tinyurl.com/ybcsaep
I've stuck my head above the parapet to post this and hope I won't be misunderstood.
I really am imterested in the backroomers opinions on this one because it's provoked so many unusual reactions from fellow lorry drivers.
We all, without fail realise his guilt and realise this has to be punished.
We all, also without fail, have said 'there but for the grace of God go I'
Who can honestly say they have never driven with something weighing heavily on their minds?
Questions have been pondered on whether the firm should have been employing someone of that age under the corporate manslaughter risks these days, and the current duty of care restrictions.
Fifteen hour shifts are long and tiring for much younger drivers and obviously would be more so, for a 74 yrs old.
Is a custodial sentence the right one?
I have very mixed feelings, what do the backroomers think?
Please don't shoot the messenger.
Pat
|
Like you say, very mixed reactions to that one. He's killed someone through carelessness, and will have to live with that.
On balance I think the sentence is fair, but should have been suspended - I can't see the benefit of keeping an old man in jail. Maybe some community service would be appropriate in addition?
Very sad story.
Edited by Statistical outlier on 17/02/2010 at 09:01
|
|
|
Its a tragic case with no winners.
There would probably have been an outrage had he been given community service, but if he's really caring for a disabled wife I think that would have been a far better option.
I think we have a major problem in the UK. People commit bad driving every day, and are very, very unlikely to be picked up on it. Then when tragedy strikes, the punishments are terribly severe.
I'd much rather that we approached issues of safety when driving in the same way that we approach safety in other walks of life, with ongoing training. I'd much rather see mandatory top-up training for every driver every 3 years. People tell me that 'it can't be afforded', but I beg to differ - if we really wanted to cut the carnage on the roads we could.
None of us would choose to travel in a train or plane where the driver didn't have ongoing training, so why cars? And before people pipe up with the 'but we're in control in the car', you have little control over the others around you. I particularly notice it on my motorbike.
|
|
But in this case we are talking about one of the more heavily controlled areas of motoring, Marlot, not the run of the mil car driver... there are already many controls put onto HGV drivers, if Pat is saying that things can still happen perhaps they need to be even more stringent? 8 hour shifts for instance, rather than 15 hour ones?
|
I think we have a major problem in the UK. People commit bad driving every day, and are >> very, very unlikely to be picked up on it. Then when tragedy strikes, the punishments are >> terribly severe.
I agree with that - people are punished based on the consequences, which are pretty random.
I think of the Gary Hart case - his Land Rover ran off the M62 in circumstances that are still uncertain. Almost anywhere else it probably wouldn't have been a huge issue, but unfortunately he found a gap in the Armco and ended up on a railway line causing a train crash in which 10 people died.
|
I agree with that - people are punished based on the consequences which are pretty random.
I always find it strange that there is such a big difference between the actual penalties dealt out for murder and attempted murder...when the only difference is how good a shot you are...
|
|
|
|
And I would say far more stringent CAR driving tests.
And monitering of appalling CAR driving standards.
However I would compare this to the case where the 17 year old who SHOULD have REPEATEDLY been locked up for various crimes but because his parents were drug addicts and he at least claimed to be looking after a disabled brother
he was left at liberty to murder an innocent 16 year old
jat
M
|
|
|
There are never any winners, but when passing a sentence the judge has also to consider the deterrent effect to others and the impact on the victims of the offence. A non-custodial sentence must have been considered, but rejected, perhaps for these reasons.
Put yourself in the shoes of the victims' family and imagine how they would have felt if he had walked out of court to go home.
|
|
|
|
|
Fifteen hour shifts are long and tiring for much younger drivers
Pat - can you clarify, are drivers allowed to drive non-stop for up to 15 hours?
|
|
No doubt Pat will answer in due course, but I don't think they are, that will just be the total length of the shift... they are only allowed to drive for so many hours (5?) before that have to take a break. The problem is how well its policed, with bus and train drivers its tightly controlled, but its not so easy with lorry drivers, especially foreign ones.
Edited by b308 on 17/02/2010 at 09:17
|
|
I suppose whatever the length of the shift there's nothing to stop any driver getting into their vehicle already tired.
|
Quite, and why I agree with this from Pats OP:
We all, also without fail, have said 'there but for the grace of God go I'
|
|
|
there's nothing to stop any driver getting into their vehicle already tired.
Correct. And this applies to car drivers too. If an accident were then to happen this needs to be taken into account. And the cause of the accident could then be attributed to a driver deciding to drive when they should not have.
For this tragic case, maybe the driver shouldn't have been driving 15 hour shifts at all at his age but the law allowed him to. But there was a duty on him to decide this himself. Maybe he could have been doing more local/shorter runs and this tragic course of events would never have happened.
