Dangerous Driving

[lonedad]

I just want peoples opinion on this. I am to face a jury next week on the charge of dangerous driving. In 2007, I was involved in a RTA. I was driving an 18 tonne truck on a motorway where I was approaching a queue of traffic (some distance away, probably over 150 yards). I realised it was a queue for the next junction so decided to change lanes. I was sitting on cruise control at 56mph (top speed and speed limited) I looked in my drivers side mirror to check for traffic. . I then looked over to my blind spot, and pressed my brake to disengage the cruise control and then saw a car so I cancelled my intention to move over and pressed the brake again to slow the truck down. I noticed that my truck was not slowing at all and I pressed the brake again to no avail. I panicked thinking that my brakes had gone. The vehicle at the back of the queue (a white van) was getting nearer and nearer. I quickly checked the hard shoulder to see that it was clear. I then swerved my vehicle towards it. Unfortunatly, by this time, a car had replaced the van at the back of the queue (the van was in front of the car so obviously had jumped in front of me). I hit the car en route to the hard shoulder and my truck came to a stop 100 yards from the impact site. After checks on the truck, it was discovered that there were no faults. It dawned on me that I must have pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. 2 people were seriously hurt in the accident and, after a year, I was charged with Dangerous Driving. My solicitor advised me to plead not guilty but now Im not so sure. Ive been reading alot of reports on the internet that people are being done for this but others are having the lesser charge of Undue Care for the manner of driving that I believe is far worse than what I did. Is this dangerous driving? I believed that Dangerous Driving was an intentional act like reading a map, speeding, racing and being avoidably distracted as these are calculated risks that drivers take.

[lonedad]

Parafin - There were no skid marks. The only measurement in the witness statement was "I noticed when approaching the site in my vehicle that the truck was about 50 yards from the impact site". Yet me and the driver of the white van have both said it was well over that. I said 100 the van driver said 500 yards. Im going to speak to my solicitor tomorrow. he has said in the past that this is not dangerous driving but I have read certain things on the internet that contradicts that.
Cassa - The whole event left me traumatised to the point that I cannot get in a vehicle without getting stressed out out anxious. Ive been diagnosed with post traumatic stress. It affects me that much that I even have to pysch myself up to cross the road which in turn leaves me mainly housebound.

[jno]

don't take your understanding of the law from the internet, take it from your solicitor; it's his job. Plead not guilty and place the facts before the court. Experienced drivers can make mistakes (I have, fortunately not in a truck); it happens. Good luck.

[lonedad]

Zac - Its the type of comments that you are making that I need to hear. Im sure as hell going to get worse things said and implied to me by a CPS barrister. Its really hard when you know you arent lying but there are no witness' to the event. It really sucks and it blows my head off. Its been 20 months since it happened and Ive lived with it everyday and then I make it worse by punishing myself because so do the two people who got hurt...then I get angry with them for coming into my lane at the last moment...then I get angry with myself for being angry with them.

[lonedad]

Thanks jno. I wish people would see that point of view. Even the best drivers make mistakes...they dont even need to be risk taking mistakes either. this was an accident, the actual meaning of the word.
I know victims of road traffic collisions hate the word accident but that is what it actually was...an accident. I didnt press the accelorator wondering if that would stop the truck. My body must have shifted or I just mistimed my footing. Whatever the reason, I did not mean to do that. If I was reading a map, fiddling with the sat nav or radio, lighting a cigarette, speeding, driving too close or any stupid mindless acts that many drivers out there do then Id plead guilty because I would have made the choice to do all those things. I did not make the choice to press that accelorator. i messed up, big time but it was an accident.

[lonedad]

docspock - Well this is exactly what I dont need on the jury...a naive, misinformed know it all!! For your info, before I pressed that accelorator, I was attempting to move lanes. I checked my mirror and then my blindspot BEFORE signalling. I saw the car and cancelled any intention of moving out and looked straight ahead! So the blows your tunnel visioned theory out of the window. Also, and you ask EVERY lorry driver, we get cut up and molested by car AND motorbike drivers EVERYDAY at least once!!! SOME car drivers see a truck as a slow moving vehicle, the only thing that is slow about a lorry is its stopping distance but SOME care drivers dont see it that way. Hence why that car was hit by my lorry. There are more accidents on our roads that involve just cars or vans than there are that involve lorries. The thing is, the media bandwagon only report the ones that involve lorries with the mad title "Bad Crash Death Driver".
Yes, I agree, my mistake was unforgivable and I will never forgive myself for doing what I did. I dont care if I get banned for life as I never want to drive again, it just is not worth it. The thought of driving makes me feel physically sick.
I think you should get a grip and stop being so naive!!

[Nosha123]

feel for you... I think that your clean dirving history and also military driving experience should be a plus on your side. Also - I do agree that most car drivers probably try to squeeze infront or quickly move past lorries in a slightly cocky manner as they dont want to be stuck behind a slow lumbering vehicle with poor visibility of the road ahead... in the same way that people dont like to get caught behind smelly buses and vans!
It is also arguable that the people who spend their lives driving on our roads for a living could perhaps be the ones that become complacent as they do it all the time and its a bit more autopilot! However every case is individual.
I can tell you are suffering the guilt of the accident you caused.. and I hope that your legal team can help you in the best way possible! Good luck.

(Incidentally.. I nearly rammed a van yesterday that slammed his brakes on coming off the motorway just entering the slip road. He ground to a complete halt.. why??? because the car in front was PARKED on the slip road and letting a disabled man with crutches out of the passenger door so he could climb over the concrete wall and get to his front door!) Its people like THAT that need taking off our roads!!

[lonedad]

Nosha - That bloke would get a slap on the wrists, trust me. Lets put it this way, a driver in a van hit a stationary queued car full on at high speed and killed the occupant of that car. Why? Because the van drivers sunglasses fell off his head and he was busy feeling around the footwell for them. What happened to him? Guilty of undue care and attention. The CPS took him to court for death by dangerous driving but accpeted his guilty plea for undue care (not death by undue care). How is what i done worse than what he did. He physically took his eyes of the road for something that was so unimportant!!
This is what I mean about this charge. there is no clarity and no consistencey. How is one meant to know what the correct plea is when there is no real way of telling what a magistrate or a jury would think? So then Someone pleads not guilty because that is what they think there opinion is of the charge guidelines only to be found guilty by a different thinking jury or magistrate. So then you are made to look like a liar during sentencing and you get a tougher punishment. All because the guidelines arent clear enough. Surely the powers that be need to change the wording and the guidlines of these offences.

[paraffin]

Hi again:

The fact is that no two RTAs are the same - there are no identical circumstances, so you must comfort yourself with that. Because a certain other one was decided in whatever way does not mean to say that that will be the outcome of your hearing.

Anyway, as I've said in two of my other three posts, take the advice of your Solicitor/Barrister. They don't give it for nothing.

Zac: It's very easy to switch horses in midstream, then claim to only have been playing "Devil's Advocate". Yeah, right.

[lonedad]

doc - Your argument is flawed. First of all, you can never take it from a lorry drivers point of view as you arent a lorry driver. Second, a lorry cannot do over 60mph as all lorries over a certain weight have speed limiters fitted. The speed limit for lorries is 55mph but are given a 56mph limit on them in case they need the extra speed.
Now tell me, how many cars do you see bombing it up motorways far in excess of 70mph? How car drivers do you see tailgating and changing lanes at the last minute? Far more than lorries but your hatred doesnt allow you to see that.
You must be a wind up merchant!"

[lonedad]

Paraffin - Ill have a chat with him tomorrow.

BTW, Paraffin and Zac...theres no need to argue over this. Im just after peoples views and appreciate both your comments. Its idiots like docspock and his/her lorry phobia that are the concern. I honestly did not believe people like him/her existed. What a terrible life he/she must live.

[lonedad]

Cheers Zac, thanks again.