***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
============================================================
Continuing discussion.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 14 May 16 at 17:14
|
|
Not looking good for the driver. Previous history of passing out when he was bus driving, failure to tell DVLA, lying on his job application.
|
>> Not looking good for the driver. Previous history of passing out when he was bus
>> driving, failure to tell DVLA, lying on his job application.
Wasn't the driver given indemnity against prosecution if he gave evidence at the inquiry?
|
>> >> Not looking good for the driver. Previous history of passing out when he was
>> bus
>> >> driving, failure to tell DVLA, lying on his job application.
>>
>> Wasn't the driver given indemnity against prosecution if he gave evidence at the inquiry?
Was he? got a link to that?
|
I do hope that's not right.
>>The inquiry heard Mr Clarke also had medical episodes in 1989, 1994 and 2003 and in the last case he was told not to drive, STV News reported.<<
He knew his obligation to tell DVLA and also not to drive but continued to do so. OK, I know it's hard when it means you lose your job and only income, but there were too many warnings there to be ignored.
Somewhere along the line a Doctor must have treated him and also failed to inform DVLA of his blackout as that would have triggered an immediate suspension of his licence pending extensive tests to prove he was fit to have it back.
The Doctor who did his medical can't be blamed though as there is no obligation to go to your own doctor who has your records to hand.
Example: My Doc charges £120 for an HGV Medical which I have to have each year but I can go privately to a Doc in Peterborough and get it done for £40, this must be what that driver had done too. All legitimate and until our own GP's bring the extortionate price down the private docs will continue to thrive on drivers medicals which they do between appointments.
Must go....I have some b***** pasta to cook.....
Pat
|
>>Somewhere along the line a Doctor must have treated him and also failed to inform DVLA of his blackout
The obligation is on the patient - the doctor would only advise the DVLA if he/she knew the patient was still driving.
£40 for a private medical? I'd check the guy's credentials on the GMC website and see why he/she isn't doing a proper job ;-)
|
>> £40 for a private medical? I'd check the guy's credentials on the GMC website and
>> see why he/she isn't doing a proper job ;-)
He might be charging a bit more since this accident.
|
It may the obligation of the patient but the GMC's code of practice state
'1) If a patient refuses to accept a diagnosis or its effect on their ability to drive you can a) seek a second opinion
b) make every effort to persuade them to stop(inc.telling their next of kin)
c) IF still continue to drive despite contrary advice-tell the DVLA and tell the patient you have done so in writing.'
In practice what happens to HGV licence holders is their GP or hospital consultant tells them at the time to inform DVLA BUT also states that they will be informing them by letter as well.
Which is as it should be.
Google 'HGV Drivers Medicals' Lygonos, there are Doctors all over the country offering this service, all perfectly legitimate and done thoroughly.
More to the point, how come our own GP's want so much more to do it when they already have so much information to hand thus making the job quicker and easier for them?
What do you charge?
Here's one for £65 www.brydenmedical.com/workplace-medicals/dvla-hgv-medicals/
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 30 Jul 15 at 04:03
|
>>In practice what happens to HGV licence holders is their GP or hospital consultant tells them at the time to inform DVLA BUT also states that they will be informing them by letter as well.
>>Which is as it should be.
Which, as you have already linked, is NOT consistent with the GMC's own guidelines.
How much do I charge?
Half an hour of my professional time including physical examination and a written report - £95.
How much do you think a lawyer would charge for a similar level of input?
|
But you have a problem with many other perfectly qualified doctors doing it a whole lot cheaper?
Pat
|
>>But you have a problem with many other perfectly qualified doctors doing it a whole lot cheaper?
Of course not - it was a TIC post.
|
Mmmm, seemed more like a dig at your own professional colleagues to me.
Pat
|
SQ 4 LB
>> Was he? got a link to that?
>>
Right down at the bottom:-
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33702639
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Jul 15 at 18:52
|
|
That's not the same as saying indemnity from prosecution if he gave evidence. Initially the CPS said there would be no prosecution when they thought it was just an accident. Now the truth has come out, surely they will change their decision not to prosecute?
|
>> Right down at the bottom:-
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33702639
No indemnity stated there. Ok so he might not be prosecuted for the accident, but he can certainly be prosecuted for everything else prior to the accident.
|
|
Ruddy posstot. He should be incarcerated for the rest of his natural.........
|
Glasgow City Council employed him without references, so they are certainly not blameless.
