UKC

Finally a sentence rather than just a fine;
http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Lorry-driver-killed-charity-duo-A30-jailed...

In reply to dale1968:

Near maximum sentence, as you say some progress. However I just don't get how a lawyer can stand and argue remorse for this incident when he did the same thing to another vehicle (thankfully a less vulnerable road user) a few weeks later on the same stretch of road.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
I found myself seeing the driver as being stuck in his habits which made him knackered enough to be a danger on the road.

I cycle everywhere and don't like the light sentences for drivers who kill people though being careless by the way.

In reply to Timmd:


A habit? A bad habit is picking your nose, not falsifying your tachograph, and texting whilst in charge of a HGV, these are all criminal actions of someone who did not care a jot about the consequences.
Then within eleven weeks he is involved in another RTC, This man should never drive again

In reply to dale1968:

Where does it say he falsified his tacho?
While there is absolutely no excuse for texting, his boss should also be held to account for not making him take his 45. I've seen it many times the pressure transport managers put the drivers under, often telling the driver that if they don't like it then there's someone waiting to jump in their place.

The above of course is not an excuse for this tragedy which could have been avoided so easily.

In reply to mwr72:

In reply to mwr72:


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/lorry-driver-jailed-killing-ch...

After the accident, Palmer lied to police about the amount of rest he had taken before taking to the wheel and falsified tachograph records.

In reply to dale1968:

Quite apart for anything else, how could the his company possible justify allowing him to continue driving their lorry while on bail?

Innocent until proven guilty of course, but he should have been suspended unti everything was cleared up

In reply to Trevers:


Presumably because he was still legally allowed to drive an HGV. The problem is allegedly that they gave him more work than he (or anyone, more to the point) could safely complete.


It took 13 months from accident to trial. Are you proposing suspending him on full pay (seems unlikely his caring employer will spring for that) or no pay (how, legally?).

If the company was pressurising him to drive then his boss should absolutely be held to account. If you pressure people to drive dangerously (while tired) you can hardly expect to end up employing the most safety-conscious drivers - that would make the boss not just responsible for the guy driving while tired, but also responsible for the guy's lackadaisical attitude to safety in the first place.

In reply to Nutkey:


I am curious to hear if anything happened to the company. Someone working as a mechanic during the day and driver at night is a accident waiting to happen. If it was different companies they would have an excuse but the same employee surely breaks some rules.

In reply to dissonance:

The company was Fry's Logistics, they seem to have got away with it

In reply to dissonance:


I hope a HSE prosecution is down the road somewhere. A company doing this with one driver will be doing it with more.

In reply to dale1968:
Totally agree.

In reply to Tricky Dicky:

The HSE action could well follow the court case; it usually does in my experience.