I know how an accident with an HGV can be pretty devastating - I am lucky to have survived being rear ended by an HGV.
|
|
|
|
The drivers hours are maximum of 10 hours driving with a break of 45 minutes after 4.5 hours, BUT that is just driving.
There is a lot of 'other work' as in loading, securing, tipping etc to be done and the maximum amount of a working day can be 15 hours 3 times a week and 13 hours 3 times a week.
In real terms that means frequently a lorry driver will have to get up at 1.30am to get ready for work, 30mins drive to work and start a shift at 3am. That shift can go on until 6pm and then there's the 30 minute drive home again.
Sleep, shower, eat and relax and have to get up again at 3.30am to be at work again for 5am the following morning.
It's not easy and the reason for my concerns about the age of the driver.
Pat
|
A large proportion of the blame needs to be with his employer. Clearly the driver was not mentally or physically fit enough to be doing this job, and his employer should have had sufficient processes in place to highlight that.
|
Clearly the driver was not mentally or physically fit enough
"Clearly"? How do you know?
|
>> Clearly the driver was not mentally or physically fit enough "Clearly"? How do you know?
He fell asleep and killed people. How clear do you need it?
|
He fell asleep
To be fair, it seems he lost concentration, there is no evidence that he fell asleep. I suspect we've all been guilty of that...
Edited by b308 on 17/02/2010 at 10:09
|
I have.
call it fell asleep, call it a blank moment, clearly he was not in control at a significant moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be so silly. You said "Clearly the driver was not mentally or physically fit enough to be doing this job, and his employer should have had sufficient processes in place to highlight that", which has different implications to "he fell asleep and killed people".
|
YOu have a risk assesment of each driver. The risk assesement should have pointed out that at 73 the risk profile was significantly higher. This in turn leads to background checks to mitigate that higher risk profile. And that leads to the fact that he has problems at home and is at risk of concentration issues with long shifts.
And yes, the outcome CLEARLY validates this approach
Did I really need to point this out to you or were you just arguing and being pedantic for the sake of it?
Edited by Altea Ego on 17/02/2010 at 11:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly the driver was not mentally or physically fit enough to be doing this job
Mentally - do we know that was clear to the employer? If you mean about his daughter, perhaps the employer didn't know.
Physically - just based on his age?
and his employer should have had sufficient processes in place to highlight that.
Mental/physical tests? Would need legislation for all employers to do that?
|
|
|
|
My personal opinion on this case is that a 74 year old person should not be allowed to drive a 44 tonne lorry.
If he had killed my mum and dad, I'd want him to do time.
He will be free within a year.
|
|
|
In real terms that means frequently a lorry driver will have to get up at 1.30am to get ready for work 30mins drive to work and start a shift at 3am. That shift can go on until 6pm and then there's the 30 minute drive home again. Sleep shower eat and relax and have to get up again at 3.30am to be at work again for 5am the following morning.
Do you not have to have a minimum of 12 hours between shifts, Pat?
I know from my experince that even 12 hours may not be enough, especially if you had a sod of a shift before that break... and don't mention those early starts!
Unless you've actually experienced irregular early starts, where they change from day to day (0300 one day, 0500 next, 0330 the next) you won't have a clue just how badly it affects your body clock... its all about pacing yourself, trying to get enough sleep (try telling next doors kids that you are trying to sleep when its only 7pm)... but its not easy.
Edited by b308 on 17/02/2010 at 09:49
|
No, it's a minimum of 11 hours off which can be reduced to 9 hours off 3 times a week.
To be fair, if you are going home at night many firms don't expect you to reduce it to 9 hours off but there are some that do.
For trampers ( who sleep in the cab all week ) it's common to have 3 nine hour breaks in a week.
Pat
|
|
Well, tbh that's ridiculous and needs changing... those breaks are not sufficient for safe driving... especially when in charge of an HGV and the unsocial hours that you are expected to work...
|
It goes some way to show why we are sometimes less than polite on the road though.
Believe it or not, you do get used to them and it is the reason I'm now up around 3.30am every day and still only have about 5-6 hours sleep.
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
the total length of the shift...
How far into his total shift was he? If "his day started at 5:30", and the crash was after lunch, it would suggest about 9 hours, total, assuming he crashed at 3 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
There are other newspaper reports concerning this matter, including:
Before conviction: tinyurl.com/yao2vzf
After: tinyurl.com/yzup43k
(Both the "Leicester Mercury")
However, one must be careful in reading such reports, without knowing the complete context from Court proceedings.
Re your questions, I should say that (assuming the individual is capable - and there's nothing to say a 74-year-old is not capable - far younger drivers crash) there's nothing wrong per se with employing someone of that age in that capacity.
Fifteen hours is a long time - but Mr. Leadenham took his breaks as required.
A custodial sentence seems quite correct. Note, he's also banned from driving for five years, and must take an extended driving test after that period. I do not know how it will affect his "lorry driving" qualifications (although I should not think he'll be back on the road in that capacity).
|
The guy has done wrong and should be punished.
However, like many types of crime, I don't think jail is the answer but I don't know what is.
Jailing someone costs approx £1000 per week allegedly if you believe the figures. Many come out of jail drug addicts or worse drug addicts than when they went in.
Assuming there is no one else to look after his wife, social services will need to intervene at a further cost.
Its a sad case for everyone concerned, we must surely have a better alternative to jail available and its not Community Service in its current format although that can be effective in the right circumstances.
I know of one woman who committed fraud and was sentenced to something like 300 hours community service. She had a Mon to Fri job so could only do this at the weekends. Weekends were the only time she could see her grandchildren, in fact her daughter relied on her to look after the children so that daughter could work. Her getting the community service had a huge impact on her and her family. But this punishment worked and did not cost the taxpayer as much as it would putting her in jail.
So sometimes there are alternatives but if you are a "scally" that knows all the tricks, all the right contacts etc, then it will be seen as a very easy option.
|
|
|
|
Judges have a hard job.
|
They certainly do Craig and I don't envy this one at all.
I don't think the lorry drivers HGV licence will ever be returned to him at the end of the ban.
That's something that people don't always realise...........
If a lorry driver gets a ban for anything he auromatically gets his car licence back at the end of it but not his HGV licence.
He still has to satisfy the Traffic Commisioners that he has learned a lesson and is worthy of having it handed back to him, which is a good thing.
This is a big deterrent in cases of drunk driving for HGV holders to consider.
It's great to see this being discussed sensibly on here witout any animosity.
Pat
|
I don't think the lorry drivers HGV licence will ever be returned to him at the end of the ban. That's something that people don't always realise...........
He was banned for 5 years. That means he will be 78 when his ban comes to an end. I sincerely hope that at that age he does not get his HGV back. No-one should be allowed an HGV or PSV at that age.
|
There are many posts on here which relate to the driver's age . . . .
Age has nothing to do with it, capability does.
I know an 81 year old who is perfectly safe on the road and has not had an accident, to my knowledge, in 40 years . . . . . granted he does not drive a HGV but he does over 20k a year. I feel perfectly safe travelling with him in the driving seat, more than I can say about some of my younger colleagues.
Or are we saying that you cannot drive a HGV if you are over 60, and what happens in 20 years time as lif expectancy rises? ? ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
I go with Perro's comment, which was my first thought when I heard the news of this accident. A 74 year-old driving a 44 tonne truck? Not a good combination. Reaction times and the probability of silly errors of judgement affect our driving ability (and insurance premiums, I think) at this age. My father-in-law was an excellent driver with an exemplary record, used to doing a high business mileage. But in his 70's, he used to avoid the A1 when he came up to visit us - he felt more comfortable pootling along A roads. By his late 70's, the trip was too much for him by any route. Most elderly drivers unconsciously adjust their driving in line their reduced ability, and usually don't go fast enough to do much damage. I really don't like the idea of a 74 year old behind the wheel of a 44 tonner on the M1. This is the issue, really, not the sentence.
OK, I'll probably get a lecture from Lud in a minute.
|
probably get a lecture
Not from me you won't. I don't have a view on age and HGVs. People are very variable. But I agree that people's driving softens as they get older. I don't really like to admit it, but mine has. I don't mimse but I am not as brisk as I used to be.
|
people's driving softens as they get older.
... but on reflection I don't think it becomes more dangerous. That softening is more positive than negative. I don't think I am much slower than I used to be, and I am certainly less noticeable and may be a bit safer.
Falling asleep, having a mini-stroke or letting the attention wander for too long are another matter. They become perhaps more likely with age. But age also brings real belt-and-braces-style prudence, or the capacity for it. You become less likely to try conclusions with timetables and other traffic when you aren't really in the mood or a fit state. Of course driving for a living as a professional, with a boss and timetables, would pressure one to deny these small signals.
What a sad story. Poor man, his poor wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A long, long time ago when I was doing my HGV training, the instructor was for ever saying that driving a truck was the same as being in charge of a lethal weapon. My view is that if things go wrong and you are to blame, you should expect the book to be thrown at you, mitigating circumstances or not.
BIG
|
the same as being in charge of a lethal weapon
ISTR a public information poster of a MkI Fiesta with an outsized pistol in place of the bonnet... the same message but aimed at car drivers.
No comment to make on the original topic, my sympathies are placed equally on either side of the argument and I too am glad not to be a judge.
|
I'm a little bit sat on the fence.
There is a need for a deterrent...and a strong one when deaths occur in these circumstances...but...
I see absolute scum get away with things day in day out and even if they are caught they seem to live charmed lives when sentencing comes into it. To keep it in a motoring context, you've only got to watch any one of these 'cop' type programmes to see the acute danger some people regularly cause on our roads...and yet they walk away most times, totally free to carry on.
The Judge no doubt had the bigger picture and some of it will not have been reported...but i'm sat here thinking a working family man is now sat in 'clink' for a horrible mistake...and there's an army of absolute low life out there that are free to carry on as normal.
|
I think that pretty much sums up the general feeling among lorry drivers WP.
It's a sad case and none of us should forget the loss to the family of the ones who were killed in the accident, but knowing what the lorry driver will go through in his mind, time and time again, will be punishment for him too.
Pat
|
|
|
Absolute tragedy and no matter what punishment the driver gets it will not bring this couple back.
I can't comment on his sentence, far greater minds have decided that, but a severe punishment was on the cards.
This chap for whatever reason caused deaths...it could easily have been far worse if there had been nowhere for him to swerve it could easily have been a dozen cars crushed and many lives lost and shattered.
What these cases do show is that there is a high standard required for truck drivers, and there needs to be a wholesale change in attitudes towards and inside the truck industry...at the moment it's all down to cost, good people cost money and require a life as well as work, in many cases the pay and conditions are very poor and in some of those cases the company gets the calibre of staff to go with that pay.
I'm not saying this particular driver was a bad egg, apparently his record was very good this may have been just a once in a lifetime error that had dreadful consequences.
I won't still be pushing a truck around at 70 odd.
edit....one thing i've always found ludicrous is that a driver's accident record etc doesn't follow him around during his driving career...that should have changed years ago.
Edited by gordonbennet on 17/02/2010 at 18:01
|
I remember a case of death by dangerous in which the victim's family pleaded for leniency for the defendant, who pleaded guilty and showed lots of remorse.
Those circumstances gave the judge a way forward and the result was a suspended sentence.
This guy killed not one, but two people, has not showed a great deal of remorse, and denied all responsibility by pleading not guilty and going to trial.
He left the judge nowhere to go, with a predictable result when it came to passing sentence.
In terms of the court system, he embarked on a high-risk strategy which on this occasion has not paid off.
|
|
|
>>> I won't still be pushing a truck around at 70 odd. <<<
gordon - I'm not trying to put you 'on the spot' and you can simply ignore this question if you so wish but ...
Do you not feel even slightly un-easy about a 74 year old in charge of a 44 tonne lorry.
|
Do you not feel even slightly un-easy about a 74 year old in charge of a 44 tonne lorry.
I admit 74 is pushing it a bit, and i have no intention of being a 70 year old truck jockey.
However, there are some good fellows and girls about that are over 65 and are still keeping their hands in by doing a bit agency work now and again, one i know works here during the summer to help pay for their winters in Spain, good driver too.
Remember some of these chaps (not sexist just easier to say) have been driving trucks for 30/40 years or more and drove trucks that needed a proper lorry driver at the helm just to get them out of the yard, crash boxes no power steering no air or power assisted anything and they know more than some of these younger fellas will ever know, they have skill roadfeel and knowledge gained when keeping a truck on the road was down to the skill and strength of the driver, not some ECU.
Many responsible operators make good use of these old hands, when there's some tight places to get in and a bit of proper old school truck driving needed.
Some people are old at 45 and some are in fine fettle at 75, there's no hard and fast rule.
Pat will know more no doubt, (they all know more than me anyway) but i believe the licence requirements are quite strict with much more frequent medicals for people over retirement age.
|
My friend is 50 and he is a rubbish driver but somehow manages to keep his licence.
Jackie Stewart is 71 this year and I imagine he's still quite good.....
|
|
|
Pat will know more no doubt (they all know more than me anyway) but i believe the licence requirements are quite strict with much more frequent medicals for people over retirement age.
Correct GB. IIRC, after age 65 HGV medical and renewal is done on a yearly basis. Our company employs one retired driver on a seasonal basis, just doing shunting and the odd local trip, and as GB says those skills are valuable to operators. The new "driver CPC" is all well and good but you can't teach experience in the classroom.
I know of several farmers well into their 70's local to me who still keep their HGV licences (or at least the C1 entitlement) to drive cattle trucks.
One for you all to consider, though, and it'll no doubt affect me; once the retirement age rises, as it's bound to, will the HGV licence keep in step with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
