Glasgow Bin Lorry crash

It's not clear there or in other reports whether he was caught driving or reported by someone for driving, nor why if at all he was driving that day.
 
If it's true he drove while banned then he is beneath contempt. Just a despicable course of action.
 
Initially I had some compassion for this guy. But since the inquiry and all the tales that came out there I have lost all sympathy for him. He seems to be a bit of a bad egg.
 
His choice on how he leads his life is more important than other peoples lives apparently.

He needs locked up to show him the error of his ways. Telling him off seems not to be getting the message through.
 
if true then he should now be tried for murder or at least manslaughter IF TRUE
 
I never understood why before the inquiry began they ruled out prosecuting him.
 
mickledore said:
Initially I had some compassion for this guy. But since the inquiry and all the tales that came out there I have lost all sympathy for him. He seems to be a bit of a bad egg.
Click to expand...

I had no sympathy for him. Previous incidents of blacking out, previous issues whilst a bus driver, yet still gets a job driving whilst effectively unfit to?
 
With driving licence data now being purely electronic there should be the technology for employers to get "real time" updates on the status of their employees licence entitlement as I expect driving a works vehicle whilst banned happens more than it should.
 
munch said:
I never understood why before the inquiry began they ruled out prosecuting him.
Click to expand...

Mostly likely a decision by the Fiscal based on an assessment that a criminal conviction was not likely on the basis of the evidence available. It was possibly also that it was seen to be more important to allow the FAI to discover what went wrong with the entire process of employing him. During the FAI the families announced their intention to raise a civil action against him. The standard of proof required in civil actions (the pursuer has only to "demonstrate the balance of probability" whereas in a criminal case it is necessary for the prosecution to "prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt"). Once the prospect of a civil action was made known the driver exercised his right to refuse to answer questions, which he would also have done if he faced a criminal prosecution.
Not a satisfactory outcome.
 
Last edited:
And to today.....
It is now agreed that this idiot deliberately lied to DVLA, and employers several times, over many years, in full knowledge that his license would be withdrawn if the truth were to get out about his blackouts.
How can this @rsehole not be done for murder, or at least manslaughter?
The families of the victims are taking out a private prosecution apparently, but I think he should be jailed.
 
There's going to be repercussions from this - the shock waves may well be felt generally
 
Must make it harder for the families who lost loved ones to deal with it. Seems it could have easily been avoided
Can't say I understood the decision not to prosecute and let a judge decide. Might stop it happening again if the legislation needs sorted
 
the more you hear and read about this the more mysterious it is ......... every image you see of the driver he seems to be smiling ........ what's going on?
 
It seems to happen in every case where someone has killed somebody with a vehicle through incompetence. They just don't seem able to acknowledge that they've done anything wrong, at all, and they shouldn't be punished and carry on as normal.

Get a ban? doesn't matter, I'll ignore it I haven't done anything wrong.

A (distant) friend of the wife's was killed a few years ago by a parcel van slamming into the back of a stationary line of cars at 70mph because he was trying to plug his phone in. Before the trial (he was sent down) he was overheard in a pub telling his mates it wasn't his fault because BMW's are terrible at standing up to 70mph rear-end shunts. At the trial he was oh-so apologetic, but it was all for show, he had the standard mind-set for killer drivers.
 
BruceMo said:
Must make it harder for the families who lost loved ones to deal with it. Seems it could have easily been avoided
Can't say I understood the decision not to prosecute and let a judge decide. Might stop it happening again if the legislation needs sorted
Click to expand...

