16 months in prison...
Discussion
I remember this horrific accident some 18 months ago.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/drive...
Chap killed was changing a wheel on a horsebox whilst actually partially IN the carriageway on the motorway - there was no hard shoulder at that point. There was a little further up... I think that's what we can take from this - and we all know hard shoulders are dangerous places too.
Awful affair
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/drive...
Chap killed was changing a wheel on a horsebox whilst actually partially IN the carriageway on the motorway - there was no hard shoulder at that point. There was a little further up... I think that's what we can take from this - and we all know hard shoulders are dangerous places too.
Awful affair
I had a flattie on the M4 Weds which I guess bought this home a bit more. I decided to drive on a mile to a service station as I really didn't want to be on the hard shoulder in rush hour with an offside rear wheel to change. Had been wondering if that was a bit of a bad call ever since.
As an aside each PSS on the 535d (rears) have suffered a puncture now - must have been on 12 months. Never had a puncture in the past 5 years on Eagle F1's or the remaining 2 front Eagle F1's. Replaced all 4 with Eagle Asymmetric 3 rather than getting it all on 4 PSS as was hoping.
As an aside each PSS on the 535d (rears) have suffered a puncture now - must have been on 12 months. Never had a puncture in the past 5 years on Eagle F1's or the remaining 2 front Eagle F1's. Replaced all 4 with Eagle Asymmetric 3 rather than getting it all on 4 PSS as was hoping.
It's a good thing he pled guilty as I'd be surprised if he didn't get off on his defense, seems to work with deaths involving cars in clear traffic running into the back of cyclists.
article said:
The defendant said he had been due to start work at 4.30am and travelled to work on the same route every morning.
He stated he had not been using a mobile phone and the radio was not on but his glasses had not reacted to changing light conditions and he felt briefly “dazzled”.
He stated he had not been using a mobile phone and the radio was not on but his glasses had not reacted to changing light conditions and he felt briefly “dazzled”.
Edited by untakenname on Monday 17th October 19:55
Ken Figenus said:
I had a flattie on the M4 Weds which I guess bought this home a bit more. I decided to drive on a mile to a service station as I really didn't want to be on the hard shoulder in rush hour with an offside rear wheel to change. Had been wondering if that was a bit of a bad call ever since.
As an aside each PSS on the 535d (rears) have suffered a puncture now - must have been on 12 months. Never had a puncture in the past 5 years on Eagle F1's or the remaining 2 front Eagle F1's. Replaced all 4 with Eagle Asymmetric 3 rather than getting it all on 4 PSS as was hoping.
I did the same when I last had a puncture on my rear wheel, did not fancy changing the wheel with lorries flying past a few feet away. So I limped it on the hard shoulder until the next exit which was less thana mile away where I could take my time doing the wheel change. As an aside each PSS on the 535d (rears) have suffered a puncture now - must have been on 12 months. Never had a puncture in the past 5 years on Eagle F1's or the remaining 2 front Eagle F1's. Replaced all 4 with Eagle Asymmetric 3 rather than getting it all on 4 PSS as was hoping.
I don't think that's a bad call, as long as its just a puncture and the tyre hasn't disintegrated, you could baby it a few miles at least without any damage to the wheel.
NicheMonkey said:
I did the same when I last had a puncture on my rear wheel, did not fancy changing the wheel with lorries flying past a few feet away. So I limped it on the hard shoulder until the next exit which was less thana mile away where I could take my time doing the wheel change.
I don't think that's a bad call, as long as its just a puncture and the tyre hasn't disintegrated, you could baby it a few miles at least without any damage to the wheel.
I think it's exactly the right call, especially if there is a bit of pressure left in it. Stopping often lets out whatever was left when the tyre deforms. It's what I'd do if I were in that situation.I don't think that's a bad call, as long as its just a puncture and the tyre hasn't disintegrated, you could baby it a few miles at least without any damage to the wheel.
Had a puncture in my Fabia a few years back, managed to it going stead till we got off the M1 and onto the north circular and a lay by.
On the flip side, going to Thorpe Park last week my mate was driving, had some vibrations, before we realised what was going on we had smoke pouring out the n/s rear wheel arch. We stopped, thankfully no hard shoulder running, and it was a very generous hard shoulder too. Decided to whip the wheel off and stick the spare on as quick as I could. Had one mate helping and two others watching the traffic (although I suspect they were actually just counting yellow cars). Even with all that it wasnt an enjoyable experience, trucks dusting past at 56mph a few feet from me on the floor. If it had been the offside wheel I'd have not gone near it I dont think.
On the flip side, going to Thorpe Park last week my mate was driving, had some vibrations, before we realised what was going on we had smoke pouring out the n/s rear wheel arch. We stopped, thankfully no hard shoulder running, and it was a very generous hard shoulder too. Decided to whip the wheel off and stick the spare on as quick as I could. Had one mate helping and two others watching the traffic (although I suspect they were actually just counting yellow cars). Even with all that it wasnt an enjoyable experience, trucks dusting past at 56mph a few feet from me on the floor. If it had been the offside wheel I'd have not gone near it I dont think.
16 months does seem like a long time considering how lightly other have got off when pissed/stoned/not giving a f
k.
Dreadful that someone has died, no matter the circumstances.
I have always told Mrs215 that if she has a puncture on the motorway or dual carriageway she should trundle along to the next laybay or next exit and get off the carriageway before calling for the recovery service; no way I want her parking up or trying to change wheels in a live environment.
k.Dreadful that someone has died, no matter the circumstances.
I have always told Mrs215 that if she has a puncture on the motorway or dual carriageway she should trundle along to the next laybay or next exit and get off the carriageway before calling for the recovery service; no way I want her parking up or trying to change wheels in a live environment.
