Local news… fitter thought he only had to check the brakes every 4 months… Load of bent tacho records. Did’nt know what TM was. Heads are set to roll
Think his actual quote was ’ we check them four times a year, but to be honest I tend to stay away from paperwork’.
An eyeroll smilie just isn’t enough in this instance 
No new evidence today that I saw. Could easily go either way prosecution case and VOSA investigation were ■■■■ weak really.
The owner is in the ■■■ for sure, the driver I’m thinking probably not so much.
I’m not convenient need they will be able to pin dangerous driving on him.
The owner though… already had o licence revoked once, huge string of offences along with it.
You’d think if you had been in that much trouble, you’d make double sure everything is completely watertight the next time round. Seems like he is a cowboy who didn’t care and now look what’s happened.
109LWB:
The owner is in the ■■■ for sure, the driver I’m thinking probably not so much.
I’m not convenient need they will be able to pin dangerous driving on him.The owner though… already had o licence revoked once, huge string of offences along with it.
You’d think if you had been in that much trouble, you’d make double sure everything is completely watertight the next time round. Seems like he is a cowboy who didn’t care and now look what’s happened.
It was revoked in the aftermath of the crash when it transpired he had no transport manager as I understand it late last year. Remember the press are just lifting sensational bits from the proceedings for headlines.
He had spent £6000 on parts for the truck involved and no serious defects were found on the other five trucks in his yard when VOSA swooped the next morning. He should have had a qualified TM and the paperwork was not in order but I’ve not been convinced by the cowboy operator narrative. Will have to wait and see what the jury verdict is but I think combined with the botched VOSA investigation the prosecution have over-reached.
bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-englan … l-38080743
Abs lights on , failure to take breaks , ignoring road restrictions to take a short cut and he was following his boss ? Cowboy operator.
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Death crash tipper truck 'too big' for Bath road - BBC NewsAbs lights on , failure to take breaks , ignoring road restrictions to take a short cut and he was following his boss ? Cowboy operator.
To be fair the reporting is some of the usual rubbish you see related to trucks, 32 tonne load, 700,000km (as if that is astronomical),sounds a dodgy lot with poor standards but as ever the media is being lose with the facts.
If the pair of them…
Hadn’t gone through a clearly marked weight limit which they knew well in advance was there, those four people would still be alive today.
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Death crash tipper truck 'too big' for Bath road - BBC NewsAbs lights on , failure to take breaks , ignoring road restrictions to take a short cut and he was following his boss ? Cowboy operator.
Trucks don’t run away because of an ABS light or a dodgy break regime or going through an except for access width restriction.
Pretty sure he had his O licence revoked well before the crash. 2011-2012 ish.
Carryfast:
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Death crash tipper truck 'too big' for Bath road - BBC NewsAbs lights on , failure to take breaks , ignoring road restrictions to take a short cut and he was following his boss ? Cowboy operator.
Trucks don’t run away because of an ABS light or a dodgy break regime or going through an except for access width restriction.
Did I say they do ■■
What is your point ?
Trucks don’t run away because of these things however they are the staple of cowboy operators are they not ?
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Carryfast:
Trucks don’t run away because of an ABS light or a dodgy break regime or going through an except for access width restriction.Did I say they do ■■
What is your point ?Trucks don’t run away because of these things however they are the staple of cowboy operators are they not ?
‘The point’ is that the trial relates ( should relate ) to how and why the truck ‘ran away’ and who,if anyone,is to blame for ‘that’ based on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Carryfast:
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Carryfast:
Trucks don’t run away because of an ABS light or a dodgy break regime or going through an except for access width restriction.Did I say they do ■■
What is your point ?Trucks don’t run away because of these things however they are the staple of cowboy operators are they not ?
‘The point’ is that the trial relates ( should relate ) to how and why the truck ‘ran away’ and who,if anyone,is to blame for ‘that’ based on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial relates to a collection of evidence and incidents of behaviour which when put together will outline who was at fault so that charges and punishment can be administered to give some form of justice for the family’s if you want to call it that.
The fact that the truck rolled away and why will be dealt with at an inquiry which is an entirely different thing.
This should serve as a warning to newbies and cowboys alike if you have known faults regardless of whether the boss tells you it’s ok / there is people queuing up for your job etc if the ■■■■ hits the fan he is going to sell you down the river and the boss told me to take it out just won’t cut it.
At the risk of ranting the fact that these two fools have pleaded not guilty when people have died is beyond belief and certainly the measure of the man , I for one couldn’t live with myself and the old adage of “if you can’t do the time” springs to mind.
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Carryfast:
‘The point’ is that the trial relates ( should relate ) to how and why the truck ‘ran away’ and who,if anyone,is to blame for ‘that’ based on proof beyond reasonable doubt.The trial relates to a collection of evidence and incidents of behaviour which when put together will outline who was at fault so that charges and punishment can be administered to give some form of justice for the family’s if you want to call it that.
The fact that the truck rolled away and why will be dealt with at an inquiry which is an entirely different thing.
This should serve as a warning to newbies and cowboys alike if you have known faults regardless of whether the boss tells you it’s ok / there is people queuing up for your job etc if the [zb] hits the fan he is going to sell you down the river and the boss told me to take it out just won’t cut it.
At the risk of ranting the fact that these two fools have pleaded not guilty when people have died is beyond belief and certainly the measure of the man , I for one couldn’t live with myself and the old adage of “if you can’t do the time” springs to mind.
Really.So you’re saying that a such a charge against a driver,specifically related to a runaway truck,only needs to show that someone died and some totally irrelevant,arguably even prejudicial,evidence to get a conviction.On the basis that the runaway and reason for it is irrelevant being only a matter for an enquiry not the trial. Bearing in mind in that I’m obviously specifically referring to the case regarding the driver in that no one else.On that note you do understand the definitions regarding causing death by dangerous/careless driving in that case.Bearing in mind that even DVSA regard an ABS warning as a non dangerous fault which can be over looked from the point of view of continuing a journey for example.Also bearing in mind that going past an except for access width restriction when arguably not fitting the definition of ‘access’, or not taking sufficient break,isn’t evidence of dangerous/careless driving.
It is all relevant concerning what went on in the lead up to the accident it is all also relevant for character building and trying to accertain whether this was just a series of incidents on that day or a long standing culture within the company.
Given that the driver has already stated that the abs light was on for several days prior to the crash and when informed the boss told him it was ok and to drive on , if the driver had refused to use it he may have said right let’s get that looked at and the problems with the brakes MAY have been spotted.
Let me ask you if the truck had not ignored the road restriction would the accident have happened ? Saying I was following the boss just doesn’t cut it this is a grown man not a child !!
If your man had taken a break would he have been more alert ? Who knows but MAYBE he would and it wouldn’t have happened.
Every conscious action has a reaction my friend , previous employees have already stated they had concerns about the brakes on that truck they were lucky this guy wasn’t.
1FLEETRENEGADE:
It is all relevant concerning what went on in the lead up to the accident it is all also relevant for character building and trying to accertain whether this was just a series of incidents on that day or a long standing culture within the company.Given that the driver has already stated that the abs light was on for several days prior to the crash and when informed the boss told him it was ok and to drive on , if the driver had refused to use it he may have said right let’s get that looked at and the problems with the brakes MAY have been spotted.
Let me ask you if the truck had not ignored the road restriction would the accident have happened ? Saying I was following the boss just doesn’t cut it this is a grown man not a child !!
If your man had taken a break would he have been more alert ? Who knows but MAYBE he would and it wouldn’t have happened.
Every conscious action has a reaction my friend , previous employees have already stated they had concerns about the brakes on that truck they were lucky this guy wasn’t.
By that logic I could just as easily say that ‘if’ the DVSA advise that ‘all’ ABS warning lights mean VOR no ifs no buts and if the training regime instills a braking regime based on gears to slow brakes to stop not gears to go brakes to slow,and ‘if’ the road in question had been signed with a 7.5t weight limit in the direction of travel rather than a 6’6’’ except for access the crash probably wouldn’t have happened.Bearing in mind that all the evidence states that even by DVSA’s own advice an ABS fault isn’t a dangerous fault meaning a journey has to be aborted and thereby obviously won’t cause a truck to run away.While the prosecution has provided no evidence that the driver did anything wrong regarding the relevant issues as to ‘why’ the truck ran away such as what gear was the thing in when it ran away after slowing from 25 mph to 20 mph.Or were any supposed brake defects obvious to the driver.While if anything the evidence does seem to fit the idea that if anything it’s the DVSA’s own training mantra of gears to go brakes to slow which should be in the dock and that’s where my bet would be if I was on the jury.Also bearing in mind the credibility of the prosecution case regarding any supposed or otherwise brake defects to the point of not even being able to show the jury specific or relevant or accurate brake temperature assessments.
Given that you clearly have a personal interest in the case let me ask you who do you think is in the wrong ?
Are you suggesting that this was an unavoidable accident ■■
■■■■■■■ and ■■■■■■■■ yourself is an accident , driving a truck without brakes is not.
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Given that you clearly have a personal interest in the case let me ask you who do you think is in the wrong ?
Are you suggesting that this was an unavoidable accident ■■
■■■■■■■ and [zb] yourself is an accident , driving a truck without brakes is not.
Why do you think that I’d have any more of a so called ‘personal interest’ in this specific case than any other topic on here or any other poster on the Bath topics. 
Bearing in mind that I’ve stated my ‘personal’ view based on the evidence I’ve seen so far provided no I obviously don’t think it was an ‘unavoidable accident’.‘But’ likewise I don’t think the prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was to blame for it.While my ‘personal’ view is that I do think that it’s more likely to be the result of the road planners not ideally putting a clear and compulsory blanket weight limit,as opposed to an ‘except for access’ width limit,on the road in question, combined with the training mantra of gears to go brakes to slow.While your ‘personal’ view is obviously something different.
Message to dave maybe merge this topic with the other previous Bath accident topic. 
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Given that you clearly have a personal interest in the case let me ask you who do you think is in the wrong ?
Are you suggesting that this was an unavoidable accident ■■
■■■■■■■ and [zb] yourself is an accident , driving a truck without brakes is not.
On the evidence I’ve seen (and I’ve actually read all the court transcripts as I have taken a special interest as I used to regularly drive down that hill with a fully laden 18 tonner prior to the introduction of the width restriction) I would point the finger at the driver training industry, including the DVSA and motor car driver training regime and the person in government who made the decision to allow very inexperienced teenagers to get behind the wheel of the biggest vehicles on the road in an ill-considered bid to solve the driver shortage, youth unemployments problems and suppress driver wages.
The brakes could have been better but the VOSA investigation has been so botched and the examiner entered such a poor performance under cross-examination, like admitting 1 in ten of all trucks on the road would have brakes in the same condition, that it is hard to make a true assessment. My feeling is the servicing of the brakes would have made less contribution to preventing the accident than the driver having more experience making difficult hill descents in a variety of lighter vehicles first and being able to properly use the gears to control vehicle speed.
Both slowing from high speed, to turn into the hill, without running down the gears, or recognising there was already possibly brake fade, actually accelerating on the hill to catch his boss and possibly due to poor forward planning needing to emergency stop when his boss stopped ahead of him unexpectedly at the school crossing were schoolboy errors that may well have still led to tragedy in the same vehicle as it came from the factory.
Carryfast:
1FLEETRENEGADE:
Given that you clearly have a personal interest in the case let me ask you who do you think is in the wrong ?
Are you suggesting that this was an unavoidable accident ■■
■■■■■■■ and [zb] yourself is an accident , driving a truck without brakes is not.Why do you think that I’d have any more of a so called ‘personal interest’ in this specific case than any other topic on here or any other poster on the Bath topics.
Bearing in mind that I’ve stated my ‘personal’ view based on the evidence I’ve seen so far provided no I obviously don’t think it was an ‘unavoidable accident’.‘But’ likewise I don’t think the prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was to blame for it.While my ‘personal’ view is that I do think that it’s more likely to be the result of the road planners not ideally putting a clear and compulsory blanket weight limit,as opposed to an ‘except for access’ width limit,on the road in question, combined with the training mantra of gears to go brakes to slow.While your ‘personal’ view is obviously something different.
Message to dave maybe merge this topic with the other previous Bath accident topic.
So you think that by putting a blanket ban on that road this fool and his boss would not have used it ? Employees have stated that the culture was to take the shortest route possible at the fastest speed you could muster ■■ Are you serious?
google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thes … signs/amp/
This accident was entirely avoidable and was caused by one if not two individuals on that given day , as I said earlier and my original point cowboy operators!!
I do understand the point of more training for the inexperienced drivers but you cannot train common sense.
A true tragedy and entirely avoidable and also a message to us all.