Thank you for the warm welcome rog and everyone else (like you i wish i was posting under different circumstances), the police can find out if you were on the computer at the time as all this information is stored in your temp history and cookies (not the choc kind).
spencerhic:
Thank you for the warm welcome rog and everyone else (like you i wish i was posting under different circumstances), the police can find out if you were on the computer at the time as all this information is stored in your temp history and cookies (not the choc kind).
That is only if you are using the internet. If you are watching a film or using Satnav there will be no record.
bubsy06:
chilistrucker:
can anyone answer me this question then?
i have my laptop with me at work, at all times. being on containers, gives me a fair bit of time, too post, whilst at work, whilst being tipped or loaded. so too keep the battery fully charged, i normally plug it in, via the ■■■ lighter, too charge, whilst on route, from point a too b.
now, the laptop is switched off, and closed shut, but is charging. i have a volvo xl, so it sits on the engine hump, (SWITCHED OFF) but charging.
if i were involved in an incident, minor or major, would the police etc, have a sure fire way of proving, that my laptop was switched off, and closed shut, at the time of said incident? or would they just assume, that a plugged in laptop, was being used at the time, because, i could easily say, till i was blue in the face, that it was closed shut, but can that be proved? know they can look into mobile phone records, in such circumstances, but, can they do the same with laptops, too prove innocence, or guilt?i’d like too know, for future reference, as this would, make a big difference as too when i charge the laptop.
i’d like too stress here and now, that although i may reach for my smokes, can of drink etc, ihave never, and would never, use a laptop, dvd, etc, whilst on the move, i’m not perfect 100% of the time, but i’m not stupid either.
No they cannot prove if you were using it, same as in the case of this driver.
Well they can tell very easily from records if it was connected to the internet and, the easiest thing to do is to be able to tell if it was switched on or off, i can tell you exactly when a computer was switched on or off and i ain’t no expert. So whilst sticking to the letter of what you said, no they cannot ‘prove’ you where ‘using’ it, but they can tell if its on or off which in a moving vehicle is tantamount to the same thing.
And chilistrucker if i was you i wouldn’t keep it on the engine hump, i’d keep it well out of view, it would only take a jobsworth if you where stopped to try and do you because the lid was open by a millimetre. And it carries points now.
there have been a lot of experienced drivers on here giving various scenarios about what could have happened to bring about this tragic incident on the M6 that night
bubsy06:
I agree.
The number one priority of a driver has to be concentrating on the road in front of you. He decided not to and this is the result.
and
He was not taking any notice for alot longer than it takes to do any of those things.
and
Yes but he had plenty of time to prevent the accident.
and
He would of seen the car stopped long before and been able to stop if he was concentrating on the road. That is what I am saying.
and
The driver did not notice the stopped vehicle because he was not concentrating. He had plenty of time to stop without hitting the car, but as he was not concentrating he hit the car. He had his eyes on other things not the traffic in front
and
The stopped traffic was visible for over a mile so he had plenty of time to see it.
seeing as you appear to have been in the cab with him, why don’t you tell us what actually happened?
I was reading in one of the transport mags last year , that accidents where foreign vehicles were involved had gone up 47% on the year befores figures,one of the reasons for the free distrbution of frensell lenes to foreign trucks,maybe this was why his nationalty was made known because it was a fact. This is just a thought does the speed limiter set at just 56 lul one into a sense of boardam where one starts to do other things, I do know that when I started out some 35 years ago the trucks would do well over 65 easy this tended to stop one getting board, and yes i know trucks ran into the back of each other ,but this would be more because they had gone to sleep than fiddling about with somthing in cab
speedyguy:
Mike-C:
Maybe in the heavy rain and spray and heavy traffic conditions that night it wasn’t so easy. And although it was terrible visibility that night, the coppers aid driving conditions was excellent and suggested he was using a laptop. Of course i’d totally discount the theory too that the car had maybe changed lanes and hit the truck in front. In all my years of driving i’ve never seen cars pull out of slow or long queues in front of trucks.You must have been in a bad weather bubble, or not anywhere near south cheshire, was positively balmy that evening all the bad weather was well gone before those incidents.
The signs were showing well in advance.
I can see where you are coming from, I agree cars are a nuisance pulling out in front of trucks (happened to me and seen it many times) but i doubt that would have any impact on what happened that night, it’s a bit of a poor comment to throw in though with regard to the gravity of what happened.
Sorry you think its a poor comment to throw in. But i’ll repeat (again)the words of an actual witness the next day who as far as i know provided his statement to the police, maybe his words never made it into the courts…
I was passing on the opposite carriageway going southbound when i notice a van had been in an accident near to the junction 17 ,i wondered why there was no traffic was coming up on the opposite side so has i continued along i could see that the traffic was being diverted off at junction 16 it was pouring down and the next thing i saw was this lorry jackknifeing into the central reservation hitting the barrier and another exploding into flames ,i slowed down to make sure he was’nt gonna come on to my side pulled on the hardshoulder to catch my breath ,has i looked out of the window i could see the driver just managin to get out of his cab to investigate people were still flying down at high speed i was waiting for some more vehicles to join the impact within a matter of a few minute the lorry was well up in flames something was in between but could’nt see what ,
…i had to take in the fact it was pourin down with heavy rain at the time
biggusdickusgb:
there have been a lot of experienced drivers on here giving various scenarios about what could have happened to bring about this tragic incident on the M6 that nightbubsy06:
I agree.
The number one priority of a driver has to be concentrating on the road in front of you. He decided not to and this is the result.and
He was not taking any notice for alot longer than it takes to do any of those things.
and
Yes but he had plenty of time to prevent the accident.
and
He would of seen the car stopped long before and been able to stop if he was concentrating on the road. That is what I am saying.
and
The driver did not notice the stopped vehicle because he was not concentrating. He had plenty of time to stop without hitting the car, but as he was not concentrating he hit the car. He had his eyes on other things not the traffic in front
and
The stopped traffic was visible for over a mile so he had plenty of time to see it.
seeing as you appear to have been in the cab with him, why don’t you tell us what actually happened?
Was not in the cab. Just going by the facts.
Andrew Thomas, QC, for the prosecution, that instead of concentrating on the road ahead of him, da Silva may have been focused on his laptop computer, which had a global positioning device (GPS).
The road was straight for a mile before the point of impact, but da Silva did not bring his lorry to a halt. After taking his eyes off the road for a prolonged time.
The prosecution also said that it was clear that for a period of around a minute, Paulo da Silva was not paying proper attention to the road and fatally hit the Stathams’ van with his 40-tonne lorry.
You could also check the event viewer - right click on my computer and choose ‘manage’ then click on event viewer. You can look through the event viewer to see if the computer was used during that time, as there will be records of different events, like starting up certain programs and services.
fuse:
I was reading in one of the transport mags last year , that accidents where foreign vehicles were involved had gone up 47% on the year befores figures,one of the reasons for the free distrbution of frensell lenes to foreign trucks,maybe this was why his nationalty was made known because it was a fact.
I think it was Orys that pointed this out and i’m sure its true and does reflect in the accident figures…
Police will not come out for an accident where no one is injured and in the majority of accidents a simple swapping of details is all that is neccesary. In the case of an accident with a foreign vehicle people know only to well they don’t have a clue how to understand maybe the driver or his documentation so they do get the police involved.
bubsy06:
Was not in the cab. Just going by the facts.
then perhaps you can tell me the facts, because the only hard fact to come out of court was the fact that he hit the car.
bubsy06:
Was not in the cab. Just going by the facts.Andrew Thomas, QC, for the prosecution, that instead of concentrating on the road ahead of him, da Silva may have been focused on his laptop computer, which had a global positioning device (GPS).
The road was straight for a mile before the point of impact, but da Silva did not bring his lorry to a halt. After taking his eyes off the road for a prolonged time.
The prosecution also said that it was clear that for a period of around a minute, Paulo da Silva was not paying proper attention to the road and fatally hit the Stathams’ van with his 40-tonne lorry.
The only fact in that is the lorry hit the back of the car. The rest is suggesting what may have happened. He may of been eating a pot noodle too, i have heard on good authority that there is no way they can rule out 100% that he was not eatring a pot noodle at the time of the incident. Makes ya think dunnit?
biggusdickusgb:
bubsy06:
Was not in the cab. Just going by the facts.then perhaps you can tell me the facts, because the only hard fact to come out of court was the fact that he hit the car.
This is a hard fact.
The road was straight for over a mile before the queue started and there were signs warning of queues.
So think about it, how can you hit a car if you can see it stopped from over a mile away?
judging by the replies thus far, i will no longer be charging the laptop, between jobs, even though its 100% fully closed.
as for the doubters on here, i guess there are a few, the police/authorities, could just assume i were lying, regardless of wether the laptop was fully closed or not, it would be so easy for me, just too say it was closed, at the time, i would know 100% that it was, but proving it, well…
think, prevention is the key here for me.
you seem to know for sure that the car was stopped a mile in front of him,
the only way you can know that is if you’re in the cab with him
have you not been listening to any of the evidence reported daily?
biggusdickusgb:
you seem to know for sure that the car was stopped a mile in front of him,
the only way you can know that is if you’re in the cab with him
have you not been listening to any of the evidence reported daily?
Yes
and also
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Trucker-was-using-laptop-.4962784.jp
Andrew Thomas, QC, prosecuting, said the Stathams’ vehicle had come to a stop at the end of a queue of traffic on the motorway.
biggusdickusgb:
you seem to know for sure that the car was stopped a mile in front of him,
the only way you can know that is if you’re in the cab with him
have you not been listening to any of the evidence reported daily?
bubsy06:
Yes
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Fatal crash driver 'used laptop'
He said Mr da Silva had not seen the queuing traffic ahead because he was not paying attention.
"If he had looked he would have seen the queuing traffic for himself because the road was straight for over a mile before the queue started.
"He had plenty of time to see the queue because the trucks in front had been there for between one and two minutes before he arrived. For over a mile before the point of impact the defendant was not paying proper attention to the road - it was gross inattention
bubsy06:
The road was straight for over a mile before the queue started and there were signs warning of queues.So think about it, how can you hit a car if you can see it stopped from over a mile away?
I wasn’t going to bother replying bubsy because you simply cannot be told 
OK Fact the traffic was stopped over a mile in front of him which you say he could clearly see,
Ok so are you saying now that there was NO traffic inbetween the Portugese truck and the stationary Volvo that the Car driver ran into?
I passed my eyesight test recently but I doubt I’d be able to see stationary traffic 1 mile away straight road or no straight road.
Why? Well obviously in a one mile stretch up to the stationary traffic there were other vehicles including trucks !!!
The Portugese Driver could not have been the only truck on the M6 at that time of day for a 1 mile stretch !!!
bubsy06:
biggusdickusgb:
you seem to know for sure that the car was stopped a mile in front of him,
the only way you can know that is if you’re in the cab with him
have you not been listening to any of the evidence reported daily?
and since that news report was published, a jury wouldn’t convict him of dangerous driving which means after hearing the evidence they did not believe he was using the laptop.
the prosecution at no time said he was, just that he may have
this is from a news report as well
Da Silva, 46, of Murcia, Spain, denies six charges of causing death by dangerous driving and six alternative charges of causing death by careless driving
Prosecutors claimed da Silva killed them when his 40-tonne Daf lorry ploughed into their car and pushed it under a Volvo lorry which was ahead of it in a queue of slow moving traffic. They claimed there was only one impact.
Da Silva’s defence argued there may have been two impacts. They claimed the family may already have been dead as a result of Mrs Statham driving her Toyota into the Volvo seconds before it was struck by the Daf lorry.
but this one won’t help your conviction so it must be lies eh?
this is another one you won’t like because it doesn’t suit your theory
When emergency services arrived, the bodies were so badly burnt and the car, which went underneath the lorry before bursting into flames, was so greatly damaged that, for much of yesterday, police believed that there were only five victims.
The vehicle could only be recognised from its chassis number and was found to belong to a family in Wales. Police then established that the male owner had not turned up for work yesterday and that the children had not arrived at school.
that seems an awful lot of damage for a 30mph shunt( the police said it was 30mph not me), if you don’t believe me go and have a look at some crash tests
the ones i’ve looked at were at 45mph and probably would’ve killed the family anyway, but you can still tell what kind of car it is afterwards.
this car has hit the first lorry with such an impact it went through the underrun bar and underneath the first lorry
could there be any chance that she’d just gone past the lorry and was maybe looking in her rear view and hit the lorry in front at 70 and almost immediately got hit by the portugese driver
he could’ve been watching her overtake him to distract him from what was ahead?
no of course it couldn’t, you already know what happened, don’t you.
Davey Driver:
bubsy06:
The road was straight for over a mile before the queue started and there were signs warning of queues.So think about it, how can you hit a car if you can see it stopped from over a mile away?
I wasn’t going to bother replying bubsy because you simply cannot be told
OK Fact the traffic was stopped over a mile in front of him which you say he could clearly see,
Ok so are you saying now that there was NO traffic inbetween the Portugese truck and the stationary Volvo that the Car driver ran into?
I passed my eyesight test recently but I doubt I’d be able to see stationary traffic 1 mile away straight road or no straight road.
Why? Well obviously in a one mile stretch up to the stationary traffic there were other vehicles including trucks !!!
The Portugese Driver could not have been the only truck on the M6 at that time of day for a 1 mile stretch !!!
I would be able to see brake lights on from a mile away. It was dark so they would be even easier to see.
Also If there was other vehicles in front you would see them slowing down so you would know there was something happening in front of them unless you were not looking
biggusdickusgb:
bubsy06:
biggusdickusgb:
you seem to know for sure that the car was stopped a mile in front of him,
the only way you can know that is if you’re in the cab with him
have you not been listening to any of the evidence reported daily?Yes
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Fatal crash driver 'used laptop'and since that news report was published, a jury wouldn’t convict him of dangerous driving which means after hearing the evidence they did not believe he was using the laptop.
the prosecution at no time said he was, just that he may have
this is from a news report as wellDa Silva, 46, of Murcia, Spain, denies six charges of causing death by dangerous driving and six alternative charges of causing death by careless driving
Prosecutors claimed da Silva killed them when his 40-tonne Daf lorry ploughed into their car and pushed it under a Volvo lorry which was ahead of it in a queue of slow moving traffic. They claimed there was only one impact.
Da Silva’s defence argued there may have been two impacts. They claimed the family may already have been dead as a result of Mrs Statham driving her Toyota into the Volvo seconds before it was struck by the Daf lorry.but this one won’t help your conviction so it must be lies eh?
this is another one you won’t like because it doesn’t suit your theoryWhen emergency services arrived, the bodies were so badly burnt and the car, which went underneath the lorry before bursting into flames, was so greatly damaged that, for much of yesterday, police believed that there were only five victims.
The vehicle could only be recognised from its chassis number and was found to belong to a family in Wales. Police then established that the male owner had not turned up for work yesterday and that the children had not arrived at school.that seems an awful lot of damage for a 30mph shunt( the police said it was 30mph not me), if you don’t believe me go and have a look at some crash tests
the ones i’ve looked at were at 45mph and probably would’ve killed the family anyway, but you can still tell what kind of car it is afterwards.
this car has hit the first lorry with such an impact it went through the underrun bar and underneath the first lorry
could there be any chance that she’d just gone past the lorry and was maybe looking in her rear view and hit the lorry in front at 70 and almost immediately got hit by the portugese driver
he could’ve been watching her overtake him to distract him from what was ahead?
no of course it couldn’t, you already know what happened, don’t you.
I never said the laptop was the cause. Also there is no proof the car hit the lorry in front first. And if a 40ton lorry hits a car into another lorry at 30mph that is going to cause alot of damage as the lorry in front will not move as much as a lighter vehicle like a car, so will crush instead of being pushed away