Tipper crash in Bath

[thirdcrank]

I think it's important to understand that the Crown Court cannot deal with summary matters ie triable only in the magistrates' court. Offences dealing specifically with brakes and also alleged breaches of traffic regulation orders are summary offences. This went to Crown Court for trial of the indictable offences of causing death by dangerous driving and manslaughter with the state of the brakes being a central pillar of the prosecution case.

Even if the prosecution has taken steps to preserve the option to take summary proceedings, there are questions about whether that's the correct course. In respect of the two men convicted, whatever sentence they are given for manslaughter will already reflect the circumstances surrounding this crash. With regards to the driver, I can see a moral case for saying that the jury's acquittal cleared him totally, even if that's not strictly a legal interpretation.

[mjr]

He was following his boss and didn't know where their destination was. That meant two things. He had to keep up with him, and he didn't know that he wasn't taking his load within the restricted zone.

More to the point: he must have known he was taking his load within the restricted zone but did not know (could not know?) it wasn't permitted access to reach the destination.

I guess that excuses disobeying the restriction signs, but it still seems wrong to drive a lorry with a brake failure light illuminated, no matter what the "it's a malfunctioning light" nonsense your bosses try to persuade you with. Is that really only a summary offence rather than "dangerous and careless driving" which seems to be the charge against the driver?

[reohn2]

Spot on IMO.
Clog and anchor driving is very prevalent these days,and I believe 'going down the box' is outlawed on the driving test

It's not outlawed, only discouragedare for slow'...........

I stand corrected.
Though in the event of brake failure using the gearbox and engine braking is second nature to us more mature* drivers,but it appears to be a lost art(?) among the younger generations



*nearly wrote 'older' but thought better of it

[reohn2]

The top of Lansdown Lane was clearly marked as unsuitable (more yellow signs and red paint since the crash) which is why I'm mystified. I guess he had some defence but I don't know what the valid possibilities are.

He was following his boss and because of that hadn't read the job sheet as he didn't think it necessary so didn't know his destination only that it was somewhere in Bath,he said that he saw the restriction was '6ft width except for access',so it would be reasonable to think his boss was leading him to a site off Landsdown Rd and so was legally entitled to drive down it to access the drop off.
I think that's his claim.

[reohn2]

When I learnt to drive you had to change down through all the gears (4-3-2) but I don't think it was for engine braking: just to always be close to the theoretical best gear for that speed but I always thought the time spent with clutch in for the extra change canceled it out anyway. Always using the engine as a significant brake is surely just wasting fuel/causing pollution. I would only think of engine braking down hills where you don't want to risk brake fade as still mentioned in the highway code rule 160.

Or if the brakes fail it's a good tool to be able to use to bring your speed down to a crawl,even in a 32tonne tipper truck.

[thirdcrank]

As we already know, dangerous and careless driving are rather vague and open to interpretation. Over the years, this has led to the introduction of all manner of offences which are often termed "absolute" offences, although there are often exemptions / exceptions ("loopholes") it's only necessary to prove that the relevant misconduct occurred (and none of the exceptions applied) to gain a conviction: eg contravening traffic lights, crossing double white lines, vehicle defects. Excuses/ explanations are mitigation, not defences. Contravention of many of those summary offences might contribute to a dangerous or careless driving charge, especially when several occur together: eg speed, dangerous manoeuvres, serious vehicle defects. There's a judgment to be made on how to proceed because the defence can always submit that if there's a single specific offence, then that's the appropriate charge as intended by Parliament. There were pre-trial submissions and I suspect that this is the type of thing that was being considered. I think that to get an employer to the Crown Court, serious breaches of health and safety legislation might apply but that's outside my experience.

If driving with a brake warning light on was ipso facto dangerous driving within the meaning of the Road Traffic Acts, there would be no need for the relevant summary offence.
=============================================
PS Recently, various new offences have been enacted covering things like causing death while driving without insurance in what seems like an attempt to punish growing types of misbehaviour which would be better detected before crashes occurred, rather than punishing offenders after the event.

[BakfietsUK]

Do I understand that a summary offence is an offence which can be given a roadside sanction, a ticket or FPN. If I have got it right, some driving offences seem to have a different status to criminal offences. If say passing a red light was seen as a criminal act, might people be less inclined to do it. I guess it may impact on the courts, but perhaps the status of an offence as a criminal act could act as a deterrent in it's self. So running a red light gets you a criminal record would be a mantra to be as well publicised as not having a TV licence. This also could apply to speeding.

Please feel free to correct me if I have my facts wrong, but surely it's time that a criminal type act like speeding or running red lights be taken a bit more seriously. Having a railway background I see parallels to passing signals at danger, a major faux pas for a train driver. It could be argued that the potential for loss of life is different in a road situation, but the point I am making is that thousands of people have been killed on the roads. Roads are less safe than railways, you may ask why does that need to be accepted? Why is it ok for roads to kill people and railways not?

At Harrow and Wealdstone in 1953 over 100 were killed and injured in that train crash. Tot up road deaths and I estimate you would pass that figure in a matter of months.

[thirdcrank]

Many summary offences - especially driving offences are part of the fixed penalty scheme. I suspect that by far the greatest number of "tickets" are issued for speeding, especially when it's detected by camera enforcement. There are guidelines and conditions, so that at one end of the scale , a first time offender might well be offered an awareness course instead of a penalty, while at the other end high speed driving and lots of points on the licence would be almost certain prosecution, with plenty of variations between those two extremes.

If the speed were to be very high, then there ought to be consideration given to see if a dangerous driving charge might be appropriate. There was a case earlier this year when a driver was stopped at a big speed - 150mph + IIRC, and the sentencing guidelines don't go that high, so the driver was sentenced as though he had "only" been doing something like 120mph. Great wailing and complaining from the relevant PCC but the answer would have been to get the evidence for a more serious charge.

Anything which can result in prosecution is a criminal offence. There are various definitions of a "crime" for official purposes but they don't affect what I'm saying. BTW, I'm not trying to justify any of this: just offering my explanation. It's worth reading the Cycling Silk blog by Martin Porter QC. He's a barrister specialising in civil law (comp etc) but as a cyclist he has become aware of shortcomings in the system. All his stuff is worth reading IMO - this item is particularly relevant

The Criminal Justice System; How it fails us and how it needs reform

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... fails.html

[SA_SA_SA]

When I..... 160.

Or if the brakes fail it's a good tool to be able to use to bring your speed down to a crawl,even in a 32tonne tipper truck.

Yes , I was just commenting on the reported change in what new drivers are now taught compared to what was taught when I learnt. Though then engine braking using gears was a well known idea.

[BakfietsUK]

Thanks for that thirdcrank that's really useful. Law is not my background so any insight is good. Your post is really helpful to get some idea of the complexities. No doubt Cycling Silk will be a very useful person to read.

[Vorpal]

I guess that excuses disobeying the restriction signs, but it still seems wrong to drive a lorry with a brake failure light illuminated, no matter what the "it's a malfunctioning light" nonsense your bosses try to persuade you with. Is that really only a summary offence rather than "dangerous and careless driving" which seems to be the charge against the driver?

Yes, it was wrong, and he has admitted that. Frankly, I'm inclined to believe him. Driving a loaded tipper lorry with bad brakes is next to suicidal.

[thirdcrank]

A point I didn't make clearly is that the ultimate justification for many of the regulations introduced to govern vehicles, especially motor vehicles is to improve safety AKA reduce danger. There are all sorts of things like an empty windscreen washer which could result in a crash and are to an extent dangerous. If these offences are regularly detected and dealt with, fair enough. As well as some people "coming to police attention" a lot of other people have the general feeling that they should comply. The extent that all the police enforcement of these arguably minor things can IMO be seen from the number of vehicles with defective lights. Does it matter? The individual cases are no big deal, but they are visible and don't need special skills to detect; collectively, they are an indicator (unintentional pun ) of the extent to which the police no longer deal with such things and are almost certainly the tip of an iceberg of more serious defects. And as the word use to get round about enforcement, its absence gets round just as quickly.

When the police routinely attended and investigated most crashes, quite a lot of offences were detected in the aftermath. That's largely stopped except for fatal crashes or those where it seems the survivors may die.

Dealing with heavy lorries is a very specialist skill: unlike motor cars, it's not something where a driving licence and some experience give you the savvy to check things. Traffic police officers with HGV licences were once more common than now is the case. I must have posted before that around here at least, when "Road Traffic" was a separate department with its own command structure, one of their superintendents had full HGV driver qualification. Why on earth do you need superintendents in Traffic, let alone superintendents who can drive a big lorry?

Priorities are now concentrated elsewhere.

[Mark R]

The cause of the accident seems to be at least 75% incompetent driving. Anyone experienced would already be in a suitably low gear before the hill starts to get steep. If you miss a gearchange on a steep decline you can end up stuck in neutral and out of control even without a prexisting brake fault.

Heavily loaded vehicle + extremely steep hill means you absolutely must not rely just on the wheel brakes to keep your speed down - a basic principle surely?

Incredible that the driver gets to keep his licence...

[squeaker]

Always using the engine as a significant brake is surely just wasting fuel/causing pollution.

Any diesel and all modern (ie fuel injected) petrol engines will shut off the fuel in on over-run above a relatively low engine speed, so you are left with a hill powered air compressor - no fuel used. Provided the valve stem seals and piston rings are not badly worn there should be no significant pollution from oil blow-by either.

Back on topic, I too am surprised that the driver was not required to take a re-test as a bare minimum.

I also agree with the notion that serious RTAs should be investigated much more thoroughly than at present via an independent investigation branch.

[Postboxer]

Maybe they should also investigate whether current driving tests and their required driving practises, such as using engine braking or not, are correct and sufficient. Experience shouldn't enter into it, a driver should be able to drive competently if they have passed all required tests. If not, the testing has failed.