Mini bus driver pleads guilty

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
41

commonrail:
Stupid old man :unamused:

I would expect ollerhead to be treated leniently…even if he is found guilty

Eh? So far we have a coach going slow, possibly with some sort of defect. (Apparently he stupid).
And Ollerhead on cruise who can’t stop for a slow vehicle, and you hope he’s treated leniently ?

Maybe they should replace that passage in the highway code that tells you to drive at a speed you can safley see and stop within to…make sure you can keep going to get out of everyones way and not cause anyone to have to react to what you do.?

42

I had my physio with a lot of the girls off this bus ,i know the full story and made mates with a few especially amy whos sister died,lets just see what gets decided ,all im going to say is that bus was bolloxed and the girls begged him to pull over and go down the ponty sliproad but he wouldnt :open_mouth:

43

commonrail:
Stupid old man :unamused:

I would expect ollerhead to be treated leniently…even if he is found guilty

I don’t understand how or why you think this is a reasonably outcome.

Should be at least 50/50 and maybe even more towards the truck driver, because he wasn’t paying attention to the road.

The coach driver has admitted culpability and guilt. The truck driver is from the evidence shown so far in denial.

Would be interested to know your thought process as to why he should be treated leiniently

44

I know Kev and hes a really nice level headed guy. Hope all goes well for him.

45

Amy made a statement in court today and blamed [the stupid bus driver]for ruining her life ,that was on todays local news .

46

Jamieg:

commonrail:
I would expect ollerhead to be treated leniently…even if he is found guilty

I don’t understand how or why you think this is a reasonably outcome.

Would be interested to know your thought process as to why he should be treated leiniently

^ This.

Assuming that the mini bus was established in the lane and it wasn’t a lane change incident it is scary that there are drivers out there who think that it’s ok to plough through a slow moving or stopped vehicle/s ahead regardless of what slowed or stopped the the vehicle/s in question.

47

Mike-C:

eddie snax:

The women described how they could smell burning when the minibus got on to the A1.
They said they forced the driver to stop to check his vehicle but once the journey continued and the minibus moved on to the M62, it slowed to a crawl.

Now that is dangerous, and I don’t even need hindsight to realise that :unamused:

Dangerous, how exactly? To give some context it is shortly going to be possible for HGV’s to drive at 50mph on single carriageways. Horses, cyclists and carts can also use single carriageways, and of course pedestrians. In this case (the M62 crash) the HGV was apparently doing 52mph.

To be fair the speed limit is probably irrelevant to the type of driver who thinks they have no responsibility to drive according to the distance they can see to be clear ahead.

48

If it’s proved he made no attemp to brake…then he has some explaining to do.
If not…i stand by my post.

49

seth 70:
I had my physio with a lot of the girls off this bus ,i know the full story and made mates with a few especially amy whos sister died,lets just see what gets decided ,all im going to say is that bus was bolloxed and the girls begged him to pull over and go down the ponty sliproad but he wouldnt :open_mouth:

Yes that’s basically what was on the local news tonight.
If the vehicle was doing 5mph I think it would have caught me out,many a time iv seen a truck in the distance and thought I’m gaining on him quick as he is going that slow but if you see a smaller vehicle with no flashing lights I think it could of caused many of us a few problems.
No matter what any of us say we all get caught out at times through a moment not paying attention.

50

The problem is you have cab phones,your told you have too ring in if your delayed in anyway to c/s ,then you get phone calls asking for eta,s,pallets into last drop,giving you new reference numbers ( pain trying too write them down when driving ) etc,etc ,they might well be hands free but you still have too check pod for info t.o want,write down info etc.
You can switch off auto answer but then your on a disiplinary when you get back,all this going on and a van doing 5.5 mph is a recipe for disaster.
You could try and stop but on a motorway not easy and then you’d get another phone call asking why you’d had a unauthorised stop .

51

Its easy to say the truck driver should have seen the mini bus but at 5.5mph the bus was practically stationary. You don’t expect to see this come up on you on a motorway. Yes he should have been paying more attention but its clearly a case of careless at worst, not dangerous driving. Dangerous driving was done by the bus driver and those on the bus and vehicles who managed to maneuver round him seem to indicate this too.

Its bad enough when you come up against a vehicle on a motorway who is travelling well under the flow of traffic and the chaos they cause with vehicles switching lanes and pulling out let alone something practically stationary at 5.5mph.

If it wasn’t this trucker who hit the bus guarantee’d it would have been something else. There is a reason we don’t let slow moving vehicles on a motorway and this is the outcome when we do unfortunately…

52

ajt:
Its easy to say the truck driver should have seen the mini bus but at 5.5mph the bus was practically stationary. You don’t expect to see this come up on you on a motorway. Yes he should have been paying more attention but its clearly a case of careless at worst, not dangerous driving. Dangerous driving was done by the bus driver and those on the bus and vehicles who managed to maneuver round him seem to indicate this too.

Its bad enough when you come up against a vehicle on a motorway who is travelling well under the flow of traffic and the chaos they cause with vehicles switching lanes and pulling out let alone something practically stationary at 5.5mph.

