair to raise the question of how working at night affects you.
I’m undecided as to the degree of fault that can be laid at the door of the minibus driver. I’ve said before, I can understand how he has ended up behind the AIM truck, but I would not have tried to move into lane 2 from a standing start, I’d have gone onto the hard shoulder to build up speed and I suspect pretty quick. He has got stuck behind the AIM truck because he’s made the understandable mistake of not tbinking he was stationary and then not being able to move over. I’d think if I made that mistake, someone else might. If reports are correct that he had 3 hours sleep, then his attention would be below par.
albion:
And unlike Simcor, I do think it’s fair to raise the question of how working at night affects you.
I agree to a point and I’ve never said working at night does not affect a person.
However what I am saying is anyone driving a truck at any time of the day or night should be alert enough to see what is happening down the road. You should be well rested and not driving tires or in a zombie like state day or night. You as the driver should not drive of it is not safe for you to do so.
I was also pointing out that days or nights it is the drivers responsibility to be well tested and ensure they have had adequate sleep.
As for the minibus driver I still stand by the fact he had little sleep, yes he avoided the obstructing truck but failed in his due care to his passengers to get out the way by using the hard shoulder as you say for example, because his judgement was also likely impaired due to lack of sleep.
A lack of sleep affects your judgement your mood and your decision making, that we all know. They say a tired driver is as dangerous as a drunk driver yet people still do it.
But using the argument of a night driver being in a zombie like state as an excuse is just not a defence for driving without due care and attention.
Albion agree about the lack of sleep maybe affecting his decision making and I’m not saying he couldn’t have done better. But he probably and rightly expected the traffic behind him to slow and stop as he did, and according to the report I read he was only stopped for a few seconds.
knight2:
If driving into the back of a mini bus with no attempt to avoid it and killing eight people isn’t dangerous driving I don’t know what is and I think the verdict is disgusting. I would like to hear the juries reason for coming to that conclusion.
I also find it strange that some on hear are still saying the minibus driver is at fault. He at least saw a stationary vehicle in front of him, he put his hazards on as he is supposed to, he brought his vehicle to a halt safely and well clear of the stationary and waited for a safe period to overtake. Where is the fault?. Sadly he never got the chance as a few seconds later Wagstaff killed him.
Does a driver of passengers in a vehicle for hire or reward have a due care for his passengers safety?
Answer is yes.
Was he tired due to lack of sleep?
Answer is yes as it was stated he had only had 3 hours or so sleep before starting the journey.
Did his act or omission put people lives in jeopardy?
Answer is yes it did, had he gone round the truck on the hard shoulder instead of stopping there and sitting there waiting to be rear ended by someone (in this case Mr Wagstaff) then 8 people wouldn’t be dead.
At the very least as a professional driver had he had to stop and had no way round first course of action would be to get people off the bus and over the armco to as safe as place as possible til the problem was resolved.