Pat
|
|
Rarely is there a single factor or failure in the lead up to any accident.
|
Its interesting seeing the angle of questioning and investigating that this enquiry is going.
Days of discussion about what the other workers could have done, what did they actually do, why did they make that decision. Then they get an expert who advises that the whole thing lasted something like 19 secs, and that there was only a 5 second window that the other guys could have actually done something and that included the thought process. That expert confirmed that the only option possibly available to them would be to pull on the handbrake but a vehicle that size, travelling at that speed, could have resulted in even worse circumstances.
There has been lots of talk about whether this size of vehicle was appropriate in these streets, especially in the week before Christmas when they were much busier. Other cities, like Edinburgh, collect their city centre refuse during the night when streets are quieter. However in my opinion, is a bin lorry any worse than a double decker bus and there are plenty of them in Glasgow City Centre!
But yesterday and today has focussed heavily on the driver, his history with First Bus and it certainly appears that the Council took him on while he was suspended by First Bus for absence. And crucially, it would appear that they did not seek any references.
When this accident happened, it was perceived by the people of Glasgow that it was a tragic accident and to a certain extent, there was a shield of support for the driver. The media had agreed not to name him and the police were not going to prosecute. On what basis the police came to that decision will be interesting to find out.
But now there is a change of feeling in Glasgow, it now looks that he has previous for taking ill at the wheel, it looks like he has lied to his employers and potentially to DVLA. Although one comment today was that after the accident his licence was taken off him but DVLA had reinstated it this April. Again, would be interesting to see on what basis this decision was made.
As you would expect in a modern day enquiry, lots of talk of risk assessments, reviews of these and justifications for them. In all our businesses we will have these but how many of us would be happy to stand up in a public court and justify them, especially if something has went pear shaped? Although someone did make the point today that this is not about risk assessments, or about numbers of pedestrians, it is about what happens when a driver collapses at the wheel.
Very tough in court, I think it was yesterday, when one council official admitted that if they had known the full history of the driver, then he would not have been employed. The QC then said that what you are saying is if Council HR had done their job properly, those six people would still be alive. The HR official admitted that was the case.
Still got a long way to go but I definitely see huge repercussions from this enquiry against the police (why no prosecution), the Council recruitment procedures and the driver himself.
Whether the driver was living in denial or not, must be tough having six deaths on your conscience. He maybe got through that by convincing himself he was not too blame as he had collapsed. However it is now being brought to everyone's attention that he should never have been in that position in the first place.
|
Meant to add, at the time of the accident, there were loads of eye witness accounts saying the lorry was racing along the road, some claiming at up to 60mph.
The enquiry has proved that the fastest the lorry got to was 26mph.
Interesting how peoples perceptions of speed are interpreted.
|
Thanks for that fair and unbiased assessment Bobby.
It made interesting reading and I too, can see many repercussions for all concerned.
Pat
|
>>
>> Interesting how peoples perceptions of speed are interpreted.
>>
Bigger the vehicle, the faster it appears, to a pedestrian, to be going.
With regard to the blackouts; some of you may recall that I had a nasty experience three years ago when I suffered a coughing fit when driving up the M4, ending in me hitting a bridge upright, thankfully at very low speed. My employer, quite rightly, insisted that I took an HGV medical before allowing me back on the road; I had passed one with no problems about eight months previously. I had read up on the internet about possible causes of loss of vision which accompanied the coughing fit (similar to choking on a sweet if you've ever experienced it) and suspected that I might be suffering from a condition called "cough syncope", which causes the blood vessels to constrict when you cough hard and can induce unconsciousness.
I was reassured by my GP that I did not have this condition; just as well as it would have meant both my vocational and ordinary licences being suspended, with little hope for the return of the former, and therefore the end of my career.
He did ask me if I smoked; when I said yes, he suggested that whilst smoking in itself was unlikely to have caused the incident, giving up would go a long way towards preventing a recurrence. It was the spur I needed; whilst I now use e-cigs instead and therefore in the eyes of some cannot cl;aim to have given up completely, he was right. Haven't suffered one of those coughs since.
Finally, regarding the cost of HGV medicals; Lygonos' quote is about the going rate for GP's in my experience.Thankfully my employer refunds the cost of mine, but were it not the case I too would seek out a cheaper alternative. In my opinion too many GP's see it as easy money, given that it's a necessity in order to retain one's livelihood.
By the way, Pat; given that many of us are now likely to have no option other than to work past 65, after which the requirement for a medical changes from five-yearly to yearly, do you think it's time the regulations were updated to take account of this? I'd also welcome Lygonos' view from a medical perspective; so long as I don't have to pay for it! ;-)
|
>> option other than to work past 65, after which the requirement for a medical changes
>> from five-yearly to yearly, do you think it's time the regulations were updated to take
>> account of this?
To be blunt, i think it should be a requirement for all drivers once past 65.
|
>>
>> To be blunt, i think it should be a requirement for all drivers once past
>> 65.
>>
I agree that the eyesight part certainly should be, and from age 50 not 65, that being the age when the majority of folks' eyesight begins to deteriorate noticeably.
Do you think it would have any quantifiable effect in improving driving standards, though, or would it simply result in more blue badges being issued?
|
It would cost too much to test everyone's eyesight every year once they passed 65, 50 or whatever.
My senses are still good at 76 and I'm far less dangerous on the road than many half my age.
It's a great help to like driving and understand cars.
|
How many garbage trucks have run out of control in a pedestrian area because the driver blacked out and killed people in the last 50 years anywhere in the UK?
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess "1".
And we're HOW worried about it? Truck redesign, access restrictions, licence process changes, medical checks, etc. etc. Dear God.
ONCE!!!!
We live in the real world. And I don't think we want to live in a world where we try to legislate for every single bad occurrence, even if its only ever happened once. Although that's where we seem to want to go.
|
|
Agreed. What they are saying is that for every risk assessment for every job in the world, you need to have a "what happens if the job holder blacks out on the job".
|
>> Agreed. What they are saying is that for every risk assessment for every job in
>> the world, you need to have a "what happens if the job holder blacks out
>> on the job".
>>
To an extent, it probably does. My friend's son suffers quite severe epilepsy and cannot even be considered for a job doing *anything* because the employers' liability insurance will not cover* any accident when he has a fit (personal injury to himself or others, or equipment damage).
So someone is thinking about it.
* Apparently.
|
>> It would cost too much to test everyone's eyesight every year once they passed 65,
>> 50 or whatever.
>>
>> My senses are still good at 76 and I'm far less dangerous on the road
>> than many half my age.
>>
>> It's a great help to like driving and understand cars.
>>
I'd have said every five years actually; it could be done quite easily by making a certificated eye test a mandatory part of licence renewal in the same way that a new photo is now.
Had previous governments grasped the nettle and sorted driving licences out instead of leaving us with the current hotch-potch of old ones and new, it would be easily achieved. I have to pay for mine in order to enable me to earn my living; I don't see why everyone else shouldn't, in some way, do the same.
Whilst I don't dispute your assertions regarding your faculties, AC, it's a sad fact of life that too many drivers under-estimate the gradual deterioration of their eyesight, in in some cases even deliberately choose to ignore the fact that they're no longer fit to drive without spectacles, or even fit to drive at all. Far too often, the first indication of this is when another perfectly innocent road user is killed or maimed as a result of their negligence.
|
Annual eye tests for the over 65s are free, and , in my opinion, are essential for everyone, driver or not.
They can show early diagnosis for several serious problems.
8o)
|
>> Annual eye tests for the over 65s are free, and , in my opinion, are essential for everyone, driver or not. They can show early diagnosis for several serious problems.
>>
I agree, but you only have to be 60 to get them free.
|
I think a medical once a year after age 65 is about right.
After all, it largely consists of asking questions, one of which is 'are you on any medication'?
If you answer 'No' there is no way of the private doctor knowing any different.
Another question is have you had any blackouts (or medical words to that effect).
If we were forced to have the medical with our own GP that would eliminate the determined dishonesty some drivers have to keep driving at all costs.
In turn, GP's should be forced to do this half an hours work at a realistic rate of say £60 throughout the country.
After the medical there are plenty of other layers in place already to prevent this sort of thing happening and in almost all cases they work. Employers have a duty to check the driver is 'fit to drive' etc. etc.
This case fell at the first hurdle with the driver being determined to hide his condition and the employer failing to check reference ( fit to drive?) was the nail in the coffin.
No legislation, re-design of vehicles or training will ever compensate for human error.
Pat
|
|
The doctor doing the medical having the patient history seems elementary.
|
Definite "mood" change in Glasgow now towards the driver, Harry Clarke.
I think it was yesterday that one of the front pages had the headline along the lines of the fact that at 7 different points, Clarke lied about his driving history to Doctors, DVLA or employers. He even did this immediately after the accident when he was receiving treatment and again in the hospital that evening.
Clarke had previously came out to the papers a few months ago with a story of how this had never happened before, how distraught he was etc etc and received a lot of sympathy.
There was a previous incident in Glasgow where a Range Rover driver killed 2 girls under similar circumstances and again it was noted from outset that no prosecutions would take place.
www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/range-rover-glasgow-death-ruling-to-be-reviewed-1-3818711
|
Harry Clarke could be tried in England.
Will the authorities have to get an extradition order?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33883903
|
|
No, Scotland is not an independent country...........yet, and it will be rapidly bankrupt if it ever is.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 12 Aug 15 at 20:14
|
>> Harry Clarke could be tried in England.
>
OK perhaps if he pleads guilty. If it went to trial the judge would have to consider whether, in light of publicity to date, there would be a risk to fairness. That's why criminal cases are dealt with ahead of inquests.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Aug 15 at 20:39
|
|
He still needs a ruddy good gick in the koolies.
|
As every day passes, the amount of evidence against him just grows and grows.
From the initial sympathy he got, he is now public enemy number 1 and quite rightly.
Meanwhile, yet another death as a result of blacking out at the wheel in Glasgow and again, n charges.
Really does appear that the whole suspending license due to black outs procedure needs to be looked at.
|
>> Harry Clarke could be tried in England<<
The way I understand it is DVSA 'are considering' prosecuting for making false declarations on his medical and driving licence application forms.
Nothing more than that, although it would certainly send out a message to others thinking of doing it.
Pat
|
>> The way I understand it is DVSA 'are considering' prosecuting for making false declarations on
>> his medical and driving licence application forms.
>>
>> Nothing more than that, although it would certainly send out a message to others thinking
>> of doing it.
But the penalties for doing that are what? I have no idea, but I would bet they bear no comparison to the outcome of what he has done.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 13 Aug 15 at 08:44
|
I don't know either, but I would certainly agree with you.
The point I was trying to make is that the media are once again misinterpreting the facts as mentioned in court.
Pat
|
|
I see that there will be "No DVLA prosecution of driver". www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33906865
|
That's a bad decision.
It would have sent out a message to many others who do this.
There is a weakness in the system which I highlighted higher up in the thread but to hold an LGV licence the TC expects you to be 'of good repute'.
Lying on a formal declaration form to the DVLA to keep that licence doesn't fulfil this requirement.
This makes me so angry.
Pat
|
Surely though Pat everyone else from the guy's employers to the local authority will be giving him a savage kicking from all directions?
The DVLA doesn't need to bother. It would be just making more work for itself. It must have a huge budget for prosecuting drivers for late renewal and so on, but it probably likes to save money when it can.
|
In this case no-one but the DVLA has the opportunity to send out a public message that this won't be tolerated, and they've blown it along with the idiots who decided he would be immune from prosecution.
I hope he has to upsticks and move out of his home forever....no more than he deserves.
Pat
|
>> Rarely is there a single factor or failure in the lead up to any accident.
That's right, crashes always have complex causes. Those involved always want to simplify them to their own advantage though. Just ghastly human nature.
|
Harry Clarke arrested ......... accused of driving a car on 20 September despite losing his licence for medical reasons.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34438129
|
|
Selfish git doesn't 'get it' does he.
|
|
Shows the sort of person he is.
|
>> Shows the sort of person he is.
Assuming of course that ScotPlod have got their facts right.
|
>> Assuming of course that ScotPlod have got their facts right.
>>
The clue is here: "A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal".
|
>> The clue is here: "A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal".
AIUI the 'fiscal' has a role similar to CPS. I simply suggest it MAY be premature to assume guilt is proven.
|
>> AIUI the 'fiscal' has a role similar to CPS. I simply suggest it MAY be
>> premature to assume guilt is proven.
>>
If it's passed the 'threshold test' then there has to be some substance to it. Now he was either driving or not... and he's either banned or not. There's not much more to it.
If they hadn't established driving or that he's banned, why send it to the Procurator Fiscal?
|
Bromp - you have the most varying of thresholds for guilt that I have ever come across.
A newspaper report and a police statement is insufficient for you, but the very whiff of anti-semitism is damning.
It seems that whatever is said, you prefer the contrary. On pretty much any subject.
|
>> Bromp - you have the most varying of thresholds for guilt that I have ever
>> come across.
>>
>> A newspaper report and a police statement is insufficient for you, but the very whiff
>> of anti-semitism is damning.
>>
>> It seems that whatever is said, you prefer the contrary. On pretty much any subject.
>>
Well said that man.
|
>> Bromp - you have the most varying of thresholds for guilt that I have ever
>> come across.
>>
>> A newspaper report and a police statement is insufficient for you, but the very whiff
>> of anti-semitism is damning.
With some hesitation I'm going to try and explain. If I have varying thresholds then I also have varying reasons to engage.
There are some matters that come up on here about which I feel very strongly. Cycling safety is one example and the sort of 'social welfare' stuff I see in my CAB role is another.
Others make me raise an eyebrow. The assumption of guilt based on a police report to the PF here is a case in point. If we were talking about and ageing DJ reported to the fiscal for groping seventies teenagers some of you'd be the first to shout from the roof tops if guilt were inferred before the court was convened.
Healey and Labour's attitude to private medicine in the seventies is a matter of factual curiosity. I don't think Diane Abbot had a leg to stand on putting her son up for selective education after she'd voted for it's abolition in her home area. Hypocrisy writ large. I'm not convinced there's the same clarity over health policy. Control, change and abolition of private wards in public hospitals for sure - but abolition of all privat care?
Let's just say I'm still waiting for the killer link to a policy statement.
Andd the anti semitic thing? I just wish I didn't feel that our media are not prepared to sail close to anti semitic and islamophobic winds in order to boost their advertising click through and ''below line' comments.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 5 Oct 15 at 21:46
|
>> Others make me raise an eyebrow. The assumption of guilt based on a police report
>> to the PF here is a case in point. If we were talking about and
>> ageing DJ reported to the fiscal for groping seventies teenagers some of you'd be the
>> first to shout from the roof tops if guilt were inferred before the court was
>> convened.
But surely you vary your view with the circumstances?
So the bin man: driving - yes, banned - yes = Guilty
Jimmy Savile type: huge amount of variables over a vast period of time, numerous different vulnerable victims some of whom might be hard to get a decent statement from or rely on in court = considerably more difficult to establish guilt
|
>> So the bin man: driving - yes, banned - yes = Guilty
You mean like speeding? Limit (allegedly) breached - yes = guilty.
happy to be wrong about bin man, I'd just prefer to wait for the Sherrif's verdict before leaping to judgement about the man and is morals.
|
>> Harry Clarke arrested ......... accused of driving a car on 20 September despite losing his
>> licence for medical reasons.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34438129
Strangely, I am not suprised
|
|
Nor me...seems a right arrogant dick.
|
I can't see a report being sent to the PF without serious corroborating evidence (ie. several witnesses, CCTV, pulled by Plod).
And I agree with the mod.
|
|
Sorry did a naughty word escape...?
|
|
Nor am I surprised. Case still has to be proven of course before we can speak of guilt, but this does fit the actions of somebody who both knew he had a reportable condition and knowingly didn't.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34677791
Harry Clarke, 58, was due to attend a disciplinary hearing on Friday but the council received his resignation letter earlier in the day.
|
Now why doesn't that surprise me?
Having said that the Council need to review their licence and reference checking procedures some time soon.
Pat
|
>> Now why doesn't that surprise me?
Have to say I am shocked. I had him down as a principled bloke who would face up to his responsibilities and not shirk behind a resignation.
I am sure he is horrified and ashamed that the state will now be making up his income.
|
|
The Fat Bald Git needs to be doing time. Pref' in solitary.
|
>> The Fat Bald Jock Git needs to be doing time. Pref' in solitary.
>>
Fixed that for you.
|
Initially I thought it odd that he waited until the day before his disciplinary hearing to resign, then I realised that working for the local council, he would have been on full pay until his hearing.
So the taxpayer has already been keeping him financially secure while his victims have had to face complete upheaval to their lives.
Pat
|
|
On that subject, our LA has contracted refuse collection out to Biffa. I wonder whether their employment process would have captured this guy's situation out. As an aside, since they have taken over the collections here a noticeably tidier.
|
|
Just been reading about this online. The Council could have refused to have accepted his resignation and insisted on it going to discipline. I don't know what would have been gained by that really. He won't get any benefits i.e. he may well be sanctioned for JSA but he may get Pension Credits in around 8 years depending on other factors we don't know about. He might claim to be too sick to work - so may get ESA (contributory) but he'd have to prove that really.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 31 Oct 15 at 10:52
|
then I realised that working for the local council, he would have been on full pay until his hearing.
