ChatterBank1 min ago
He's A Very Naughty Boy ...
http://
///The bridge was officially closed to HGVs at the time the lorry attempted to cross and a 54-year-old man has been charged with dangerous driving///
And rightly so imo.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Baldric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Jenny Ansett turned back for home in Dunfermline in Fife after hitting traffic as she headed for the Forth Road Bridge. She told John Beattie it took her 28 minutes to drive a mile-and-a-half.
"Every time this happens it seems bonkers that great swathes of central Scotland grind to a halt because of one road. So we can only hope when this new bridge opens it will be a bit of an improvement.”
Of course the new bridge, at nearly half a mile upstream from the old bridge at its southern end and almost adjacent on the northern shore, will be fully insulated from the howling westerly gales that tear down the Forth estuary.
“…with the consequent costs in time and fuel.”
Well it’s going to cost them (or more probably their insurers) quite a bit more now. I understand that around 40 metres of the central reservation were destroyed.
“I am sure there are mitigating circumstances which will be taken into account.”
Well I don’t quite know what they might be. If, as we are told, the bridge was closed to HGVs at the time, the driver deliberately ignored a traffic order. There’s not much to mitigate that. Furthermore, if the bridge was open to smaller vehicles at the time (as it seems it was) the results of this stupidity (being blown across the central reservation into oncoming traffic) could have been absolutely horrendous. Perhaps it was the fact that it was 2am that meant carnage was avoided. This driver deserves the book to be thrown at him. Excuses about employer pressure should be cast aside.
"Every time this happens it seems bonkers that great swathes of central Scotland grind to a halt because of one road. So we can only hope when this new bridge opens it will be a bit of an improvement.”
Of course the new bridge, at nearly half a mile upstream from the old bridge at its southern end and almost adjacent on the northern shore, will be fully insulated from the howling westerly gales that tear down the Forth estuary.
“…with the consequent costs in time and fuel.”
Well it’s going to cost them (or more probably their insurers) quite a bit more now. I understand that around 40 metres of the central reservation were destroyed.
“I am sure there are mitigating circumstances which will be taken into account.”
Well I don’t quite know what they might be. If, as we are told, the bridge was closed to HGVs at the time, the driver deliberately ignored a traffic order. There’s not much to mitigate that. Furthermore, if the bridge was open to smaller vehicles at the time (as it seems it was) the results of this stupidity (being blown across the central reservation into oncoming traffic) could have been absolutely horrendous. Perhaps it was the fact that it was 2am that meant carnage was avoided. This driver deserves the book to be thrown at him. Excuses about employer pressure should be cast aside.
“…but maybe he got distracted by a bird that flew into his cab door and he missed the closure sign! Who knows!”
I do. You won’t find too many birds flying across the M90 at 2am in a Force 9 gale. Get real, aggie. This idiot chanced his arm because he thought he’d get away with it. All he needs to do is consider himself lucky that he caused no deaths or serious injuries. He should turn up in court suited and booted, contrite and apologetic for his utter lunacy. If the Dangerous Driving charge sticks (and the PF does not capitulate and reduce the charge to careless driving) he will be banned for at least a year, have to take an extended re-test before he can drive a car, and hopefully by the time all that’s done he will not consider driving an HGV again.
I do. You won’t find too many birds flying across the M90 at 2am in a Force 9 gale. Get real, aggie. This idiot chanced his arm because he thought he’d get away with it. All he needs to do is consider himself lucky that he caused no deaths or serious injuries. He should turn up in court suited and booted, contrite and apologetic for his utter lunacy. If the Dangerous Driving charge sticks (and the PF does not capitulate and reduce the charge to careless driving) he will be banned for at least a year, have to take an extended re-test before he can drive a car, and hopefully by the time all that’s done he will not consider driving an HGV again.
It is (unfortunately) just a logical extension of the attitude that means that an HGV doing 56.1mph will overtake one doing 56.09mph - no matter how long it takes, or how dangerous it is - they don't give a flying fig for anyone except themselves and cock a snook at both the normal courtesies and rules of the road and (as in this case) actual prohibitions and bans.
If I had a quid for every HGV that ignores the ban on using lane 2 on some stretches of the A14 (necessary for safety reasons) I'd be a very rich man.
If I had a quid for every HGV that ignores the ban on using lane 2 on some stretches of the A14 (necessary for safety reasons) I'd be a very rich man.
Even if he encountered the annual migration of the lesser spotted bridge thrush (known to number in their millions around the M90) there are many signs and gantries on both north and south approaches to the bridge.
I doubt even a windscreen smeared with entrails and feathers would have caused our hero to miss every notification.
I doubt even a windscreen smeared with entrails and feathers would have caused our hero to miss every notification.
"...there may just be something that diverted his attention for long enough."
Then any prosecutor worth his salt, when faced with that defence (or mitigation) will suggest that the driver should have stopped. He would have to have had his attention diverted for quite some time to avoid all the warning signs and if so he should have brought his lorry to a stop until his attention was back on the road.
I've heard lots of this stuff, aggie, and an equal lot of dismissive arguments. Unless the signs were deficient (and it seems not as no other lorry took to the bridge) he has no realistic mitigation.
Then any prosecutor worth his salt, when faced with that defence (or mitigation) will suggest that the driver should have stopped. He would have to have had his attention diverted for quite some time to avoid all the warning signs and if so he should have brought his lorry to a stop until his attention was back on the road.
I've heard lots of this stuff, aggie, and an equal lot of dismissive arguments. Unless the signs were deficient (and it seems not as no other lorry took to the bridge) he has no realistic mitigation.
“He may simply have chosen to believe it was just another 'the sky is falling' message from the increasingly risk averse controllers of our life and lost his gamble this time.”
But on this occasion those doomsayers were correct, douglas. I’ve no objection to people gambling provided they are the only potential victims of failure. But as I explained earlier, the consequences of this particular gamble could have been horrendous.
But on this occasion those doomsayers were correct, douglas. I’ve no objection to people gambling provided they are the only potential victims of failure. But as I explained earlier, the consequences of this particular gamble could have been horrendous.
