RM manager in court for killing motorist during strike

[geopip]

Royal Mail manager in court for killing motorist during postal strike

A Royal Mail accounts manager who volunteered to drive a lorry during a strike killed a motorist after losing control of his vehicle, a court heard.

By Richard Savill
Last Updated: 5:16PM GMT 05 Nov 2008

Philip Edmonds, 47, had previously passed his HGV test but had received only one day's training on the DAF tractor unit he drove during the Communication Workers Union strike last year, magistrates in Exeter, Devon, were told.

He lost control of the lorry when he was driving it without a trailer on a wet road early in the morning, it was stated.

Harry Brown, 56, a father-of-five, died instantly when his van was hit by the truck as it skidded across the A379 Dawlish Road, Exeter.

Mr Brown was on his way to work as a scaffolder with his son Patrick when the lorry crashed into his driver's door and crushed the Astra van against a crash barrier. Patrick Brown survived with serious injuries.

Edmonds, of Newton Abbot, South Devon, who denies careless driving, later told police he lost control as he pulled away from a roundabout because of grease or oil on the dual carriageway.

Alex Allsop, prosecuting, said there was no mechanical or medical reason for Edmonds to have lost control and the crash was caused by "incompetence or inadvertence".

Philip Butter, a van driver, who was delivering newspapers in the car behind the victim's Astra, said he was horrified to see the bright red Royal Mail van veer across the road.

He said: "One moment it (the lorry) was perfectly safe and the next he was veering across the road. I stopped and sat for a short time in complete disbelief at what had just happened in front of me."

A Royal Mail distribution manager, Stephen Curtis, said: "In the summer of 2007 the union declared a series of strikes and during the action managers were utilised for driving duties to maintain some type of distribution system.

"One of these was Philip Edmonds who would have completed a period of minimal familiarisation with the vehicle. If he had requested further training it would have been offered."

He said Edmonds was an accounts manager who had done a 360-mile familiarisation return trip to Coventry and had driven on two previous strike days, using both manual and automatic trucks.

The trial continues

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... trike.html

[baldrick]

A Royal Mail distribution manager, Stephen Curtis, said: "In the summer of 2007 the union declared a series of strikes and during the action managers were utilised for driving duties to maintain some type of distribution system.

"One of these was Philip Edmonds who would have completed a period of minimal familiarisation with the vehicle. If he had requested further training it would have been offered."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... trike.html

It would seem that RM are seeking to distance themselves from any responsibility.

[Night Tonic]

Excuse me while I throw up.....

[DGP1]

This has had several threads posted about it (I believe) but I thought the las one was that there was no case to answer

[DGP1]

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... sh*#p29685

One story here

[trythat]

A Royal Mail distribution manager, Stephen Curtis, said: "In the summer of 2007 the union declared a series of strikes and during the action managers were utilised for driving duties to maintain some type of distribution system.

So it was our fault, for trying to get better pay conditions and a better service. How many times do we have to tell RM, there is not enough training from top to bottom.

[DGP1]

Philip Edmonds, 47, had previously passed his HGV test but had received only one day's training on the DAF tractor unit he drove

But yet the other report was that he was an experienced driver

"This particular person had a lot of experience driving HGVs. He wasn't doing this at the present time but everyone involved in driving is checked."

[geopip]

This has had several threads posted about it (I believe) but I thought the las one was that there was no case to answer

The link below is the story covered by the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... trike.html

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co. ... ticle.html

A ROYAL Mail manager has been fined £1,000 after he was found guilty of causing a "horrific and catastrophic" crash that killed the driver of an oncoming vehicle.

Phillip Edmonds, 47, was driving a Royal Mail articulated lorry to cover strike action when it veered suddenly across the road.

Henry Brown, a 56-year-old scaffolder from Exeter known as Harry, was driving the van. He died at the scene. His son Patrick, who was in the front passenger seat, had to be cut free from the wreck but survived the crash.

Yesterday Exeter magistrates found Edmonds, of Reynell Road, Newton Abbot, had been driving without due care and consideration when he lost control of his vehicle, which was not pulling a trailer, on the A379 off the Matford roundabout on July 26 last year.

Family liaison officer MPC Neil Chadburn said Mr Brown's family, who were in court throughout the trial, were happy with the outcome.

He said: "It was just about getting justice and they feel that's been done."

Reading out a statement on behalf of the family, he said: "Harry Brown was a kind, caring and considerate husband and father. He was on his way to work when he was tragically killed. He was totally blameless, an innocent motorist.

"We appreciate many other families unfortunately continue to go through similar situations. It's a sad fact that many people do not consider the consequences of a lapse in skill and judgement or consideration on the roads and we encourage people to reflect on their driving and the likely impact any such lapse has on other people's lives."

The court had heard evidence from MPC Darren Philps, who said a combination of factors had contributed to the vehicle jack-knifing across the road. He said the nature of the road's camber, the wet road surface and the fact that the truck was unloaded at the time of the incident could all have "conspired" to make the vehicle unstable.

In these conditions, he said "harsh" acceleration by Edmonds as he came off the roundabout and changed lanes could have made the back wheels overspin, causing a "rapid and dramatic" oversteer.

Delivering the guilty verdict, magistrates' chairman Elizabeth Cameron said Edmonds, an experienced HGV driver, should have been aware that harsh acceleration could have this effect.

She also said the magistrates, in reaching their guilty verdict, had taken into consideration the fact Edmonds had declined to give evidence at the trial.

In mitigation, David Sapiecha, said the crash was the result of a "momentary lapse of concentration" on the part of the defendant.

He said Edmonds had to live with the consequences of what he had done and was "extremely remorseful".

He added: "His upset is genuine. He has received counselling and still has flashbacks. He was off work for two months."

Edmonds was fined £1,000 for the offence and ordered to pay £350 in costs, as well as a £15 surcharge. Ms Cameron said this would have been reduced by a third if he had pleaded guilty. He was also given six points on his driving licence.

Speaking after the verdict, Edmonds said he wanted to "draw a line" under the incident. He said it had been a "terrible time" for the Brown family and for his family too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the last paragraph says it all. He made a mistake and will now suffer the consequences lets leave it at that

[k979aaa]

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co. ... ticle.html

A ROYAL Mail manager has been fined £1,000 after he was found guilty of causing a "horrific and catastrophic" crash that killed the driver of an oncoming vehicle.

Phillip Edmonds, 47, was driving a Royal Mail articulated lorry to cover strike action when it veered suddenly across the road.

Henry Brown, a 56-year-old scaffolder from Exeter known as Harry, was driving the van. He died at the scene. His son Patrick, who was in the front passenger seat, had to be cut free from the wreck but survived the crash.

Yesterday Exeter magistrates found Edmonds, of Reynell Road, Newton Abbot, had been driving without due care and consideration when he lost control of his vehicle, which was not pulling a trailer, on the A379 off the Matford roundabout on July 26 last year.

Family liaison officer MPC Neil Chadburn said Mr Brown's family, who were in court throughout the trial, were happy with the outcome.

He said: "It was just about getting justice and they feel that's been done."

Reading out a statement on behalf of the family, he said: "Harry Brown was a kind, caring and considerate husband and father. He was on his way to work when he was tragically killed. He was totally blameless, an innocent motorist.

"We appreciate many other families unfortunately continue to go through similar situations. It's a sad fact that many people do not consider the consequences of a lapse in skill and judgement or consideration on the roads and we encourage people to reflect on their driving and the likely impact any such lapse has on other people's lives."

The court had heard evidence from MPC Darren Philps, who said a combination of factors had contributed to the vehicle jack-knifing across the road. He said the nature of the road's camber, the wet road surface and the fact that the truck was unloaded at the time of the incident could all have "conspired" to make the vehicle unstable.

In these conditions, he said "harsh" acceleration by Edmonds as he came off the roundabout and changed lanes could have made the back wheels overspin, causing a "rapid and dramatic" oversteer.

Delivering the guilty verdict, magistrates' chairman Elizabeth Cameron said Edmonds, an experienced HGV driver, should have been aware that harsh acceleration could have this effect.

She also said the magistrates, in reaching their guilty verdict, had taken into consideration the fact Edmonds had declined to give evidence at the trial.

In mitigation, David Sapiecha, said the crash was the result of a "momentary lapse of concentration" on the part of the defendant.

He said Edmonds had to live with the consequences of what he had done and was "extremely remorseful".

He added: "His upset is genuine. He has received counselling and still has flashbacks. He was off work for two months."

Edmonds was fined £1,000 for the offence and ordered to pay £350 in costs, as well as a £15 surcharge. Ms Cameron said this would have been reduced by a third if he had pleaded guilty. He was also given six points on his driving licence.

Speaking after the verdict, Edmonds said he wanted to "draw a line" under the incident. He said it had been a "terrible time" for the Brown family and for his family too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the last paragraph says it all. He made a mistake and will now suffer the consequences lets leave it at that

So come the next strike he will be allowed to drive again for royalmail!. But someone died all for lack of training just to make a point of a service running at "normal" it is a SHAMe that the real guilty party :cfo & :lfo has not been put on trial also!.

[axeman]

How did an artic 'driven unit' jack knife ?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

But k979aaa we don't know it was a lack of training. Apparently he was an experienced LGV driver and RM say that if he had asked for further familiarisation he would have got it. Apparently even his lawyer did not try to mitigate it by blaming RM for lack of training. Don't get me wrong the fact that he did a colleagues job during the strike is appalling and for that he will be condemned by many but we can't blame RM for everything, after all the list of things we can blame them would be a tome in its own right. But all said that's my opinion and you have the right within a democracy to have a different one.

[k979aaa]

But k979aaa we don't know it was a lack of training. Apparently he was an experienced LGV driver and RM say that if he had asked for further familiarisation he would have got it. Apparently even his lawyer did not try to mitigate it by blaming RM for lack of training. Don't get me wrong the fact that he did a colleagues job during the strike is appalling and for that he will be condemned by many but we can't blame RM for everything, after all the list of things we can blame them would be a tome in its own right. But all said that's my opinion and you have the right within a democracy to have a different one.

But did he ask for it? and was told to get on with it as the job needed to be seen to be done.

[brothermagrew]

Again for information purposes I must reiterate what I had posted in a previous posting:


Driver Risk Assessment
Work related road safety initiative



1.Introduction.
One of the biggest risks drivers face during their working day is the risk of an accident on the road. One third of all road accidents in the UK involve a vehicle being driven on business. This may account for over 20 fatalities and 250 serious injuries every week. This joint statement sets out the changes that are taking place with regard to the law on work related road safety, and gives details of the new initiative that Royal Mail have agreed with the CWU to raise drivers’ awareness of their responsibilities and support them in improving their driving skills, and staying safe on the road.



2.The law on work related road safety.
Given the statistics it is not surprising that there is increasing attention from the Health and Safety Executive and the Police in this area. Both drivers and the business can expect accidents to be more fully investigated than in the past and also for the safety processes and procedures of the business, and compliance with them, to be examined closely. Safety at work includes safety on the road.

The Department for Transport (DfT), HSE and Police have been working closely together to take forward the recommendations of an Independent Work-Related Road Safety Task Group. This has involved:

publication of the joint DfT/HSE guidance,
continued awareness raising,
a revision of the form used by the Police (STATS 19) to collect information following a traffic incident to include details of whether those involved are at work,
a joint project with the Association of Chief Police Officers to consolidate the arrangements for investigating fatal work-related road incidents and
to promote work-related road safety.

2.1 Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act.
This Act will come into force on 6 April 2008 and changes the basis on which companies are liable for prosecution for failures in the management of health and safety which lead to death. The Government have emphasised the importance of companies and organisations taking health and safety seriously and intend that this should be seen as an opportunity to make sure that proper arrangements are in place for managing health and safety, including ‘road safety’. Many road accidents don’t result in death, but might easily have been fatal so it is important to take action to reduce the risk of all accidents however apparently trivial. Until now, employers have only had to ensure that health and safety requirements are adequately adhered to 'in the workplace', but this new Act takes the obligation much further. Employers will be directly responsible for their employees' actions while they are on company business off the premises and whilst driving.

2.2 Revised Highway Code.
The Department for Transport have issued a substantially revised version of the Highway Code and are stressing that employers should provide information and familiarisation to their drivers on the latest road safety rules, advice and the Code's important legal requirements and road safety implications. If drivers breach these rules they are personally committing criminal offences and may be fined, given penalty points on their licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases drivers may be sent to prison.

2.3 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and associated Regulations
This Act requires Royal Mail to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of all employees while at work and to ensure that others are not put at risk by our work-related driving activities. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Royal Mail has a responsibility to manage health and safety effectively and must undertake assessments of the risks to the health and safety of our drivers, while they are at work, and to other people who may be affected by work-related driving activities and to periodically review them.

2.4 Health and Safety Executive Guidance on Road Safety
This emphasises that health and safety law applies just as much to on-the-road work activities as it does other work activities, and the risks should be effectively managed within a health and safety management system. Employers are legally obliged to ensure that their drivers are competent and capable of doing their work in a way that is safe for them and other people (road users, pedestrians and work colleagues).

The HSE guidance to employers is that Driving at Work road safety policies should be supplemented with written instructions and guidance and/or training sessions for at-work drivers. These requirements are in addition to employers and drivers duties under road traffic law, e.g. the Road Traffic Act, Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations and Road Transport Directive etc which are administered by the Police and other agencies such as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).

2.5 Requirement to consult
Royal Mail is legally required to consult with its Trade Unions and their health and safety representatives on health and safety issues and is committed to working with the CWU and its Safety Representatives on this initiative as on other campaigns to improve safety at work.

[kay_thebigbird]

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.