Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow
Discussion
NoNeed said:
Eclassy said:
Its ridiculous that you can be sent to prison for allegdly nodding off while driving (Gary Hart) but you are not even prosecuted for hiding a medical condition which caused you to pass out while driving.
It's Scottish law, they don't even mind if you blow up a planeThe only practical way to improve the odds of preventing a repetition is by changing to a system of regular medicals and approved medical examiners with access to medical records, not unlike seafarers or aircrew medicals. None of which will happen because civil liberty types will wail about privacy and the transport industry will wail(and lobby heavily) about the cost of employing drivers.
hidetheelephants said:
The only practical way to improve the odds of preventing a repetition is by changing to a system of regular medicals and approved medical examiners with access to medical records, not unlike seafarers or aircrew medicals. None of which will happen because civil liberty types will wail about privacy and the transport industry will wail(and lobby heavily) about the cost of employing drivers.
or to have public service vehicles fitted with the equivalent of dead mans handleor to make available something in the cab so any of the other three can press stop if they see something untoward
It is an extremely rare occurrence, so there is no need for knee-jerk reactions bringing in bad law.
HGV drivers of his age already have medicals every five years and I believe this driver had had his medical not too long previously.
All that needs to happen is for existing laws to be implemented properly or tightened up.
I think it will be the legislative and insurance industries that hold things back, but I also think that the time will come that if you do want to drive your own vehicle yourself, you'll be paying huge insurance premiums because experience will have shown just how much worse humans are at controlling motorised vehicles.
HGV drivers of his age already have medicals every five years and I believe this driver had had his medical not too long previously.
All that needs to happen is for existing laws to be implemented properly or tightened up.
hidetheelephants said:
More plausibly autonomous commercial vehicles will start appearing in the next decade and remove the problem all together.
I think a decade is a bit optimistic but the potential is for possibly not be too long after, and not too long after that when all motorised vehicles follow suit, because the potential benefits on many levels might be enormous.I think it will be the legislative and insurance industries that hold things back, but I also think that the time will come that if you do want to drive your own vehicle yourself, you'll be paying huge insurance premiums because experience will have shown just how much worse humans are at controlling motorised vehicles.
Exige77 said:
As I understand it, instead of prosecuting him, the authorities thought it was more important to get to the bottom of what happened.
Which is what would have happened if the lawyers representing the families (not entirely sure why they needed lawyers at this stage, but hey ho) had not seen an opportunity in the evidence so-far given, jumped the gun and started talking publically about private prosecutions. Of course from that point the driver's lawyer would be telling him to keep schtum.The whole enquiry and the decisions made leading-up to it were a good idea badly implemented, and that is not the lorry driver's fault.
Why cant they conduct these things like an Aircraft Accident enquiry where the idea is to get everyone to say exactly what they did or so so that similar events can be prevented in the future?
This threat of persecution only prevents everything being heard.
It's looking back rather than forward.
This threat of persecution only prevents everything being heard.
It's looking back rather than forward.
Guam said:
What I dont get with this is that some years ago when I had my major ticker malfunction, the GP told me he was required to notify the DVLA and my License would likely be suspended until the consensus from the medics was that I was fit to drive.
This is what subsequently occurred and I got it back at the appropriate juncture.
So why did this not happen here?
Because the driver did not tell his GP or the DVLA the truth about what happenedThis is what subsequently occurred and I got it back at the appropriate juncture.
So why did this not happen here?
TheSnitch said:
Guam said:
What I dont get with this is that some years ago when I had my major ticker malfunction, the GP told me he was required to notify the DVLA and my License would likely be suspended until the consensus from the medics was that I was fit to drive.
This is what subsequently occurred and I got it back at the appropriate juncture.
So why did this not happen here?
Because the driver did not tell his GP or the DVLA the truth about what happenedThis is what subsequently occurred and I got it back at the appropriate juncture.
So why did this not happen here?
What it shows here is what happens if a driver has a blackout and the safety systems around it.
There are many reasons why a driver can have a blackout. ok the systems for trying to determine the likelyhood didnt work very well, but there werent any for when it did.
If the end result puts all the blame on the driver we wont have learned much
Much like pilot error
saaby93 said:
TheSnitch said:
Guam said:
What I dont get with this is that some years ago when I had my major ticker malfunction, the GP told me he was required to notify the DVLA and my License would likely be suspended until the consensus from the medics was that I was fit to drive.
This is what subsequently occurred and I got it back at the appropriate juncture.
So why did this not happen here?
Because the driver did not tell his GP or the DVLA the truth about what happenedThis is what subsequently occurred and I got it back at the appropriate juncture.
So why did this not happen here?
What it shows here is what happens if a driver has a blackout and the safety systems around it.
There are many reasons why a driver can have a blackout. ok the systems for trying to determine the likelyhood didnt work very well, but there werent any for when it did.
If the end result puts all the blame on the driver we wont have learned much
Much like pilot error
And yes all the blame is on him, 100%, no one else is to blame,
babatunde said:
It's really very simple, the idiot
Luckily or unfortunately it's not a crime to be an idiot, otherwise the prisons would be overflowing. You have to look at what will happen if someone is an idiot - accidentally or otherwiseIn boats planes and trains section you can read of crashes where an idiot used the wrong screw, or pulled the wrong lever. However on the basis that everyone can be an idiot at times they try to find ways around it.
Some of those may go in the idiot class too.....
Remember a swiss flight a few months ago where the co pilot went into lala land.
The locks were arranged so neither the pilot nor anyone else could get in the cockpit
Lessons to be learned
r11co said:
Exige77 said:
As I understand it, instead of prosecuting him, the authorities thought it was more important to get to the bottom of what happened.
Which is what would have happened if the lawyers representing the families (not entirely sure why they needed lawyers at this stage, but hey ho) had not seen an opportunity in the evidence so-far given, jumped the gun and started talking publically about private prosecutions. Of course from that point the driver's lawyer would be telling him to keep schtum.The whole enquiry and the decisions made leading-up to it were a good idea badly implemented, and that is not the lorry driver's fault.
Not defending the guy, but trial or inquiry, you can't have it both ways.
Twilkes said:
The reporting and the line of questioning does seem to be more like a trial than an inquiry. Dorothy Bain QC is apparently acting for the bereaved Morton family - surely an inquiry should be carried out by an independent group?
Not defending the guy, but trial or inquiry, you can't have it both ways.
AgreedNot defending the guy, but trial or inquiry, you can't have it both ways.
Does this sound like someone trying to find out what happened or trying to hit them on a head with a frying pan unless they keep quiet.
beeb said:
In his second day of evidence, Mr Clarke was cross-examined by Ms Bain, who is acting for the bereaved Morton family.
After he refused to answer questions relating to his medical history, the QC asked if he would like witnesses to tell the truth if his own daughter had died.
Mr Clarke refused to answer.
Ms Bain said the six victims would still be alive if he had been honest about his medical past because he would never have been given jobs as a driver.
'Beyond belief'
"You should never have been behind the wheel and you knew that," she told the witness.
"You took a chance and it has taken the lives of six people. The difference is you had a choice."
Ms Bain said the phrase "I'm all right Jack", summed up Mr Clarke's attitude.
The QC said that it was "incredible and beyond belief" that following the bin lorry tragedy, Mr Clarke had pursued getting his licence back.
She ended her cross-examination by saying that if Mr Clarke "had told the truth all this could have been prevented".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34016267After he refused to answer questions relating to his medical history, the QC asked if he would like witnesses to tell the truth if his own daughter had died.
Mr Clarke refused to answer.
Ms Bain said the six victims would still be alive if he had been honest about his medical past because he would never have been given jobs as a driver.
'Beyond belief'
"You should never have been behind the wheel and you knew that," she told the witness.
"You took a chance and it has taken the lives of six people. The difference is you had a choice."
Ms Bain said the phrase "I'm all right Jack", summed up Mr Clarke's attitude.
The QC said that it was "incredible and beyond belief" that following the bin lorry tragedy, Mr Clarke had pursued getting his licence back.
She ended her cross-examination by saying that if Mr Clarke "had told the truth all this could have been prevented".
saaby93 said:
beeb said:
In his second day of evidence, Mr Clarke was cross-examined by Ms Bain, who is acting for the bereaved Morton family.
After he refused to answer questions relating to his medical history, the QC asked if he would like witnesses to tell the truth if his own daughter had died.
Mr Clarke refused to answer.
Ms Bain said the six victims would still be alive if he had been honest about his medical past because he would never have been given jobs as a driver.
'Beyond belief'
"You should never have been behind the wheel and you knew that," she told the witness.
"You took a chance and it has taken the lives of six people. The difference is you had a choice."
Ms Bain said the phrase "I'm all right Jack", summed up Mr Clarke's attitude.
The QC said that it was "incredible and beyond belief" that following the bin lorry tragedy, Mr Clarke had pursued getting his licence back.
She ended her cross-examination by saying that if Mr Clarke "had told the truth all this could have been prevented".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34016267After he refused to answer questions relating to his medical history, the QC asked if he would like witnesses to tell the truth if his own daughter had died.
Mr Clarke refused to answer.
Ms Bain said the six victims would still be alive if he had been honest about his medical past because he would never have been given jobs as a driver.
'Beyond belief'
"You should never have been behind the wheel and you knew that," she told the witness.
"You took a chance and it has taken the lives of six people. The difference is you had a choice."
Ms Bain said the phrase "I'm all right Jack", summed up Mr Clarke's attitude.
The QC said that it was "incredible and beyond belief" that following the bin lorry tragedy, Mr Clarke had pursued getting his licence back.
She ended her cross-examination by saying that if Mr Clarke "had told the truth all this could have been prevented".
At the end of the day, I do not know what people expect from the FAI. It's not like an inquest. The Sheriff will hear evidence and in due course make a determination.
From Wikipedia: "In particular, in terms of section 6 of the Act the Sheriff is required to produce a determination. In drafting a determination the Sheriff is required to consider five distinct areas: a) time and place of the death; b) the cause of death; (c) any precautions which may have avoided the death; d) any defects in the system of working which may have avoided the death, and; e) any other relevant considerations."
I'd expect that (c) and (d) will be most relevant.
From Wikipedia: "In particular, in terms of section 6 of the Act the Sheriff is required to produce a determination. In drafting a determination the Sheriff is required to consider five distinct areas: a) time and place of the death; b) the cause of death; (c) any precautions which may have avoided the death; d) any defects in the system of working which may have avoided the death, and; e) any other relevant considerations."
I'd expect that (c) and (d) will be most relevant.
Guam said:
TheSnitch said:
Because the driver did not tell his GP or the DVLA the truth about what happened
So he has never been diagnosed then?You are getting Blackouts and dont mention it to the GP?
Seems unlikely, and if so then why not just hand over his medical records?
There seems to be a bit of a conflict with this given his position?
BTW the Driver does not have to do anything the GP is obliged to inform the dvla, thats what my GP told me at the time.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I would suggest reading a summary of this case - it's quite complicated. Basically, he suffered a blackout at the wheel of the bus he was driving five years ago, but lied about it when he reported it to his GP and failed to mention it to his next employer or to occupational health, leading to a missed diagnosis. The next time it happened, 6 people ended up dead under the wheels of a bin lorry.
r11co said:
saaby93 said:
beeb said:
In his second day of evidence, Mr Clarke was cross-examined by Ms Bain, who is acting for the bereaved Morton family.
After he refused to answer questions relating to his medical history, the QC asked if he would like witnesses to tell the truth if his own daughter had died.
Mr Clarke refused to answer.
Ms Bain said the six victims would still be alive if he had been honest about his medical past because he would never have been given jobs as a driver.
'Beyond belief'
"You should never have been behind the wheel and you knew that," she told the witness.
"You took a chance and it has taken the lives of six people. The difference is you had a choice."
Ms Bain said the phrase "I'm all right Jack", summed up Mr Clarke's attitude.
The QC said that it was "incredible and beyond belief" that following the bin lorry tragedy, Mr Clarke had pursued getting his licence back.
She ended her cross-examination by saying that if Mr Clarke "had told the truth all this could have been prevented".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34016267After he refused to answer questions relating to his medical history, the QC asked if he would like witnesses to tell the truth if his own daughter had died.
Mr Clarke refused to answer.
Ms Bain said the six victims would still be alive if he had been honest about his medical past because he would never have been given jobs as a driver.
'Beyond belief'
"You should never have been behind the wheel and you knew that," she told the witness.
"You took a chance and it has taken the lives of six people. The difference is you had a choice."
Ms Bain said the phrase "I'm all right Jack", summed up Mr Clarke's attitude.
The QC said that it was "incredible and beyond belief" that following the bin lorry tragedy, Mr Clarke had pursued getting his licence back.
She ended her cross-examination by saying that if Mr Clarke "had told the truth all this could have been prevented".
TheSnitch said:
I have followed the FAI from the start, and I completely disagree. It has undoubtedly uncovered the facts; the inquiry had heard already from numerous doctors, seen health declarations the driver made and what he stated on application forms.
The QC should not have been drawing conclusions from the facts already established in an atempt to get a witness (I repeat a witness, not 'the accused') to agree or disagree with her conclusions and elicit a response. What reason does she have to do that (except to open the door to a prosecution that, succesful or not, she stands to make a shedload from)?The purpose of the Inquiry is to establish if any processes can be put in place to avoid a repeat. The culpability of anyone involved is an entirely separate issue.
The conclusion that better checks and greater responsibilities may be required can be drawn already from what is known.
Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 14:05
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff