Texting trucker kills innocent motorist.
Discussion
Story here:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/video_aftermath_of_sce...
I had the misfortune to drive past on the opposite carriageway not long after that heli footage was shot and it was a horrendous scene.
I've seen a few nasty ones over the years, but the devastation here was on a completely different level. Truly horrifying.
From the families statement:
"We were stunned with the revelation and fact that only two months prior to the collision Bothamley had been caught and convicted driving the same lorry whilst using his mobile phone.
A mere one hour before the crash, Bothamley had been texting whilst breaking the speed limit for his lorry and we can only speculate that he was in the process of using his mobile phone when the collision occurred. Sadly we will never know for certain but it appears he failed to learn the lessons from his previous conviction and continued to drive his lorry dangerously.
It came as no surprise that the jury took just 50 minutes to reach a guilty verdict. I think that much of this was down to all of the very thorough and careful hard work that Norfolk Police Serious Collision Investigation Team and the Crown Prosecution Service had put into the case.
The evidence was all there for our barrister Mr Matthew McNiff, who was able to present a very clear and damning prosecution.
We thank them all for their dedication.
We as a family have little sympathy for Bothamley. He has brought it all upon himself; had he owned up at the outset he may have got off with a lighter sentence and avoided all the pain of the trial.
When he pleaded Not Guilty we were at least consoled that we would find out the truth about why he was not paying attention to the traffic conditions, but as he did not feel able to answer questions in the witness box about what happened that day, he has prevented us from having that closure."
Poor sods. What a cowardly s
t. If you fk up, no matter how stupid you've been, the first thing to do is hold your hands up. He couldn't even bring himself to give the family that small comfort.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/video_aftermath_of_sce...
I had the misfortune to drive past on the opposite carriageway not long after that heli footage was shot and it was a horrendous scene.
I've seen a few nasty ones over the years, but the devastation here was on a completely different level. Truly horrifying.
From the families statement:
"We were stunned with the revelation and fact that only two months prior to the collision Bothamley had been caught and convicted driving the same lorry whilst using his mobile phone.
A mere one hour before the crash, Bothamley had been texting whilst breaking the speed limit for his lorry and we can only speculate that he was in the process of using his mobile phone when the collision occurred. Sadly we will never know for certain but it appears he failed to learn the lessons from his previous conviction and continued to drive his lorry dangerously.
It came as no surprise that the jury took just 50 minutes to reach a guilty verdict. I think that much of this was down to all of the very thorough and careful hard work that Norfolk Police Serious Collision Investigation Team and the Crown Prosecution Service had put into the case.
The evidence was all there for our barrister Mr Matthew McNiff, who was able to present a very clear and damning prosecution.
We thank them all for their dedication.
We as a family have little sympathy for Bothamley. He has brought it all upon himself; had he owned up at the outset he may have got off with a lighter sentence and avoided all the pain of the trial.
When he pleaded Not Guilty we were at least consoled that we would find out the truth about why he was not paying attention to the traffic conditions, but as he did not feel able to answer questions in the witness box about what happened that day, he has prevented us from having that closure."
Poor sods. What a cowardly s
t. If you fk up, no matter how stupid you've been, the first thing to do is hold your hands up. He couldn't even bring himself to give the family that small comfort.What a twunt.
The family's statement certainly show why I think we do things better in this country than others, fatal incident = road closed and a thorough investigation leading to this conviction. That certainly doesn't happen everywhere, and for all many people are inconvenienced, I'm still pleased we do it here.
The family's statement certainly show why I think we do things better in this country than others, fatal incident = road closed and a thorough investigation leading to this conviction. That certainly doesn't happen everywhere, and for all many people are inconvenienced, I'm still pleased we do it here.
How the hell did he cause so much dammage? From the positions of the wreckages, I can't work it out. The truck appears relativley undamaged and was certainly able to be driven onto the hard shoulder.
Other than crossing onto the opposite side of the carriageway or running into the back of a line of stationary vehicles, I can't see how the speed differentials would be sufficient to cause that much devastation.
Either way, complete tw@!!!
Other than crossing onto the opposite side of the carriageway or running into the back of a line of stationary vehicles, I can't see how the speed differentials would be sufficient to cause that much devastation.
Either way, complete tw@!!!
dvs_dave said:
How the hell did he cause so much dammage?
An 8 wheeler will carry 20 tonnes, all up it's at least another 10 tonnes above that on gross weight. The chassis have to be stiff enough and stron enough to withstand excursions off-road on site and hitting a few cars would barely register.Trucks are not built with crumple zones. I've always felt it makes a bit of a mockery of the safety tests that whilst cars have crumple zones to protect pedestrians, those same zones make them very vulnerable in incidents involving HGVS.
Which is why I chose to drive (proper, big) 4x4s.
fido said:
kinetic E = 0.5 m v^2
an artic weighs circa 50 tonnes @ 4 mph = 1.787 ms^-1 E = 159,807J
a car weighs circa 1.5 tonnes @ 70mph = 31.286 ms^-1 E = 1,468,231J
am i missing something .. is the truck on a hill?
You're almost right, but you forgot the multiply by 0.5 bit.an artic weighs circa 50 tonnes @ 4 mph = 1.787 ms^-1 E = 159,807J
a car weighs circa 1.5 tonnes @ 70mph = 31.286 ms^-1 E = 1,468,231J
am i missing something .. is the truck on a hill?
Frightening the momentum a 70mph car carries, isn't it?
Also, that calculation assumes no further accelleration. This numpty, busy doing whatever he was other than dirving when the incident occured, likely had a few hundre bhp going through the wheels for a second or so after first impact.
Deva Link said:
dvs_dave said:
How the hell did he cause so much dammage?
It's just the weight of the truck carrying tremendous inertia, and the strength of its construction means it suffered little damage.I read somewhere an artic doing 4MPH has the same inertia as a car doing 70.
roachcoach said:
That article doesn't contain the words 'phone' or 'text'.
Had been convicted 2 months prior for using his phone while driving the same truck, had sent texts 1 hr previous to the collision while truck was at it's maximum speed. Refused to answer questions from prosecution during the trial. Didn't brake until after the first car had been hit. Maybe I'm cynical, but I think it's not unreasonable to speculate that he was drafting a text at the time.
Disco_Dale said:
roachcoach said:
That article doesn't contain the words 'phone' or 'text'.
Had been convicted 2 months prior for using his phone while driving the same truck, had sent texts 1 hr previous to the collision while truck was at it's maximum speed. Refused to answer questions from prosecution during the trial. Didn't brake until after the first car had been hit. Maybe I'm cynical, but I think it's not unreasonable to speculate that he was drafting a text at the time.
I'm just wary of jumping to conclusions
henrycrun said:
News Link doesn't work for me - is there another source ?
Works if you copy and paste it, but here's a tiny version: http://tinyurl.com/3tepjzvroachcoach said:
I don't know, if they can find evidence of a text an hour before I'm sure they'd have gotten something, even it it was a received text earlier.
I'm just wary of jumping to conclusions
The article states clearly that there is evidence of a text at the same time as the tachograph indicated the vehicle was not only mving, but exceeding the speed limit.I'm just wary of jumping to conclusions
Since the driver declined to provide adequate explanation in court, no one knows what he was or wasn't doing when he caused that carnage, but it wasn't paying attention to the road ahead, although there does not appear to be evidence that the phone was in use at that precise moment.
henrycrun said:
News Link doesn't work for me - is there another source ?
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2011/september/driversentencedina47crash.aspxhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14807690
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff