Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow

[TheSnitch]

JensenA said:

I have sympathy with him. The poor bloke was just trying to earn a living, doing the only job he knew he had a chance of getting.

I don't.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the implied version of events was that he had some kind of cardiac episode at the wheel, all a tragic accident etc. I certainly thought that was the case when they announced that no-one would face any charges.

If this man knew he had suffered black outs, yet declared on his DVLA form that he hadn't, then clearly they did not have the full picture and he should not have been driving.

It's awful when someone's health means they are unable to drive again and it costs them their job. But it's a damn sight more awful when their driving costs someone their life

[gruffalo]

TheSnitch said:

I don't.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the implied version of events was that he had some kind of cardiac episode at the wheel, all a tragic accident etc. I certainly thought that was the case when they announced that no-one would face any charges.

If this man knew he had suffered black outs, yet declared on his DVLA form that he hadn't, then clearly they did not have the full picture and he should not have been driving.

It's awful when someone's health means they are unable to drive again and it costs them their job. But it's a damn sight more awful when their driving costs someone their life

Yep I have to agree with this.

It makes him a party to the people's deaths and he should be prosecuted, same as a drunk.

[paranoid airbag]

TheSnitch said:

I don't.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the implied version of events was that he had some kind of cardiac episode at the wheel, all a tragic accident etc. I certainly thought that was the case when they announced that no-one would face any charges.

If this man knew he had suffered black outs, yet declared on his DVLA form that he hadn't, then clearly they did not have the full picture and he should not have been driving.

It's awful when someone's health means they are unable to drive again and it costs them their job. But it's a damn sight more awful when their driving costs someone their life

I should agree, but -

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/m...

http://www.motordefencelawyers.co.uk/motoring-news...

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1G1-149030576/dr...

Have a gander at that our finest judges consider good reasons to let people keep driving, because poor widdle fking them. And they're the people that got caught - if you ever get the opportunity to pass a queue of traffic, have a look for phones if you want a laugh. And you're expecting a bin lorry driver who had, AFAICT, one incident five years ago, to willingly choose the dole queue?

Make empty threats and people will realise they're empty. We decided a long time ago this sort of attitude was acceptable, it's churlish to start complaining now.

[eharding]

paranoid airbag said:

And you're expecting a bin lorry driver who had, AFAICT, one incident five years ago, to willingly choose the dole queue?

Yes, frankly.

What's the point of having medical standards for operators of heavy commercial vehicles if they a) aren't observed and b) wilful transgressions of those standards don't result in the individuals concerned being held to account?

You seem to be very passionate about the subject, and also very, very wrong. Are you a professional driver?

[kev1974]

Puts a different slant on the statement the driver made back in February.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gl...

"I just want all of the families of the injured and deceased to know I can’t remember anything."
...
"I was never aware of anything being wrong with my heart until that day."

Presumably you were aware of the black out a few years earlier that stopped you carrying on as a bus driver though. Might have mentioned that, if you really wanted the families to get some closure on what might have happened?

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

"There will be no criminal charges as a result of the Glasgow bin lorry crash, it has been confirmed.
...
The Crown Office said there was no evidence that either the driver or city council was to blame for the accident."

Well now there is evidence, maybe not that the driver was exactly to blame, but that he knew more than he'd let on. Think the Crown Office needs to revisit their decision now that more facts are known.

[TheSnitch]

paranoid airbag said:

TheSnitch said:

I don't.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the implied version of events was that he had some kind of cardiac episode at the wheel, all a tragic accident etc. I certainly thought that was the case when they announced that no-one would face any charges.

If this man knew he had suffered black outs, yet declared on his DVLA form that he hadn't, then clearly they did not have the full picture and he should not have been driving.

It's awful when someone's health means they are unable to drive again and it costs them their job. But it's a damn sight more awful when their driving costs someone their life

I should agree, but -

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/m...

http://www.motordefencelawyers.co.uk/motoring-news...

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1G1-149030576/dr...

Have a gander at that our finest judges consider good reasons to let people keep driving, because poor widdle fking them. And they're the people that got caught - if you ever get the opportunity to pass a queue of traffic, have a look for phones if you want a laugh. And you're expecting a bin lorry driver who had, AFAICT, one incident five years ago, to willingly choose the dole queue?

Make empty threats and people will realise they're empty. We decided a long time ago this sort of attitude was acceptable, it's churlish to start complaining now.

His medical records showed that he had the condition in 1989, reported dizzy spells behind the wheel in 1994 and was told not to drive after an incident in 2003.

He was discovered passed out behind the wheel of a bus in April 2010, yet in 2011 when completing a DVLA form, and having lied about his absences for fainting when he got the job with the council, to the question
“Is there a history of blackout or impaired consciousness within the last five years?” he answered ''No''

I'm really rather puzzled about the decision not to prosecute, tbh. The rules on fitness to drive are not there to punish people; they are for their own safety and the safety of others.

It's perfectly clear this man should not have continued to drive. This now appears to have been an entirely avoidable accident which tragically claimed six lives. So yes, I would have expected him to choose the dole queue rather than have six lives on his conscience

[TheSnitch]

kev1974 said:

Puts a different slant on the statement the driver made back in February.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gl...

"I just want all of the families of the injured and deceased to know I can’t remember anything."
...
"I was never aware of anything being wrong with my heart until that day."

Presumably you were aware of the black out a few years earlier that stopped you carrying on as a bus driver though. Might have mentioned that, if you really wanted the families to get some closure on what might have happened?