I had a front offside tyre blow out on the M5.
Called the AA as I didn't want to change it on the hard shoulder with my arse hanging out towards the carriageway.
AA man turned up and changed the tyre for the spare. Not sure why I should be advised not to do it, but the AA man can take one for the team.... still wouldn't fancy it myself.
Called the AA as I didn't want to change it on the hard shoulder with my arse hanging out towards the carriageway.
AA man turned up and changed the tyre for the spare. Not sure why I should be advised not to do it, but the AA man can take one for the team.... still wouldn't fancy it myself.
I'm really struggling with this on several points. This sentence is much, much harsher than a great many drug dealers would get for utterly ruining lives on a daily basis with extreme criminal intent.
Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
J
I just want to add; why do I get the impression that the Welsh hate motorists?
Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
J
I just want to add; why do I get the impression that the Welsh hate motorists?
jith said:
I'm really struggling with this on several points. This sentence is much, much harsher than a great many drug dealers would get for utterly ruining lives on a daily basis with extreme criminal intent.
Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
J
I just want to add; why do I get the impression that the Welsh hate motorists?
I agree fully here, it seems to be an incredibly harsh sentence for which was, on reading the evidence anyway, a terrible accident.Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
J
I just want to add; why do I get the impression that the Welsh hate motorists?
"failed to see the victim’s 26-tonne vehicle"
"[victim had] put on a fluorescent jacket and laid out a traffic cone to warn other motorists"
"defendant had not braked or changed his path"
"sticking out about 2m into the carriageway"
"should have been able to see the vehicle from about 260m away and should have had six seconds to react"
Death by dangerous driving is 1 to 14 years. He's actually very close to the minimum possible sentence the judge could have given. Given the above, I'd say the court has concluded this wasn't a momentary lack of attention - for whatever reason he simply wasn't looking where he was going for a solid six seconds, at 55mph.
"[victim had] put on a fluorescent jacket and laid out a traffic cone to warn other motorists"
"defendant had not braked or changed his path"
"sticking out about 2m into the carriageway"
"should have been able to see the vehicle from about 260m away and should have had six seconds to react"
Death by dangerous driving is 1 to 14 years. He's actually very close to the minimum possible sentence the judge could have given. Given the above, I'd say the court has concluded this wasn't a momentary lack of attention - for whatever reason he simply wasn't looking where he was going for a solid six seconds, at 55mph.
spookly said:
AA man turned up and changed the tyre for the spare. Not sure why I should be advised not to do it, but the AA man can take one for the team....
Changing wheel on a vehicle "protected" only by hazard lights and possibly a warning triangle - high risk, avoid if at all possible...Changing wheel on a vehicle protected by Transit-sized van with amber light bars, whilst wearing full hi-viz clothing - lower risk (relatively speaking), may therefore be preferable course of action if it means vehicle can be moved safely off hard shoulder more quickly than driving/towing/flatbedding it away from the scene...
jith said:
I'm really struggling with this on several points. This sentence is much, much harsher than a great many drug dealers would get for utterly ruining lives on a daily basis with extreme criminal intent.
Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
Not really, no. He drove at 55mph for 6 seconds without looking and killed someone as a result. I think we all know if you drove for 6 secs without looking you're likely to hit something.Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
I also don't see how trying to protect other motorists from the highly incompetent could be seen as anti-motorist.
However I do agree that sentencing seems to be a lottery. If he'd killed a cyclist or a biker he'd have got nothing.
Cyberprog said:
NicheMonkey said:
I did the same when I last had a puncture on my rear wheel, did not fancy changing the wheel with lorries flying past a few feet away. So I limped it on the hard shoulder until the next exit which was less thana mile away where I could take my time doing the wheel change.
I don't think that's a bad call, as long as its just a puncture and the tyre hasn't disintegrated, you could baby it a few miles at least without any damage to the wheel.
I think it's exactly the right call, especially if there is a bit of pressure left in it. Stopping often lets out whatever was left when the tyre deforms. It's what I'd do if I were in that situation.I don't think that's a bad call, as long as its just a puncture and the tyre hasn't disintegrated, you could baby it a few miles at least without any damage to the wheel.
heebeegeetee said:
jith said:
I'm really struggling with this on several points. This sentence is much, much harsher than a great many drug dealers would get for utterly ruining lives on a daily basis with extreme criminal intent.
Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
Not really, no. He drove at 55mph for 6 seconds without looking and killed someone as a result. I think we all know if you drove for 6 secs without looking you're likely to hit something.Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
I also don't see how trying to protect other motorists from the highly incompetent could be seen as anti-motorist.
However I do agree that sentencing seems to be a lottery. If he'd killed a cyclist or a biker he'd have got nothing.
If you want to forward theories about what might have transpired I have one that is plausible. The accused stated that he was dazzled and this was the reason he did not see the truck. The modern headlamp and rear high level brake lamp systems fitted to some vehicles now are disgracefully blinding in their intensity. Vehicles such as Range Rovers are the worst offenders.
It is highly likely the accused was blinded enough that he saw this truck at the last second; too late to react. There has to be some explanation why he didn't see this vehicle, and this seems the most likely. Thw whole issue for me about this case is that there is no evidence whatever of actual dangerous driving. It is assumed because he ran into the rear of this truck, but it is not proven from evidence of testimony or anything else: it is an assumption. As is the opinion that he drove without noticing the truck for 6 seconds.
It is a leap of faith indeed to term someone with an unblemished driving record as "highly incompetent!; your words.
Your remark about bikers and cyclists is beyond contempt.
J
Edited by jith on Tuesday 18th October 12:30
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff