M1 Lorry crash

[zarjaz1991]

Ridgemont said:

Being sober and looking where you are driving while in charge of several tonnes of vehicle doesn’t strike me as particularly ‘airline pilot levels of responsibility’

Agreed....it’s not really asking too much for drivers not to be pissed at the wheel.

[Frank7]

Willy Nilly said:

The driver that was stopped was drunk and should have not been driving at all, so there is some responsibilty from the people that allowed him to drive in the first place, what will happen to these people?

While I carry no flag for the trucker who got 14 years for his part in the M1 crash, as an ex HGV Class 1 driver myself, I fail to see where someone ALLOWED him to drive.
Surely you’re not suggesting that his transport manager said, “Okay, Ryszard, two more double vodkas, then you’d better get going.”
It’s a bit like me, today I drank a bottle of champagne on my own at lunch, had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner around 7.30-8.00 p.m.
Around 10.45 p.m., I opened a bottle of Calvados, and had maybe 3 glasses.
Now, I have no intention of driving anything, anywhere, tonight, tomorrow or at any time in the foreseeable future, but if I did, it would be of my volition, no one would be ALLOWING me to get behind the wheel.

Edited by Frank7 on Sunday 25th March 00:29

[cossy400]

Frank7 said:

Willy Nilly said:

The driver that was stopped was drunk and should have not been driving at all, so there is some responsibilty from the people that allowed him to drive in the first place, what will happen to these people?

While I carry no flag for the trucker who got 14 years for his part in the M1 crash, as an ex HGV Class 1 driver myself, I fail to see where someone ALLOWED him to drive.
Surely you’re not suggesting that his transport manager said, “Okay, Ryszard, two more double vodkas, then you’d better get going.”
It’s a bit like me, today I drank a bottle of champagne on my own at lunch, had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner around 7.30-8.00 p.m.
Around 10.45 p.m., I opened a bottle of Calvados, and had maybe 3 glasses.
Now, I have no intention of driving anything, anywhere, tonight, tomorrow or at any time in the foreseeable future, but if I did, it would be of my volition, no one would be ALLOWING me to get behind the wheel.

Edited by Frank7 on Sunday 25th March 00:29

But the bloke in question hasn't even got a licence, I been revoked.

I drive one, and we have to sign a piece of paper giving the office bods authorisation to check with DVLA or who ever that we are not banned or got points.


Wagstaff will be out in a year I reckon.

[jmorgan]

zarjaz1991 said:

Cliftonite said:

Citation needed.

Here’s some.....I use hands free, am not a pleb, and actually increase my road concentration due to the fact I’m having a conversation. It is the conversation that I “zone out” from, not the driving, as anyone who speaks to me when I’m driving will attest to...including passengers.

If people are too stupid to do it that way round then they shouldn’t be driving. And frankly I’d rather they didn’t.

I think some people see driving a vehicle as being similar to operating a vacuum cleaner or washing machine or something. If we could somehow get these types off the road, we’d all be a lot safer AND traffic would be greatly reduced too.

Sorry but in the main, most I see on the phone are complete idiots and need taking off the road, these are probably your average driver. I accept that there are people out there a small few that can do this but as we do not have part of the test "using phone whilst driving" tick box, the rule should be no taking calls. There are many bad habits on the road and I hope this goes the same way as drink driving.

[zarjaz1991]

jmorgan said:

Sorry but in the main, most I see on the phone are complete idiots and need taking off the road, these are probably your average driver. I accept that there are people out there a small few that can do this but as we do not have part of the test "using phone whilst driving" tick box, the rule should be no taking calls. There are many bad habits on the road and I hope this goes the same way as drink driving.

How do you know they are on the phone? I am talking about hands free calls, not actually holding the device (though the hysteria over the latter is ridiculous as well).

I resent having my freedom curtailed due to other people’s idiocy. Curtail them instead!

[jmorgan]

zarjaz1991 said:

jmorgan said:

Sorry but in the main, most I see on the phone are complete idiots and need taking off the road, these are probably your average driver. I accept that there are people out there a small few that can do this but as we do not have part of the test "using phone whilst driving" tick box, the rule should be no taking calls. There are many bad habits on the road and I hope this goes the same way as drink driving.

How do you know they are on the phone? I am talking about hands free calls, not actually holding the device (though the hysteria over the latter is ridiculous as well).

I resent having my freedom curtailed due to other people’s idiocy. Curtail them instead!

Giveaways are bleeding obvious, painfully so. I resent saving people form accidents almost everyday.

Edit. Does not matter whether you are hands free or not BTW.

[Frank7]

cossy400 said:

But the bloke in question hasn't even got a licence, I been revoked.

I drive one, and we have to sign a piece of paper giving the office bods authorisation to check with DVLA or who ever that we are not banned or got points.


Wagstaff will be out in a year I reckon.

Fair enough cossy, that throws a different light on it, I see It differently now, it was officialdom’s fault, I was thinking that someone KNEW he was smashed, and said, “Get up in the cab and away you go.”
While it appears that someone dropped the ball, and didn’t check that Pan, (Mr), Masierak had a licence.
I don’t remember having to sign anything at the last HGV job that I had, it was a million years back, around 1980 I guess, a 5000 gallon oil tanker, but it was probably a given about the licence.

[heebeegeetee]

Dynamic Space Wizard said:

del mar said:

The sentences do appear to be the wrong way round.

That's what I was thinking. One crashed and killed a load of people and one didn't.

Eh? Three drivers were in a crash and all three imo had culpability imo.

[Robertj21a]

zarjaz1991 said:

jmorgan said:

Sorry but in the main, most I see on the phone are complete idiots and need taking off the road, these are probably your average driver. I accept that there are people out there a small few that can do this but as we do not have part of the test "using phone whilst driving" tick box, the rule should be no taking calls. There are many bad habits on the road and I hope this goes the same way as drink driving.

How do you know they are on the phone? I am talking about hands free calls, not actually holding the device (though the hysteria over the latter is ridiculous as well).

I resent having my freedom curtailed due to other people’s idiocy. Curtail them instead!

The problem with this is that people always believe that it must be everybody else at fault, never themselves. I see utterly ridiculous driving every day, many are clearly using the phone (either hands free or not, it makes little difference to concentration). The salesman in the car that's racing down the motorway at 80+ and then suddenly sits in the middle lane at about 60, oblivious to the traffic stuck behind him - the trucker who clearly hasn't checked any mirrors at all but is happily chatting to someone else - the white van man who, presumably, has to ensure that he can answer customer queries at any time as he needs to keep their business etc etc

It's high time that drinkers, druggies, and phone users were taken off the roads.

[Scootersp]

One thing I think could make a difference here is different hazard lights.

I mean without question those that died did nothing wrong and the driver did all he could with his vehicle to indicate a problem.

We've all lost concentration at some point and it the planets align (in a bad way) it can happen just when you need full attention.

Now back to hazard lights, they are only 2 indicators going at the same time, a nod to safety that harks back to a age of filament lamps when there was little else available?

The police do not arrive at an accident and turn their blues and twos off and thereon rely on their hazard lights do they, if that had been a police car parked behind the lorry investigating what the hell was going on, then the FedEx driver would have almost certainly woken up to it. We've all seen blue light reflections before even seeing the emergency vehicle. So whilst not blue I think more could be done to make modern hazards more visual/unique.

[Dynamic Space Wizard]

heebeegeetee said:

Dynamic Space Wizard said:

del mar said:

The sentences do appear to be the wrong way round.

That's what I was thinking. One crashed and killed a load of people and one didn't.

Eh? Three drivers were in a crash and all three imo had culpability imo.

Yes, but the one who crashed into the stationary vehicles was let off with 40 months, which is nowhere near long enough for what he did.

[The Mad Monk]

Scootersp said:

I mean without question those that died did nothing wrong and the driver did all he could with his vehicle to indicate a problem.

What about the driver of the minibus? Do you consider him to be without fault?

[cossy400]

The Mad Monk said:

Scootersp said:

I mean without question those that died did nothing wrong and the driver did all he could with his vehicle to indicate a problem.

What about the driver of the minibus? Do you consider him to be without fault?

Me reading that assumes the poster is already on about the minibus driver.

[Scootersp]

The Mad Monk said:

What about the driver of the minibus? Do you consider him to be without fault?

In my head and from looking at the video (once) he is in the inside lane and comes up behind the stopped lorry and can't pull out as there is a stream of cars in the second lane, he's not there long before the HGV rear ends him.

Did he do something wrong in your eyes? not having a pop but he appears blameless to me.....may be he could have been more aware and dived down the inside of the HGV at the last minute, but I don't think his actions in anyway caused the accident did they?

[heebeegeetee]

Scootersp said:

In my head and from looking at the video (once) he is in the inside lane and comes up behind the stopped lorry and can't pull out as there is a stream of cars in the second lane, he's not there long before the HGV rear ends him.

Did he do something wrong in your eyes? not having a pop but he appears blameless to me.....may be he could have been more aware and dived down the inside of the HGV at the last minute, but I don't think his actions in anyway caused the accident did they?

What's the story about him only having 3 hours sleep before undertaking a long journey with passengers? if it's true that he's had a major lack of sleep then chances are he won't be much better than a drunk driver.

[FiF]

heebeegeetee said:

Scootersp said:

In my head and from looking at the video (once) he is in the inside lane and comes up behind the stopped lorry and can't pull out as there is a stream of cars in the second lane, he's not there long before the HGV rear ends him.

