Did he have a care of duty to his passengers, Yes, he stopped safely and correctly
Was he tired, I don’t know and neither do you that is supposition. How long had he been awake before that three hours, I hour, five hours, twenty four?, some people need a lot of sleep some don’t.
Did this act or omission put peoples lives in danger, again you don’t know, that is supposition, not fact.
As I understand it he wasn’t there long enough to evacuate.
simcor:
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+1
the jury gave their verdict because they couldnt really find him not guilty and being on handsfree and driving aint careless .
if it was careless then the vast majority in here are also guilty.
the minibus driver is as guilty as mr fedex for being so useless as not to get past the parked truck in front of him.
theres no way being on handsfree can be construed as dangerous hence the verdict as public opinion would demand some form of penalty.
the flipflop was drunk and stopped in lane 1.
thats what he should be done for.
whatever happened 12 mins after that would really be out of his remit though the media would like it to be otherwise.
if the minibus was paying as much attention as everyone else in the previous 12 mins,then that specific accident would ot have happened.
mr fedex just had bad luck the same as the rest of us could have at any time.
simcor:
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.
I don’t think we are far apart in our thoughts simcor. Was Wagstaff well rested? I’ve not seen anything to say he wasn’t, May well have missed some info tho. I can remember kicking off one Monday morning at 6 a.m., had a quiet weekend, bed handy, nice sleep, but by the time I got to Brum I could hardly keep my eyes open. And I’ve always had times like that, fortunately rarely and I’ve pulled over and had a kip. So well rested doesn’t mean the monotony doesn’t get to you.
I’d probably be less forgiving if I was a relative of one of the dead, but I naturally veer to the idea that he didn’t intend to kill anyone, he just made a terrible, terrible mistake.
knight2:
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.
Ah, I’d not read the few seconds bit.
albion:
simcor:
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.
I don’t think we are far apart in our thoughts simcor. Was Wagstaff well rested? I’ve not seen anything to say he wasn’t, May well have missed some info tho. I can remember kicking off one Monday morning at 6 a.m., had a quiet weekend, bed handy, nice sleep, but by the time I got to Brum I could hardly keep my eyes open. And I’ve always had times like that, fortunately rarely and I’ve pulled over and had a kip. So well rested doesn’t mean the monotony doesn’t get to you.
I’d probably be less forgiving if I was a relative of one of the dead, but I naturally veer to the idea that he didn’t intend to kill anyone, he just made a terrible, terrible mistake.
I don’t believe he intended to kill anyone either. But the fact remains he did not see or react to what was happening. Others did.
Again whether he was as well rested as he should have been is down to him and only he knows.
Everyone in those 3 vehicles shoulder some blame for the tragedy that happened that night.
Some still believe that certain parties should shoulder no blame.
Regardless of what how why or when, whilst driving you have to assume everyone is an idiot and that if you stop on a motorway there is likely someone behind going to run into you. Hence watching in your mirrors or get out of the way using the hard shoulder if you need to. You have to make split second decisions as a driver and any decent so called professional driver should be able to do so.
id think that any driver in here in the case of coming to a massive halt on the motorway or any road would be looking in your mirrors as soon as you know your stopping safely to see who is likely to be running up your jacksie and where to head for if it looked like happening.
knight2:
Did he have a care of duty to his passengers, Yes, he stopped safely and correctly
Was he tired, I don’t know and neither do you that is supposition. How long had he been awake before that three hours, I hour, five hours, twenty four?, some people need a lot of sleep some don’t.
Did this act or omission put peoples lives in danger, again you don’t know, that is supposition, not fact.
As I understand it he wasn’t there long enough to evacuate.
No matter how you cut it, it was reported he had only had 3 hours sleep.
Did he stop in a live lane even if only for a brief short time when an escape route was available to him?
Is it safe to ever stop on a motorway if you can avoid it?
Is someone likely to be not paying attention behind and wallop you from behind?
People think stopping on a motorway is nothing when vehicles are coming up behind at 70mph plus in some cases or trucks laden at 44ton at 56mph flat out.
Sorry but Common sense to me says get out of the way as quickly as possible.
dieseldog999:
id think that any driver in here in the case of coming to a massive halt on the motorway or any road would be looking in your mirrors as soon as you know your stopping safely to see who is likely to be running up your jacksie and where to head for if it looked like happening.
Nah you just sit in a live lane on a motorway where vehicles behind can be doing up to 70mph or more expecting them to stop safely behind you.
I hate being sat stationary on a motorway when there is nowhere to go and am constantly checking my mirrors and waiting for the bang, especially when there is nowhere for you to go.
The minibus had an escape route of the hard shoulder if he could not move out to lane 2. Simple as that.
perfectly correct my man,but how pc will it be for the media to draw our attention to that obvious fact?
Looking at the clip on the BBC site, I wonder why they show 9/10secs of traffic passing the stationary vehicle and then jump to a point where the mini-bus is behind it? Clearly a sizeable gap in the traffic for the mini-bus to pull around at that point, but given no idea of traffic conditions when the mini-bus stopped, or how long it was there.
