Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow

[dudleybloke]

RobinOakapple said:

One of the defining characteristics of stupidity are difficulty in predicting the likely future consequences of present actions. The guy is guilty mainly of being thick. He's probably a sociopath as well, but mostly he's thick.

The same could be said for most people in jail.

Stupid or not he is solely responsible for the deaths of 6 people.

[RobinOakapple]

dudleybloke said:

RobinOakapple said:

One of the defining characteristics of stupidity are difficulty in predicting the likely future consequences of present actions. The guy is guilty mainly of being thick. He's probably a sociopath as well, but mostly he's thick.

The same could be said for most people in jail.

Stupid or not he is solely responsible for the deaths of 6 people.

That's blindingly obvious

[Calletrece]

Welshbeef said:

What a nasty individual he is trying to cover his arse

How dare he cover his arse when he's looking at six manslaughter charges for trying to do a days work. Deary me.

Get a grip you lot.

[emicen]

dudleybloke said:

RobinOakapple said:

One of the defining characteristics of stupidity are difficulty in predicting the likely future consequences of present actions. The guy is guilty mainly of being thick. He's probably a sociopath as well, but mostly he's thick.

The same could be said for most people in jail.

Stupid or not he is solely responsible for the deaths of 6 people.

Right up to the point of re-applying for his licence after the crash, you could chalk it up to innocent stupidity.

Re-applying for his licence, still witholding the information that had now resulted in people dying, shows a complete lack of conscience and any form of remorse.

He didnt set out to kill, it wasnt premeditated murder, but at the same time, cant help but feel it sits within the culpable homicide realm.

[saaby93]

RobinOakapple said:

dudleybloke said:

RobinOakapple said:

One of the defining characteristics of stupidity are difficulty in predicting the likely future consequences of present actions. The guy is guilty mainly of being thick. He's probably a sociopath as well, but mostly he's thick.

The same could be said for most people in jail.

Stupid or not he is solely responsible for the deaths of 6 people.

That's blindingly obvious

It may not be
If you sneeze or something involuntary, apparantly it's not your fault, it's one of the issues of being human.
That'll be one of the reasons theyre going through all this

[MrBarry123]

TheJimi said:

TheSnitch said:

MrBarry123 said:

I'm late to this whole discussion however...

I do feel massively for the driver here. He clearly lied to protect his livelihood and he's now been hounded by the families of those unfortunate to die, being made out to be some crazed lunatic of a driver who was intent on murder.

Yes, I also feel sorry for those who died however will prosecuting this bloke really make amends?

It's an horrific accident however it's exactly that, an accident.

Where and how has he been hounded by them?

Maybe not the families, but the Scottish press have been relentless in their hounding of him on the front pages.

fking disgraceful actually.

Yes, sorry, my point should have been relating to the press - not the families directly.

[TheSnitch]

saaby93 said:

RobinOakapple said:

dudleybloke said:

RobinOakapple said:

One of the defining characteristics of stupidity are difficulty in predicting the likely future consequences of present actions. The guy is guilty mainly of being thick. He's probably a sociopath as well, but mostly he's thick.

The same could be said for most people in jail.

Stupid or not he is solely responsible for the deaths of 6 people.

That's blindingly obvious

It may not be
If you sneeze or something involuntary, apparantly it's not your fault, it's one of the issues of being human.
That'll be one of the reasons theyre going through all this

Jesus fking christ, there is a big difference between 1) sneezing involuntarily and 2) having a history of unexplained faints going back to 1976, which happen without any warning symptoms, including having previously occurred whilst at the wheel of a bus, about which you have never informed the the DVLA.

AND THEN having another during which you kill six people, but lose no time in applying for the return of your licence!

[TheSnitch]

Calletrece said:

Welshbeef said:

What a nasty individual he is trying to cover his arse

How dare he cover his arse when he's looking at six manslaughter charges for trying to do a days work. Deary me.

Get a grip you lot.

So let's say he was a surgeon who finds out he is HIV+ - is it okay for him to say nothing and continue to operate?

And if he subsequently infects six people will you say ''Well, he was just trying to do a day's work''?

[dandarez]

He lied to get the job. The problem is the onus being on the individual to notify of a medical condition. The namby pamby privacy state doesn't want to do it for you, so you must do it. With all the consequences.

Good example today is epilepsy, you get diagnosed your doc won't inform DVLA, it's up to you to do it.

Aside from those employed as drivers doing their jobs, just think of the numbers when you drive to or home from work today, tomorrow, whenever, who are 'on meds', many of which you should not drive whilst taking. Someone in the health threads was on 100g of Lithium daily but still thought it ok to drive!

Last year 50 'MILLION' AD prescriptions were prescribed in the UK alone. Should you drive while on anti-depressants? Vast numbers do. One friend on their first dose decided to stop their car on the way to work (in rush hour!), got on a bridge parapet and jumped in the river! What if the decision had been different? like drive across the central reservation!

Walking across a zebra x yesterday the driver approaching did not stop. Luckily I was alert and not one of the daily mobile phone tappers/lookers that frequent our streets (and in vehicles on the roads). When she realised what she'd done, I got a sick grin and sorry wave. Bloody sure she was on something. Totally unaware and should never have been behind a wheel. Was it unusual? Of course not.

But hey, da modun world.

[r11co]

Welshbeef said:

I'm surprised that said individual is not doing what 99.99999% of people would do and come clean and face the consequences.

Because as a result of threats of prosecution at a later date he has been told not to. We can speculate on the precise reasons why and by who he has been instructed to answer no questions, but admission of any actions at this stage could threaten any claims anyone has to compensation as a result of this accident.

The outrage is palpable, but one selfish QC representing one family's interests has f'kd the inquiry up for their own reasons. She has certainly got her name in the media now as a 'pursuer of justice' .

Several other families of those killed in the accident did not support the call for a private prosecution. This would not prevent them from pursuing one in future, but they were obviously smart enough to realise baying for justice and pointing fingers at this stage could lead to the driver claming up.

What should have been a fact-finding exercise has turned into a circus and a witch-hunt.

Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 17:46

[TheSnitch]

r11co said:

Welshbeef said:

I'm surprised that said individual is not doing what 99.99999% of people would do and come clean and face the consequences.

Because as a result of threats of prosecution at a later date he has been told not to. We can speculate on the precise reasons why and by who he has been instructed to answer no questions, but admission of any actions at this stage could threaten any claims anyone has to compensation as a result of this accident.

The outrage is palpable, but one selfish QC representing one family's interests has f'kd the inquiry up for their own reasons. She has certainly got her name in the media now as a 'pursuer of justice' .

Several other families of those killed in the accident did not support the call for a private prosecution. This would not prevent them from pursuing one in future, but they were obviously smart enough to realise baying for justice and pointing fingers at this stage could lead to the driver claming up.

What should have been a fact-finding exercise has turned into a circus and a witch-hunt.

Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 17:46

One family said they would not bring a private prosecution. I am not aware of them saying they did not support the others in doing so.
Bringing it up now was unavoidable, because the man needed to be warned of the possibility of a prosecution in future so that he could choose not to answer questions.

The police never even took a statement from Clarke. They quickly announced they had finished their investigation which I suspect they might regret with the benefit of hindsight.

The families of the deceased shouldn't have to think about taking out a private prosecution - they are entitled to expect that the investigation will be a thorough one and that the Crown office will prosecute if it's the right thing to do. I, and I suspect many others, find their decision not to bring charges quite inexplicable

[eccles]

r11co said:

Welshbeef said:

I'm surprised that said individual is not doing what 99.99999% of people would do and come clean and face the consequences.

Because as a result of threats of prosecution at a later date he has been told not to. We can speculate on the precise reasons why and by who he has been instructed to answer no questions, but admission of any actions at this stage could threaten any claims anyone has to compensation as a result of this accident.

The outrage is palpable, but one selfish QC representing one family's interests has f'kd the inquiry up for their own reasons. She has certainly got her name in the media now as a 'pursuer of justice' .

Several other families of those killed in the accident did not support the call for a private prosecution. This would not prevent them from pursuing one in future, but they were obviously smart enough to realise baying for justice and pointing fingers at this stage could lead to the driver claming up.

What should have been a fact-finding exercise has turned into a circus and a witch-hunt.

Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 17:46

It's only turned into a circus and a witch hunt because of the facts that have been found!

[lauda]

Electronicpants said:

Apologies, just struck me when reading the Beeb web site at lunch, will remove.

