Bath Latest

[own_account_driver]

1FLEETRENEGADE:

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.

There’s other hills into Bath as steep and longer, with no weight or width restrictions, so would a child crossing magically have been safe on one of those?

Do cowboy operators spend £6000 on parts maintenance on the one vehicle involved, and have no major defects, at a surprise yard inspection, the next day on their other five vehicles or actually drive past a well known VOSA checkpoint minutes before the accident with a knowingly defective vehicle?

The employee who gave evidence was a newbie drama queen, who’d presumably flounced. The fact his main concern with safety was the parking brake wouldn’t release, until air had built, after the truck had been left idle, over the weekend, totally undermined his credibility in assessing the operation.

Yes the paperwork and tacho downloading was disorganised and haphazard and he was not complying with the terms of his operator’s licence in not replacing a departed transport manager. He was rightly found unfit to hold an operator’s licence based on this but it is a big leap to conclude criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt. Incompetence alone isn’t enough for most prosecutions mens rea must be proven.

I would expect evidence of bald tyres, worn linings, minimal or non-existent parts spending or proactively fiddled tachographs that type of thing with a cowboy operator.

[1fleetrenegade]

Own Account Driver:

1FLEETRENEGADE:

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.

There’s other hills into Bath as steep and longer, with no weight or width restrictions, so would a child crossing magically have been safe on one of those?

Do cowboy operators spend £6000 on parts maintenance on the one vehicle involved, and have no major defects, at a surprise yard inspection, the next day on their other five vehicles or actually drive past a well known VOSA checkpoint minutes before the accident with a knowingly defective vehicle?

The employee who gave evidence was a newbie drama queen, who’d presumably flounced. The fact his main concern with safety was the parking brake wouldn’t release, until air had built, after the truck had been left idle, over the weekend, totally undermined his credibility in assessing the operation.

Yes the paperwork and tacho downloading was disorganised and haphazard and he was not complying with the terms of his operator’s licence in not replacing a departed transport manager. He was rightly found unfit to hold an operator’s licence based on this but it is a big leap to conclude criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt. Incompetence alone isn’t enough for most prosecutions mens rea must be proven.

I would expect evidence of bald tyres, worn linings, minimal or non-existent parts spending or proactively fiddled tachographs that type of thing with a cowboy operator.

So you wouldn’t class somebody who pushes the workforce to speed , not take adequate breaks , drive knowingly defective trucks as long as the wheels kept turning , provided they had invoices to the tune of a few grand as a cowboy operator ?

Wow in that case I have led a sheltered life and i apologise and stand corrected !!

[own_account_driver]

1FLEETRENEGADE:

Own Account Driver:

1FLEETRENEGADE:

Carryfast:
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.

There’s other hills into Bath as steep and longer, with no weight or width restrictions, so would a child crossing magically have been safe on one of those?

Do cowboy operators spend £6000 on parts maintenance on the one vehicle involved, and have no major defects, at a surprise yard inspection, the next day on their other five vehicles or actually drive past a well known VOSA checkpoint minutes before the accident with a knowingly defective vehicle?

The employee who gave evidence was a newbie drama queen, who’d presumably flounced. The fact his main concern with safety was the parking brake wouldn’t release, until air had built, after the truck had been left idle, over the weekend, totally undermined his credibility in assessing the operation.

Yes the paperwork and tacho downloading was disorganised and haphazard and he was not complying with the terms of his operator’s licence in not replacing a departed transport manager. He was rightly found unfit to hold an operator’s licence based on this but it is a big leap to conclude criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt. Incompetence alone isn’t enough for most prosecutions mens rea must be proven.

I would expect evidence of bald tyres, worn linings, minimal or non-existent parts spending or proactively fiddled tachographs that type of thing with a cowboy operator.

So you wouldn’t class somebody who pushes the workforce to speed , not take adequate breaks , drive knowingly defective trucks as long as the wheels kept turning , provided they had invoices to the tune of a few grand as a cowboy operator ?

Wow in that case I have led a sheltered life and i apologise and stand corrected !!

This is all based on the testimony of the aggrieved newbie drama queen, the actual driver involved stated he had not been pushed to speed and tachograph evidence generally supported that. They are a business and it’s doubtful the employees would be happy to not be paid if the wheels weren’t turning.

I wouldn’t personally take a truck out with the amber ABS light on, possibly a trailer depending on the circumstances, and I would probably be prepared to carry on driving until the end of the shift if it developed during it. It was the only known defect and a common one if it is an intermittent defect and previous attempts at repair haven’t lasted it is not the crime of the century though to take it out in my opinion.

Although the breaks weren’t right on the day there wasn’t a huge body of evidence of driver’s hours fiddling though in the investigation.

I would view him as trying to operate correctly but a bit out of his depth really.

[109lwb]

The width limit sign was not erected at the time the lorries went down there. I can 100% guarantee this, as I drove down there myself the day before and saw the sign lying face down in the bushes. Also, there was only one sign, where there should be two. This was known to the council and had been for some time. Remarkably a day after the accident there were brand new signs at the top and bottom of the hill.

Does this mean if the signs had been there, they would still have used that route? Who knows.

[carryfast]

Own Account Driver:

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.

I’d almost agree with that.With the exception that a 19 year old driver raised on the mantra of gears to slow is as good as a 21 year old + and brake critical vehicles don’t come much if any more critical than 18t on two axles/four brakes.In which case on what and when are you going to start new inexperienced truck drivers at whatever age.In addition to which the idea that he supposedly accelerated on the hill to catch his boss contradicts tacho evidence which states he slowed from 25 mph to 20 mph at which point the thing only then ‘started’ to run away.

[carryfast]

1FLEETRENEGADE:

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 ?

Let’s just say that putting up a sign danger steep hill 7.5 t weight limit would at least then give you the scope to enforce an unarguable summary charge of dangerous driving if an 8 wheeler runs away going down it.

[carryfast]

Own Account Driver:
There’s other hills into Bath as steep and longer, with no weight or width restrictions, so would a child crossing magically have been safe on one of those

To be fair there’s no reason to then increase the odds of a runaway by allowing lots of different possibly more unsuitable risky roads if not even just as steep.On that note from memory and if I’ve have remembered it right I think that at least one of the roads with bad down grades there even has one or more escape lanes ?.While as I was told even the forces drivers like my father used the Udine route from Pola and Trieste to Villach rather than brave the Wurzen or Loibl which is the type of grade we’re talking about and at probably less than 4-4.5 t average per brake.

[1fleetrenegade]

Own Account Driver:

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.

So your saying the driver and his boss are innocent of any guilt ?
Surely when you press the brakes you expect the truck to stop eventually ■■

Are you saying that an inexperienced driver following his boss who uses the road regularly and would have known how inexperienced the driver was and could of used a different route but chose not to should not be held accountable ?

The fact that regardless of anything else the truck didn’t stop speaks volumes regardless of the experience of the driver

The driver I would imagine was hard on the brakes the truck didn’t stop , why ? Because the brakes were defective unless you are suggesting that any fully loaded truck would be incapable of stopping on that kind of gradient on brakes alone , if so why was the truck on that road ? Conscious decisions.

I’ll ask again who do you think was at fault ■■

[carryfast]

1FLEETRENEGADE:
The driver I would imagine was hard on the brakes the truck didn’t stop , why ? Because the brakes were defective unless you are suggesting that any fully loaded truck would be incapable of stopping on that kind of gradient on brakes alone , if so why was the truck on that road ? Conscious decisions.

I’ll ask again who do you think was at fault ■■

The reason ‘why’ is what’s called brake fade.IE the brakes literally run out of capacity to accept more heat input.At which point the linings lose their friction ability and the drums expand away from them.

The question in this case is what caused that.

Was it brake inbalance in which some of the brakes weren’t doing enough thereby over loading others.

Or was it driver error resulting from incorrect use of gears or excessive speed on the hill.

Or was it the heat capacity removed from the brakes on the approach to the junction leading to Lansdown Lane.

As I’ve said my ‘personal’ view is that the driver would at least have a potential defence in the case of the first example on the basis of would that have been obvious to the driver.Or the third example on the basis of the gears to go brakes to slow training regime endorsed by the DVSA.

While for some reason we don’t seem to have any information regarding what gear the thing was in when decending the hill.Which shouldn’t have been difficult for the prosecution to establish.Just as it wouldn’t have been thought to have too much difficulty in proving brake inbalance as the cause.Neither of which it seems to have done in my personal understanding of the case.Although we do seem to have tacho information that it slowed from 25 mph to 20 mph before running away.

As for whether the gradient is too much for the vehicle that’s arguably up to the road planners in the form of a clear weight limit if it’s deemed unsuitable.Bearing in mind that other examples of trucks using the same route haven’t resulted in a runaway including the other truck referred to in this case.

While again in a case of this nature it’s up to the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

[109lwb]

The restriction the the road is a width one, not a weight one, so you could technically take a 40t vehicle down there as long as it was within the width limit, which of course doesn’t exist. However, artics do frequently go down there to get to the industrial estate half way down.
It’s my view the restrictions are not in place bcauase of the gradient or the likelihood of a vehicle running away, but more because the road is quite narrow in places and turns residential at the bottom.
As mentioned,there are many roads in bath that are similar in gradient and width that have no restrictions.

[bald_bloke]

What happened to the original thread why is there now a different thread on the same subject? The original had some longevity to it .

…viewtopic.php?f=2&t=122759

[carryfast]

109LWB:
The restriction the the road is a width one, not a weight one, so you could technically take a 40t vehicle down there as long as it was within the width limit, which of course doesn’t exist. However, artics do frequently go down there to get to the industrial estate half way down.
It’s my view the restrictions are not in place bcauase of the gradient or the likelihood of a vehicle running away, but more because the road is quite narrow in places and turns residential at the bottom.
As mentioned,there are many roads in bath that are similar in gradient and width that have no restrictions.

As I said the width limit is a bs red herring all based on the arguable definition of ‘access’ .In which case getting that wrong doesn’t fit the definition of dangerous driving.

[carryfast]

bald bloke:
What happened to the original thread why is there now a different thread on the same subject? The original had some longevity to it .

…viewtopic.php?f=2&t=122759

I asked dave to merge them.

[snudger]

The definition of “except for access” on a valid road sign is not debatable. It basically means you may only enter that restriction (if it applies) if you need to get to a premises or land within the restriction and there is no other way to get to it, not use it as a through road shortcut as these guys did. This was mentioned as an offence by a policeman at the trial this week, whereas ignoring an “unsuitable for HGVS” sign, also mentioned, is at your own risk.

[carryfast]

Snudger:
The definition of “except for access” on a valid road sign is not debatable. It basically means you may only enter that restriction (if it applies) if you need to get to a premises or land within the restriction and there is no other way to get to it, not use it as a through road shortcut as these guys did. This was mentioned as an offence by a policeman at the trial this week, whereas ignoring an “unsuitable for HGVS” sign, also mentioned, is at your own risk.

Passing a sign which says danger steep downgrade 7.5t limit with an 8 wheeler which then runs away would be relevant evidence regarding a charge of dangerous driving resulting from an 8 wheeler running away on the hill in question.

While passing a sign which says 6’6’ except for access on the guvnor’s incorrect routing orders wouldn’t/shouldn’t.Just as continuing a journey with an ABS warning showing or taking insufficient break wouldn’t/shouldn’t be relevant.

As for this case.Let me guess we won’t see the road planners change the signing in that regard on the hill or the DVSA change its rule regarding ABS warnings or the training mantra of gears to go brakes to slow.Because that would be an admission that the road planners and the DVSA’s own instructions,one way or another,played a part in this accident.

[snudger]

Carryfast:

Snudger:
The definition of “except for access” on a valid road sign is not debatable. It basically means you may only enter that restriction (if it applies) if you need to get to a premises or land within the restriction and there is no other way to get to it, not use it as a through road shortcut as these guys did. This was mentioned as an offence by a policeman at the trial this week, whereas ignoring an “unsuitable for HGVS” sign, also mentioned, is at your own risk.

Passing a sign which says danger steep downgrade 7.5t limit with an 8 wheeler which then runs away would be relevant evidence regarding a charge of dangerous driving resulting from an 8 wheeler running away on the hill in question.

While passing a sign which says 6’6’ except for access on the guvnor’s incorrect routing orders wouldn’t/shouldn’t.Just as continuing a journey with an ABS warning showing or taking insufficient break wouldn’t/shouldn’t be relevant.

In this particular instance it was the 4th time that day they’d gone down the road AIUI but what you state is debatable. It is an offence to transgress any restriction; it’s just a slim risk of being caught IMO, whether it’s going through a red light, speeding, parking on double yellows or whatever, you have to not do the crime or at least observe the chances of being caught.

[carryfast]

Snudger:

Carryfast:

Snudger:
The definition of “except for access” on a valid road sign is not debatable. It basically means you may only enter that restriction (if it applies) if you need to get to a premises or land within the restriction and there is no other way to get to it, not use it as a through road shortcut as these guys did. This was mentioned as an offence by a policeman at the trial this week, whereas ignoring an “unsuitable for HGVS” sign, also mentioned, is at your own risk.

Passing a sign which says danger steep downgrade 7.5t limit with an 8 wheeler which then runs away would be relevant evidence regarding a charge of dangerous driving resulting from an 8 wheeler running away on the hill in question.

While passing a sign which says 6’6’ except for access on the guvnor’s incorrect routing orders wouldn’t/shouldn’t.Just as continuing a journey with an ABS warning showing or taking insufficient break wouldn’t/shouldn’t be relevant.

In this particular instance it was the 4th time that day they’d gone down the road AIUI but what you state is debatable. It is an offence to transgress any restriction; it’s just a slim risk of being caught IMO, whether it’s going through a red light, speeding, parking on double yellows or whatever, you have to not do the crime or at least observe the chances of being caught.

As I said in an ideal world the DVSA would change the mantra of gears to go brakes to slow to gears to slow brakes to stop and change the signing on the downgrade to 7.5t limit and make any ABS warning a VOR prohibition situation.No prizes for guessing why that would be ‘less’ likely now than before.

As for the unrelated ‘transgressions’ issue as I said it’s difficult to see any relevance between those and the truck running away caused by brake fade on the steep hill. As opposed to hot brakes at the start of the decent caused by the use of brakes to slow gears to go at the junction leading to the start of the hill leaving insufficient heat capacity in the brakes to get down it safely.

[truckman020]

I understand they have to listen to the advice of their solicitor but I can’t understand why they are all denying responsibility,we all know what happened via the press so why deny everything,the jury will only find them guilty anyway so why bother denying it all

[socketset]

truckman020:
I understand they have to listen to the advice of their solicitor but I can’t understand why they are all denying responsibility,we all know what happened via the press so why deny everything,the jury will only find them guilty anyway so why bother denying it all

Probably so they can appeal later on. Just a guess.

[own_account_driver]

Snudger:

Carryfast:

Snudger:
The definition of “except for access” on a valid road sign is not debatable. It basically means you may only enter that restriction (if it applies) if you need to get to a premises or land within the restriction and there is no other way to get to it, not use it as a through road shortcut as these guys did. This was mentioned as an offence by a policeman at the trial this week, whereas ignoring an “unsuitable for HGVS” sign, also mentioned, is at your own risk.

Passing a sign which says danger steep downgrade 7.5t limit with an 8 wheeler which then runs away would be relevant evidence regarding a charge of dangerous driving resulting from an 8 wheeler running away on the hill in question.

While passing a sign which says 6’6’ except for access on the guvnor’s incorrect routing orders wouldn’t/shouldn’t.Just as continuing a journey with an ABS warning showing or taking insufficient break wouldn’t/shouldn’t be relevant.

In this particular instance it was the 4th time that day they’d gone down the road AIUI but what you state is debatable. It is an offence to transgress any restriction; it’s just a slim risk of being caught IMO, whether it’s going through a red light, speeding, parking on double yellows or whatever, you have to not do the crime or at least observe the chances of being caught.

First time that day, and ever for the driver.