Fatal accidents and "buzzed" riders - Thames Materials responds

Reporting on actual offences by hauliers and using camera footage is a good way to monitor the activities of firms - it'll give the cops something to go on and is well within the law.

Tony

I note mention of traffic commissioners (London is Metropolitan Traffic Area Office nominally based Brighton) - recently NW commissioner Beverley Bell spoke out on lack of backing for their enforcement when operators are called to inquiries. Operators can appeal against a ban and keep operating until appeal decision is made.

Offences include obscured lights, lights fitted and not working, which are easy to spot, and I'd add that if you have local Police phone number or a local "Not a 999" facility get the report logged - the more we can log the better as it builds a big dossier on the lack of repute and competence to drop in when the bigger opportunity arrives "The court was informed of XXX previous offences/infringments etc"

Their claim about why they employed Putz seems at odds with the details which came out of the court case.
They didn't really want to answer any of your questions.

As I have a helmet cam I will keep a look out for Thames Materials HGVs when on the bike.

There is something we can do, if you ride with a digital camera or a camcorder with a time stamp on it and you see a Thames Materials lorry (or any other for that matter) which has its numberplate obscured or is covered in mud - both of which are traffic offences take a picture of it and send it to us with any other details of the offences. We'll gather them all together and pester the relvant people with them and see where that gets us.

The Transport Commissioners are responsible for ensuring that HGV drivers and operators are 'reputable' and 'competent' - see here, so presumably they should be investigating Thames Materials in light of the Catriona Patel case outcome. However, as far as I can see there is no way for us average citizens to request an investigation or hearing, or to know whether there is one coming up. It's all extremely untransparent. Perhaps something road.cc could look into?

Well we go around wearing high viz clothes as we are vunerable to these behemoths. Perhaps we should find a way of marking these lorries as dangerous so others know the killers that lurk (or rumble)on the streets - a skull and crossbones? A 'my driving may kill you sticker'?
I am serious - one of my colleagues was killed by a lorry a few years ago whilst on her bike. Tobacco carries a health warning, lorries should too (and busses, and cars, and, well, that could get a bit silly).
Until much harsher penalties are imposed on those who kill, maim, or otherwise destroy peoples lives

“The tragic accident in June 2009 led to the prosecution and subsequent conviction of a driver who had been employed on the basis of his qualifications, certified experience and first class references obtained from previous employers."

This part of the response does stand out. Given the previous poor record of the driver who caused the death of Catriona Patel, it does suggest that a closer examination of this issue might reveal more of interest. What checks were carried out? What references were given for the driver and by whom? There are legal issues so Thames Materials does have to be careful of what it says at present. I suspect that there is more to this story than has so far been revealed and it may be more complex than first meets the eye, so it is certainly one to watch as it unfolds.

It is worth remembering too that comments on the Internet regarding legal cases can have a bearing on the outcome.

It's up to the cycling community to get the word out on this outfit. The more people who know their safety record the more influence we can have to boycott their services. The only thing these people will understand is loss of income. Time to spread the word.

Corporate manslaughter is an extremely difficult charge to prove - it requires 'gross' breach of a duty of care in the way a company is managed and run. because of the nature of a company of any significant size, it is unusual that high level management would have enough knowledge of any of the circumstances/causes to satisfy the charge. In any event, corporate manslaughter would be a charge brought against the company (not the directors). Charging the a director personally is even less likely.

I assume that the Health and Safety Executive are investigating/have investigated the incidents - they are the ones with the most usable power in this situation, as the power the shut down the business until breaches are rectified is the one which hurts the company most.

What would be best for these sorts of incidents is a strict liability law - death or injury caused by commercial vehicle results in removal of said vehicle (and driver) from road until such time as it is proved neither vehicle nor driver were at fault. Companies (and drivers) would be enormously keen to avoid any such incidents, and the culture of commercial vehicle operating companies would change significantly.

Quote:

"The safety and security of all road users; and the safety of our customers – and our own employees – is the overarching priority of this business,......"

Rubbish, the overarching priority of any business is to make a profit and to ensure that everything else is attuned to that end. If they can avoid killing people on the way then it's a bonus whereas it should be a priority.

Is there any chance that the directors of this company could be in for a corporate manslaughter charge?

So, basically avoided answering everything directly as they have not, or have no intention of acting on the above items.

Not a good show on their part.....