Motorcycle...YES...Lorry Driver ...NO

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi
We all the story of the bin lorry driver but it gets more bazaar-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-34016267
"The driver who blacked out at the wheel of a Glasgow bin lorry before it killed six people has refused to say sorry for "lies" he told about his health.
The inquiry into the crash has heard that Harry Clarke, 58, lied about previous blackouts in order to get driving jobs.
Asked to say sorry that this "led to the deaths of... innocent people", Mr Clarke replied: "No, I can't say that."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ai-6297606
"The Crown Office said they took all relevant evidence into account when deciding not to prosecute.
A spokesman added: “It is clear on the evidence at the time that the driver was unconscious and therefore not in control of his actions."
---------
“He did not therefore have the necessary criminal state of mind required for a criminal prosecution.
“In addition, the Crown could not prove that it was foreseeable to the driver that driving that day would result in a loss of consciousness.”

BUT.....................
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22449442

"At York Crown Court on 8 April, Kelly admitted one charge of perverting the course of justice in relation to the speeding offence, one charge of perverting the course of justice in relation to a parking fine and one charge of speeding.
As well as being jailed for eight months, Kelly was also given six penalty points on his driving licence.
After sentencing, Con Zoe Billings, from North Yorkshire Police, said: "He tried to portray himself as a simple mechanic who was poor at paperwork, but in reality he is an accomplished liar."


Whats the difference
As an now ex motorcyclist, you were always perceived as a criminal for donning a helmet.
Cyclist are now the new thug..............

[greyingbeard]

I think someone legal has messed up, and is sufficiently senior to persude others to ignore it.
I know what would happen to most of us if we behaved like that at work. Thered be no dole for getting sacked and marched off the premises.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Clearly the driver of that dustcart is a high ranking freemason.

[beardy]

I can see the difference between the two conducts but also realise on reflection that it is a false distinction to make.

The only remaining distinction that you can cling to is that the motorcyclist was gratuitously flaunting a law that most of us realise and accept as a high risk to others. The lorry driver on the other hand was breaking a "bureaucratic law" out of a need to protect his livelihood and not lightly just for the fun of it.

It appears that the authorities involved dont take the risks of medical frailty as seriously as those of speeding, regardless of the outcomes. The criminal intent was there in both cases but they are somehow blind to one type of it. Both broke the law knowing it (slightly) increased the threat to others, neither intended or expected to hurt others.

[MartinC]

Does anyone know what criminal offence he may have committed? I'd certainly agree that his behaviour is reprehensible but I'm not sure that lying on a job application form is necessarily a criminal offence. Lying to, or not informing, the DVLA to keep your licence may well be but I'm not sure he did this. I wonder if there's some aspect of giving and checking references that should be examined before we burn the witch.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Clearly the driver of that dustcart is a high ranking freemason.

Brave man who says what most clear thinking non spineless people suspect

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I suppose that the difference is - "perverting the course of justice"

The bin lorry driver is being professionally led............................so not to...........

[Elizabeth_S]

It is illegal to lie on a job application form, so Glasgow Council have a case, but I doubt that they will do anything.

[pete75]

Clearly the driver of that dustcart is a high ranking freemason.

According to a Glaswegian I know none of the deceased or injured were from the sort of family background which would cause the driver to be severely punished for his actions. I get the impression it wouldn't have been through the courts.

As for the comment above saying the man's law breaking slightly increased the risk to others - tosh. He knew he was prone to passing out yet lies to get a job driving a large and heavy vehicle through crowded city streets on a daily basis - not exactly a slight risk.
Another comment above says he broke a "bureaucratic law" but one designed to keep people whose health presents a risk to others from driving, It's no more or less a "bureaucratic law" than drink drive legislation designed to keep people from driving whose condition, albeit temporary, presents a risk to others.

[manybikes]

In England one would consider whether or not he committed the offence of fraud (Section 1 Fraud Act 2006) which includes fraud by failing to disclose information. The Fraud Act repealed the specific offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (Section 16 Theft Act 1968). i.e. getting a job with payment that he would not have done if he had not deceived the employer by misrepresenting his health status.

However in Scotland prosecutions are under Common Law as a common "catch all " for most fraudulent actions - which would seem to include the above. The methodology of such prosecutions in Scotland e.g. what threshold needs to be crossed and the level of importance of such matter taken by the Procurator Fiscal are totally unknown to me. So whether or not it would be considered by the powers that be that there was a sufficient prospect of a conviction to undertake a prosecution is open to speculation.

[MartinC]

I'm not sure what licence you need to drive a bin lorry. It would seem that DVLA let him keep whatever licence it was after his previous episode. If he didn't disclose it to them or lied about it then that's a serious offence for which I'm sure a prosecution would follow.

I would guess that the application form for any job with Glasgow Council will have health questions. For driving jobs I'd expect them to check that he had an appropriate (and clean) licence and his accident record. It seems that he did.

Tp me the application form issue is a total red herring. It would seem to have currency only because this is the only avenue that the victims and their families have to get him prosecuted.

To me the relevant questions are:
- did he legitimately have a licence to drive the lorry?
- are the medical constraints on keeping a licence correct?

If I'd had a previous blackout while driving I'd want sound medical advice that it was OK for me to continue driving. I'd also expect the DVLA to want this too. If this is the advice that they were both given then this tragic affair is starting to become a witch hunt.

[beardy]

I think that I heard (on radio 4) both that he withheld information from the DVLA and that they returned his licence to him weeks after the fatal incident.

[axel_knutt]

It's not clear from this that he lied to anyone about anything, but there's a conspicuous lack of mention of any diagnosis, which I would have thought would have had some bearing on whether future episodes were foreseeable.

More generally, I wonder where the responsibility lies in the case of any notifiable diagnosis, is it the responsibility of the doctor to warn the patient, or of the patient to ask the doctor?

(Fainting is a condition that you may need to notify, not one that you must notify, which in itself begs the question how do you tell whether you have to notify or not.)

[axel_knutt]

He's just been arrested for driving whilst banned.

[gaz]

Indeed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-34438129

Lost for words.