Lorry Crash... Queen St Glasgow

They are two seperate things. The point I'm making is that the situation should never arise. If communication between those in the NHS who determine if someone is unfit to drive, and the DVLA were improved, he wouldn't have been able to lie.

He lied when he decided to drive with his condition. He did that when he was capable and that is a crime. He could be charged with that but it would be a slap on the wrist. Trying him for death by wreckless driving is a completely different thing, because he was unconscious at the time of the event. It's like being insane. You can't act criminally if you are unconscious.

This sounds like im defending him. I'm not. Guys a * and I wish the law allowed him to be prosecuted, but it doesn't. It's * but it's the law.

 

That's completely untrue bud. You can still be found guilty if you are.....say.....claiming a blackout when you were full of drink/drugs and murdered/raped/beat up folk etc etc.

I know what you're getting at, and I completely disagree. I also know you're in no way defending this scumbag.

I actually would have a great deal of remorse for this guy had he shown an ounce of sympathy for what his (unintentional) actions caused, but he hasn't - bad enough that he killed so many people, and worse that he isn't spending every day of his natural life begging the families of the dead for his forgiveness.

 

You can't beat someone up if you are completely unconscious. When you're drunk or drugged up you're not unconscious. Your ability to function is reduced but you're still capable of thought processes and motor skills (no pun intended). When you're unconscious you have no function skills at all.

 

His actions since the event suggest this isn't the case.

 

So, what if he had been drinking or taking drugs and fell unconscious due to that ? Would he escape punishment because he was unaware of his actions ?

No chance.

There's something going on with this.

 

So, in any other part of the UK he goes to jail but because it happened in Scotland he doesn't, * scandalous that.

 

He blacked out while working for First bus, also had a few periods of absence due to health conditions both mental and physical. Supposedly Glasgow City Council would not have gave him a job if they knew this.

First do not retain a copy of references and GCC don't have any copies of the reference they received from First.

He lied on every work related medical questionaire and every dvla questionaire, which he was required to disclose every 5 years due to his age.

Sounds like GCC are at the cover up.


Also says in the report that he would have shown symptoms before he fainted. Since it had happened before you would think he would have pulled over for a second to be safe.

 

He should be locked up. If he never knew about them it's a different story, but he did. He completely disregarded any safety of others in a total selfish act resulting in deaths and should be behind bars for a very long time. Disgusting he hasn't been punished.

 

The best way to get him convicted would have been to prosecute him under the health and safety at work act.

 

29. On the 28th of April 2015 the DVLA wrote to Henry Clarke to say that, from the information they had received, Mr Clarke satisfied the medical standards for safe driving and issued a car and motorcycle licence and a lorry and bus licence to him.



They revoked it two months later. What a farce. He could have been out driving a lorry in that time

 

No, but you still have no control over your body or actions if you have a blackout - but what you don't seem to grasp is the LIABILITY factor.

Someone who commits an act that has been intoxicated through choice.....regardless of blackout or not, is liable.

The driver actively CHOSE not to declare his condition to the DVLA knowing that he would most likely be forced to surrender his driving license and therefore unable to commit to employment where driving was required. His crime is not the action of the blackout, but failing to comply with the laws of the land in regards to fitness to drive. Quite simple.....

 

Correct. And they could charge him with that and get a conviction. It would be a fine and a ban.

 

Yes.

But I would think since his actions led to the deaths of several people, and the injury to many more, then his punishment according to the law of the land wouldn't be deemed as powderpuff as what you have mentioned there.

 

Just to clarify mate, are you saying that he is not responsible for the deaths of the victims.

 

Every crime has a maximum tariff. You can't alter that because the outcome of breaking that law is very grave. It's *, but it's the law. If the maximum for non declaration is £1000 and six months ban, then that's the maximum.

 

I know what you're saying chief, but that is only one aspect of his crime committed on that day.

Crashing the lorry after a blackout is deserved of his fine and suspension - that would have been it if he hadn't caused death and injury.

 

I'm saying that he is absolutely responsible. His actions were despicable and he should never have been allowed to get behind a wheel ever again.
I'm saying that trying to prosecute him under a death by dangerous driving charge was never going to work.
The flaw is with the system. His licence should have been immediately revoked by the NHS and through the DVLA. If the correct procedure was in place it would never have happened. If any outcome is derived from the whole incident, it should be that. No other families should have to suffer a similar fate.

 

See if a train driver or an airplane pilot hadn't declared blackouts/epilepsy or anything such as, continued to drive/fly and had an "episode" and caused the deaths of the passengers........do you honestly think the pilot/driver's only punishment would be a fine and a suspension of their license?

I think not.....

 

That's the problem Pad. To get a higher tariff the charge has to be more severe. With a more severe charge comes a higher burden of proof

 

No. It's not what I think. It's a scandal and that's why we need processes in place to stop such incidents that don't rely on the honesty or morality of indviduals.