RM manager in court for killing motorist during strike

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 07 Nov 2008, 19:45

kay_thebigbird wrote:The manager concerned has to live with that tragic man's death on his conscious for the rest of his life,the guilt must be awful, I would not wish that on anyone, I think that is punishment in itself.

A lot of manager's have no conscious for other's but themself's and their postion in the buisness!.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 07 Nov 2008, 19:59

And so do a lot of postmen ole' fruit so your point is?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south ... -20039030/

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 07 Nov 2008, 20:47

Night Tonic wrote:And so do a lot of postmen ole' fruit so your point is?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south ... -20039030/

I don't see your point

One incident was bad driving and the other was incorrect training/procedures, I'm sure both drivers regret what happened (and probably wished they hadn't gone into work that day), I know that if it happened to me then I doubt I could go back to driving a lorry.

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:02

It would appear in the case of the driver reversing out of the depot was a victim no doubt of royal fail cut backs and no doubt there was no risk assement ever undertaken otherwise there would have been instructions to drivers to have someone present when reversing out of the yard ?

kay_thebigbird · Post by **kay_thebigbird** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:12

k979aaa wrote:
kay_thebigbird wrote:The manager concerned has to live with that tragic man's death on his conscious for the rest of his life,the guilt must be awful, I would not wish that on anyone, I think that is punishment in itself.
A lot of manager's have no conscious for other's but themself's and their postion in the buisness!.

Yes you are right about RM management, but this one killed a man,both the families lives are changed forever,I would'nt want to be in his shoe's.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:18

No doubt? No doubt? Twice in one sentence and with nothing but the usual, well, I can't even call it speculation. Bad driving or carelessness and how do you differentiate in either case. You may not like your DOM or being faced with a changing job but it has nowt to do with driving and all the dangers that go with it. Agree with Kay, the guy has to live with it the rest of his life and so does the family of the poor man killed. Your 'tuppenceworth is neither here nor there.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:21

Night Tonic wrote:No doubt? No doubt? Twice in one sentence and with nothing but the usual, well, I can't even call it speculation. Bad driving or carelessness and how do you differentiate in either case. You may not like your DOM or being faced with a changing job but it has nowt to do with driving and all the dangers that go with it. Agree with Kay, the guy has to live with it the rest of his life and so does the family of the poor man killed. Your 'tuppenceworth is neither here nor there.

Was that directed at me or someone else?

NWpostie · Post by **NWpostie** » 07 Nov 2008, 21:59

I don't think anyone would set out to intentionally kill somebody while on the road, he has to live with it and regardless of the fact that he is a RM manager or Postie, its not a nice thing to go through, RM would have been well better to have either employed experienced HGV drivers of at least 1 year or not run the lorry service, that should have been risk assessed by the senior management, from the article it does look like he has been hung out to dry, which can easily happen to any of us.

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 07 Nov 2008, 22:04

Night Tonic wrote:No doubt? No doubt? Twice in one sentence and with nothing but the usual, well, I can't even call it speculation. Bad driving or carelessness and how do you differentiate in either case. You may not like your DOM or being faced with a changing job but it has nowt to do with driving and all the dangers that go with it. Agree with Kay, the guy has to live with it the rest of his life and so does the family of the poor man killed. Your 'tuppenceworth is neither here nor there.

Whilst both cases tragically resulted in fatalities and the loss of loved ones to grieving families, the differential is that in the Bridgend case Royal Mail were find £200,000+ for health and safety breaches:

TRANSPORT PROSECUTION
22/09/2006

Customer fatality costs Royal Mail £200,000 ROYAL Mail Group plc has been found guilty of three breaches of health and safety legislation, which led to the death of a partially-sighted member of the public at its distribution office in Bridgend. At Cardiff Crown Court on 6 June the company was fined £150,000 under s3(1) of I-ISWA 1974 for not ensuring the safety of members of the public. It was also fined £25,000 for an offence under s2(2)(a) of HSWA 1974 for failing to provide a safe system of work for its employees, and a further £25,000 for a charge under reg. 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 for failing to carry out a suitable risk assessment. Costs of £3555 were also ordered to be paid.

Colin Jones called into the Bridgend office to see if he had any post. While he was standing in the yard, a seven-tonne Royal Mail lorry reversed into him, dragging him a distance of around 30 feet underneath the vehicle and fatally injuring him. Jones had been standing in the vehicle's blind spot and had not been seen by the driver.

Mike Stoddart, assistant director of public protection at Bridgend Council, said:

"The regrettable circumstances surrounding this case serve to highlight the importance of workplace transport safety and send a message to employers of the potential consequences of failing to identify and control risks effectively."

Jonathan Evans, company secretary of Royal Mail Group, said in a statement: "We pleaded guilty and we accept the decision of the court in this particularly tragic case... We are acutely aware of our responsibilities regarding health and safety matters. As a result of this incident we have strengthened our management of safety issues.. .and reviewed our risk assessment on vehicle management in all 1400 delivery offices across the UK."

An unbelievable statement from Nighty "it has nowt to do with driving and all the dangers that go with it."

As I recall as a result of the Bridgend DO fatality RM instigated further health and safety improvements in Delivery Offices by way of for example clearly defined pedestrian walkways. In the managers case LTB 689/07 made reference to it at the time but has mysteriously disappeared from the CWU website although I did find a copy on the internet.

pinstripe · Post by **pinstripe** » 08 Nov 2008, 00:26

I really hope that I'm getting the wrong end of the stick on this thread, but I really, really hope that no-one is using these tragic events to score points here.

With regard to the second one, why was the driver reversing out of the yard? To say that, that is what he was told to do is no defence. The yard at our office isn't that great and it is accessed by a narrow entrance down the side of the building and when it's full there isn't much room, but not one of the drivers would even think about reversing out of it (and the drivers in my office are not the brightest).

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 08 Nov 2008, 00:44

pinstripe wrote:I really hope that I'm getting the wrong end of the stick on this thread, but I really, really hope that no-one is using these tragic events to score points here.

With regard to the second one, why was the driver reversing out of the yard? To say that, that is what he was told to do is no defence. The yard at our office isn't that great and it is accessed by a narrow entrance down the side of the building and when it's full there isn't much room, but not one of the drivers would even think about reversing out of it (and the drivers in my office are not the brightest).

I think if you read the report it says that the exit gate was locked shut and that the lorries had to turn around in the yard. That was my understanding and why the driver wasn't procecuted but RM was.