dew:
seth 70:
I had my physio with a lot of the girls off this busThat’s what your calling it these days?
Not funny.
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
I doubt they’ll need an overnight bag as matching sweatshirts, jogging pants, ill fitting t-shirts and boxer shorts (all bearing the HMP designer label/motif) are provided for them.
Along with a donkey jacket and green work pants for the days when they’ll be working and earning their £2.70 a day
isaac hunt:
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 It should have been revoked after this little gem.Carryfast wrote: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.
To be fair things had/have long sinced moved on concerning the details of the case and what is being alleged by the prosecution concerning those details.As opposed to just trying to make sense of what some obscure photographs taken from a distance showed at the start.I’m guessing that you’re one of those who support the idea that ‘driving’ on a motorway means not ‘expecting’ anything to be ‘stationary’ ahead. 
the “trailer” were the screens to prevent people “rubbernecking” and were NOT attached to the coach
Driver-Once-More:
the “trailer” were the screens to prevent people “rubbernecking” and were NOT attached to the coach
Yes a fact which became clear very shortly after those ‘obscure’ long distance photos were posted.
Santa:
An observant driver would have seen the brake lights and swerving in front of him and taken appropriate action.
+1
Lots of brake lights ahead with or without lane changers should set alarm bells ringing.
seth 70:
. . . the bus was bolloxed and the girls begged him to pull over and go down the ponty sliproad but he wouldnt
Which, considering the minibus was moving at just 5.5mph, begs the question, What possessed him to carry on along the motorway?
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.
You don’t often get bridge pillars in lane 1.
Yes you are quite right, expecting the unexpected is part of driving but sometimes as humans we make mistakes and take the eye off the ball. Other people managed to avoid the bus but were these HGV’s or cars ■■ Why would the vehicles who avoided the bus make a fuss by blasting the horns if there were no danger issues?
The fact is the person who put the hen party in the firing line was the bus driver. The truck driver was simply careless not dangerous driving IMO.
Fact is someone was bound to hit that bus as long as he kept limping on…
ajt:
Other people managed to avoid the bus but were these HGV’s or cars ■■ Why would the vehicles who avoided the bus make a fuss by blasting the horns if there were no danger issues? .
We all know the answer to that, only as much as there seems to be some on here, that cannot accept that a truck driver could drive dangerously, there are also some who seem unable to accept the blinding obvious, sounding off horns was to draw attention to the bus driver, as to how dangerous his action were.
ajt:
[The fact is the person who put the hen party in the firing line was the bus driver. The truck driver was simply careless not dangerous driving IMO.
Not just your opinion, I wrote that earlier.
cliffystephens:
Fact is someone was bound to hit that bus as long as he kept limping on…
Carefull, that’s just too bleedin obvious and true 
HGV Driver cleared.
skipman:
HGV Driver cleared.
Contraflow:
D’ya not?:
cliffystephens:
Don’t understand this now …how many people can get charged with causing the accident if they have found the bus driver guilty end of…You do realize, this could be brought up if you apply to join TN CSI
He’d be rejected at the first stage of application.
There you go then…
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … crash.html
Six years, eight months jail for Mini bus driver.
out in 3 years…don’t see the point of putting the silly old sod into the pokey.dosent look like he will have been in there before,serves no purpose,whereas surely he could have been given community service etc to a heavy degree where he could pay the debt etc,whilst contributing something back. bit of a culture shock for him,getting put in with the dregs of society though they may see fit to put him in a protection wing as no doubt he will be vurnable inside,and thats his life over to all intents and purposes… 68 years old,institutionalised by the time he comes out,and fit for nothing but his giro…why dosent someone point a finger at whoever was careless enough to employ him if hes as twaddly as he is meant to be? surely theres some blame in that direction for knowing your employing a roaster??
Why was this man in possession of a vocational licence?He had both mental and physical health issues,did no-one at his work or other people that he was in contact with not realize that he was an accident looking for a place to happen.A 24seat bus is not a mini-bus.
Thought the TNCSI would have picked up on some of the info now coming out about this so called ‘professional’ PSV driver and the cowboy company that he was involved with. The call to see the Traffic Comissioner and subsequent disqualification/revocation of the O license of Skyway Travel (UK) was reported in July this year, but disappeared from the media quite quickly, possibly because of the ongoing court case 
Anyway the truth seems to be coming out now 
a company that shouldn’t have even been operating and a driver who shouldn’t even have been allowed to drive a mobility scooter 
This bloke isn’t the only one who should be doing a prison sentence
thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n … s_licence/
thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n … City_fans/
Regards
Dave Penn;
It looks like all the HGV driver bashers should be filling their faces on humble pie - being that the prick minibus driver was previously identified /reported (by previous clients) as being an unfit person to be in charge of a vehicle …
The owners of his company need ■■■■■■■ too … unless that might be deemed as racist
Yes Carryfast inparticular had a lot to say on the matter but not a peep since the not guilty verdict on either topic. Maybe he’s been ■■■■■■■ with some other cases to solve…
ajt:
Yes Carryfast inparticular had a lot to say on the matter but not a peep since the not guilty verdict on either topic. Maybe he’s been ■■■■■■■ with some other cases to solve…
You mean stuff to say like this.Maybe you’ve been a bit selective in the picking and choosing ‘everything I had to say’ on the matter.My position on the matter has always been innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.With the mini bus driver being the under the most suspicion.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=102509&hilit=MINIBUS&start=480#p1525283
As for the case if it had been me driving the truck I’d consider myself very lucky being that there is very rarely any defence against driving into something that is ‘established’ in lane crawling,stopped,broken down or crashed ahead.Regardless of how it got there.That was obviously the logic which the law was going by when they charged him. 
As it stands the verdict seems to send a questionable message that if someone drives into someone established ahead of them who is driving slowly or has stopped for whatever reason,regardless of circumstances,there will be no come back.When the obvious message from the law is ( arguably rightly ) don’t bet the farm on it.