Driver Richard Husband found not guilty of causing death by careless driving in New Forest ambulance crash

UPDATE: My thoughts are with those who lost their lives, says driver cleared of causing ambulance crash deaths

Fatal ambulance crash: Richard Husband found not guilty of causing death by careless driving

Not guilty: driver accused of causing death of ambulance driver and patient cleared of all charges

First published in News
Last updated
by

THE man accused of causing the deaths of a paramedic and patient in a horrific ambulance crash has today been cleared of all charges.

Richard Husband, of New Forest Drive, Brockenhurst, didn’t see or hear the vehicle – which was being driven by 42-year-old Gillian Randall – as it overtook his Seat Alhambra on the A337 Brockenhurst to Lyndhurst road on April 27 last year.

The 26-year-old then attempted to himself overtake a silver Skoda Yeti that had pulled over to allow the vehicle to safely pass, the court was told.

Prosecutors alleged that Husband had failed to check his mirror before pulling out into the path of the ambulance, which the defendant denied.

He also said he had not been distracted by music played through the car’s speakers by three teenagers who were in the vehicle at the time of the collision.

During his evidence, he told the court that he had checked his right wing mirror, although added: “I didn’t check my rear view mirror.

“I didn’t check my blind spot.”

Francis Ironside, 88, who was being rushed to Southampton General Hospital at the time of the collision, and paramedic Ms Randall were both killed after the ambulance struck a tree.

Mr Ironside’s 64-year-old son David, who was travelling in the back of the ambulance, and paramedic Richard Riley, 32, also suffered serious injuries.

It took a jury of seven women and five men six hours and three minutes to reach a verdict of not guilty on two counts of causing death by careless driving at Bournemouth Crown Court.

The decision comes after a five-day trial at the court before Judge John Harrow.

There were gasps and sobs from the packed public gallery as the verdicts were delivered.

Speaking afterwards, Mr Husband said: “Whilst I am of course relieved by the jury’s verdicts, on this day my thoughts remain with those who lost their lives and were injured in the accident, as well as their friends and family.

“I would like to thank my own family and friends for their unceasing support during this very difficult time.”

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:27pm Mon 30 Jun 14

The Real Judge Judy says...

...Mirror...Signal..
.Manoeuvre
...Mirror...Signal.. .Manoeuvre The Real Judge Judy
  • Score: 37

3:35pm Mon 30 Jun 14

StuartMc1 says...

Really? Clearly he didn't look, pulled out, hit the ambulance.... I fail to see how they cleared him of all blame.....
Really? Clearly he didn't look, pulled out, hit the ambulance.... I fail to see how they cleared him of all blame..... StuartMc1
  • Score: 42

3:42pm Mon 30 Jun 14

MotorbikeSam says...

common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again .. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -38

3:52pm Mon 30 Jun 14

poolecatnip says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
Where does it say in any reports of this tragedy that the ambulance was speeding!! The driver of the car pulled out without looking as mentioned in all reports and failed to see the big yellow vehicle with blue flashing lights.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]Where does it say in any reports of this tragedy that the ambulance was speeding!! The driver of the car pulled out without looking as mentioned in all reports and failed to see the big yellow vehicle with blue flashing lights. poolecatnip
  • Score: 69

3:56pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Chopper3 says...

It's always dangerous to comment on cases like this because unlike the jury who have sat for days/weeks listening to the detailed evidence, we have only seen the headlines and thus can only make snap judgements.
It's always dangerous to comment on cases like this because unlike the jury who have sat for days/weeks listening to the detailed evidence, we have only seen the headlines and thus can only make snap judgements. Chopper3
  • Score: 132

3:56pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Browser123 says...

StuartMc1 wrote:
Really? Clearly he didn't look, pulled out, hit the ambulance.... I fail to see how they cleared him of all blame.....
Didn`t realise he had hit the ambulance. Thought the ambulance at speed, manouvered quickly, when he pulled out, but skidded into the verge and hit a tree.
[quote][p][bold]StuartMc1[/bold] wrote: Really? Clearly he didn't look, pulled out, hit the ambulance.... I fail to see how they cleared him of all blame.....[/p][/quote]Didn`t realise he had hit the ambulance. Thought the ambulance at speed, manouvered quickly, when he pulled out, but skidded into the verge and hit a tree. Browser123
  • Score: -9

3:56pm Mon 30 Jun 14

oldcrow says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
Unbelievable!

I just hope you remember that next time you go to overtake thinking it's 'clear' and the driver in front pulls out and forces you into a ditch/tree. No doubt you'll climb out and shake his hand. That's always supposing you haven't been killed.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I just hope you remember that next time you go to overtake thinking it's 'clear' and the driver in front pulls out and forces you into a ditch/tree. No doubt you'll climb out and shake his hand. That's always supposing you haven't been killed. oldcrow
  • Score: 25

4:13pm Mon 30 Jun 14

mac340v8 says...

The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick.
Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately.
The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick. Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately. mac340v8
  • Score: 28

4:22pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Diesel Dog says...

British justice looses again.

I suggest every motorist goes for a jury trial if you have an accident you will have a good chance to get away with it.
How come Magistrates and Jury's are qualified to judge RTA's and can dish out fines to motorists but actually know FA about the highway code.

Sorry but I've held My HGV1 since 1987, car license since 1979 driven well over 2.5 million miles, and only ever had 5 points for 1 accident for a trailer break failure which was ok when I set off. 1 parking ticket. which seems very low when you try to find a legal space to take a legally required tachograph break or deliver goods around Bournemouth and Poole. Thank F the camera cars are being banned.
British justice looses again. I suggest every motorist goes for a jury trial if you have an accident you will have a good chance to get away with it. How come Magistrates and Jury's are qualified to judge RTA's and can dish out fines to motorists but actually know FA about the highway code. Sorry but I've held My HGV1 since 1987, car license since 1979 driven well over 2.5 million miles, and only ever had 5 points for 1 accident for a trailer break failure which was ok when I set off. 1 parking ticket. which seems very low when you try to find a legal space to take a legally required tachograph break or deliver goods around Bournemouth and Poole. Thank F the camera cars are being banned. Diesel Dog
  • Score: -15

4:23pm Mon 30 Jun 14

gerbil112 says...

mac340v8 wrote:
The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick.
Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately.
SorryMac, hit the wrong button, should've been a "thumbs up".
[quote][p][bold]mac340v8[/bold] wrote: The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick. Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately.[/p][/quote]SorryMac, hit the wrong button, should've been a "thumbs up". gerbil112
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Close the comments on this Echo, armchair experts going to have a field day
Close the comments on this Echo, armchair experts going to have a field day Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 27

4:24pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Hickery says...

The charge was causing two deaths by careless driving, not dangerous driving. The evidence was reported in great details on the first day by the Echo, but rather dried up thereafter, so it's difficult to draw proper conclusions in the absence of all of the evidence. (Why did the coverage get downgraded, Echo?). I suppose in future all ambulance drivers should give up overtaking and travel about at the speed of the traffic around them. Especially when there are drivers who don't check properly before pulling out to overtake. If you're driving with due care, I don't see how you can miss a large yellow vehicle with flashing blue lights and sirens coming up from behind and then passing you!? RIP Ms Randall - we thank you for the lives that you saved during your career and for the ultimate sacrifice given that day during the course of your work. And condolences to both families who lost loved ones on that day.
The charge was causing two deaths by careless driving, not dangerous driving. The evidence was reported in great details on the first day by the Echo, but rather dried up thereafter, so it's difficult to draw proper conclusions in the absence of all of the evidence. (Why did the coverage get downgraded, Echo?). I suppose in future all ambulance drivers should give up overtaking and travel about at the speed of the traffic around them. Especially when there are drivers who don't check properly before pulling out to overtake. If you're driving with due care, I don't see how you can miss a large yellow vehicle with flashing blue lights and sirens coming up from behind and then passing you!? RIP Ms Randall - we thank you for the lives that you saved during your career and for the ultimate sacrifice given that day during the course of your work. And condolences to both families who lost loved ones on that day. Hickery
  • Score: 47

4:24pm Mon 30 Jun 14

gerbil112 says...

poolecatnip wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
Where does it say in any reports of this tragedy that the ambulance was speeding!! The driver of the car pulled out without looking as mentioned in all reports and failed to see the big yellow vehicle with blue flashing lights.
Sorry, mouse playing up, should've been a "thumbs up".
[quote][p][bold]poolecatnip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]Where does it say in any reports of this tragedy that the ambulance was speeding!! The driver of the car pulled out without looking as mentioned in all reports and failed to see the big yellow vehicle with blue flashing lights.[/p][/quote]Sorry, mouse playing up, should've been a "thumbs up". gerbil112
  • Score: 2

4:35pm Mon 30 Jun 14

mungobean says...

wouldn't you think he'd have brushed his hair if he was going to be in court!!!
wouldn't you think he'd have brushed his hair if he was going to be in court!!! mungobean
  • Score: -21

4:59pm Mon 30 Jun 14

sc61 says...

mac340v8 wrote:
The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick.
Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately.
The charge was death by careless driving, not dangerous driving, i.e. he was charged with the lesser offence to start with.

Don't recall it being mentioned whether the ambulance was sounding its sirens at the time; there does seem to have been a change in policy in recent years in that emergency vehicles don't sound sirens constantly when on a shout. This seems to be unwise in that surely flashing lights plus siren is always going to give a better warning than just flashing lights.
[quote][p][bold]mac340v8[/bold] wrote: The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick. Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately.[/p][/quote]The charge was death by careless driving, not dangerous driving, i.e. he was charged with the lesser offence to start with. Don't recall it being mentioned whether the ambulance was sounding its sirens at the time; there does seem to have been a change in policy in recent years in that emergency vehicles don't sound sirens constantly when on a shout. This seems to be unwise in that surely flashing lights plus siren is always going to give a better warning than just flashing lights. sc61
  • Score: 12

5:25pm Mon 30 Jun 14

PokesdownMark says...

His standard of driving was poor. But I just as poor standard of driving every single day. He was just extremely unlucky as were all involved.

I also see that drivers often come to a complete stop when they see an ambulance coming even when it is still a long way behind. This can cause more delay for the ambulance because it has to negotiate a blocked plug of cars instead of taking them on a few at a time. Also less observant drivers behind have their focus of attention pulled to the front and away from their mirrors.
His standard of driving was poor. But I just as poor standard of driving every single day. He was just extremely unlucky as were all involved. I also see that drivers often come to a complete stop when they see an ambulance coming even when it is still a long way behind. This can cause more delay for the ambulance because it has to negotiate a blocked plug of cars instead of taking them on a few at a time. Also less observant drivers behind have their focus of attention pulled to the front and away from their mirrors. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 15

5:39pm Mon 30 Jun 14

johnh6 says...

The driver of the yeti pulled over too soon and unsafely, she should have pulled over in the entrance to the park 20 yds up the road if she felt the need to actually stop. The road was wide enough for the ambulance to get past without the need to stop as the road ahead was clear and oncoming traffic was over half a mile away. I wonder if she will be done for dangerous driving.
The driver of the yeti pulled over too soon and unsafely, she should have pulled over in the entrance to the park 20 yds up the road if she felt the need to actually stop. The road was wide enough for the ambulance to get past without the need to stop as the road ahead was clear and oncoming traffic was over half a mile away. I wonder if she will be done for dangerous driving. johnh6
  • Score: 5

5:54pm Mon 30 Jun 14

PokesdownMark says...

johnh6 wrote:
The driver of the yeti pulled over too soon and unsafely, she should have pulled over in the entrance to the park 20 yds up the road if she felt the need to actually stop. The road was wide enough for the ambulance to get past without the need to stop as the road ahead was clear and oncoming traffic was over half a mile away. I wonder if she will be done for dangerous driving.
I wondered this too. Though without having been there and not being familiar with the road I can't do a more than wonder.

I sure everyone involved has run the what-ifs over in their mind and will continue to do so. I think most road collisions are the result of two or more co-incident events. Anyone of us can be the cause of one of these events unless our driving is top notch. Most of the time it won't matter. Very occasionally it does very much so.
[quote][p][bold]johnh6[/bold] wrote: The driver of the yeti pulled over too soon and unsafely, she should have pulled over in the entrance to the park 20 yds up the road if she felt the need to actually stop. The road was wide enough for the ambulance to get past without the need to stop as the road ahead was clear and oncoming traffic was over half a mile away. I wonder if she will be done for dangerous driving.[/p][/quote]I wondered this too. Though without having been there and not being familiar with the road I can't do a more than wonder. I sure everyone involved has run the what-ifs over in their mind and will continue to do so. I think most road collisions are the result of two or more co-incident events. Anyone of us can be the cause of one of these events unless our driving is top notch. Most of the time it won't matter. Very occasionally it does very much so. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 14

5:56pm Mon 30 Jun 14

ronrollins@hotmail.com says...

StuartMc1 wrote:
Really? Clearly he didn't look, pulled out, hit the ambulance.... I fail to see how they cleared him of all blame.....
Was the ambulance doing everything correctly?
[quote][p][bold]StuartMc1[/bold] wrote: Really? Clearly he didn't look, pulled out, hit the ambulance.... I fail to see how they cleared him of all blame.....[/p][/quote]Was the ambulance doing everything correctly? ronrollins@hotmail.com
  • Score: -13

6:37pm Mon 30 Jun 14

JemBmth says...

I think it's a fair verdict. Accidents do happen but terrible for all involved.
I think it's a fair verdict. Accidents do happen but terrible for all involved. JemBmth
  • Score: 15

6:58pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Claire1513 says...

mungobean wrote:
wouldn't you think he'd have brushed his hair if he was going to be in court!!!
I think his hair may of been the last thing on his mind!
[quote][p][bold]mungobean[/bold] wrote: wouldn't you think he'd have brushed his hair if he was going to be in court!!![/p][/quote]I think his hair may of been the last thing on his mind! Claire1513
  • Score: 7

7:00pm Mon 30 Jun 14

notapeopleperson says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice notapeopleperson
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Mon 30 Jun 14

AlanE_Bmth says...

poolecatnip wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
Where does it say in any reports of this tragedy that the ambulance was speeding!! The driver of the car pulled out without looking as mentioned in all reports and failed to see the big yellow vehicle with blue flashing lights.
It was reported in court that the ambulance was traveling at 70 mph; the speed limit on the road in question is 30 mph through Brockenhurst, rising to 60 mph close to where the accident occurred, so the ambulance was traveling at either 40 mph or 10 mph over the speed limit. In addition, although the blue lights were on, I have seen no reports that the sirens were on. This was a case where I felt from the outset that the ambulance driver was far more to blame - it is clearly the responsibility of the overtaking driver to ensure the way is clear, and it was safe to travel at such a high speed. If she was to blame, sadly she paid for her errors with her life, (as well as that of one of her passengers) so maybe one shouldn't judge to harshly.
[quote][p][bold]poolecatnip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]Where does it say in any reports of this tragedy that the ambulance was speeding!! The driver of the car pulled out without looking as mentioned in all reports and failed to see the big yellow vehicle with blue flashing lights.[/p][/quote]It was reported in court that the ambulance was traveling at 70 mph; the speed limit on the road in question is 30 mph through Brockenhurst, rising to 60 mph close to where the accident occurred, so the ambulance was traveling at either 40 mph or 10 mph over the speed limit. In addition, although the blue lights were on, I have seen no reports that the sirens were on. This was a case where I felt from the outset that the ambulance driver was far more to blame - it is clearly the responsibility of the overtaking driver to ensure the way is clear, and it was safe to travel at such a high speed. If she was to blame, sadly she paid for her errors with her life, (as well as that of one of her passengers) so maybe one shouldn't judge to harshly. AlanE_Bmth
  • Score: -2

7:05pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Claire1513 says...

