Lorry wreaks havoc in Ruislip, Police not interested?
Discussion
HantsRat said:
Quite often HGV's do not know they've hit anything due to the size of the truck. If he did know and reported it to police after then he did nothing wrong. He may of wanted to be clear of the road before reporting it to avoid just sat blocking the road. They are only still photos so do not show whether his driving was deliberate or just an accident.
If it is just an accident it's only damage to metal which insurers will pay out for. No injuries and no roads blocked so no need for police involvement.
Theres no way he's done that much damage to all those cars and not realised.If it is just an accident it's only damage to metal which insurers will pay out for. No injuries and no roads blocked so no need for police involvement.
Edited by HantsRat on Tuesday 17th January 11:36
Edited by HantsRat on Tuesday 17th January 11:36
By driving off and not leaving his details at the scene/scenes he's failed to stop at the scene of an accident. Hence the request for police involvement.
As for the poster saying an ambulance is the same width as a fire engine - wtf?
HantsRat said:
Quite often HGV's do not know they've hit anything due to the size of the truck. If he did know and reported it to police after then he did nothing wrong. He may of wanted to be clear of the road before reporting it to avoid just sat blocking the road. They are only still photos so do not show whether his driving was deliberate or just an accident.
If it is just an accident it's only damage to metal which insurers will pay out for. No injuries and no roads blocked so no need for police involvement.
First picture shows reversing lights. It would appear he is trying to "back out" of the situation?If it is just an accident it's only damage to metal which insurers will pay out for. No injuries and no roads blocked so no need for police involvement.
Edited by HantsRat on Tuesday 17th January 11:36
Edited by HantsRat on Tuesday 17th January 11:36
Fish said:
I'm sorry there is most definately a point to police intervention, leaving the scene of an accident damage to other property, ? careless driving etc etc.
I'm sure if I drove a truck down a line of parked police cars they woudln't say not there problem.
How do you know he left the scene? He simply may of realized he screwed up and wanted to get out of the situation and parked round the corner before reporting it. I'm sure if I drove a truck down a line of parked police cars they woudln't say not there problem.
No one on here was there so we cannot comment fully but at the end of the day, Police do not investigate damage only RTC's which are accidents. This is for insurers to deal with.
Marvtec said:
By driving off and not leaving his details at the scene/scenes he's failed to stop at the scene of an accident. Hence the request for police involvement.
He probably had a lynch mob after him waving their phones around trying to get a decent Youtube video. He may of simply turned round the corner and reported it to Police then. No one on here knows whether the driver failed to report the accident or not but if Police are taking no action, I would presume he did report it and it's all in hand with insurers. HantsRat said:
Quite often HGV's do not know they've hit anything due to the size of the truck. If he did know and reported it to police after then he did nothing wrong. He may of wanted to be clear of the road before reporting it to avoid just sat blocking the road. They are only still photos so do not show whether his driving was deliberate or just an accident.
If it is just an accident it's only damage to metal which insurers will pay out for. No injuries and no roads blocked so no need for police involvement.
So it's less dangerous or antisocial to drive several tonnes of metal where it clearly won't go, causing all sorts of damage and, purely by chance, no injuries; than it is to break the speed limit on an empty road, putting nothing and no one at any risk whatsoever?If it is just an accident it's only damage to metal which insurers will pay out for. No injuries and no roads blocked so no need for police involvement.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 17th January 11:36
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 17th January 11:36
And that's just one example of a much less serious event where the police would take action.
REALIST123 said:
So it's less dangerous or antisocial to drive several tonnes of metal where it clearly won't go, causing all sorts of damage and, purely by chance, no injuries; than it is to break the speed limit on an empty road, putting nothing and no one at any risk whatsoever?
And that's just one example of a much less serious event where the police would take action.
Depends on circumstances. I wasn't there so cannot say if his driving was dangerous or not. However purely from experience I think the Police would struggle massively to get a dangerous driving charge through CPS on this incident. If he's admitted an accident and insurers will pay out to all vehicles damaged then I cannot see it being in the public interest to prosecute over an accident. And that's just one example of a much less serious event where the police would take action.
HVS's have these sorts of collisions all the time and mostly it is just an accident where they have underestimated the size of their vehicle. I'm sure he didn't have the intention of driving through damaging all the cars but again I wasn't there and I'm sure the local force involved looked at these options.
Surely if the police were to take an interest the first thing they'd have to do is ticket all those car drivers for obstructive parking?
Annoying situation for the delivery driver - no doubt he's got a line of cars behind him, so he can't go forwards or backwards?
And then perhaps he decided he was sick to death of a job where he can't move for cars and decided it was his last day at work - and this is the form of his resignation.
It's not right obviously, but I have a tad of sympathy - and yes, we have had a car damaged, which my wife had to park on the street every day - which imo isn't really right.
Annoying situation for the delivery driver - no doubt he's got a line of cars behind him, so he can't go forwards or backwards?
And then perhaps he decided he was sick to death of a job where he can't move for cars and decided it was his last day at work - and this is the form of his resignation.
