[Closed] Death by dangerous driving acquittal

25 years experience, zero previous incidents. Goes in the “shit happens” category for me

He didn’t just hit a pedestrian, he rolled a fire engine on top of someone! Not a “shit happens” scenario IMO. Clearly going way too fast on the roundabout. How is that not negligent, given that “In November 2012, a fire service instructor had assessed Mr Williams' driving and advised him to reduce his speed prior to bends in the roads and roundabouts, the court was told.”

How is that not negligent

As you're quoting that bit about the his previous driving assessment, I think we should perhaps also quote the bit about the gravel spill on the roundabout which likely caused the fire engine to loose traction?

Personally I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt to someone who had dedicated their life to saving other people's lives and as part of that had to make split-second decisions in extremely stressful situations.

zilog, you seem to be implying that he ignored that advice?

"Personally I’m willing to give the benefit of doubt to someone who had dedicated their life to saving other people’s lives"

That worked well then. Didn't save the life of the guy he rolled the engine on.

The decision to prosecute would follow guidance (linky) The jury will hear evidence that we're unlikely to get from a news article and decide on the basis of the full facts. Sadly someone has been killed and two families will live with that, there are no winners

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this had been a Romanian tipper truck driver, gravel notwithstanding, the British public would be calling for a hanging.

And yet there's no difference, legally, between the two.

So are we saying that emergency service drivers should be exempt from dangerous driving legislation?

The scary thing for me is that he says he'd do exactly the same thing again. Think that through; knowing that he killed someone by driving too fast he's willing to kill someone again. That, for me, is why there's a public interest in prosecution to protect the public.

knowing that he killed someone by driving too fast he’s willing to kill someone again

Being acquitted tells us that speed wasn't the reason for the death?

legend wrote

knowing that he killed someone by driving too fast he’s willing to kill someone again

Being acquitted tells us that speed wasn’t the reason for the death?

No, being acquitted tells us that a jury of people who drive cars thought that he should be acquitted. The "there but for the grace of god go I" scenerio

He was driving too fast.  End of.

The scary thing for me is that he says he’d do exactly the same thing again. Think that through; knowing that he killed someone by driving too fast he’s willing to kill someone again. That, for me, is why there’s a public interest in prosecution to protect the public.

This +1

I think there's a fairly big difference between how I'd expect an HGV to be driven, and how I'd expect a fire engine responding to an emergency call to be driven.

Obviously in this case a misjudgement has had tragic consequences, but you can't expect emergency vehicles to be driven with the same safety margin as a normal vehicle when responding to an emergency call, and dangerous driving only applies when the driving is significantly below the standard that would be expected.

If I was trapped in a car or a crashed car, I know how I'd want the fire engine to be driven - similarly I would hope that this sort of incident would be rare, as I share the roads with fire engines etc, but getting a load of water, equipment and people to an incident quickly is never going to be 100% safe.

gravel spill on the roundabout

Was it invisible?

Tragic all round but I don't see him being in the emergency services as a get-off. What about teachers...Medical staff...not quite so brave, so 50% sentencing?

I would assume a fire engine would have a good quality GPS tracker, camera's etc. On that basis you would think it would be easy to provide compelling evidence as to whether he was driving dangerously or not.

I think there’s a fairly big difference between how I’d expect an HGV to be driven, and how I’d expect a fire engine responding to an emergency call to be driven.

Obviously in this case a misjudgement has had tragic consequences, but you can’t expect emergency vehicles to be driven with the same safety margin as a normal vehicle when responding to an emergency call, and dangerous driving only applies when the driving is significantly below the standard that would be expected.

If I was trapped in a car or a crashed car, I know how I’d want the fire engine to be driven – similarly I would hope that this sort of incident would be rare, as I share the roads with fire engines etc, but getting a load of water, equipment and people to an incident quickly is never going to be 100% safe.

This. It's a tragic accident FFS, why does somebody have to be to blame?

If I was trapped in a car or a crashed car, I know how I’d want the fire engine to be driven...

Slightly playing devil's advocate (as evidenced by the intentionally partial quote) but if I was trapped in a burning building awaiting the arrival of the emergency services I'd kind of like them to get there 4 seconds later than be involved in their own pile up which then takes up even more resources that could be coming to save me...

"This. It’s a tragic accident FFS, why does somebody have to be to blame?"

They don't, we could abolish all careless driving legislation, but that would probably lead to more "when will cyclists ever get protection" threads than we already have.

Tragic all round but I don’t see him being in the emergency services as a get-off.

One would assume that an emergency response driver would have received more advanced driving training than your average teacher etc?  Not that that's any excuse but could be a mitigating factor.

The slower they drive the greater the risk at the destination; the faster they drive the greater the risk en route.  I guess that's always going to be a balancing act, there's no absolute answer here.  I suppose they should be driving quickly but within their limits, he got it wrong this time but it's a freak accident from the sounds of it.

The truth is that these news articles seldom catch all the details of a given case, I'm sure there's more to the case and verdict than is presented in those few lines of text.
So I am wary of having my inner "lefty-treehugger-cyclist-type" triggered by these pieces but on the face of it, it would appear that there is some unwritten special dispensation given for members of the emergency services who are on a shout...

you can’t expect emergency vehicles to be driven with the same safety margin as a normal vehicle when responding to an emergency call, and dangerous driving only applies when the driving is significantly below the standard that would be expected.

TBH "The standard expected" should be higher for the driver of a fire appliance than a "normal" car driver, the vehicle has far higher potential for destruction and injury due to it's mass and speed and the driver has had additional training.

The fire and rescue service are trained to deal with driving quite specific vehicles (Heavy, laden with kit, etc) at speed, in traffic, solely in order to attend an event as quickly as possible, and that's the key bit, it's no bloody use to anyone if you crash the sodding fire engine en-route. In order to save lives, first of all the emergency services have to actually get to the incident...

By rolling a 10+ ton appliance, he not only killed someone directly, but that also meant a lack of response to another incident, potentially putting other lives at greater risk, plus creating the need for other emergency resources to attend the incident he created...

So I'm not sure I buy the justification of a "career spent saving lives" as justifying apparently wreckless conduct, it seems despite having recieved training and specific advice in regard to his own use of speed, basically the fella drove a fire applicance too fast round a roundabout...

He had a duty of care to the public and a responsibility to do his job in a safe fashion and ultimately he failed, as already pointed out any other heavy goods vehicle driver in similar circumstances would not get such lenient treatment...

Was it invisible?

From the distance that he'd committed to his cornering speed - could well have been

What about teachers…Medical staff…not quite so brave, so 50% sentencing?

That's some of the finest whataboutery I've seen here in ages.

I wonder if the people saying he was going too fast are the same ones that also claim to never travel faster than being able to stop in 6ft on every Strava thread?

but blue light driving should be about progress, not speed. Irrespective of training or response times, he was still driving a very heavy vehicle and he rolled it.

From the distance that he’d committed to his cornering speed – could well have been

I don't see how that could exonerate him. Roundabouts generally have good visibility on approach.

That’s some of the finest whataboutery I’ve seen here in ages.

I think you've missed my point. Why should someone's profession exculpate them?

Far too complex for me to come to any conclusion about blame from a few hundred word news article. Tragic accident.

Far too complex for me to come to any conclusion about blame from a few hundred word news article. Tragic accident.

This is the crux of it really, the write up is almost designed to give just enough information to whip someone susceptible into a froth; tweak the bias' without giving the full picture.

Which is why I am concious that both my initial reaction (above) to condemn the driver, and other's to defend him based on his previous service, may not be justified given the lack of detail...

"Far too complex ... conclusion ... news article"

And yet you were happy to 11 months ago when it was a car driver! See the "New forest cyclist death" thread.

That's my point really, if we're all uncomfortable with convicting emergency service drivers then the law should be changed (rather than the somewhat messy CPS fudge linked to earlier) or relying on a jury to break the rules.

The law is clear in regard to emergency service drivers, but as always, individual cases are nuanced.  An emergency driver is able to utilise certain exemptions, and must also be aware that they are very much not exempt from laws such as careless and dangerous driving. We do not know enough about this case, and it could well be that this was a reckless and aggressive driver blatantly taking advantage of his position of responsibility for personal thrills, or it could equally be an excellent, calm, experienced driver who was caught out by conditions that he could not have reasonably been expected to anticipate. As the court heard all of the evidence, maybe they were convinced that it was more likely the latter. Very sad incident.

And yet you were happy to 11 months ago when it was a car driver!

Was it exactly the same scenario and news report? Doubt that very much.

...but you can’t expect emergency vehicles to be driven with the same safety margin as a normal vehicle when responding to an emergency call...<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">If I was trapped in a car or a crashed car, I know how I’d want the fire engine to be driven –</span>

I'd want the fire engine to actually arrive at the scene of the accident, so they could rescue me.

1) I meant a burning building or crashed car lol, not a car or a car.

2) Yes, obviously, ideally I would have the fire engine go slowly around that roundabout with hindsight.

I guess the courts are bound to get it wrong sometimes, and to be honest in the case of emergency services I'm happier for them to err on the side of not convicting than in general, but if for example he'd been texting his mistress at the time, throw the book at him.

It's not quite the same as many incidents where cyclists have been hit etc. as there was an unexpected loss of control leading to tragic circumstances, rather than not seeing something fairly predictable in the way on the road.

I guess as an aside, if there hadn't been a pedestrian there and he had crashed the tender on the way to an incident, do you think he should've been convicted of dangerous driving?

"...the law should be changed "

This is in progress. The law doesn't differentiate between emergency service drivers and any other driver, despite the massive difference in training. One consequence is that to drive through a set of red traffic lights is at least careless and could be dangerous because a careful and competent driver wouldn't do that. This has led to the CPS guidance

This isn't to excuse dangerous and careless driving by anyone, you must still drive safely within your ability and level of training

The pretty obvious difference between this and "a Romanian tipper truck driver" is that the tipper truck driver doesn't have a bloody good compelling reason for taking a roundabout "<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">at speeds between 37.5mph and 39mph". A fireman on an emergency call does.</span>

Definitely falls into the "shit happens" pile for me. Presumably the court heard far more detail than we got and came to the same conclusion.

Was it driving that "falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways"?

Yes, for a normal truck driver, who would have no business going that fast around a roundabout.

But for a person specifically tasked with getting to a life-threatening situation as fast as possible. No I don't think so.

Judging them by the same measure is, to me, like convicting a surgeon for cutting someone open.

I guess as an aside, if there hadn’t been a pedestrian there and he had crashed the tender on the way to an incident, do you think he should’ve been convicted of dangerous driving?

Yes, the conviction is against the driving not the consequences (which is why as we know the best way to kill someone while getting the least amount of time in prison is by driving at them 'by accident')

Interesting that you mention surgeons. We do, occasionally, prosecute dangerous surgeons; notably Steven Walker and Ian Patterson but usually they just retire or get struck off by the GMC leaving a trail of victims behind them.

Judging them by the same measure is, to me, like convicting a surgeon for cutting someone open.

Cutting someone open when unnecessarily.

Timba - the law already provides certain exemptions for emergency vehicles e.g. the specific example you gave about red lights is covered here (see subsection b):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made

"- the law already provides certain exemptions for emergency vehicles"

Yes, an exemption to the red (or amber) traffic light, and some (not all) other signs, e.g. speed

And no, it doesn't give an exemption for careless and dangerous driving. The act of driving through red traffic lights is something that a careful and competent motorist wouldn't do and is therefore either careless or dangerous dependent on how well it was done. The emergency services driver wouldn't get summonsed for the actual red light offence though

If I was trapped in a car or a crashed car, I know how I’d want the fire engine to be driven…

+1 would prefer it to have actually arrived on the scene with a team to help me, and also not to have killed anyone before failing to arrive.  But that's just me, have always been somewhat of a hand-wringer.

Don't see how it's not dangerous driving really, going stupidly fast, most likely for bravado as the main reason.

49 year old, probably wanting to show the young guns he's still got it.

Timba, that’s right, but you stated that emergency vehicles were technically breaking s3 of the RTA every time the pass a red light - which is clearly Nonsense.   Had it been so, the new proposed law you referred to, which largely says it’s Ok to drive wrecklessly with blue lights might make sense.  The courts always have the option (and have previously used it in appropriate emergency vehicle cases) to not impose points or a fine even when technically a conviction is warranted (and to use an absolute discharge where the sentencing judge(s) believe even a conviction would be too much).

Im not sure what stage that new law is at, or if it will actually get to the statute book but personally I think a common sense approach by prosecutors and the courts works far better than saying “crack on, you guys are heros, so we won’t blame you if you get too carried away.”

It was a ten minute rule Bill and got its first reading nearly a year ago. Second reading this week where the government may play their hand.

Feels to me like a cost-saving Bill with criminal protection bolted on to gain police fed support. At the moment if a police officer or NHS employee does something stupid then their employer - the taxpayer - is liable. As I read it the Bill removes that liability. I think that if I am crushed by a rolling fire engine then it's reasonable for the taxpayer to pay for my wheelchair and modifications to my home; so I would like to keep that liability.

I suppose it makes it easier to privatise Fire and Police like they've done to Ambo.

I suppose it makes it easier to privatise Fire and Police like they’ve done to Ambo.

Eh? When did ambos get privatised?

it shouldn't probably have been dangerous driving (not that it wasn't dangerous, just that it doesn't meet the criteria for dangerous driving), but I'm not sure how he dodged careless. I wonder if there's more to the case than has been let out - either the appliance was unevenly loaded or they proved (by testing) that in other cicumstances you could make it round the same corner in the same vehicle at the same speed safely

Careless driving

• Momentary lapse of concentration or misjudgement at low speed.
• Loss of control due to speed, mishandling or insufficient attention to road conditions, or carelessly turning right across on-coming traffic.
• Overtaking manoeuvre at speed resulting in collision of vehicles, or driving bordering on the dangerous
• Dangerous driving
• Prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for safety of others.
• Incident(s) involving excessive speed or showing off, especially on busy roads or in built-up area.
• Driving while being pursued by police.

https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2015/04/22/what-is-the-difference-between-dangerous-and-careless-driving/

Don’t see how it’s not dangerous driving really, going stupidly fast, most likely for bravado as the main reason.

49 year old, probably wanting to show the young guns he’s still got it.

That is a whole lot of assumption in two sentences. Any evidence for any of it?

Seems just as likely to me that a veteran of 25 years with a clean record on accidents made a bad judgement call while trying to do a very difficult and stressful job.

The courts know more of the story than we do and they saw fit to acquit him.

"...emergency vehicles were technically breaking s3 of the RTA every time the pass a red light" (linky)

"it’s Ok to drive wrecklessly"

No it isn't, and nothing that I've read would suggest that

I spent over 10 years driving ambulances, a lot of the time under emergency conditions. Like in any walk of life, some people were dicks, and drove them like dicks, with a sense of self importance and entitlement that made them a hazard to the public. I hope I wasn’t one of those. However, there is never a defence of ‘the greater good’ where the reason for the journey (eg at the far end of the spectrum,child in cardiac arrest) somehow alleviates the driver of their responsibilities to other road users.

From experience, approximately 99% or more of ambulance emergencies, and probably a higher proportion of FRS emergencies, will not have any meaningful change in outcome if the vehicle arrives 30 seconds sooner. As someone said above, the main improvements in time to arrival are in making safe progress, not in absolute speed.

We don’t know the ins and outs of this case, but I wouldn’t treat a driver more leniently because they had a job in the emergency services if their driving was proven to be careless or dangerous, in fact they should be held to a higher standard, given their training.

either the appliance was unevenly loaded

you know that fire engines are carrying water - quite difficult to strap it down 🙂

I wouldn’t treat a driver more leniently because they had a job in the emergency services if their driving was proven to be careless or dangerous

So the usual definition used is it is careless if "the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

If we use that definition without any regard for their job, then wouldn't ALL emergency response drivers be guilty?

But in reality we allow them to split lanes, run reds, drive fast, inconvenience other motorists, make noise, park illegally, etc because we recognise that they have an important job to do and speed is of the essence.