Absoloutly heartbreaking for the family and all involved andmI'm pretty sure that there will be alot of people always wondering what if... Terrible tragic accident. The ambulance, clipped Richards car and the sirens were not on, but as someone has previously said ambulances do not always have them on for the whole duration of the journey
Absoloutly heartbreaking for the family and all involved andmI'm pretty sure that there will be alot of people always wondering what if... Terrible tragic accident. The ambulance, clipped Richards car and the sirens were not on, but as someone has previously said ambulances do not always have them on for the whole duration of the journey Claire1513
  • Score: 9

7:15pm Mon 30 Jun 14

ragj195 says...

mac340v8 wrote:
The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick.
Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately.
A load of thumbs up for stating the wrong charge. Says so much about these comments. How on earth can not checking your mirrors be classed as dangerous driving? If that was the case we'd all be guilty of dangerous driving just not unfortunate enough to cause an incident like this. The guy made a mistake that could happen to anyone. He wasn't speeding, driving recklessly or even attempting a risky overtaking maneuver. I'm sure what happened will live with him for the rest of his life.
[quote][p][bold]mac340v8[/bold] wrote: The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The defendant has been cleared of that charge. Doesn't mean he wasn't driving without due care and attention, simply that the evidence wasn't there for the dangerous charge. It is very difficult to make that one stick. Doesn't help the relatives who lost loved ones, but the judge can only go with the evidence, unfortunately.[/p][/quote]A load of thumbs up for stating the wrong charge. Says so much about these comments. How on earth can not checking your mirrors be classed as dangerous driving? If that was the case we'd all be guilty of dangerous driving just not unfortunate enough to cause an incident like this. The guy made a mistake that could happen to anyone. He wasn't speeding, driving recklessly or even attempting a risky overtaking maneuver. I'm sure what happened will live with him for the rest of his life. ragj195
  • Score: 18

7:27pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Wackerone says...

The very fact that this idiot didn't see or hear the ambulance behind him makes him guilty of careless driving and as such, culpable for the 2 deaths.
The very fact that this idiot didn't see or hear the ambulance behind him makes him guilty of careless driving and as such, culpable for the 2 deaths. Wackerone
  • Score: -9

7:39pm Mon 30 Jun 14

hamworthygirl says...

It said on the evening news he didnt hear the ambulance siren as his music was too loud he also couldnt see the lights in his mirror as a van behind was blocking his view. Seems to me he was at fault in the fact he wasnt using due care when overtaking.
It said on the evening news he didnt hear the ambulance siren as his music was too loud he also couldnt see the lights in his mirror as a van behind was blocking his view. Seems to me he was at fault in the fact he wasnt using due care when overtaking. hamworthygirl
  • Score: 2

7:57pm Mon 30 Jun 14

johnh6 says...

hamworthygirl wrote:
It said on the evening news he didnt hear the ambulance siren as his music was too loud he also couldnt see the lights in his mirror as a van behind was blocking his view. Seems to me he was at fault in the fact he wasnt using due care when overtaking.
You haven't read the trial notes from last week. The ambulance didn't have the siren on.
[quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: It said on the evening news he didnt hear the ambulance siren as his music was too loud he also couldnt see the lights in his mirror as a van behind was blocking his view. Seems to me he was at fault in the fact he wasnt using due care when overtaking.[/p][/quote]You haven't read the trial notes from last week. The ambulance didn't have the siren on. johnh6
  • Score: 13

8:24pm Mon 30 Jun 14

JemBmth says...

notapeopleperson wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice
What do you mean "accidents don't happen"? You seem a bit vindictive to me.
[quote][p][bold]notapeopleperson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice[/p][/quote]What do you mean "accidents don't happen"? You seem a bit vindictive to me. JemBmth
  • Score: 6

9:38pm Mon 30 Jun 14

adspacebroker says...