It's not right obviously, but I have a tad of sympathy - and yes, we have had a car damaged, which my wife had to park on the street every day - which imo isn't really right.
Leaving such matters in the hands if insurers to put right the damage is one thing, but the cause of the damage? To my (possibly feeble) mind, that incident smacks of a lorry driver who lost his temper because he couldn't drive down his planned route. He either has no alternative route available, or simply cannot be arsed with finding one, so he's lost his cool and deliberately ploughed a furrow through the parked cars. That, in my opinion, makes it criminal damage, and certainly worthy of, at the very least, police attendance and an interview (however brief) under caution for the driver.
If the driver turns out to be a highly strung individual prone to entirely unreasonable demonstrations of violence (using his vehicle as a weapon), then he very much ought not to be driving. Either the DVLA needs to suspend his licence for medical reasons (I lost mine for mental health reasons - even though I'm better and long off the drugs I was prescribed, I'm told I'm unlikely to get it back) or he ought to be banned by a court. And I'm being serious. Anyone that cack-handed at driving a wagon cannot be safe on the roads (if we're saying it was an accident), or if he did it deliberately through anger or frustration, then he's simply not got the temperament required to be a safe driver in an HGV (or any other kind of vehicle). What might he do next time? Deliberately 'T'-bone a car sat blocking a junction in heavy traffic? Push a car out of his way on the open road if it's not travelling fast enough for his liking? No-one's ever going to able to form an opinion as to whether he ought to be driving or not if no-one's going to go to the bother of interviewing him about this incident.
I thought the police were about protecting members of the public, and their property. If they don't at least look further into this, then I'd say they're failing to carry out their duties to the satisfaction of said members of the public. And we are, after all, policed by consent in this country. Antagonise the electorate enough, and large portions of it will soon decline to consent to be policed. It sounds ridiculous, saying this, but failing to even have a cursory look into such incidents feels like the thin end of a wedge that is getting driven ever more firmly into the gap that exists between the public's perception of what the police ought to be doing with their time, and what their meagre resources actually get spent on doing.
If the driver turns out to be a highly strung individual prone to entirely unreasonable demonstrations of violence (using his vehicle as a weapon), then he very much ought not to be driving. Either the DVLA needs to suspend his licence for medical reasons (I lost mine for mental health reasons - even though I'm better and long off the drugs I was prescribed, I'm told I'm unlikely to get it back) or he ought to be banned by a court. And I'm being serious. Anyone that cack-handed at driving a wagon cannot be safe on the roads (if we're saying it was an accident), or if he did it deliberately through anger or frustration, then he's simply not got the temperament required to be a safe driver in an HGV (or any other kind of vehicle). What might he do next time? Deliberately 'T'-bone a car sat blocking a junction in heavy traffic? Push a car out of his way on the open road if it's not travelling fast enough for his liking? No-one's ever going to able to form an opinion as to whether he ought to be driving or not if no-one's going to go to the bother of interviewing him about this incident.
I thought the police were about protecting members of the public, and their property. If they don't at least look further into this, then I'd say they're failing to carry out their duties to the satisfaction of said members of the public. And we are, after all, policed by consent in this country. Antagonise the electorate enough, and large portions of it will soon decline to consent to be policed. It sounds ridiculous, saying this, but failing to even have a cursory look into such incidents feels like the thin end of a wedge that is getting driven ever more firmly into the gap that exists between the public's perception of what the police ought to be doing with their time, and what their meagre resources actually get spent on doing.
yellowjack said:
Leaving such matters in the hands if insurers to put right the damage is one thing, but the cause of the damage? To my (possibly feeble) mind, that incident smacks of a lorry driver who lost his temper because he couldn't drive down his planned route. He either has no alternative route available, or simply cannot be arsed with finding one, so he's lost his cool and deliberately ploughed a furrow through the parked cars. That, in my opinion, makes it criminal damage, and certainly worthy of, at the very least, police attendance and an interview (however brief) under caution for the driver.
If the driver turns out to be a highly strung individual prone to entirely unreasonable demonstrations of violence (using his vehicle as a weapon), then he very much ought not to be driving. Either the DVLA needs to suspend his licence for medical reasons (I lost mine for mental health reasons - even though I'm better and long off the drugs I was prescribed, I'm told I'm unlikely to get it back) or he ought to be banned by a court. And I'm being serious. Anyone that cack-handed at driving a wagon cannot be safe on the roads (if we're saying it was an accident), or if he did it deliberately through anger or frustration, then he's simply not got the temperament required to be a safe driver in an HGV (or any other kind of vehicle). What might he do next time? Deliberately 'T'-bone a car sat blocking a junction in heavy traffic? Push a car out of his way on the open road if it's not travelling fast enough for his liking? No-one's ever going to able to form an opinion as to whether he ought to be driving or not if no-one's going to go to the bother of interviewing him about this incident.
I thought the police were about protecting members of the public, and their property. If they don't at least look further into this, then I'd say they're failing to carry out their duties to the satisfaction of said members of the public. And we are, after all, policed by consent in this country. Antagonise the electorate enough, and large portions of it will soon decline to consent to be policed. It sounds ridiculous, saying this, but failing to even have a cursory look into such incidents feels like the thin end of a wedge that is getting driven ever more firmly into the gap that exists between the public's perception of what the police ought to be doing with their time, and what their meagre resources actually get spent on doing.