There must have been some very good argument put up for the 2nd driver not to be found guilty given that his view was not obstructed in any way.
Update from TVP:
Ryszard Masierak, aged 32, of Barnards Close, Evesham, Worcestershire, was found guilty yesterday (6/3) by unanimous jury of eight counts of causing death by dangerous driving and four counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, at Reading Crown Court.
David Wagstaff, aged 54, of Derwent Street, Stoke-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to eight counts of causing death by careless driving at a previous hearing at Aylesbury Crown Court on 26 September 2017. He was acquitted of eight counts of causing death by dangerous driving and four counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving by a jury today (7/3).
knight2:
Did he have a care of duty to his passengers, Yes, he stopped safely and correctly
Was he tired, I don’t know and neither do you that is supposition. How long had he been awake before that three hours, I hour, five hours, twenty four?, some people need a lot of sleep some don’t.
Did this act or omission put peoples lives in danger, again you don’t know, that is supposition, not fact.
As I understand it he wasn’t there long enough to evacuate.
Being stopped in a live lane on a motorway aint stopped safely and correctly, stopping and then moving to a place of relative safety, that being the hard shoulder is stopped correctly. As he had time to stop and put his hazards on(shown in the dashcam footage), he had time to think Hard shoulder is my route out of here.
In news reports at the time of the accidents, friends if the Minibus driver had stated that he’d been with them the previous evening, returning home to have 3 hrs sleep before doing the drive. therefore one can only assume that he’d been awake at least all the previous evening. If he’d lived to tell the tail one can assume he’d have been on a charge too. 3hrs isn’t enough, we can all agree on that.
Vid:
Looking at the clip on the BBC site, I wonder why they show 9/10secs of traffic passing the stationary vehicle and then jump to a point where the mini-bus is behind it? Clearly a sizeable gap in the traffic for the mini-bus to pull around at that point, but given no idea of traffic conditions when the mini-bus stopped, or how long it was there.There must have been some very good argument put up for the 2nd driver not to be found guilty given that his view was not obstructed in any way.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
would the argument not be that sitting at 56 on cruise control in your fleet spec shed bored brainless in the middle of the night whilst on handsfree aint dangerous and not seeing stationary traffic ahead would be careless or without due care and attention?
when the minbus was careless enough to nearly do the same,then he shouldnt have remained there and should have entered the hard shoulder instead of waiting to see who might cream him from behind if he couldnt work out how to enter lane 2…
eddie snax:
In news reports at the time of the accidents, friends if the Minibus driver had stated that he’d been with them the previous evening, returning home to have 3 hrs sleep before doing the drive. therefore one can only assume that he’d been awake at least all the previous evening. If he’d lived to tell the tail one can assume he’d have been on a charge too. 3hrs isn’t enough, we can all agree on that.
Apologies if I have missed something, but haven’t read all of this thread so far, but wasn’t it mentioned very early on that not only had the minibus driver been late to bed and early to rise, but that he, as the owner of the company, had also been working in the office the previous day?
It was also stated that he was a workaholic striving hard to build his business and had not even gone on holiday with his family due to this tendency. Which is why he was staying with a cousin.
Regarding FedEx, certainly careless, but somewhere most of us have been in our long careers.
Lastly, cruise control. I use it all the time, wouldn’t have a vehicle without one because they are essential to avoid unwary wandering over the limit, but I do recognise the danger. If they outlawed them tomorrow but left me with a variable driver set speed limiter I would be happier. I specified them on my vehicles in the 80s, I believe they were called Econocruise.
Blue Day:
Sand Fisher:
Carryfast:
mattecube:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_driving#“Dangerously”To be fair going by the test of ‘obviousness’ I’d guess that the use of hands free communications and cruise control,as supposed evidence of ‘obviously’ ‘dangerous’ driving,could arguably be grounds for the defence to ask for the prosecution’s case to be thrown out ?.Unless it can show that use of either/both is now considered illegal and dangerous.
While a ‘careful’ driver using correct forward observation and planning would be expected to turn off cruise control at the first sign of any form of hazard ahead needing to be ‘carefully’ dealt with or the need to over take traffic ‘carefully’.A mistake regarding forward observation and planning and resulting ‘incorrect use of’ cruise control seeming to fit the definition of ‘careless’ not ‘dangerous’ driving ?.
Having said that ‘if’ anyone is saying that use of hands free communications or cruise control should be banned as being ‘obviously’ dangerous I’d agree.Then drivers would know exactly where they stand and there would be no argument that not only is it illegal to fit them but ‘use’ of them constitutes ‘obviously’ dangerous driving even if they are fitted.But that isn’t what’s being decided here.
One point that hasn’t been mentioned, though inadvertently implied that he did not slow down, is that only the Mercedes cruise control does not switch off when you brake, but comes on again automatically. MAN, Daf, Scania, Volvo, Renault all switch off when you brake and you have to use the resume button to get it to engage again (or set it). This feature I find worrying about Mercs and has caught me out on approaching roundabouts before now. It is because it is different that it is worrying.
Of course if you drive Mercs all the time you would know that (which I presume Wagstaff did).
Hate to pull you up on that fella but you’re kind of wrong, about the Volvo anyway.
If you have the engine brake set to Auto, and you use cruise control, if you dab the brakes then the CC stays on when you take your foot off the brake. If the engine brake is set at anything else then yes once you brake the CC goes off.
Wrong about the Merc too, the CC remains on if you use the continuous (exhaust) brake and if you use the service (foot) brake while the continuous brake is activated. But if you just use the service brake the CC cancels as soon as you put your foot on it.
[/quote]
Not in the ones I’ve driven it doesn’t. The CC only comes off if you turn it off. If you brake (foot) or use the exhauster it comes back on again.
Stanley Knife:
Copied from the Sentencing Council GuidelinesSENTENCING FOR CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING THE OFFENCES
Causing death by driving is divided into four offences. These are:
causing death by dangerous driving;
causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs;
causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving; and
causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers.
The main factor that varies between these offences is how much the offender is to blame.
For dangerous driving the standard of the offender’s driving will have been so bad as to have created an obvious
risk of danger.
In cases of careless driving the level of blame can vary enormously from being on the borderline of dangerous
driving to as little as misjudging the speed of another vehicle or momentary inattention while tuning a car radio.
Where the driver is under the influence of drink or drugs this further increases the level of blame. In cases of
driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured the blame arises from driving when not being allowed to do so.
THE SENTENCE
An offender is sentenced either after pleading guilty to the offence or being found guilty following a trial. The
judge or magistrates may sentence immediately or may adjourn the case to obtain reports on the offender.
The harm caused by any offence that results in a person’s death is immeasurable. The sentence can never be a
measure of the value put on the life of the victim. In sentencing cases of causing death by driving, the court has
to weigh up the enormous harm of a loss of life with the seriousness of the act or omission of the offender who
caused it.
HOW ARE SENTENCES DECIDED?
The judge or magistrates will decide the appropriate sentence by taking into account the facts of the case and
applying the relevant sentencing guidelines.
The judge or magistrates will consider:
how responsible the offender was for what happened;
other offences committed at the same time such as driving a stolen vehicle or failing to stop;
the serious harm caused by the offence, including whether more than one person was killed or injured;
whether the offender was seriously injured or was a close friend or relative of the victim; and
the circumstances and history of the offender, such as previous convictions or previous good character,
giving assistance at the scene and remorse.
In any case resulting in a person’s death the impact of the offence will, of course, be assessed as very serious.
If the victim’s family has chosen to make a victim personal statement the court will use the information it contains
when assessing the impact of the crime. If no victim personal statement is made the court will assess the impact
of the crime from the evidence.
The maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless
driving under the influence of drink or drugs is 14 years; for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving it
is five years; and for causing death by driving whilst unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured it is two years. The
maximum sentence is reserved for rare cases where blame is exceptionally high.
For some offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving or causing death by driving whilst
unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured where the offender is not considered to pose a danger of re-offending and
the level of fault is low, a community sentence may be deemed a more effective form of punishment and
rehabilitation than imprisonment. In some cases where the level of fault is very low the offender may be fined.
If the offender pleads guilty the sentence will be reduced by up to one third depending on how early the
plea was made.
All sentences will include a minimum period of disqualification from driving followed by:
a compulsory extended re-test for causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs; or
a discretionary re-test for causing death by careless driving or while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
The disqualification period runs from the sentencing, or enforcement if earlier (not from when an offender is
released from prison).
WHAT DOES THE SENTENCE ACTUALLY MEAN?
If the offender is sent to prison the law states that they will serve half their sentence in prison and half on licence
in the community. During the licence period they are subject to recall to prison if they commit any further offences
or breach any conditions that may be set.
If the offender is sentenced to a community sentence the exact details of the order will vary from case to case but
it is likely to include supervision and unpaid work.Considering the standard of his driving, being twice over the limit, and the not guilty plea, it’s now up to the judge to decide what level of responsibility he has for what happened, the number of people killed or injured, any previous convictions or good character, wether he gave any assistance at the scene and has he shown any remorse.
It doesn’t matter which way you look at it, he has to be looking at a hefty sentence.
So could he could receive a 14yr sentence to run consecutive for each death?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Very interesting, all that information.
For the multiple faults of the stationary driver, licence, drunk, irresponsible, multiple deaths etc. he may well get the max, that is 14 years.
For the ‘there but for the grace etc’ carelessness of FedEx he may get away with 2, and serve 1. Of course we don’t know his previous history but we do know that he pleaded guilty at an early stage. Also, although I don’t know all the circumstances, perhaps the court may take into consideration a measure of contributory carelessness by the minibus driver which might mitigate FedEx’s fault, but of course in no way works for AI.
Of course, I may be influenced by a measure of personal sympathy for the plight of the FedEx driver, having been so close to such inattention in a very long career. The thought of it frightens me and no doubt will haunt Wagstaff for the rest of his life.
It could have been a different scenario; the Pole’s truck had simply broken down and there was nothing he could have done about, it but the outcome for Mr Wagstaff would have been exactly the same.
Pete.
