M1 crash - can someone explain

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Phil Fouracre
Posts: 804
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby Phil Fouracre » 24 Mar 2018, 9:04am

I know this isn't really cycling relevant, but, can anyone explain the logic behind the sentencing? Polish driver, Masierak, stops on the motorway, he is drunk, but, he could have just broken down. Second driver, Wagstaff, not drunk, assumed to be sentient! smashes into the back of a minibus waiting to pull out around the stopped lorry, without braking or taking any avoiding action.
Yes, obviously drunk driver is completely 'in the wrong' and guilty of a major misdemeanour! But, it's Wagstaff who does the damage, he was the driver 'in motion', and had spent an hour, in his own words, on the phone 'talking rubbish' to someone else.
So, why does he get a tenth of the sentence, to a charge of careless, rather than dangerous?
Would be interested to know how others see it.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

brynpoeth
Posts: 11242
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby brynpoeth » 24 Mar 2018, 9:10am

I have my antennae out for early April fool jokes
There is nothing funny about this, just bizarre, unbelievable
Maybe a clever lawyer was involved
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

pwa
Posts: 10419
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby pwa » 24 Mar 2018, 9:10am

I've not been following that story, but if it is as you say it does seem odd.

User avatar
John1054
Moderator
Posts: 652
Joined: 11 May 2012, 11:43am
Location: Sunshine Coast

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby John1054 » 24 Mar 2018, 9:11am

Maybe because he pleaded guilty? Sentencing always seems a bit bizarre to me :shock:

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby thirdcrank » 24 Mar 2018, 9:35am

M was sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving.
W was sentenced for causing death by careless driving, to which he had pleaded guilty. He was acquitted by the jury of causing death by dangerous driving.

profpointy
Posts: 469
Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby profpointy » 24 Mar 2018, 9:37am

I too find it disquieting. Being in the way is more dangerous than not looking where you are going it seems. As a cyclist the parallel with running over cyclists who are in the way is chilling. Maybe the cyclist is the danger for being in the way and the driver is blameless? In Bristol, a cycling friendly city in fairness - largely because of driver attitude - there are signs up saying "cyclists be seen". If not seen signs saying "drivers, look where the f you are going"

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 46750
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby Mick F » 24 Mar 2018, 9:39am

Pedantic head on. :oops:

How can someone be guilty of dangerous driving if they were stationary?
Mick F. Cornwall

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6851
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby Bonefishblues » 24 Mar 2018, 9:40am

Being in the way whilst having driven a large commercial vehicle knowing you were completely (2x limit) intoxicated - so intoxicated that you park it for in excess of 10 minutes on a live carriageway, despite hard shoulder being available.

Yep, he was was "in the way" alright.

brynpoeth
Posts: 11242
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby brynpoeth » 24 Mar 2018, 9:41am

Heard the Staumeldungen on the radio, traffic jams, there are often jams in the middle of the night, tiredness may be involved when 'the vehicle he was travelling in the road'
Overnight transport should be reduced, I am glad to wait three days for a book

Anyone got a link?
Diolch
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

brynpoeth
Posts: 11242
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby brynpoeth » 24 Mar 2018, 9:45am

Even a well-maintained vehicle may break down at any time

Any figures for near-misses or 'accidents' where no-one was hurt?

The Polizei estimate quote the financial damage caused in 'accidents'. In Kassel a truck driver ignored a red light and hit a tram, a few people were injured
Damage estimated at €1 000 000
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6851
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby Bonefishblues » 24 Mar 2018, 9:53am

brynpoeth wrote:Even a well-maintained vehicle may break down at any time


All sorts of things can happen, but that wasn't the case here.

reohn2
Posts: 36297
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby reohn2 » 24 Mar 2018, 9:54am

Phil Fouracre wrote:I know this isn't really cycling relevant, but, can anyone explain the logic behind the sentencing? Polish driver, Masierak, stops on the motorway, he is drunk, but, he could have just broken down. Second driver, Wagstaff, not drunk, assumed to be sentient! smashes into the back of a minibus waiting to pull out around the stopped lorry, without braking or taking any avoiding action.
Yes, obviously drunk driver is completely 'in the wrong' and guilty of a major misdemeanour! But, it's Wagstaff who does the damage, he was the driver 'in motion', and had spent an hour, in his own words, on the phone 'talking rubbish' to someone else.
So, why does he get a tenth of the sentence, to a charge of careless, rather than dangerous?
Would be interested to know how others see it.

On the face of it Wagstaff's sentence is paltry in the extreme as he is the cause of the crash.
The puzzling thing is that Masierk didn't pull over onto the hard shouulder :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby thirdcrank » 24 Mar 2018, 9:55am

Mick F wrote: ... How can someone be guilty of dangerous driving if they were stationary?


Driving isn't restricted to when a vehicle is moving. Beyond that, it's already been pointed out that the act of stopping in those circumstances was, in itself, dangerous. Stopping in the other sense of "remaining there" was also dangerous.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6851
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby Bonefishblues » 24 Mar 2018, 9:56am

I guess we can debate the definition of cause at some length.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9528
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: M1 crash - can someone explain

Postby Cunobelin » 24 Mar 2018, 9:59am

Mick F wrote:Pedantic head on. :oops:

How can someone be guilty of dangerous driving if they were stationary?



Insufficient evidence to know, whether or not the motor was running in this case, but that can be the deciding factor

It was a critical element in phone use.

If the engine was running that you were guilty of the offence, car in neutral, engine off and handbrake on and you were OK

I


From the CPS

Under existing case law a person may still be driving whilst the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary. This means that an individual stopped at a traffic light could be prosecuted for a mobile phone offence. The intention of the legislation is to promote road safety and so it will not normally be in the public interest to prosecute this offence if the driver has safely pulled over and stopped before taking hold of the phone.



If you extrapolate that and assume that the engine was running then he would still be "driving" under the law