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

"There will be no criminal charges as a result of the Glasgow bin lorry crash, it has been confirmed.
...
The Crown Office said there was no evidence that either the driver or city council was to blame for the accident."

Well now there is evidence, maybe not that the driver was exactly to blame, but that he knew more than he'd let on. Think the Crown Office needs to revisit their decision now that more facts are known.

I'm honestly baffled. I can only think they had not had full sight of all the documents at the time.

I don't see how they can prosecute him now - the evidence has already been heard by another court

[TheSnitch]

''The Evening Times ‏@TheEveningTimes 5m5 minutes ago
Inquiry hears that DVLA returned Mr Clarke's HGV licence on Apr 29 #binlorrycrash''

He applied to have both his driving licence and his HGV licence returned. They were both returned in April.

Absolute madness.

[s3fella]

what a !

[selwonk]

That absolutely beggars belief!

[TheSnitch]

selwonk said:

That absolutely beggars belief!

I actually checked with several different sources before I posted that because I didn't believe it myself, but it's true. I'm afraid I can't get my head around it at all. How can this possibly be right?

[TheSnitch]

from the fatal accident inquiry said:

Philip Sim ‏@BBCPhilipSim 2m2 minutes ago
Mr Gellan asked if he knew Mr Clarke had his licences revoked again in June, and if new medical information had led to this #binlorrycrash
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Philip Sim ‏@BBCPhilipSim 3m3 minutes ago
Mr Gellan asked if he knows what medical information Mr Clarke gave DVLA to get his licences back. #binlorrycrash

So his licences were restored and have now been revoked again. Thank goodness they have been revoked, but it still leaves the question ''How and why were they restored in the first place?''

[paranoid airbag]

eharding said:

paranoid airbag said:

And you're expecting a bin lorry driver who had, AFAICT, one incident five years ago, to willingly choose the dole queue?

Yes, frankly.

Then you're extremely naive. How is that expecting people to do the right thing at their own expense working out?

No I'm not a professional driver, just realistic. If you want something (in this case, safety) at the expense of someone else but you're not going to pay for it, tough tits. Rage at this guy after the fact if it makes you happy, I really have no interesting in defending him, but FFS don't pretend it's achieving much more than that. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out there who shouldn't be driving, and not one of them is thinking "oh, it'll be really bad for me if I kill someone, so I better not".

[eharding]

paranoid airbag said:

eharding said:

paranoid airbag said:

And you're expecting a bin lorry driver who had, AFAICT, one incident five years ago, to willingly choose the dole queue?

Yes, frankly.

Then you're extremely naive. How is that expecting people to do the right thing at their own expense working out?

No I'm not a professional driver, just realistic. If you want something (in this case, safety) at the expense of someone else but you're not going to pay for it, tough tits. Rage at this guy after the fact if it makes you happy, I really have no interesting in defending him, but FFS don't pretend it's achieving much more than that. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out there who shouldn't be driving, and not one of them is thinking "oh, it'll be really bad for me if I kill someone, so I better not".

I'd suggest you have an extremely warped world view if that's really how you think.

Let's suppose *you* discover that you have a medical condition that renders you a danger to yourself and others should you continue to drive - would you happily still do so regardless, and would you lie about it when asked directly whether or not you had such a condition?

Further to that, should you end up killing someone as a result, would you genuinely expect there to be no repercussions?

[Soov535]

Driver is in deep sh t here.

[dudleybloke]

Old enough to know better.

[JuniorD]

I don't know much about Scottish law (or any law) but if this guy was told that he would not be prosecuted I can't see that he can be now. Sort of like the so-called "On The Run" letter which got the Hyde Park bomber off the hook recently.

[eccles]

JuniorD said:

I don't know much about Scottish law (or any law) but if this guy was told that he would not be prosecuted I can't see that he can be now. Sort of like the so-called "On The Run" letter which got the Hyde Park bomber off the hook recently.

I wonder if Scottish law allows for private prosecutions by family members?

[eharding]

eccles said:

JuniorD said:

I don't know much about Scottish law (or any law) but if this guy was told that he would not be prosecuted I can't see that he can be now. Sort of like the so-called "On The Run" letter which got the Hyde Park bomber off the hook recently.

I wonder if Scottish law allows for private prosecutions by family members?

As I understand it, there were no assurances given to *anyone* involved in the affair as to whether any prosecutions would be brought, merely that in the immediate aftermath of the accident the Police could find no evidence of criminal intent or negligence by either the driver or the council, and hence *at that time* no charges were laid.

[paranoid airbag]

eharding said:

I'd suggest you have an extremely warped world view if that's really how you think.

Let's suppose *you* discover that you have a medical condition that renders you a danger to yourself and others should you continue to drive - would you happily still do so regardless, and would you lie about it when asked directly whether or not you had such a condition?

Further to that, should you end up killing someone as a result, would you genuinely expect there to be no repercussions?

Probably, unless I thought it made me genuinely hopeless. The chances of being caught are small, the chances of my life turning to st without access to a car almost certain, since you are damn well not going to pay for me to be driven everywhere - more likely you're going to call me benefit scrounging scum.

Go on then: who was the last person you knew sacrificed their mobility and livelihood for the sake of a stranger when they thought they could get away with it? Half the people I see won't sacrifice their phone for that. And who was the last company director you knew who told an employee their work was very useful, but they can't condone the illegal behaviour that enabled it even if there's no risk to the company? Be honest.

Edited by paranoid airbag on Thursday 30th July 18:05