Very fraught if an employer does anything else to be honest. As an employer you leave yourself wide open to a counter suit of unfair dismissal if you do anything other.
But it does have to said, it's a long time to wait for a disciplinary hearing.
|
Yes, I know it's difficult SP but I was suggesting that morally he should have resigned immediately, he must have been well aware this was all going to come out.
Pat
|
es, I know it's difficult SP but I was suggesting that morally he should have resigned immediately, he must have been well aware this was all going to come out.
Far be it for me to pre-judge, but there is quite a lot of evidence that suggests the driver in this case and morals are an oxymoron.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Mon 2 Nov 15 at 10:51
|
Yes I agree, but was hoping that somewhere deep down, he would have had a prick of conscience and done the right thing.
Pat
|
BBC Scotland @ 9pm tonight has a programme on the Bin Lorry accident.
It is probably Scotland only but Sky viewers will find BBC Scotland up in the 970- 990 channels
|
I'd like to see that but it's far too late for me!
Pat
|
Looks like the programme will be on the iPlayer. As regional programmes are a bit non-intuitive to search for, try here:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nxwh0
The programme is actually broadcast 1900 to 1930, and you'll need to look after 1930 after the programme has been transmitted. No idea how long it will be there, news programmes are only up for 24 hours but I don't know this is case.
|
Thanks SP, I'll have a look for it when I get up in the early hours.
Pat
|
Had recorded this and just getting round to watching it just now!
One of the reasons given why the driver wasn't prosecuted is
"he is just a fat uneducated guy from Glasgow and didn't understand what box to tick on the medical questionnaire!"
|
Perhaps the HGV licence form then need to ask:
Are you a fat uneducated git? and if the yes box is ticked, refuse the application :o)
|
>> Perhaps the HGV licence form then need to ask:
>>
>> Are you a fat uneducated git? and if the yes box is ticked, refuse the
>> application :o)
God that leaves so many avenues to take, any one of them will get me roundly abused by Pat.
|
Not uneducated enough to know that if he had ticked the box he wouldn't have got the job though.
What 'fat' has to do with it though is beyond me.
Pat
|
>> Had recorded this and just getting round to watching it just now!
>>
>> One of the reasons given why the driver wasn't prosecuted is
>>
>> "he is just a fat medically unfit uneducated guy from Glasgow and didn't understand what box to
>> tick on the medical questionnaire!"
|
Scotland's most senior law officer will not support a private prosecution of the driver of the Glasgow bin lorry which crashed, killing six people.
Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland's decision comes after a family which lost three members in the tragedy began steps to prosecute Harry Clarke.
Mr Mulholland said the Crown's decision not to prosecute due to insufficient evidence remained unchanged.
The family can only proceed now if they have permission from High Court judges.
|
You beat me to it MS!
This link has a bit more information and there are some unusual charges there.
www.bristolpost.co.uk/Driver-lorry-owner-charged-accident-left-people/story-28341004-detail/story.html
Pat
|
The driver of the bin lorry that crashed in Glasgow in December 2014 killing six people has appeared in court on dangerous driving charges.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35832377
|
>> The driver of the bin lorry that crashed in Glasgow in December 2014 killing six
>> people has appeared in court on dangerous driving charges.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35832377
>>
He should have been prosecuted for the bin lorry accident. Someone ballsed up badly on that one and it's all gone very quiet on that front.
Were they disciplined or sacked or was it all brushed under the carpet?
|
>>He should have been prosecuted for the bin lorry accident. Someone ballsed up badly on that one and it's all gone very quiet on that front.
>>Were they disciplined or sacked or was it all brushed under the carpet?
There was a low chance of successful prosecution as it had been 4 or 5 years previously that he'd had the previous faint. The prosecutors felt the defence of "it had been several years since the previous event and he had no reasonable expectation it would happen again" would shoot down the dangerous driving charge.
This time it will likely stick as he has no way to say his medical risks were unknown to him.
The alternative (lesser) charge of 'culpable and reckless' means that he basically knew what he was doing was potentially dangerous but he didn't give a toss.
|
Glasgow Bin Lorry Enquiry - Zero
