M1 Lorry crash

[FiF]

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%

Look at the videos, truck 1 was lit, well lit. Here is a screen grab from one dashcam, the stationary truck is ahead in lane 1.



More here

Watch Mr Hamil's video, it's poor quality, and the time and date is wrong, but as he approaches the situation he moves from L2 to L3, note all the brake lights and indicators ahead of him, the bus stood hazard flashers, lights and brake lights illuminated, the stationary truck still illuminated.

Wagstaff was not paying due attention, as far as I am concerned driving so far below the required standard that he was so lucky to be found not guilty of dangerous. Far more than careless imho.

[heebeegeetee]

FiF said:

Look at the videos, truck 1 was lit, well lit. Here is a screen grab from one dashcam, the stationary truck is ahead in lane 1.



More here

Watch Mr Hamil's video, it's poor quality, and the time and date is wrong, but as he approaches the situation he moves from L2 to L3, note all the brake lights and indicators ahead of him, the bus stood hazard flashers, lights and brake lights illuminated, the stationary truck still illuminated.

Wagstaff was not paying due attention, as far as I am concerned driving so far below the required standard that he was so lucky to be found not guilty of dangerous. Far more than careless imho.

Not disagreeing with a word you're saying, but a lot of it applies to the minibus driver too imo.

[oyster]

FiF said:

Look at the videos, truck 1 was lit, well lit. Here is a screen grab from one dashcam, the stationary truck is ahead in lane 1.



More here

Watch Mr Hamil's video, it's poor quality, and the time and date is wrong, but as he approaches the situation he moves from L2 to L3, note all the brake lights and indicators ahead of him, the bus stood hazard flashers, lights and brake lights illuminated, the stationary truck still illuminated.

Wagstaff was not paying due attention, as far as I am concerned driving so far below the required standard that he was so lucky to be found not guilty of dangerous. Far more than careless imho.

Wow. I hadn't seen that view before - I cannot believe how much empty space is to the left of the stationary lorry. I can understand, to a degree, why the minibus driver didn't go down the left as he perhaps felt he had no need to (though I like to think I would have done if it was apparent I'd need to slow to a standstill on a live motorway lane).

I still cannot see how the 2nd lorry driver collided with TWO lit vehicles when there is all that escape space around - UNLESS he was driving dangerously.

[FiF]

heebeegeetee said:

Not disagreeing with a word you're saying, but a lot of it applies to the minibus driver too imo.

Yet you've ignored what I said earlier. We do not directly know exactly what was the traffic situation in lanes 2 and 3 when the bus driver got to the stationary truck. I've already much earlier written how surprisingly quickly one bears down on stationary objects at motorway speed, the dashcam video from which I've taken the still, as it's the clearest footage, shows exactly that happening.

Yet, to repeat, the bus driver saw the hazard, stopped possibly because he couldn't move to lane 2, stopped well clear, look at Mr Hamil's footage, lights, brakes, hazards all on. Yes he could have gone down the left, mistake in hindsight. Yes he should have seen vehicles ahead braking and moving out so have been better prepared. We don't know what his thought process was as all the poor buggers are dead.

How does any of that apply to Wagstaff? Didn't brake, didn't steer away. Didn't have any thought process.


Edited to add the following, suppose the vehicle had stopped because an air line had failed and the brakes had jammed on? Would the driver who actually hit something have been treated the same way. As opposed to a situation where the stationary vehicle was stopped due to ludicrous actions by a drunk driver without a licence?

Edited by FiF on Wednesday 28th March 16:37

[oyster]

heebeegeetee said:

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.

This is interesting and I think you've addressed a different point to mine. You've referred to intent whereas I was only attributing causal contribution.

But in my view this weakens both the criminal and safety element on our roads, because I believe unintended negligence can sometimes be worse than intended negligence, if the former can be shown to have had a greater contribution to the cause of a collision.

So in this case, whilst the 2nd lorry driver might have had less intent (and certainly carried out less criminal activity in the lead up to the crash) he was more negligent because he was more in control to prevent the collision than anyone else.