OUCH !!!

Just seen this on BBC news website, glad I don’t have to explain that to my insurance

Already posted in AG.

I'd imagine the drivers phone would be the first thing to be interrogated.

Zero excuses for this sort of thing in my book.

Bridge now needs inspected, I presume it's rail and thus all services on that line will be down until assessed.

looks like there might be a job going for a driver lol

Looks like an Ejoke to me so well done driver

brianp38dse said:

Looks like an Ejoke to me so well done driver

Click to expand...

JLR have just temporarily halted Ejoke production as they can't get rid of them fast enough, so every little helps.

Comes under the heading of gross negligence in the eyes of his/her employer I would imagine. Could lead to a charge of driving without due care as well.
Thank God they weren't Classics

Two on the front evokes rear two new vogues

Front car is a Range Rover Sport and behind it is a Jaguar F Pace

norseman said:

Comes under the heading of gross negligence in the eyes of his/her employer I would imagine. Could lead to a charge of driving without due care as well.
Thank God they weren't Classics

Click to expand...

Seems harsh. Accidents do happen, especially when drivers are now expected to go where the company installed software tells them.
My dad gave a couple of wagons the windswept look. However, his boss was quite understanding and suggested after the second one,that from there on in, he took leave around the date of the anniversary of my mum's death. Seemed to do the trick.

Datatek said:

JLR have just temporarily halted Ejoke production as they can't get rid of them fast enough, so every little helps.

Click to expand...

Seems to be a nationwide effort:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-45992715

Sadly, no Ejokes were hurt in this accident - must try harder.....

Saint.V8 said:

Sadly, no Ejokes were hurt in this accident - must try harder.....

Click to expand...

Savage

Henry_b said:

Savage

Click to expand...

That's not savage, that's mild. I'm waiting for him to find today's interloper thread . Now that should be savage

gold rover said:

That's not savage, that's mild. I'm waiting for him to find today's interloper thread . Now that should be savage View attachment 161483

Click to expand...

gold rover said:

Seems harsh. Accidents do happen, especially when drivers are now expected to go where the company installed software tells them.
My dad gave a couple of wagons the windswept look. However, his boss was quite understanding and suggested after the second one,that from there on in, he took leave around the date of the anniversary of my mum's death. Seemed to do the trick.

Click to expand...

That's very considerate of your Dad's employer, nevertheless the responsibility lies with the driver at the end of the day. Bus operators I've worked for don't take such a ambivalent view, take a 'decker under a low bridge & you're looking for another job.

Big difference between live and non live cargo.


Car go.....lol

norseman said:

That's very considerate of your Dad's employer, nevertheless the responsibility lies with the driver at the end of the day. Bus operators I've worked for don't take such a ambivalent view, take a 'decker under a low bridge & you're looking for another job.

Click to expand...

I think it was more compassionate , than ambivalent.
Then again, I think, even now a lot depends on what the company values the employee at. You mention bus operators and I know a few Stagecoach employees. One of whom gave a double decker the open top look, still employed by Stagecoach, another, same trick, no longer employed by Stagecoach.
Although the one I don't understand, Stagecoach driver, again whom I know personally , tcaught drink driving their own car, lost their licence. The result, Stagecoach continued to employ them, as a shunter around the yard, until licence returned, and is now , as previously, driving the public around and kids to and from school.
So , it seems that some are more equal than others.

I thought that was how they made Evoques.

Col

gold rover said:

I think it was more compassionate , than ambivalent.
Then again, I think, even now a lot depends on what the company values the employee at. You mention bus operators and I know a few Stagecoach employees. One of whom gave a double decker the open top look, still employed by Stagecoach, another, same trick, no longer employed by Stagecoach.
Although the one I don't understand, Stagecoach driver, again whom I know personally , tcaught drink driving their own car, lost their licence. The result, Stagecoach continued to employ them, as a shunter around the yard, until licence returned, and is now , as previously, driving the public around and kids to and from school.
So , it seems that some are more equal than others.

Click to expand...

Quite right lack of continuity but as for option 3 makes my p*** boil, if it was up to me they wouldn’t have ever pushed more than a wheel barrow around.
If you’re gonna drinky the drink then no drivy the car Simples

sheriff said:

Quite right lack of continuity but as for option 3 makes my p*** boil, if it was up to me they wouldn’t have ever pushed more than a wheel barrow around.
If you’re gonna drinky the drink then no drivy the car Simples

Click to expand...

I agree. I was a mix of gobsmacked and furious, when I found out that they were being kept on. It's bad enough driving a car drunk. However, knowingly giving a convicted drink driver , the control of a bus, is beyond me.
When it first happened and they were shunting buses, I thought well, it only affects the company. However, to pass them one morning, driving the school bus and realise they were back driving the public , really shocked me.
The worst bit is , it hasn't stopped the drinking. Nor, the stupid attitude of , getting drunk as a skunk, but thinking it's ok, because they don't have a drink after midnight! What can you do, if Stagecoach don't care.