Don't apologise, I was about to post exactly the same thing until I saw that you'd already beaten me to it.

[saaby93]

TheSnitch said:

Jesus fking christ, there is a big difference between 1) sneezing involuntarily and 2) having a history of unexplained faints going back to 1976, which happen without any warning symptoms, including having previously occurred whilst at the wheel of a bus, about which you have never informed the the DVLA.

AND THEN having another during which you kill six people, but lose no time in applying for the return of your licence!

Any of us could suffer a temporary blackout and may be allowed to drive again nevertheless. You have to look at the cause of the crash not the result.
If you sneeze and nothing happens it's just about the same as if you sneeze and take out a bus queue (apparantly). It's an accident. Nothing deliberate.

The history is being taken into account, hence the proceedings. When did he last have a blackout?

ETA 2010 apparantly, although he didnt say he lost consciousness. It'll be interesting whether thats too long ago to be relevant

Here it says you don't need to report it if you dont think it will happen again

http://patient.info/doctor/fitness-to-drive

info said:

Ordinary UK driving licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) are inscribed with: 'You are required by law to inform Drivers Medical Branch, DVLA, Swansea SA99 1AT at once if you have any disability (either physical or medical condition) which is, or may become, likely to affect your fitness as a driver, unless you do not expect it to last more than three months

I havent read many of the earlier pages- has this been said already?

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 21st August 19:10

[TheSnitch]

saaby93 said:

TheSnitch said:

Jesus fking christ, there is a big difference between 1) sneezing involuntarily and 2) having a history of unexplained faints going back to 1976, which happen without any warning symptoms, including having previously occurred whilst at the wheel of a bus, about which you have never informed the the DVLA.

AND THEN having another during which you kill six people, but lose no time in applying for the return of your licence!

Any of us could suffer a temporary blackout and may be allowed to drive again nevertheless. You have to look at the cause of the crash not the result.
If you sneeze and nothing happens it's just about the same as if you sneeze and take out a bus queue (apparantly). It's an accident. Nothing deliberate.

The history is being taken into account, hence the proceedings. When did he last have a blackout?

That is precisely what I was doing

Of course it depends on the type of faint and any underlying condition.
His blackouts have occurred without warning and whilst in a sitting position. That is very unusual, and takes them out of the realm of being a ''simple faint''

After blacking out at the wheel of the bus he was driving in 2010, he told his GP that it happened in the queue for lunch and it was rather hot. THAT would have been a simple faint, and would not have cost him his licence, which I suspect is precisely why he described it in those terms.

Who knows when, prior to December, he last had a blackout? It's possible he experiences them frequently and says nothing. The last about which we know on account of it being witnessed, and when the lives of other roadusers were placed at risk, was in 2010.

Maybe I am being picky - I just think I would prefer a man with a 40 year history of blackouts not to be driving around in a petrol tanker, a bus or a bloody great bin lorry

[DrDeAtH]

It's time the driver faced up to what he has done. His negligence has caused 6 deaths. No amount of arse covering should prevent his conviction.

[saaby93]

Edited previous post.

[Halb]

JUst seen this on the news.
Jesus, what a piece of st.

Glasgow bin lorry crash: No apology from driver over 'lies'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

[Davie_GLA]

Halb said:

JUst seen this on the news.
Jesus, what a piece of st.

Glasgow bin lorry crash: No apology from driver over 'lies'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

That will be instruction from his lawyer though. Could some perceive him saying sorry as an admission of guilt?

[saaby93]

Halb said:

JUst seen this on the news.
Jesus, what a piece of st.

Glasgow bin lorry crash: No apology from driver over 'lies'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

It was a leading question,often used by the strawmen

beeb said:

He continued: "Mr Clarke, I would give you the chance to say 'I'm sorry I told lies in April 2010 and I know and accept that those lies led to the deaths of those innocent people'.

"Can you say that Mr Clarke?"

He replied: "No I can't say that."

2010 is years ago, unless there have been a regular chain of blackouts it would be impossible for someone not experienced in medical matters to agree to the way that sentence has been constructed. If he said he agreed that he knew the 2010 event led to the 2014 event and medical experts said it's too far apart, he'd have lied
The legal bod probably knew that.
'when did you stop beating your wife'