The Fiscal announced there would be no prosecution so as to leave the driver free to answer any questions put to him at the Fatal Accident Enquiry without fear of damaging his own defence in the event of prosecution. Getting to the root cause of an accident and puting in place measures to prevent a recurrence is viewed to matter more than getting a conviction therefore getting witnesses to speak freely is always considered to be important. That backfired when the families announced they were considering a private prosecution which resulted in the driver refusing to answer any questions at the FAI.
However, the fact that the Sheriff was able to conclude the FAI without the driver's evidence and produce his "Determination" (highly critical of the driver, it would appear) makes the Fiscal's announcement of there being no intention to prosecute rather odd, to say the least.
 
arclight said:
The Fiscal announced there would be no prosecution so as to leave the driver free to answer any questions put to him at the Fatal Accident Enquiry without fear of damaging his own defence in the event of prosecution. Getting to the root cause of an accident and puting in place measures to prevent a recurrence is viewed to matter more than getting a conviction therefore getting witnesses to speak freely is always considered to be important. That backfired when the families announced they were considering a private prosecution which resulted in the driver refusing to answer any questions at the FAI.
However, the fact that the Sheriff was able to conclude the FAI without the driver's evidence and produce his "Determination" (highly critical of the driver, it would appear) makes the Fiscal's announcement of there being no intention to prosecute rather odd, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Giving him immunity served no one in the end, and his testimony wasn't required as his medical history etc seems to clearly suggest a history of similar incidents and is all there as evidence
I just feel really sad for the families. Tragedy and loss is always hard to take but when it's preventable it must be worse
 
BruceMo said:
Giving him immunity served no one in the end, and his testimony wasn't required as his medical history etc seems to clearly suggest a history of similar incidents and is all there as evidence
I just feel really sad for the families. Tragedy and loss is always hard to take but when it's preventable it must be worse
Click to expand...

It didn't work out in this case (so it appears to me). FAI's are often a good means of quickly establishing dangerous deficiencies in work processes that witnesses/accused would seek to conceal at a trial because they had been a fault to some degree.

The dead, injured and families have been the big losers in this case.
 
Hazza said:
I really hope they throw the book at him.
Click to expand...


Who is they ? There is only a possibility of a private prosecution left. That is a rare event in Scotland. Don't know where the finance would come for it. It would be very costly in terms of money and may well drag on for a long time. That would be hard to bear for the families.
Sometimes things just don't work out well.
 
arclight said:
The Fiscal announced there would be no prosecution so as to leave the driver free to answer any questions put to him at the Fatal Accident Enquiry without fear of damaging his own defence in the event of prosecution. Getting to the root cause of an accident and puting in place measures to prevent a recurrence is viewed to matter more than getting a conviction therefore getting witnesses to speak freely is always considered to be important. That backfired when the families announced they were considering a private prosecution which resulted in the driver refusing to answer any questions at the FAI.
However, the fact that the Sheriff was able to conclude the FAI without the driver's evidence and produce his "Determination" (highly critical of the driver, it would appear) makes the Fiscal's announcement of there being no intention to prosecute rather odd, to say the least.
Click to expand...
I don't pretend to understand the agreement they made with this driver it looks as if they would make his evidence immune from criminal prosecution inyet he refused to testify. Does refusal to testify not make any agreement he had null and void.

It is bad enough when car drivers do this drive while in some form incapacitated but when you drive a heavy vehicle knowing you black out is as others above mentioned at least manslaughter and due to hgv murder just my 2 cents
 
I'm sure he'll get what's coming to him, one way or another.
 
BRASH said:
I'm sure he'll get what's coming to him, one way or another.
Click to expand...


Hopefully. If you hear of a whip round to finance it...
 
Nod said:
Hopefully. If you hear of a whip round to finance it...
Click to expand...

I don't think money will be involve to be honest.
 
He was in court today.
Apart from being banned for 12 months, he applied for insurance and lied about the ban.
He drove his car while banned and without valid insurance.

It seems to be a waste of time: he doesn't listen or care- about the law or the public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35832377
 
Then it's down to the Scottish legal system to show him the error of his ways.
 
Surely he must've been known to the insurance companies, and I am surprised about the 12 month ban initially.

Nothing will bring back the 6 people who died
 
As I understand it, a murder conviction would be impossible as at the time of the deaths, he wasn't in control of his actions as he was unconscious. I can't remember how this relates to manslaughter so there may be difficulties there. Again, as he was unconscious, it can't be causing death by dangerous driving as, while he was conscious, his driving was of an appropriate standard. Where they should be able to get him is for obtaining money by deception as he lied to his employer and then received salary. He was negligent by concealing his condition and continuing to drive but whether than fits the tests for negligent manslaughter, I'm not sure.

It's complex and, ultimately unsatisfactory but re-writing legislation to fit this one case may be difficult (and of course it couldn't be implemented retrospectively)
 
OneOffDave said:
He was negligent by concealing his condition and continuing to drive
Click to expand...


Not informing the DVLA of relevant medical conditions is, in itself, an offence (al be it one only punishable by £1,000 fine). The DVLA also make it clear they may bring prosecution (for what is unclear) if you cause an accident a a result. I'm guessing dangerous driving. I don't think your argument about him needing to be conscious really washes in this case
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Not informing the DVLA of relevant medical conditions is, in itself, an offence (al be it one only punishable by £1,000 fine). The DVLA also make it clear they may bring prosecution (for what is unclear) if you cause an accident a a result. I'm guessing dangerous driving. I don't think your argument about him needing to be conscious really washes in this case
Click to expand...

Not informing the DVLA, like not declaring it to his employer is a separate act that is separated in time and space from the fatal crash. The DVLA are still free to go after him for this as far as I'm aware. His state of consciousness relates to murder and manslaughter charges as there has to be the mens rea for the act
 
OneOffDave said:
His state of consciousness relates to murder and manslaughter charges as there has to be the mens rea for the act
Click to expand...

You did state dangerous driving as well ;)

OneOffDave said:
it can't be causing death by dangerous driving as, while he was conscious, his driving was of an appropriate standard.
Click to expand...

Simply if he was aware, he wasn't driving appropriately. For that reason I think there is a very strong argument of involuntary manslaughter as well. Although he never intended the accident he was driving unlawfully ( he hadn't told the DVLA as he was required to do). An act which cause those deaths
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
You did state dangerous driving as well ;)



Simply if he was aware, he wasn't driving appropriately. For that reason I think there is a very strong argument of involuntary manslaughter as well. Although he never intended the accident he was driving unlawfully ( he hadn't told the DVLA as he was required to do). An act which cause those deaths
Click to expand...

In Scotland it might be possible to try him for involuntary culpable homicide as there was no means rea, but not being Scots I'm not as clear on the other legs a case like that would need. Just the act of driving without a licence didn't cause the deaths, the loss of consciousness did. Morally he is completely responsible for the deaths of those 6 people but in a strict legal sense it is a lot harder to charge and subsequently convict.
 
kendo1 said:
He was in court today.
Apart from being banned for 12 months, he applied for insurance and lied about the ban.
He drove his car while banned and without valid insurance.

It seems to be a waste of time: he doesn't listen or care- about the law or the public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35832377
Click to expand...


Slightly oddly, you can get insurance for your vehicle even if you have no driving license. I had to when I was denied driving privileges a few years ago (for medical reasons, not for naughtiness). Obviously, you may not drive when banned, although (again, oddly) there are circumstances when you are permitted to drive after reapplication for a license to be returned after a medical surrender. Just don't expect the useless aerosols in Swansea to extract digits when the period has elapsed - you'll get your license back faster after a DD ban...
 
Nod said:
Slightly oddly, you can get insurance for your vehicle even if you have no driving license. I had to when I was denied driving privileges a few years ago (for medical reasons, not for naughtiness). Obviously, you may not drive when banned, although (again, oddly) there are circumstances when you are permitted to drive after reapplication for a license to be returned after a medical surrender. Just don't expect the useless aerosols in Swansea to extract digits when the period has elapsed - you'll get your license back faster after a DD ban...
Click to expand...

No surprise really, I suppose. People can own cars and not drive them, and it's good if your possessions have insurance.

In his case though, he was trying to get around the restriction of being banned.
 
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see him (figuratively) nailed up for the bin lorry crash and then (figuratively again) stabbed in the side for the driving while banned/license suspended. However, I also hope he gets the passing out sorted or at least diagnosed properly (if it hasn't been).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top