If it wasn’t this trucker who hit the bus guarantee’d it would have been something else. There is a reason we don’t let slow moving vehicles on a motorway and this is the outcome when we do unfortunately…

The fact is anyone driving on a motorway under the illusion that they’d never need to ‘expect’ any stationary vehicles ahead is driving dangerously and if they plough into something while under that illusion resulting in any fatalities that fits the definition of causing death by dangerous driving.

The problem in many cases seems to be a dumbed down speed regime that has resulted in a situation whereby drivers can’t handle large speed differentials by seeing them well ahead and planning ahead for them.

53

ajt:
You don’t expect to see this come up on you on a motorway.

Why not?
You should always be expecting the unexpected. We’re you not taught to constantly scan the road ahead for hazards? Does that mean we can crash into bridge pillars that are ‘practically stationary’ or do you observe your surroundings and act accordingly.
Once again - other drivers saw this bus and managed to avoid it. The truck driver didn’t. If there was any question he was not in some way a contributory factor then the CPS would not have brought charges.
How people here can continue to defend him is beyond me.

54

The evidence reported states that the lorry hit the minibus at 52 mph having not reduced speed. It also reports that a clear view of the minibus could be had from the lorry cab for 6.6 seconds before impact. That means that the lorry was approximately 500 feet away when the bus became visible. This is roughly one and a half times the distance between the telephone marker posts beside the hard shoulder. Even making allowance for reaction time, there was time and space ahead to do something, but apparently direction and speed remained the same.

We shall see what counsel defending makes of ‘a clear view’.

55

An observant driver would have seen the brake lights and swerving in front of him and taken appropriate action.

56

To be fair they both best start packing a overnight bag,the minibus driver will need a few more pairs of clean kegs and socks than the lorry driver though,both at fault and will get a descent each :neutral_face:

57

seth 70:
To be fair they both best start packing a overnight bag,the minibus driver will need a few more pairs of clean kegs and socks than the lorry driver though,both at fault and will get a descent each :neutral_face:

Not sure why you think the minibus driver is more at fault than the truck driver.

I would say they are equally at fault but for different reasons and to be honest I don’t want to share road space with either assuming the facts are being reported correctly

There are a lot of people on her making excuses for the truck driver, but there could be just as many excuses for why applied to the coach driver.

However the inescapable facts if as reported are that the minibus driver took an unroadworthy vehicle out onto a busy motorway and a truck driver hit him despite having sufficient time to avoid him or at least lessen his speed.

Cruise control is a great help but does as I previously said reduce the foot off the throttle effect whilst assessing a situation. Far too many people, in both cars and trucks allow their vehicles to approach developing situations whilst on cruise.

58

Mike-C:

eddie snax:

The women described how they could smell burning when the minibus got on to the A1.
They said they forced the driver to stop to check his vehicle but once the journey continued and the minibus moved on to the M62, it slowed to a crawl.

Now that is dangerous, and I don’t even need hindsight to realise that :unamused:

Dangerous, how exactly? To give some context it is shortly going to be possible for HGV’s to drive at 50mph on single carriageways. Horses, cyclists and carts can also use single carriageways, and of course pedestrians. In this case (the M62 crash) the HGV was apparently doing 52mph.

I’m under the illusion that its an offence to knowingly take a defective Vehicle or a vehicle short off fuel onto the Motorway(though no doubt my ignorance will be shown up, but hey ho), it is stated in the report that the defect had developed on the A1, some distance before the bus got to where it was.

I don’t think Mr Ollerhead should not be prosecuted, I just think its the wrong charge, to Me it appears on the face off it to be driving without due care and attention.

To answer your question as to 50 mph on s/c roads, yes there will be other road user some off whom will be doing walking speed, and it is every road users responsibility to practice due care and attention, including pedestrians etc.

If youre driving a crippled vehicle, would you not try to get it to a place off safety, It does not appear that that was the case here. One might think that Ferrybridge services would have been a better option than trying to limp on, especially when your passengers are questioning the mechanical condition off the vehicle.

m1cks:

ajt:
You don’t expect to see this come up on you on a motorway.

Why not?
You should always be expecting the unexpected. We’re you not taught to constantly scan the road ahead for hazards? Does that mean we can crash into bridge pillars that are ‘practically stationary’ or do you observe your surroundings and act accordingly.
Once again - other drivers saw this bus and managed to avoid it. The truck driver didn’t. If there was any question he was not in some way a contributory factor then the CPS would not have brought charges.
How people here can continue to defend him is beyond me.

I agree with you, I’m only saying that I don’t think its the right charge, but He is in court and that’s right, even if I don’t agree with the charge.

Stanley Knife:
IMO the Mini-bus driver has received very good council - and the lorry driver hasn’t.

You might find that Mr Ollerhead’s council was bang on.

59

seth 70:
I had my physio with a lot of the girls off this bus

That’s what your calling it these days? :open_mouth:

60

Has carryfast got his TnCSI card back ? It should have been revoked after this little gem.

Carryfast wrote:
No damage on the trailer which seems to have been connected to the minibus but the rear of the minibus seems to be what took the impact with the truck. Which raises the possibility that the trailer became uncoupled from the mini bus and went into lane 2 in front of the overtaking truck who then went to the left to avoid it and then hit the van,that had just lost it’s trailer,in the rear. Which in my book wouln’t make it the truck driver’s fault except for making the wrong choice in not just holding his course in lane 2 and hit the uncoupled trailer instead of taking avoiiding action to try to miss it.