Shame he wasn't driving a tank, may as well do it in styleIf the driver turns out to be a highly strung individual prone to entirely unreasonable demonstrations of violence (using his vehicle as a weapon), then he very much ought not to be driving. Either the DVLA needs to suspend his licence for medical reasons (I lost mine for mental health reasons - even though I'm better and long off the drugs I was prescribed, I'm told I'm unlikely to get it back) or he ought to be banned by a court. And I'm being serious. Anyone that cack-handed at driving a wagon cannot be safe on the roads (if we're saying it was an accident), or if he did it deliberately through anger or frustration, then he's simply not got the temperament required to be a safe driver in an HGV (or any other kind of vehicle). What might he do next time? Deliberately 'T'-bone a car sat blocking a junction in heavy traffic? Push a car out of his way on the open road if it's not travelling fast enough for his liking? No-one's ever going to able to form an opinion as to whether he ought to be driving or not if no-one's going to go to the bother of interviewing him about this incident.
I thought the police were about protecting members of the public, and their property. If they don't at least look further into this, then I'd say they're failing to carry out their duties to the satisfaction of said members of the public. And we are, after all, policed by consent in this country. Antagonise the electorate enough, and large portions of it will soon decline to consent to be policed. It sounds ridiculous, saying this, but failing to even have a cursory look into such incidents feels like the thin end of a wedge that is getting driven ever more firmly into the gap that exists between the public's perception of what the police ought to be doing with their time, and what their meagre resources actually get spent on doing.
Prizam said:
To be honest... good on him.
People need to learn to park, preferably using some common sense.
What if.... it was an ambulance trying to save a life. Or a fire engine for that matter. both equally as wide.
Absolutely right ! Double parker's are a real pain in the arse, they get what they deserve.People need to learn to park, preferably using some common sense.
What if.... it was an ambulance trying to save a life. Or a fire engine for that matter. both equally as wide.
Before anyone starts bleating think if your house was on fire & the fire engine couldn't get to your house because these selfish idiot motorists, or an ambulance couldn't get to an emergency call due the same problem.
gus607 said:
Prizam said:
Before anyone starts bleating think if your house was on fire & the fire engine couldn't get to your house because these selfish idiot motorists, or an ambulance couldn't get to an emergency call due the same problem.
As above, it was not a matter of life and death though was it?It was an incompetent driver who hit a dozen cars.
Was there double parking, or was it just a tight squeeze too small for a lorry of that size?
Fish said:
I'm sorry there is most definately a point to police intervention, leaving the scene of an accident damage to other property, ? careless driving etc etc.
I'm sure if I drove a truck down a line of parked police cars they woudln't say not there problem.
Arnt drivers allowed 24 hours to report an incident, even so, why not do something about it.I'm sure if I drove a truck down a line of parked police cars they woudln't say not there problem.
heebeegeetee said:
Surely if the police were to take an interest the first thing they'd have to do is ticket all those car drivers for obstructive parking?
Annoying situation for the delivery driver - no doubt he's got a line of cars behind him, so he can't go forwards or backwards?
If there aren't any parking restrictions, and assuming cars can pass, else they couldn't park them selves, I don't see any reason for a ticket, can't recall any rules to leave room for a truck to pass, looks just like a side street.Annoying situation for the delivery driver - no doubt he's got a line of cars behind him, so he can't go forwards or backwards?
And surely he must be checking his mirrors as he moved forward, and at the first sign of he is scraping cars, should have stopped and try to sort it out, not cRry on regardless..
Where my son lives in Raynes park London, there arnt any parking restrictions after 1800, so cars park both sides, with room for a car to pass, but you wouldn't get a truck down the road.
Vipers said:
If there aren't any parking restrictions, and assuming cars can pass, else they couldn't park them selves, I don't see any reason for a ticket, can't recall any rules to leave room for a truck to pass, looks just like a side street.
...
Where my son lives in Raynes park London, there arnt any parking restrictions after 1800, so cars park both sides, with room for a car to pass, but you wouldn't get a truck down the road.
Not even one of these trucks?...
Where my son lives in Raynes park London, there arnt any parking restrictions after 1800, so cars park both sides, with room for a car to pass, but you wouldn't get a truck down the road.
I've mentioned here before about where we used to live - there was a happy-clappy church just down the road. VERY popular on a Sunday evening, to the point that we actively used a different route home, because the parking was just ridiculous. One weekend, one of the congregation must have really offended their mate upstairs, because their car was smote in a particularly old-testament fashion.
It took the fire brigade 45 minutes of manually bouncing parked cars out of the way to get the last couple of hundred metres.
TooMany2cvs said:
Not even one of these trucks?
.
This is his road, often or not cars park both sides making passing a slow process but manageable for a car, most of the roads around him are the same, think a fire tender would have some difficulty, then with their horns on full blast, I am hoping people would get out and move..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff