windrush:
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.
Indeed, but had that been me in the Pole’s wagon, and it had come to a shuddering halt without even the possibilty of the hard shoulder, I would have been running back up the carriageway in my hi viz with torch flashing dropping a triangle on the way and punching the single 999 button as I went.
There were at least 12 minutes before the impact, a torchlight flashing in Mr. Wagstaff’s eyes with hi viz arms waving frantically might well have enforced a different outcome.
The fact that the Pole did not, worse, could not, is the crux of his culpability.
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 agree the verdict on Wagstaff is another failure by jury trial but the cctv clearly shows there was plenty of opportunity for the minibus driver to have moved to lane 2 if he had been paying proper attention to the traffic, it wasn’t that busy and this man was also a “professional” driver. But for his actions 8 people would be alive and maybe Wagstaff would be dead.
In court, eye witness statements of the Polish driver before the accident, saw him drive erractly, the wrong way on a roundabout and a slip road.
About 100 vehicles got past the AIM truck stationary in lane one.
The police said the Pole MAY have been twice over the drink limit at the time of the crash, why is there doubt on that ?
TiredAndEmotional:
[
I agree the verdict on Wagstaff is another failure by jury trial but the cctv clearly shows there was plenty of opportunity for the minibus driver to have moved to lane 2 if he had been paying proper attention to the traffic, it wasn’t that busy and this man was also a “professional” driver. But for his actions 8 people would be alive and maybe Wagstaff would be dead.
I too couldn’t understand why he (minibus driver) didn’t use the time he had before being stoved into, which appears to have been a few minutes at least, which in that situation is a vast amount of time, to either go to the right, or onto the hard shoulder which appeared to be clear. Either way, his lack of action was a major factor in the deaths of himself and 7 other people.
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.
.
I definitely remember about friend saying he’d had 3 hrs sleep. If what you say is true, then he was burning himself out, and went out with a big bang.
Spardo:
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.
I had an F reg MAN in the early 90’s, that had a speed hold function, iirc that was before speed limiter were introduced.
A lot of trucks have Variable speed limiters, the Actros I drive now does, so do Range T’s
I’m pretty wedded to my cruise control, mainly it gives me the ability not to be drawn into the 56 mph race, by setting it at 53-54 mph I just stay out of the fray, without it, I’d get drawn into pulling up to every other truck. If they were removed, all that would happen is that drivers would just drive with the right foot planted, and use the limiter to restrict theyre ultimate speed, and that will make a driver no more aware of his surroundings than when on CC. To any body who thinks this wont be the case, well the evidence from when limiter were introduced suggest otherwise
newmercman:
So could he could receive a 14yr sentence to run consecutive for each death?
According to the guidelines the maximum sentence is served on only the most serious of cases. If this case isn’t regarded as one of the most serious it begs the question what is!
Wagstaff on the other hand pled guilty to dbcd, of which the maximum sentence is 5 years. He will receive a one third discount on his sentence for pleading guilty early in the process.
Purely guesswork on my part at 12 years for Masierak and 3 years for Wagstaff reduced to 2 years with the discount.
I stopped reading this thread round about page 3, as I don’t think it’s appropriate to speculate on things when people have been killed and when another driver faces losing his licence, livliehood, and more importantly his freedom for doing his job.
That should be left to a court of law imo.
So if I’m repeating stuff that is why.
I did hear that the driver from Stoke was facing a lesser charge than the ■■■■■■■■ who stopped his truck in lane 1 while over the limit.(as for him they should chuck away the key)
As this is a high profile case involving death, and a driver driving at an unsociable hour, with all the potential fatigue issues that this type of thing brings up…,
Will the powers that be look into the ridiculously long hours that we are allowed to work legally, paired up with the ridiculously low reduced ‘‘rest’’ hours permitted.
(I know the answer by the way, it’s rhetorical, and I’m just making a point)
As an analogy, …If 1 million drivers over a period of 10 yrs go into a co. premises and climb on the back of their trailer, and 1 of those drivers in that million fall of, chances are there will be rules made to ban all drivers from climbing on their trailer.
