The two lorry drivers jailed for motorway crash

Am I alone in not understanding why one has got 14 years but the there only 3? In fact am I alone in thinking that the sentences are the wrong way round?

A brief summary of what happened.

Driver A (who was pissed) stopped his lorry in a live lane on the motorway.

A minibus stopped behind the lorry and put on his hazard lights while waiting for an opportunity to pull out and overtake.

Driver B (who was on a hands free call) failed to see the lorry or minibus with its hazards on despite there being no fog (it was at night which made the hazards even easier to see from a distance) and plowed straight into the back of the minibus without ever braking, swerving or generally reacting at all.

Driver A got 14 years
Driver B got 3.

Now obviously drink driving is exceptionally serious but at the end of the day his vehicle was stationary and the second lorry never even looked up, never looked at the road and just plowed straight through the minibus into it. Had the parked lorry been broken down the accident would still have happened because of the actions of the second driver. Had the first lorry been in a traffic jams the accident would still have happened.

I just don't understand how the blame for the accident lies with the first lorry. We all know that you are supposed to leave a safe stopping distance but for some reason in this case the blame has been placed the other way. Him being pissed caused him to park up in a live lane but that imo didn't cause somebody to drive into the the back of him

 

I’m not 100% sure but I’m pretty sure theirs a minimum sentence, for causing death by unlawfully obstructing a motorway. It’s pretty effty too, it’s to stop people from doing it via bridges, and HGV Drivers not securing their loads correctly. I heard it on five live and can’t find anything online but I’m 90% sure I’m right, maybe his sentencing as come under that.

 

You seem to be indicating that there is an issue with Driver B being on a "hands free" call. And that he "never even looked up".

If he has a hands free I don't know what Driver B is supposed to be looking down at. You press a button to either make or receive a call and then you carry on driving - it's a lot safer than staring at your satnav. He was not committing an offence when driving - he was just not (woefully) paying sufficient attention.

Driver A has already committed 2 unforgiveable offences by firstly being pissed, and then secondly parking on a lane in the motorway. Driver A thus caused the whole deadly scenario to materialise.

 

Yep. The deaths would not have happened without driver A's actions. He should this get the severest penalty.

 

But had he been broken down would that have been considered fair enough? Description the reason for the lorry being parked make the actions of driver B any more or less acceptable?

I'm not saying that I think his punishment is too harsh but that the other driver who Ultimately was solely to blame for the accident (he crashed into a minibus with its hazards in not into a stationary lorry) shiuld get a much MUCH lengthier prison term.

 

If he had broken down it would have been an accident. He was pissed and parked up. Your logic is a little perplexing.

 

Road traffic offences have set out sentences. Driver A will have totted up more than driver B.

 

I have no idea what he was looking at but it has been proven that he did not react at all which suggests he wasn't looking though the windscreen. The visibility that night and point from which he SHIULD have seensthe minibus was 270 yards which to put into some perspective is seeing them into us parked outside oakwell sandwich shop from behind the west stand. And yet he never even touched the brakes or turned at all meaning he never saw the vehicle in front of him. Clearly wasn't looking through the windscreen.

 

My logic is that a stationary vehicle regardless of the reason does not cause somebody to blindly plow through it.

 

Even if he had broken down he could have rolled on to the hard shoulder. It was his unbelievably stupid and reckless decision to stop in a live lane that caused the deaths of those in the minibus. The other driver was careless and has been punished but driver A was far more culpable and deserved a much more severe sentence.

 

I find the actions of Driver B unforgiveable in terms of his lack of attention.

But you deserve far more if you drunkenly get on to a motorway and park your lorry on it.

The taxi seems to have found a different problem by virtue of Driver A's antics - if the taxi driver had simply been able to manoeuvre round the Driver A lorry without problem then again there would have been no accident - the taxi must have slowed down or else Driver B wouldn't have hit him from behind.

Let's face it - you're not expecting to have to slam the anchors on, on a motorway because there's a random lorry stationary in a lane that others are slowly having to pull around.

 

Think Driver A was done for Dangerous driving and Driver B for Careless driving.

May be wrong here but I think anyone over the Drink limit is deemed a Danger and if an accident happens he/she'// be done for Dangerous driving.

 

Driver A had had his licence taken away from him for previous offences and on the night had done a number of dangerous manoeuvres including going round a major roundabout the wrong way.

Driver B was driving in cruise control on a hands free call. It's estimated that he would have had 9-11 seconds to react from first view of the mini bus, but the vehicle showed no sign of making any evasive action.

 

A is more culpable than B, of which there is no doubt.

The courts have upheld this view.

What I’d like to know is why the minibus was parked with its hazards on ‘waiting to overtake’ the parked lorry. Why didn’t he just pull out and round it?

 

I thought I had read somewhere that driver A ws a banned driver.

 

Driver B may have been hands free but he could have been otherwise distracted with his phone that cannot be proven .
My advice would be to not use a phone at all when driving .
Any drivers who say that they are 100% safe do notify this forum when you have lapses of concentration .

 

Under criminal law, yes. But as far as civil liability to determine who is at fault in the eyes of the insurance companies, the driver that crashed into the back would still be 100% responsible.

Similar thing if you pull out at a junction and get hit by a speeding car, you are still at fault for insurance purposes for not giving way.

 

I really really struggle to speak whilst driving, I get submerged in the conversation and forget what I’m doing, I’ve been known to wobble all over the road, drive on the rumble strips and cats eyes, and have to break aggressively to avoid crashing into the vehicle in front of me. Now the wife just sits there in silence, from the minute she gets in the car, until the minute she gets out, because she knows I’m a danger to her and myself otherwise, .