This is of course an absolute tragedy for those killed and injured and their families. My only observation is that a person driving a vehicle 'competently and carefully and of a reasonable standard' on a 'very long straight stretch of road' should have seen overtaking traffic approaching from the rear, as it seems the Skoda driver did. The Road Traffic Act 1988 stipulates that a person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he or she drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. If I had carried out a manouvre like that during a driving test I would have failed!
This is of course an absolute tragedy for those killed and injured and their families. My only observation is that a person driving a vehicle 'competently and carefully and of a reasonable standard' on a 'very long straight stretch of road' should have seen overtaking traffic approaching from the rear, as it seems the Skoda driver did. The Road Traffic Act 1988 stipulates that a person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he or she drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. If I had carried out a manouvre like that during a driving test I would have failed! adspacebroker
  • Score: 12

10:00pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Wackerone says...

notapeopleperson wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice
Totally agree notapeopleperson, couldn't have summed it up better.
[quote][p][bold]notapeopleperson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice[/p][/quote]Totally agree notapeopleperson, couldn't have summed it up better. Wackerone
  • Score: 3

10:04pm Mon 30 Jun 14

MotorbikeSam says...

oldcrow wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
Unbelievable!

I just hope you remember that next time you go to overtake thinking it's 'clear' and the driver in front pulls out and forces you into a ditch/tree. No doubt you'll climb out and shake his hand. That's always supposing you haven't been killed.
old crow 12 good men and women disagree with you !!
[quote][p][bold]oldcrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I just hope you remember that next time you go to overtake thinking it's 'clear' and the driver in front pulls out and forces you into a ditch/tree. No doubt you'll climb out and shake his hand. That's always supposing you haven't been killed.[/p][/quote]old crow 12 good men and women disagree with you !! MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Mon 30 Jun 14

MotorbikeSam says...

notapeopleperson wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice
but 12 men and women who heard ALL the evidence disagree.... it was a jury trial and overtaking at speed is a special skill where you need to read the road ahead..
[quote][p][bold]notapeopleperson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice[/p][/quote]but 12 men and women who heard ALL the evidence disagree.... it was a jury trial and overtaking at speed is a special skill where you need to read the road ahead.. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -5

10:14pm Mon 30 Jun 14

MotorbikeSam says...

notapeopleperson wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..
accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice
but 12 men and women who heard ALL the evidence disagree.... it was a jury trial and overtaking at speed is a special skill where you need to read the road ahead..
[quote][p][bold]notapeopleperson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: common sense prevails !! when I read about this I thought that it was up to the speeding overtaking driver to ensure that the road ahead was clear and safe and had the outcome of the crash been different I an sure the speeding ambulance driver would be deemed at fault. And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..[/p][/quote]accidents don't happen, someone is to blame, and an RTC which results in a death is investigated to the same level as a murder. For the Police to find sufficient evidence to charge and the CPS to run with it it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the ambulance was at fault. Also this vehicle collided with the ambulance pretty much as the ambulance was passing so he basically drove straight into the side of it and forced it into a tree. So motorbikesam the road ahead most likely did look clear when the ambulance was overtaking until this individual decided that he should pull out without checking his mirrors (at which point had he of checked his mirrors he would of seen the big yellow truck with flashing blue lights already overtaking) maybe if it was you overtaking on your motorbike and someone pulled into your path catapulting you into a tree you would think differently. This individual is guilty as charged and this is a miscarriage of justice[/p][/quote]but 12 men and women who heard ALL the evidence disagree.... it was a jury trial and overtaking at speed is a special skill where you need to read the road ahead.. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -5

10:52pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Trigger30 says...

I'm sure some people commenting here are emergency drivers and some are not, so some of us here know the rules of emergency driving and some do not!
I'm interested to know how people would like a seriously ill patient to be transported to hospital or if indeed you were waiting for an ambulance fire police etc if that vehicle did not make progress!
I can't comment on whether sirens were on but the road was clear when the driver overtook... We have to overtake otherwise would not be able to get anywhere very quickly hence it being an 'emergency response'. Ultimately it's up to every driver on the road to check their mirrors and also blind spot before manoeuvring. Terrible accident.
I'm sure some people commenting here are emergency drivers and some are not, so some of us here know the rules of emergency driving and some do not! I'm interested to know how people would like a seriously ill patient to be transported to hospital or if indeed you were waiting for an ambulance fire police etc if that vehicle did not make progress! I can't comment on whether sirens were on but the road was clear when the driver overtook... We have to overtake otherwise would not be able to get anywhere very quickly hence it being an 'emergency response'. Ultimately it's up to every driver on the road to check their mirrors and also blind spot before manoeuvring. Terrible accident. Trigger30
  • Score: 14

11:21pm Mon 30 Jun 14

FreeSpeech1989 says...