By the same token,…Christ knows how many drivers work and drive while not fully alert due to long hours etc.every day of every week, or at one time or another individually.
I aint saying that was or was not the case with the Stoke driver, but the possibillity is there,
So if the climbing on the trailer criteria is the norm in every other case, why is it not applied here, where more sensible 21st Century working conditions and limits are reviewed in this industry?
A high profile case involving trucks and road deaths should be a good reason for it, if anything is.
TiredAndEmotional:
[
I agree the verdict on Wagstaff is another failure by jury trial but the cctv clearly shows there was plenty of opportunity for the minibus driver to have moved to lane 2 if he had been paying proper attention to the traffic, it wasn’t that busy and this man was also a “professional” driver. But for his actions 8 people would be alive and maybe Wagstaff would be dead.
I too couldn’t understand why he (minibus driver) didn’t use the time he had before being stoved into, which appears to have been a few minutes at least, which in that situation is a vast amount of time, to either go to the right, or onto the hard shoulder which appeared to be clear. Either way, his lack of action was a major factor in the deaths of himself and 7 other people.
A few minutes■■?
Have you seen the video from the Motorway cameras? (a link to a Daily Mail web page was posted earlier). You can see the minibus approaching the stationary truck. He puts on his hazard flashers as he slows, then comes to a halt. Ten seconds later Wagstaffe’s truck barrels into him at 56mph…
Some good stuff there I have wondered for a while if the fed ex truck had rear ended the other truck would it of gained as much media coverage and even as much on here.
Obviously multiple deaths will mean it’s high profile but it does raise questions about the state of thi industry
Rick W:
Remember reading the comments of some on here just after the accident. Especially one poster who seemed adamant the fedex driver was innocent for some strange reason.
As per usual the cause is human error and highlights the dangers of cruise control and talking on a phone whilst driving.
Complete lack of concentration on the road ahead.
I may have been one of those who thought fedex was innocent as i thought that fedex was in the middle lane and the minibus pulled out on him,now i know he was in the first lane, on the phone, and didn’t even brake before impact,as you say complete lack of concentration,when you drive hgvs for a living you need 100% attention,or you shouldn’t be driving them,i don’t think the minibus driver was thinking correctly though,he was stuck behind the AIMS driver before impact but the video shows he could have pulled left onto the hard shoulder,there was room to do so,natural survival instinct i would have thought,at least all would still be alive had he done so,but then i guess hindsight is a wonderful thing as they say
People keep saying the mini-bus driver should have driven onto the hard shoulder, bear in mind that all he would have seen was the rear end of a trailer, no-one in that situation would have thought there was some fool sleeping in a live lane, he probably thought there was a breakdown or accident in lane 1 and a queue of stationary vehicles in front of him because of it.
I haven’t really followed the case but I cannot see any hard evidence that the mini-bus driver did anything wrong, he certainly made a couple of unfortunate judgement calls but given the circumstances I don’t see how he can be blamed for that, it’s not as easy to make the correct judgment calls in a few seconds as it is when you have several months and the benefit of hindsight.
Having now seen the videos I think the Fed-Ex driver was extremely lucky to get away with a verdict of causing death by careless driving.
Ironically, he was probably saved by at least some on the jury arguing that it would be disproportionate to find both drivers guilty of the same offence.
Wagstaff quickly admitted his error, explained why it had happened and said he understood the consequences, he made no attempt to blame anyone else: the other guy had had his licence revoked, had turned up for work drunk and been drinking in the cab, had been driving erratically, all before the incident when he had stopped in lane one and not put his hazards on, and came up with a string of unconvincing excuses as to why he did what he did, while still seemingly denying that it was in any way his fault.
If you actually watch the video you will see the minibus has traffic alongside it as it approaches the minibus so brakes to a stop with hazards on. 12 seconds later he is taken out by the FedEx truck.
That was probably enough time to wonder what was going on and and if I remember rightly the minibus was angled towards the shoulder when the FedEx hit him as the minibus was shunted under the back of the Aim lorry and back out onto the hard shoulder
That may indicate he had decided that the shoulder was the way to go.
12 seconds really isn’t long to get a fully loaded minibus moving again
TiredAndEmotional:
[
I agree the verdict on Wagstaff is another failure by jury trial but the cctv clearly shows there was plenty of opportunity for the minibus driver to have moved to lane 2 if he had been paying proper attention to the traffic, it wasn’t that busy and this man was also a “professional” driver. But for his actions 8 people would be alive and maybe Wagstaff would be dead.
I too couldn’t understand why he (minibus driver) didn’t use the time he had before being stoved into, which appears to have been a few minutes at least, which in that situation is a vast amount of time, to either go to the right, or onto the hard shoulder which appeared to be clear. Either way, his lack of action was a major factor in the deaths of himself and 7 other people.
A few minutes■■?
Have you seen the video from the Motorway cameras? (a link to a Daily Mail web page was posted earlier). You can see the minibus approaching the stationary truck. He puts on his hazard flashers as he slows, then comes to a halt. Ten seconds later Wagstaffe’s truck barrels into him at 56mph…
I didn’t count but it seemed longer to me, I didn’t watch it through the daily mail, but from youtube, and 10 seconds is an age, or so we are led to believe when a truck driver ploughs into a car and hasn’t been watching the road for 7 seconds !!
12 seconds really isn’t long to get a fully loaded minibus moving again
[/quote]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
people must really love sitting behind you at the traffic lights,if you couldnt shift a transit off the line in under 12 seconds??
if you came to a halt on a motorway then how long would it take you sitting in a van looking in your rear view watching someone apparently not stopping and obviously going to cream you before you hit 6k revs and dropped the clutch ?.
I’m going to say this (may have already been said) If it wasn’t for the fact that the minibus was there, Wagstaff most probably wouldn’t be in court, he’d be dead, running into the back of a stationary trailer at 56 mph, can’t see him surviving that.
My point, is that he wasn’t aware of what was in front of him , forget the minibus for a minute, he was not aware that there was stationary vehicles in front of him and he has ploughed straight into them. The minibus has probably saved his life. He has to be culpable of death by dangerous driving , end of. No excuses! The minibus driver shouldn’t have been there, that it was night time, it was a busy motorway, he couldn’t move to lane 2. FedEx man didn’t even break, just ran straight into the back of the stopped vehicles, because he wasn’t alert!
The Polish driver was a prat, he was the cause of the accident, but it’s Wagstaff who actually dealt the killing blow!
at what part was his driving dangerous apart from carelessly not being as alert as he should be?
thats why he aint getting a dangerous and only a careless ( as if that isnt enough for the poor sod)
never judge a man till you walk a mile in his shoes.
wrong place,wrong time and only doing what masses of truckied constantly do day and night.just bad luck for him.
dieseldog999:
at what part was his driving dangerous apart from carelessly not being as alert as he should be?
thats why he aint getting a dangerous and only a careless ( as if that isnt enough for the poor sod)
never judge a man till you walk a mile in his shoes.
wrong place,wrong time and only doing what masses of truckied constantly do day and night.just bad luck for him.
My point Diesel, he’s lucky to be alive! If it wasn’t for the minibus being there to cushion the impact , he probably wouldn’t be. I’m not with you on this one, sorry.
if the bus wasnt there,then there would be no mr fedex,he would be slaughtered.
there would also be no big trial or media hype looking for blood as 1 truckie creaming another one with a drunk driver isnt exactly big news compared to a bus load of indians getting wiped out.
the flipflop is getting locked up with a chocolate key…mr fedex will be on the receiving end of justice seeing to be done to appease the media,and for the same reason,i dont really see any incompetent careless blame going to the bus driver which is just the way itl be reported by all in court and in the media.
the guilty plea will have helped him tremendously and all the charges laid against him were so they could drop the biggies on a guilty plea for the lessers without any hard work for the prosecution.
