M1 Lorry crash

[Europa1]

Dynamic Space Wizard said:

He's really lucky that the minibus was there for him to smash into, because if it hadn't been there, he'd have smacked straight into the back of the other lorry, and he wouldn't have got off so lightly then, he'd have got what he deserved.

Define "what he deserved".

[4x4Tyke]

Europa1 said:

I see. You posted a statement on the topic, about how the accident could have been prevented, but then decided that was off-topic?

Got you.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or are you deliberately constructing a strawman?

Speed cameras are off topic.

[Boydie88]

I fail to see how not looking where you're going can not be considered dangerous driving when you're driving an artic.

Horrible succession of errors led to this, but it feels like Wagstaff's was worse than the other truck.

[ecs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I remember there being some research on the topic a few years back with a bit of coverage on the TV e.t.c. Found this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36475180

Press release from the university who conducted the research too: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/35831

[Vipers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I believe there is evidence to that, at one I recall a woman was on hands free and got so involved in the conversation run down and killed or injured someone, last year I think.

I often blank out the OH yapping in my lug when something needs my total concentration on the road, when this happens now I say "I am busy" she knows to stop talking. This doesn't happen on hands free, apparently the conversation carries on regardless.

[DurianIceCream]

Boydie88 said:

I fail to see how not looking where you're going can not be considered dangerous driving when you're driving an artic.

Horrible succession of errors led to this, but it feels like Wagstaff's was worse than the other truck.

A single error is usually careless driving. Wagstaff made a single error. It had severe consequences, but it was still a single error.

The other chump parked on the live motorway, which was deliberate, not an error.
He stopped for 12 minutes, which was deliberate.
He was drunk, which was deliberate, not an error.
All of those fall well below the standard that a reasonable driver would be expected to show, so that was dangerous driving.

Edited by DurianIceCream on Thursday 8th March 09:34

[Boydie88]

DurianIceCream said:

A single error is usually careless driving. Wagstaff made a single error.

The other chump parked on the live motorway, which was deliberate, not an error.
He was drunk, which was deliberate, not an error.

Can't be just me that thinks certain errors are worse than others and that the result of the error should be taken into account.

There are any number of reasons traffic could be stationary on a motorway.

[DurianIceCream]

Boydie88 said:

Can't be just me that thinks certain errors are worse than others and that the result of the error should be taken into account.

There are any number of reasons traffic could be stationary on a motorway.

Yes, that is why the newly created offence of death by careless driving was created. That is a new offence, which takes account of the outcome.

[anonymous-user]

DurianIceCream said:

Boydie88 said:

I fail to see how not looking where you're going can not be considered dangerous driving when you're driving an artic.

Horrible succession of errors led to this, but it feels like Wagstaff's was worse than the other truck.

A single error is usually careless driving. Wagstaff made a single error. It had severe consequences, but it was still a single error.

The other chump parked on the live motorway, which was deliberate, not an error.
He stopped for 12 minutes, which was deliberate.
He was drunk, which was deliberate, not an error.
All of those fall well below the standard that a reasonable driver would be expected to show, so that was dangerous driving.

Edited by DurianIceCream on Thursday 8th March 09:34

I'm with the icecream man on this. Stopping on a live motorway alone would be classed as dangerous but to compound it with a 12 minute park, being drunk goes way beyond anything that Wagstaff did imo.

[heebeegeetee]

garyhun said:

I'm with the icecream man on this. Stopping on a live motorway alone would be classed as dangerous but to compound it with a 12 minute park, being drunk goes way beyond anything that Wagstaff did imo.

I agree too, but I also think Wagstaff's driving went far beyond careless.

It's interesting that a lone speeding biker is deemed 'dangerous' https://.motorcyclenews.com/news/2012/october/oct2... whereas a man who is totally zoned out whilst at the wheel of an articulated lorry on a busy motorway is not.

[DurianIceCream]

heebeegeetee said:

I agree too, but I also think Wagstaff's driving went far beyond careless.

It's interesting that a lone speeding biker is deemed 'dangerous' https://.motorcyclenews.com/news/2012/october/oct2... whereas a man who is totally zoned out whilst at the wheel of an articulated lorry on a busy motorway is not.

^ Yeah, that doesn't make sense. You can exceed the speed limit by a gross amount - but hurt nobody - and go to jail.

Or you can be totally clueless and kill somebody and only get a fine and a few points.

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

garyhun said:

I'm with the icecream man on this. Stopping on a live motorway alone would be classed as dangerous but to compound it with a 12 minute park, being drunk goes way beyond anything that Wagstaff did imo.

I agree too, but I also think Wagstaff's driving went far beyond careless.

It's interesting that a lone speeding biker is deemed 'dangerous' https://.motorcyclenews.com/news/2012/october/oct2... whereas a man who is totally zoned out whilst at the wheel of an articulated lorry on a busy motorway is not.

I cannot argue with that.

[The Mad Monk]

DurianIceCream said:

heebeegeetee said:

I agree too, but I also think Wagstaff's driving went far beyond careless.

It's interesting that a lone speeding biker is deemed 'dangerous' https://.motorcyclenews.com/news/2012/october/oct2... whereas a man who is totally zoned out whilst at the wheel of an articulated lorry on a busy motorway is not.

^ Yeah, that doesn't make sense. You can exceed the speed limit by a gross amount - but hurt nobody - and go to jail.

Or you can be totally clueless and kill somebody and only get a fine and a few points.

I am open to correction, but-

I believe the punishment is based upon the gravity of the offence, not the consequences of the offence.

[funkyrobot]

I always think that if you ever want to kill someone, use a vehicle.

Saw a story last week where a Mondeo driver deliberately rammed a cyclist. He got 16 months I think (could be wrong).

Luckily the cyclist only had minor injuries. 16 months is nothing for using your car as a weapon. He obviously intended to hurt the cyclist too.

[DurianIceCream]

The Mad Monk said:

I am open to correction, but-

I believe the punishment is based upon the gravity of the offence, not the consequences of the offence.

Big prosecutions for speeding motorists usually seem to happen in Scotland, not in England (likely some exceptions). Only Scot plod and Scot prosecutors generally want to jail people for going fast when nobody has been hurt.

It's correct that the consequences of the offence are usually of less consideration. Except of course that if there are consequences, you are more likely to receive the police attention which causes you to get prosecuted. And also that the new offence of causing death by careless driving addresses the consequence of the offence.

[DurianIceCream]

funkyrobot said:

I always think that if you ever want to kill someone, use a vehicle.

Yes I was told that by a barrister. Just make it appear to be an accident. It will be investigated with much less rigour than killing somebody another way.

[AJL308]

Vipers said:

New said Wagstaff had been on a hands free phone for over an HOUR.

No excuse for any phone use while driving - it's dangerous. Hands-free should never have been allowed from the off. We're stuck with it now though.

[AJL308]

Europa1 said:

av185 said:

4x4Tyke said:

We need a shift from blanket speed cameras to dedicated traffic police.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Wednesday 7th March 20:21

Won't ever happen.

How would "dedicated traffic police" have prevented this crash?

By possibly having nicked the pissed-up driver who fell asleep in his vehicle in the slow lane of a motorway casing multiple deaths before he could do so???

I hardly ever see traffic cars these days and it has been the same for years. Always seem to manage to arrange three or four to congregate around a relatively minor shunt or break down though even though one would suffice.

[Digga]

DurianIceCream said:

He stopped for 12 minutes, which was deliberate.

Given that the HGV was stopped in clear view of surveillance cameras, at a junction, surely questions also need to be asked about how 'smart' our motorways are that other, approaching road users had not been alerted, or that police had not attended?

I do fear that smart motorways, without any hard shoulders, have huge potential to replicate this type of shunt when vehicles legitimately stop due to breakdown or other incident.

[227bhp]

Sadly this is what happens when 3 idiots get together on the motorway.