No-one can deny that what happened that day was a tragedy and a fatal accident that will effect the families of the deceased and the driver for the rest of their lives.

However, an unbiased jury has spent over five days listening to evidence from both sides and has come to the conclusion that Mr. Husband should not be persecuted further for the events that took place that day.

Is it not punishment enough that this young man (a good, decent man) has to live the rest of his life being criminalized by people who only know what the papers reported, because they seek less justice and more to direct the blame elsewhere for solace?

My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the people lost that day, but do not think that the driver walks away an unscathed man. Would you feel a winner if you were in his position?
No-one can deny that what happened that day was a tragedy and a fatal accident that will effect the families of the deceased and the driver for the rest of their lives. However, an unbiased jury has spent over five days listening to evidence from both sides and has come to the conclusion that Mr. Husband should not be persecuted further for the events that took place that day. Is it not punishment enough that this young man (a good, decent man) has to live the rest of his life being criminalized by people who only know what the papers reported, because they seek less justice and more to direct the blame elsewhere for solace? My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the people lost that day, but do not think that the driver walks away an unscathed man. Would you feel a winner if you were in his position? FreeSpeech1989
  • Score: 6

8:14am Tue 1 Jul 14

mmmmmmm says...

Unbeliecable-of course it was his fault.
Unbeliecable-of course it was his fault. mmmmmmm
  • Score: -6

1:22pm Tue 1 Jul 14

BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth says...

MotorbikeSam says... And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again ..

That is SO SO SO wrong, what is correct is "inappropriate speed is dangerous".

08:45 on a weekday during the school term, driving past the school gates at 25mph, perfectly legal but extremely dangerous.

02:00 on a deserted but well lit motorway driving at 90mph highly illegal but very safe.
MotorbikeSam says... And to all you who say speeding is not dangerous think again .. That is SO SO SO wrong, what is correct is "inappropriate speed is dangerous". 08:45 on a weekday during the school term, driving past the school gates at 25mph, perfectly legal but extremely dangerous. 02:00 on a deserted but well lit motorway driving at 90mph highly illegal but very safe. BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth
  • Score: 2

6:53pm Mon 7 Jul 14

sirromynot says...

I have always been a supporter of the jury system, but it is clear that in this case they failed in their duty and let the victims down. The evidence that this careless driver did not make sure it was safe to pull out is clear. He even admitted that he only carried out one of the three checks that a driver is required to carry out before overtaking. Richard Husband is a coward for not pleading guilty and for putting the victims' relatives through a full trial. For that and for trying to put the blame on the other driver, who cannot defend herself, he deserves no sympathy whatsoever. The jury have also let the victims and the relatives down. They deserved justice and have not received it. As a retired emergency services driver, I have also had careless drivers fail to look properly and pull out in front of me when I have been overtaking. Unlike with this case, I was always fortunate that I had time to avoid a collision, but that was simply down to good luck. Such drivers are fortunately a minority, but they are a menace and cause delays and crashes. Richard Husband has demonstrated that he is a careless driver and clearly should not be entrusted with transporting children
I have always been a supporter of the jury system, but it is clear that in this case they failed in their duty and let the victims down. The evidence that this careless driver did not make sure it was safe to pull out is clear. He even admitted that he only carried out one of the three checks that a driver is required to carry out before overtaking. Richard Husband is a coward for not pleading guilty and for putting the victims' relatives through a full trial. For that and for trying to put the blame on the other driver, who cannot defend herself, he deserves no sympathy whatsoever. The jury have also let the victims and the relatives down. They deserved justice and have not received it. As a retired emergency services driver, I have also had careless drivers fail to look properly and pull out in front of me when I have been overtaking. Unlike with this case, I was always fortunate that I had time to avoid a collision, but that was simply down to good luck. Such drivers are fortunately a minority, but they are a menace and cause delays and crashes. Richard Husband has demonstrated that he is a careless driver and clearly should not be entrusted with transporting children sirromynot
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree