A bin lorry driver who struck and killed a young boy cycling to school after failing to keep a proper lookout and take care of any vulnerable road users has been sentenced to unpaid community work and banned from driving for a year.
Ross Wallace, 29, from Prestonpans, East Lothian, was at the wheel of a Scania refuse truck when he collided with 11-year-old Thomas Wong at the exit of the Royal Burgess Golfing Society car park in March last year. Thomas was pronounced dead at the scene.
At Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Wallace admitted causing death by driving without due care and attention, the Daily Record reports. The charge also stated he failed to keep proper observations and had used his mobile phone repeatedly while reversing the vehicle earlier in the day.
CCTV footage of the incident was shown in court. One clip from inside the cab recorded Wallace being alerted by colleagues to stop, while another showed Thomas cycling across the car park exit as the HGV pulled out.
Sheriff Alistair Noble said Wallace had caused the “tragic death” of Thomas Wong by failing to look to his left as he exited, noting that visibility on that side was restricted by foliage.
The sheriff said: “It is clear Thomas was a much-loved child and his death has had a devastating impact on the family,” referring to seven victim impact statements submitted by relatives.
Wallace was sentenced to 133 hours of unpaid work and disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Prosecutor Anna Robertson told the court that Thomas had been cycling on the pavement on Whitehouse Road on his way to school around 8.30am when he reached the car park exit. “The accused failed to make proper observations to his left and failed to account for any vulnerable road users crossing the junction and footpath,” she said.
Ms Robertson said dashcam footage from the HGV showed Wallace “looking around the car park as he proceeded to exit” but continuously looking to his right as he moved forward.
“Having heard a noise, the accused was initially unaware that he had struck Thomas. He stopped the vehicle and discovered the deceased on the roadway,” she said.
The fiscal depute told the court that CCTV analysis confirmed he had slowed the lorry to 7.5mph immediately prior to the collision, but Wallace did not react to Thomas’s presence. A police investigation found the driver had failed to carry out proper checks for vulnerable road users, while Thomas himself had “failed to carry out sufficient observations” before crossing.

Internal footage also showed Wallace “using his mobile phone on numerous occasions” over the three hours before the crash, including while reversing the HGV. The court heard, however, that this use of the phone “had no bearing on the collision”.
Defence advocate Emma Toner said Wallace, a father of four, had shown “very clear remorse” and accepted responsibility. “If he could turn back the clock, he would, of course, but that cannot be done,” she told the court.
In February, the parents of eight-year-old André Castro Ladeiro voiced their anger after a driver who killed their son in Cork received a two-year jail term, with one year suspended. André was struck by a motorist driving a Ford Ranger pick-up while crossing at a green pedestrian light during a family bike ride in August 2023.
His parents César and Filipa said: “Every day has been a challenge between anger, sadness, depression, despair, fear, dark days, disbelief. All those words became part of our life since that driver killed our son. Also, panic attacks, nightmares, sleep deprivation, anxiety, fear, stress.”
They told the court their son had “waited for the green man” and checked “no cars were coming” before John Moynihan “came flying out of nowhere, ignoring his surroundings, disrespecting the red light in a pedestrian crossing and running over our son.”
André spent five days in hospital before dying from his injuries. His parents said: “It is still impossible for us to believe or accept this. Every day, we wait to see him walk through the door, to give us again the most earthly hug only he could give… But no, the only thing we find is pictures and videos, memories.”
Speaking afterwards, they criticised “the value of my child, killed by dangerous driving, is a two-year sentence,” and called for greater enforcement against dangerous drivers who ignore basic road rules.




















25 thoughts on “Bin lorry driver who killed 11-year-old cycling to school after “failing to account for vulnerable road users” avoids jail”
And what does Nick Freeman
And what does Nick Freeman have to say about these cases…? *crickets*
I’m sure he would have been chomping at the bit to help get the driver a more lenient sentence.
Poopholes generate shit.
Poopholes generate shit.
FFS, if you hurt someone’s
FFS, if you hurt someone’s feelings in Scotland… jail time.
Kill someone with a vehicle… on ye go, yer grand.
If the phone had no bearing
If the phone had no bearing on the accident, why are motorists banned from using them?
Because the gap between using
Because the gap between using the phone and the death (not accident) was large enough not to have an effect on cognitive processes?
His use of the phone gives an argument for poor driving but not sufficient evidence for the collision.
You’d think that repeated use
You’d think that repeated use of a mobile phone would be enough to get jail. Apparently not. Sometimes (mostly) it’s hard to understand the reasoning. Sure, driver’s are remorseful, but the kids are dead and their parents have to live with that grief for their whole lives.
When is the CPS going to face
When is the CPS going to face up to karmic honesty and give justice to those who are owed it
<pedant mode> Never in this case cos it’s Scottish and it’s the Procurator Fiscals job</pedant mode>
The heart of your point is well taken though.
So sorry for this young lad
So sorry for this young lad and his poor family.
How can using a phone when driving a massive vehicle on roads and pavements used by schoolchildren not be a factor?
The sentence is a complete joke as is the one year driving ban. I would support lifetime bans for drivers who kill in circumstances like this. Some may regard that as extreme but surely a ten year ban would be something that most people would support?
jamesha100 wrote:
Because, as Hirsute said in a previous comment, it wasn’t proximate to the incident. It’s just indicative of a general pattern of carelessness, but didn’t directly play a role in him not looking at that time.
The refuse collection company
The refuse collection company seems to have done an inadequate risk assessment, including the risk that their drivers are rubbish. Seems like they could be tried for corporate homicide.
There isn’t a specific UK law mandating a banksman for reversing HGVs, but the Health and Safety Executive strongly recommends them as a control measure due to the high risk of accidents. Employers are legally obliged to conduct risk assessments under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and implement measures to ensure safety, including providing trained banksmen and using technology like cameras and sensors, according to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Wallace was sentenced to 133
Wallace was sentenced to 133 hours of unpaid work and disqualified from driving for 12 months.
I have gone through a worm hole and been transported to an alternative universe. After demonstrating chronic, repeated incompetence and finally killing someone, that was the sentence?
Internal footage also showed Wallace “using his mobile phone on numerous occasions” over the three hours before the crash, including while reversing the HGV. The court heard, however, that this use of the phone “had no bearing on the collision”.
Was he prosecuted for the mobile phone use? Incredibly dangerous in such a large, heavy vehicle with compromised views. Has his employer been prosecuted for allowing, or at least turning a blind eye to such dangerous behaviour? I would say that the mobile phone use had a lot to do with the collision, as it showed that the driver didn’t give a damn about safety or the risk he posed to other people. With behaviour like that, it was only a matter of time before he caused injury or death.
Defence advocate Emma Toner said Wallace, a father of four, had shown “very clear remorse” and accepted responsibility.
Remorse? Responsibility? They mean nothing when you have clearly demonstrated that you didn’t care about the safety of others.
There is no punishment that can bring back Thomas Wong, but this punishment gives the clear message that you can drive a large, heavy vehicle with blind spots with continual incompetence and deliberate disregard of the law, kill an innocent person and still get just a slap on the wrist.
Apologies for the length of this, and I could sum up my feelings in a few words, but admin would take the post down.
eburtthebike wrote:
Unlikely – it takes a lot to attract the attention of admins down here.
mdavidford wrote:
I know some very bad words.
eburtthebike wrote:
“Helmets”? “Protected
cyclemobility infra”? “Driving ban with prison time for breaking it and more than tiny odds of detection”?Was he prosecuted for the
That’s a part which is particularly concerning: we know that the deleterious influence on driving lasts a significant time after putting down the phone, so his continuously videoed phone use at other times would seem at least to raise the suspicion that he would have been on the phone shortly before he killed. Did the police check his phone records to find how long it was between his last call and the incident? Even if there was some time lapse, it surely proves a pattern of recklessness that should have been taken into account when sentencing. I’m sure I’ve read of judges in other cases where the fact that the defendant was driving at very high speeds prior to an incident, even if they weren’t speeding when they actually hit someone, has been mentioned as an aggravating factor which has increased the sentence.
This got a snort …
This got a snort …
Police Scotland… checking anything to do with a driver behaviour?
If it wasn’t so fecking serious, you’d be in the running for best joke of the decade.
I don’t particularly wish to
I don’t particularly wish to defend a killer driver, but my reading is that the HGV itself was equipped with CCTV inside the cab, so it would have been pretty clear when the driver was, and was not, using their phone.
I agree the sentence overall seems light, but I think that’s more just an indictment of overall road crime sentencing, rather than a result of the courts failing to adequately consider mobile phone use as an aggravating factor in this instance.
No need to check the records
No need to check the records as
“Internal footage also showed Wallace “using his mobile phone on numerous occasions” over the three hours before the crash, including while reversing the HGV. “
In order to reach the conclusion that “this use of the phone “had no bearing on the collision” this would have been apparent in the footage.
The use of the phone is a pattern of driving but it’s insufficient evidence in itself for this death. You’d expect a charge of using the phone whilst driving though.
No doubt the compnay will change it’s processes now, but as ever, it takes a KSI to have an effect.
Hirsute wrote:
Yes, I realise they couldn’t bring the phone use in directly as contributing to the death but as I said, I’m sure there have been cases where a driver’s reckless behaviour leading up to a killing (usually excess speed), even though it may have been some time before the incident and they weren’t actually breaking the speed limit at the time of the incident, has been cited by the judge as an exacerbating factor they have considered in sentencing. In this case I would have expected, or hoped for, something from the judge like, “In the hours leading up to the tragedy it has been demonstrated that you consistently showed disregard for road traffic laws and were not fully focussed on your driving, a pattern of behaviour that prevents me from regarding this as a momentary lapse from normal high standards but rather shows that your inattention and illegal behaviour was habitual…”
It’s a culture problem.
It’s a culture problem.
Nothing in the solutions proposed will solve the problem.
He will be back on the road to kill more people without even any enhanced training.
It says a lot about the
It says a lot about the culture that he would use a phone while driving even though he would be seen by his colleagues, captured on CCTV, and in such a conspicuous and dangerous vehicle.
Presumably that company has a lot of CCTV of their drivers using their phones and does nothing about it.
Presumably that company has a
Presumably that company has a lot of CCTV of their drivers using their phones and does nothing about it
It’s a bit like the relationship between the police and the PCC- the PCC has numerous examples of police failing in their duties but that’s so common that it’s just written off as ‘normal’ and ‘nothing to do with us’. If something bad happens, they’re pretty sure they can get away with claiming they ‘didn’t know’ because it’s in everybody’s interest (except the public’s) to pretend problems don’t exist
But I thought the PCC in
But I thought the PCC in cases mentioned elsewhere was quick to say “I have the power to mention something to the police, but cannot actually be held responsible for anything! I have no power to do anything *about* the result (or none) of my mentioning something to them!”
So (cutting out lots of the actual bureaucracy) “would you do something about this complaint?” – “No” – ” Fair enough, I’ve asked and you’ve responded – job done!”
I’ve said it many times ,if
I’ve said it many times ,if you want to hurt or kill.someone ,do it in a car .There are seldom any consequences .
So heartbreaking for the family to know their sons life was literally worthless to this judge .Shame on a system that allows this