£200 fine for crash driver who cost Elmbridge postman a leg

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news ... man_a_leg/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A former Army sergeant who crushed a postman with his lorry in an horrific accident – which resulted in the victim losing his leg – has had four points put on his licence.

Anthony Simpson, 69, from Cadogan Gardens in Kensington, collided with postman Edwin Griffiths near lights at the halfway junction in Hersham Road, Walton, on the morning of July 16, 2008.

Last week at Staines Magistrates’ Court he was fined £200 for driving without due care and attention.

On the morning of the incident, Mr Griffiths was on his bike and became trapped in between Simpson’s Renault lorry and a row of parked cars. His life was saved by a customer in Spirit, a nearby hairdressers, who used his gown as a tourniquet.

Surgeons at the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel eventually had to amputate the Walton resident’s right leg below the knee.

At the hearing on Wednesday 25 February the prosecution read out parts of Mr Griffiths’ police statement.

He described how he found himself trapped by the lorry and his shock that the defendant did not appear to be aware of the situation.

He told police: “The lights go green. A big lorry comes up behind me. He keeps coming and I can’t go anywhere. I’m scraping my handlebars on the parked cars. He’s got a huge big side mirror and I think: ‘Why can’t he see me?’.”

Mr Griffiths described how he eventually had to grab the side of a parked Mercedes as his body was dragged under the lorry. He said he remembered “screaming his head off” as it happened.

Luke Blackburn, representing Simpson, said that although the incident was a “very sad case”, his client was a decent man who was apologetic for what had happened.

He said: “Like any other decent person, Mr Simpson is truly sorry for the consequences to Mr Griffiths and his family.”

He also pointed out that Simpson, who left the Coldstream Guards as a sergeant and had been working as a lorry driver for 50 years, had not been speeding, drink-driving or distracted when he ran over Mr Griffiths.

Mr Blackburn argued that, although the accident resulted in Mr Griffiths losing a limb, Simpson’s sentence should not reflect the consequences of the incident, but the fact that it took place during a momentary lapse of concentration on the defendant’s part.

“[Simpson] simply wants to carry on working, absolutely chastised by what happened in this case,” he said.

Simpson was endorsed with four points on his driving licence and given a fine of £200.

[NWpostie]

not much of a punishment for the consequences, at 69 I am surprised he is allowed to drive a lorry, I reckon he should have got more and pay a big compo.

Driving is a skill with agreat deal of responsibility and when it goes wrong the consequences for the victim quite horrific, the Human body is very fragile and can be damaged easily, its not a Hollywood film.

all you have to do is read up on the account of a Postman in Scotland who killed one girl and injured 2 for life amongst others.

[Throgg]

FOUR POINTS AND £200? THAT IT?

had not been speeding, drink-driving or distracted when he ran over Mr Griffiths.

SO HOW DID HE MANAGE TO HIT HIM?

Simpson’s sentence should not reflect the consequences of the incident

WHY NOT?

[Simpson] simply wants to carry on working

I'M SURE THE POSTMAN, EDWIN FEELS THE SAME, BUT SIMPSON f****d THAT UP FOR HIM.

WHAT IF THAT HAD BEEN A LITTLE KID ON THE BIKE?

[DGP1]

As a professional driver he should have been held to higher standards than normal drivers, whilst a ban might be to much I would have expected that his ability to drive lorries was taken and a re-test if he wants it back.

And the fine is irrelevent, it's just whatever the judge/magistrate decides and I'm sure the postie received more in compensation from the drivers insurance company (or will do now the court case has finished).

[heapsy]

That sentance is a complete joke.

[baldrick]

People should be retested at regular intervals, particularly after 60.
My sympathy to the postman.

[Stormproof]

That fine is an insult, so the driver fed the no doubt elderly magistrate a story about not wanting to stop driving, what about the poor postie, his legs are his livelihood

[andy2007]

People should be retested at regular intervals, particularly after 60.
My sympathy to the postman.

Lorry drivers (and PSV), have to have their licences reviewed at regular intervals, long before 60. I'm not sure, but I think it's 40, when that starts. I'm not sure what's involved. But I do know, that if they don't pass, they loose the ability to drive Lorries (or PSVs).

[andy2007]

FOUR POINTS AND £200? THAT IT?

had not been speeding, drink-driving or distracted when he ran over Mr Griffiths.

SO HOW DID HE MANAGE TO HIT HIM?

The same way that so many car drivers kill Motorcyclists, when they look, but don't see them at junctions. That doesn't excuse him. But may explain how it was possible.

Simpson’s sentence should not reflect the consequences of the incident

WHY NOT?

Damn right! Of course it should reflect the consequences! Mr. Griffiths, will have to live with the consequences of that accident, for the rest of his life. But Mr. Simpson has been treated as if he's had a minor accident, rather than crippling someone. It's disgusting!!!!!!!

[Simpson] simply wants to carry on working

I'M SURE THE POSTMAN, EDWIN FEELS THE SAME, BUT SIMPSON f****d THAT UP FOR HIM.

WHAT IF THAT HAD BEEN A LITTLE KID ON THE BIKE?

[Night Tonic]

The trouble with compensation by the insurance company is that we pay it, not the driver.

[DGP1]

The trouble with compensation by the insurance company is that we pay it, not the driver.

I don't begrudge people who are really injured getting suitable compensation, it the frauds who I object to getting any money.

Anyway that's the reason we pay insurance in the first place.

[andy2007]

Precisely! So long as the compensation is set at an appropriate amount, considering loss of earnings, any specialist equipment needed (modified car, electric wheelchair, etc., etc..), and the cost of any medical bills. Then it's a good thing. But there are those, who try to cheat the system.

For example: Some people try to claim a lot of money for whiplash. Now I've suffered that myself. But as the only money I lost, was my overtime (not that there was much available at that time of year), it didn't cost me much. So as I was only on an SEC contract (and the accident happened at work), I didn't bother claiming even that. Although many of my Collegues thought I was mad. As I could have got a nice cheque from them, as it wasn't my fault.

It's people with the attitude of "let's get the biggest payout possible out of this", who push our premiums up. NOT the genuine cases, who just want to recover what they've lost (and possibly will loose), as a direct result of their injuries.

[brothermagrew]

Nice wee online debate about compensation but could I draw your attention to this:

The Compensation Myth:
It is common to hear stories of the “Compensation Culture” or claims that Britain is becoming “Risk Averse” as a result of people claiming compensation. The truth is very different.

In this report the TUC examines 10 myths around compensation in the workplace – and suggests three simple ways of ensuring that the cost of paying compensation can be reduced.

Myth 1
Compensation claims are spiralling out of control:
The number of civil claims for compensation against employers as a result of accidents have fallen ever year for the last five years . In fact, according to a recent report by the Better regulation Task Force, despite the introduction of “no win – no fee” claims, the total cost of compensation cases in Britain has remained, in real terms, static since 1989.

Britain also pays out much less out on civil compensation, as a proportion of its GDP, than any other major European country apart from Denmark, and a third that of the USA.

Myth 2
Workers are too ready to claim compensation:
Each year over 850,000 people are injured or made ill as a result of their job . The most common injuries are musculoskeletal disorders such as back injury or RSI, injuries from slips and falls, skin diseases, and deafness. Many people will get better, some will not. Over 25,000 people are forced to give up work every year as a result of work-related injuries or illness.

However the number who gain compensation from their employer is, according to the Association of British Insurers, around 60,000 a year . A further 20,000 will make a successful claim for industrial injuries benefit, which is a government funded “no fault” scheme.

This means that 9 out of every 10 workers who are injured or made ill through work get no compensation.

Full document can be viewed at http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/compensationmyth.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lounge Lizard]

"a decent man who was apologetic" - we always hear similar about postmen convicted of stealing mail.

[DGP1]

"a decent man who was apologetic" - we always hear similar about postmen convicted of stealing mail.

There is a difference between a momentary lapse in concentration and thieving for personal gain (the driver didn't go out that day to run someone over but those posties gone in everyday with the intention of stealing).