Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Jan 26, 2026 09:20

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: A tragic accident?
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 02:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Trial in Progress

Denies phone use

Found Guilty

Four and a half years

Family appeal over mobile phones

I have been trying to understand how this crash happened. As far as I can tell, the phone call that's getting the blame was finished two minutes before the crash took place - and I can't see any good reason here for blaming the phone call.

The desriptions of the crash include:

Quote:
"Robert Murray, 51, of Wrockwardine Wood, Telford, is charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

He told a jury how he felt a bump, then saw in his mirror the underside of a Renault Clio as it landed upright.

Rebecca Casterton, 13, and Lauren Brooks, 12, died on the A38 in Clay Mills in Staffordshire last January.

The 51-year-old father told Stafford Crown Court that he had earlier made a call to his wife on his hands-free telephone, but was watching where he was going.

He said before moving into the offside lane, he checked his rear view mirror, indicated, looked again and, still straddling the white lines, felt a judder.

Mr Murray said: "I was devastated. I thought it was a safe manoeuvre.

"I was not on a mobile phone at any stage when I was overtaking."

The prosecution said the Clio was spun out of control into the central reservation and landed upside down in the opposite carriageway where it was hit by a Mercedes car.

In a statement to the jury, Mrs Irene Corrie, Lauren's mother, who was driving the Clio, said she was aware of Murray's lorry coming alongside her.

"Then it seemed to go backwards and I then felt a bang at the back of my car. I knew the lorry had hit us."

***

"Judge Paul Glenn said he accepted Murray had not being making a call at the time of the accident.

But he added that he was satisfied his attention was diverted with regard to the phone."


The BBC video says that the hand-free phone call had finished two minutes before the crash and that the lorry hit the rear of the car during a lane change.

Now on available evidence this seems to have gone horribly wrong.

* I don't see how it could ever by possible to deduce that the phone had anything at all to do with the crash.

* It sounds more like a common or garden 'blind spot' crash to me.

* I can't quite figure out how the lorry hit the rear of the car - possible the rear wheels hit the nearside rear of the car. I can't see anything here which puts the car in front of the lorry to be clipped by the front bumper.

* I can't figure out the claims from the car diver that the lorry 'came alongside' or 'seemed to move backwards'. Eh?

* I can't see 'dangerous driving' here at all. Careless driving certainly.

More than anything else it sounds like a tragic accident, and I can't help but wonder what the car driver was doing while the lorry was coming over.

Can anyone make better sense of it?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 03:24 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Quote:
The BBC video says that the hand-free phone call had finished two minutes before the crash and that the lorry hit the rear of the car during a lane change.

Actually, it says he MADE a call to his wife, two minutes before the crash - which I read to mean he initiated the call 120 seconds before.

As to
Quote:
said she was aware of Murray's lorry coming alongside her.

"Then it seemed to go backwards and I then felt a bang at the back of my car. I knew the lorry had hit us."

Is this not an overtake, which has been aborted (hence lorry appearing to go backwards), and then cut back in too soon, clipping the drivers side rear quarter, and thus spinning the vehicle in a violent and uncontrollable manner?

I'm a bit wary of the lorry drivers REPORTED description of "told Stafford Crown Court that he had earlier made a call to his wife" which seems he was trying to imply it was MORE than 2 minutes before, and "He said before moving into the offside lane, he checked his rear view mirror, indicated, looked again and, still straddling the white lines, felt a judder." which seems would indicate that he is saying he came up behind the car, moved out to overtake, but somehow ran into the back of them.

I'm not sure that my reading of this is any clearer, but it does illustrate that relying on press reports is a hit and miss affair. :oops:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 04:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 00:14
Posts: 535
Location: Victoria, Australia
He may have been distracted by the call and not noticed the other car as he caught, and started to pass, it and having not noticed it ahead of him before changing lanes would have thought the lane would be clear.

A Clio is fairly small, and looking across the cab the car may have been totally obscurred. Then, as he started to move across to the other lane, he could have hit the Clio a little behind the rear wheel, causing it to spin. Hitting it square on would be unlikely to cause it to spin.

Or, the prosecution could be correct.

I doubt we will ever know for sure.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 04:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
More details on the Daily Mail web site:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Quote:
Jail for 'mobile phone' lorryman who killed two girls

A lorry driver who killed two Staffordshire schoolgirls in a horrific accident moments after finishing a mobile phone call has been jailed for four-and-a-half years.

Robert Murray was found guilty in November of two counts of causing death by dangerous driving after a five-day trial at Stafford Crown Court.

The trial was told that he was using a mobile without a hands-free set shortly before the crash which claimed the lives of Rebecca Casterton, 13, of Barton-under-Needwood, and 12-year-old Lauren Brooks, from Burton.

The best friends, both pupils at John Taylor High School in Barton-under-Needwood, were rear seat passengers in the Clio, which was struck by Murray's lorry on the A38 near Burton-upon-Trent in January last year.

Sentencing the 51-year-old, of Summer Crescent, Wrockwardine Wood, Telford, Judge Paul Glenn said he was satisfied that the haulier failed to spot the Renault Clio the girls were travelling in because he was putting the phone on charge.

Murray was also banned from driving for two years.

Passing sentence, Judge Glenn said no punishment could begin to compensate the girls' families for the catastrophic loss of life caused by Murray.

The judge told the trucker: "At all the material times that Clio was in front of you driving perfectly normally and yet you plainly did not see it even though you gained on it and actually got alongside it.

"I am entirely satisfied the reason for that failure is that you were distracted by your relatively recently acquired mobile phone.

"There can't be any other logical explanation for what occurred."

In a statement, the girls' families said: "Rebecca and Lauren were bubbly, bright and full of life, loved by everyone who knew them and a credit to their families.

"Every day we still see people holding and using their mobile phones while driving.

"Our appeal is for people to think long and hard of the potential life-changing consequences of their actions and never use their telephones while driving."


So the Clio WAS in front of the lorry and it was the lorry's front bumper that caught the Clio during a lane change. But something still isn't right. The Judge suggests that he was putting the phone on charge - but you don't deliberately lane-change while fiddling about. You wait until you have finished fiddling. So was this NOT a planned lane-change? More of a drift?

It's also a little strange that the lorry (limited to 56mph) was starting to undertake the Clio. And it's also strange that the Clio driver said the lorry was alongside, then going backwards. This is more inclined to imply that the lorry 'aborted the undertake' to pull out behind the Clio - in that case we have a judgement rather than an observation error.

This really is as clear as mud.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 05:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 03:16
Posts: 50
SafeSpeed wrote:
It's also a little strange that the lorry (limited to 56mph) was starting to undertake the Clio. And it's also strange that the Clio driver said the lorry was alongside, then going backwards. This is more inclined to imply that the lorry 'aborted the undertake' to pull out behind the Clio - in that case we have a judgement rather than an observation error.


Why do you think the lorry was undertaking? Your own quote from the first post states...

Quote:
He said before moving into the offside lane, he checked his rear view mirror, indicated, looked again and, still straddling the white lines, felt a judder.

Mr Murray said: "I was devastated. I thought it was a safe manoeuvre.

"I was not on a mobile phone at any stage when I was overtaking."


One of my own guesses at what might have happened is that the lorry driver was on the phone as he caught up with the Clio. He probably changed lane to overtake whilst he was still on the phone. So he's on the phone slowly overtaking the Clio. He ends the call, puts the phone down but, due to being distracted by the call, hasn't kept track of his own progress or the Clio's progress during the overtake.

At this point he probably has forgotten about the Clio or assumes that it must be well behind him by now. Perhaps with being on the phone he has assumed more time has passed than actually has. So he checks his mirror, sees nothing, and starts to move back into the left lane, hitting the Clio in the process.

Obviously, this is one of a million possibilities, and we'll never know what really happened.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 08:38 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
sounds like what happened to me although in my case it was at a much lower speed. Two lanes of fairly heavy dual carriageway traffic moving at about 30mph. Truck starts overtaking on right, his lane slows down before he get passed me. He's now in my blindspot on the right. Even though this means that the front of my car is in front of him and therefore visible to him he decides to move into my lane. If he'd hit slightly further back it could have been interesting, as it was I got away with this nicely redone panel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 09:16 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
sorry to add another theory but the lorry started to over take the clio.
The lorry hit a slope and the clio recovered ground and was hidden by the front left wheel under all the mirrors. The lorry checked the mirrors and pulled in clipping the clio.

It would not suprise me if the driver has a poor short term memory.
(like mine)

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 09:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I hope it's got nothing to do with the roll out of the new mobile phone laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 09:49 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Just to put another spin on things (without actually making a judgement of the events). There have been cases where lorry drivers have been prosecuted almost for the sake of it. I remember reading about a driver who got done with I think DWDCA after some chav kids CLAIMED he'd run them off the road. There was no sign of impact on the lorry, so he was aquitted of failing to stop, but still got slapped with DWDCA.

Might it also be possible that the Clio started to brake as the lorry was pulling in? Its possible the lorry driver didn't have vision on the brake lights of the Clio, judged that there was enough room and got caught out by a sudden change of speed?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
Rather similar incident observed by my wife at the weekend. On the M40 she was in L2 following an artic, also in L2. Artic moves into L1 and hits a rear o/s of car, which clearly hadn't been observed, sending it spinning several times but ending up on hard shoulder without serious damage. Must have been terrifying for the car driver.

Two observations:

(i) artic drivers clearly needs to be aware all blind spots and be concentrating and observing sufficiently before a lane change to be sure the blind spot is clear;

(ii) car drivers should be aware of vehicles around them and not stay in same relative position to any other vehicle unless absolutely sure they are visible to the other vehicle. (On free flowing motorways, I always set speed to maintain a reasonable differential with the majority of other vehicles.)

In a RHD artic tractor, how easy is it to completely lose sight of a car in lane to left?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Observer wrote:
In a RHD artic tractor, how easy is it to completely lose sight of a car in lane to left?


Its possible to lose a small goods vehicle in there, let alone a car.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:10 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I hope that justice was done I really do.

My concern is that in this country we have a tabloid mentality that see's big lorries and eviil and guilty and mums in cars as pure and good, I hope the law is blind.

Having said all of that, I cannot get my head around the fact that this lorry driver has been jailed for a tragic accident, although I would like to know more before condemning the sentence.

Personally I don't think people should be jailed unless they were willfull or Grossly negligent.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 13:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
civil engineer wrote:
My concern is that in this country we have a tabloid mentality that see's big lorries and eviil and guilty and mums in cars as pure and good, I hope the law is blind.


Justice is blind like a hawk. Unfortunately the bold statement is too true.

This was posted after the strong winds last week in which, sadly, a female driver from Manchester lost her life.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 13:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Sixy_the_red wrote:
This was posted


nice. I wonder where they think their next meal is coming from?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 14:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Quite. That's the trouble though - people with an attitude like that would love to see trucks off the road. They just don't understand how important road haulage actually IS to the UK.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 14:16 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
Sixy_the_red wrote:
civil engineer wrote:
My concern is that in this country we have a tabloid mentality that see's big lorries and eviil and guilty and mums in cars as pure and good, I hope the law is blind.


Justice is blind like a hawk. Unfortunately the bold statement is too true.

This was posted after the strong winds last week in which, sadly, a female driver from Manchester lost her life.


One of the follow ups to that link mentions the A14 closure due to a truck rolling over. I was on the A14 and it was horrible in a car, never mind an HGV. Most of the cars were doing 50mph or less because the conditions were so bad. There were plenty of HGVs that did not slow down at all and were getting blown about. I saw one get blown from L1 to half way across L2 and still the c :censored: t didn't slow down. If there had been anything beside him they would not have stood a chance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 14:24 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
'If you bought it, a truck brought it!'

Should be on the rear of all trucks! :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 14:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Do you really think that slowing down when you're driving a 50' x 15' sale makes the slightest difference? He's still going to get blown the same distance sideways regardless of forward speed.

Well said Oscar!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 14:46 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
Sixy_the_red wrote:
Do you really think that slowing down when you're driving a 50' x 15' sale makes the slightest difference? He's still going to get blown the same distance sideways regardless of forward speed.

Well said Oscar!


That's silly. Of course reducing speed by <some amount> will make a difference. If there is a real risk of wind force involuntarily forcing vehicle into a different lane, the driver has a clear duty to reduce speed to mitigate that risk as far as possible.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 15:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
Sixy_the_red wrote:
Do you really think that slowing down when you're driving a 50' x 15' sale makes the slightest difference? He's still going to get blown the same distance sideways regardless of forward speed.

Well said Oscar!


Don't be daft. Of course slowing down makes a difference. Even if it didn't I would say that if conditions are bad enough that you can't keep the rig in one lane of a dual carriageway then it's time to stop.

Trust me, the conditions were truly dreadful that afternoon. A tree came down in one of the more sheltered parts of our garden at about the same time as the truck rolled over. The Orwell Bridge was shut for a while because it was not safe to cross.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.018s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]