Did he do something wrong in your eyes? not having a pop but he appears blameless to me.....may be he could have been more aware and dived down the inside of the HGV at the last minute, but I don't think his actions in anyway caused the accident did they?

What's the story about him only having 3 hours sleep before undertaking a long journey with passengers? if it's true that he's had a major lack of sleep then chances are he won't be much better than a drunk driver.

Yet he still managed to see the obstruction in time, assess that he couldn't move out, manage to stop well back from the stopped vehicle, put on hazard lights.

Compared to some berk who didn't manage to brake or apply any steering to attempt avoidance.

Shaking My Head.

[croyde]

Reading this thread it has made me realise that despite being incredulous at the 'tard that stopped his lorry in the live lane for a kip, the bigger knobjockey was the feker that couldn't be bothered to look where he was going.

Not a case of the sentences being the wrong way round but more the case that they both should have got long sentences.

Seems that Wagstaff had the same lack of awareness as the 'rider' in that Uber automated car that killed the woman crossing the road.

[oyster]

I know the law doesn't work this way, but here's my thinking (it's an opinion only)

Truck driver 1 (stationary vehicle):
Stopped in live lane of motorway
Turned lights off
Drunkenness possibly contributed to above 2 actions
Lack of licence is a separate matter
Percentage contribution to collision - 30%

Minibus driver:
Failed to see stationary lorry in time to overtake
Failed to be more assertive in overtaking
Failed to be more aware of risk and take evading action down hard shoulder
Lack of sleep and tiredness possibly contributed to above 3 actions
Percentage contribution to collision - 10%

Lorry driver 2:
Failed to see 2 stationary vehicles (one well lit with hazard lights)
Failed to brake in time to avoid or mitigate collision
Failed to take alternative evasive action (hard shoulder, slip lane, lane 2)
Hands free phone use and cruise control possibly contributed to above 3 failures
Percentage contribution to collision - 60%

[heebeegeetee]

oyster said:

I know the law doesn't work this way, but here's my thinking (it's an opinion only)

Truck driver 1 (stationary vehicle):
Stopped in live lane of motorway
Turned lights off
Drunkenness possibly contributed to above 2 actions
Lack of licence is a separate matter
Percentage contribution to collision - 30%

Minibus driver:
Failed to see stationary lorry in time to overtake
Failed to be more assertive in overtaking
Failed to be more aware of risk and take evading action down hard shoulder
Lack of sleep and tiredness possibly contributed to above 3 actions
Percentage contribution to collision - 10%

Lorry driver 2:
Failed to see 2 stationary vehicles (one well lit with hazard lights)
Failed to brake in time to avoid or mitigate collision
Failed to take alternative evasive action (hard shoulder, slip lane, lane 2)
Hands free phone use and cruise control possibly contributed to above 3 failures
Percentage contribution to collision - 60%

My opinion is different.

There is intent in the first driver's misdemeanors. He chose to drive a vehicle he had no right too, he chose to get drunk, (you don't buy alcohol and take it with you in the cab, do you?), he chose to stop in a live lane (having chosen to get bladdered), and so on.

The other two did not intend to harm anyone, nor possibly do any wrong, but they were both extremely negligent in their actions.

[Digga]

heebeegeetee said:

oyster said:

I know the law doesn't work this way, but here's my thinking (it's an opinion only)

Truck driver 1 (stationary vehicle):
Stopped in live lane of motorway
Turned lights off
Drunkenness possibly contributed to above 2 actions
Lack of licence is a separate matter
Percentage contribution to collision - 30%

Minibus driver:
Failed to see stationary lorry in time to overtake
Failed to be more assertive in overtaking
Failed to be more aware of risk and take evading action down hard shoulder
Lack of sleep and tiredness possibly contributed to above 3 actions
Percentage contribution to collision - 10%

Lorry driver 2:
Failed to see 2 stationary vehicles (one well lit with hazard lights)
Failed to brake in time to avoid or mitigate collision
Failed to take alternative evasive action (hard shoulder, slip lane, lane 2)
Hands free phone use and cruise control possibly contributed to above 3 failures
Percentage contribution to collision - 60%

My opinion is different.

There is intent in the first driver's misdemeanors. He chose to drive a vehicle he had no right too, he chose to get drunk, (you don't buy alcohol and take it with you in the cab, do you?), he chose to stop in a live lane (having chosen to get bladdered), and so on.

The other two did not intend to harm anyone, nor possibly do any wrong, but they were both extremely negligent in their actions.

Interesting discussion. I can see both sides TBH.

Of all, I think we can agree, the minibus driver was certainly least to blame and worst affected. RIP to him and his passengers.