This guy was 26 and really should have known better. But then again you spent a lot of your early years making mistakes and hopefully learning from them. I guess we all know what we were like when we were teenagers into our 20’'s
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57725050
Now before anyone goes off on one, there have been incidents of older drivers being distracted by using their phone that have killed people in crashes as well.
Just thought it might bring up some interesting view points.
Of course maybe the answer is going back to old school. [emoji848][emoji102]
‘’‘In police interviews, Platt admitted his mobile phone had distracted him earlier during his journey.’‘’
so what was it, using his phone at the time directly causing the accident or [earlier] in the day, the devil is in the detail.
Juddian:
‘’‘In police interviews, Platt admitted his mobile phone had distracted him earlier during his journey.’‘’
so what was it, using his phone at the time directly causing the accident or [earlier] in the day, the devil is in the detail.
I agree with what you say. But it’s more a general observation in how times have changed and things have changed.
Its not just the young. Just today whilst hotfooting it up the M11 I overtook 3 very slow wagons over the course of the stretch between Stansted and A14. I expect 50 mph plobbing from the like of Maritime and Sainsburys etc etc, but these 3 were from small independent hauliers. So when I looked across and wondering if they are just enjoying a steady bimble, they were on their phones texting/internet/■■■■?? and all of them where in the grey hair age bracket.
To be honest it peeved me off a bit knowing that they cause miles of slow traffic as everyone was overtaking them and all for the joy of texting.
Juddian:
‘’‘In police interviews, Platt admitted his mobile phone had distracted him earlier during his journey.’‘’
so what was it, using his phone at the time directly causing the accident or [earlier] in the day, the devil is in the detail.
Does it matter? The evidence was presented to show a continuing course of behaviour (what the court calls “dangerous driving”) with this plank devoting his attention to phone calls, taking photos and Googling stuff instead of paying attention to what was happening on the other side of his windscreen for a considerable length of time (i.e. not just a “momentary lapse of concentration”). The hearing wasn’t intended to establish the cause of the collision - that was dealt with by the coroner’s inquest.
If the age of 26 is too young to drive a truck and need to put the age up then we really will be in problems with a driver shortage. He knows what he was doing was against the law and is considered dangerous, but obviously chose to carry on regardless. The problem with age is that some people are more mature than others at a much younger age. Some older drivers do exactly the same thing too. It is the couldn’t care less attitude that is at fault.
A licence and a pulse are effectively the criteria for driving. Not interviewing to establish appropriate behaviours and attitudes to certain situations.
Isn’t it the case that admitting you were distracted by the phone - is an automatic jail term where death has been caused?
…Makes you wonder what else other it could have been - if such a thing is so easily admitted?
Winseer:
Isn’t it the case that admitting you were distracted by the phone - is an automatic jail term where death has been caused?
…Makes you wonder what else other it could have been - if such a thing is so easily admitted?
Pretty standard procedure in the event of such a bad accident that the drivers phone would have been siezed & investigated as well as a blood test for alcohol. He would have had to admit to making the phone calls, texts, photos and browsing history which would all be time stamped.
As a matter of interest and without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs, what would happen if the police seized an I phone from a guy involved in an accident and the device was passcode/ fingerprint protected and said driver refused to unlock it?
the maoster:
As a matter of interest and without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs, what would happen if the police seized an I phone from a guy involved in an accident and the device was passcode/ fingerprint protected and said driver refused to unlock it?
I think that is a good question, would it be the same as refusing a blood test for drink driving where you are automatically guilty?
All interesting pints raised.
Nothing is ever black and white.
And yes I agree far too many older people doing such things whilst driving. But I can imagine it’s prevalence sadly with younger generations will only get worse.
the maoster:
As a matter of interest and without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs, what would happen if the police seized an I phone from a guy involved in an accident and the device was passcode/ fingerprint protected and said driver refused to unlock it?
Police would put it on a device that they use and unblock it like they do with ■■■■■■■■■ user phones.
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
It was said that he’d have to take another test if he wanted to drive again! I reckon he should never be given a licence again. Also, three years for a life and a serious injury. Cheap at twice the price.
rearaxle:
the maoster:
As a matter of interest and without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs, what would happen if the police seized an I phone from a guy involved in an accident and the device was passcode/ fingerprint protected and said driver refused to unlock it?
Police would put it on a device that they use and unblock it like they do with ■■■■■■■■■ user phones.
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
If the FBI launched legal proceedings against Apple to get into one of their devices after their in house boffins failed spectacularly I very much doubt that the British police have much hope tbh.
Definitely Not
A “lad” near us has just been jailed for 6 years, his boss for 15, the driver was 22 and people were saying he was too young to drive such a large vehicle. We can drive at 18 now, but 21 was the original age for HGV, but what if the age limit was raised to 25, a 26 year old would still only have a years experience.
In this case the insurance company stipulated that drivers had to be 25, but that is about premiums and his boss trying to cut even more corners. It raises another serious question, How do you know if you are correctly insured at work? This driver would only become aware of the fact after this fatal accident.
Wheel Nut:
Definitely Not
A “lad” near us has just been jailed for 6 years, his boss for 15, the driver was 22 and people were saying he was too young to drive such a large vehicle. We can drive at 18 now, but 21 was the original age for HGV, but what if the age limit was raised to 25, a 26 year old would still only have a years experience.
In this case the insurance company stipulated that drivers had to be 25, but that is about premiums and his boss trying to cut even more corners. It raises another serious question, How do you know if you are correctly insured at work? This driver would only become aware of the fact after this fatal accident.
I don’t think “being insured” makes any difference to the risk of having an accident - but the Insurers might like to charge hefty premiums to anyone employing ANY drivers under 25 - as a way of getting around the otherwise open-ended liability of insuring the “Boy Racer” generation…
