Taxi Driver Online

Taxi driver in court for moving safety barriers so he could drive over collapsing bridge

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north- ... y-16975897

David Gwynedd Morris, 55, appeared at Caernarfon Court on September 23 for the incident which happened in February.

A taxi driver who was filmed moving safety barriers to clear his path over a structurally damaged bridge to avoid a lengthy detour has been hit with a fine.

David Gwynedd Morris, 55, of Nantlle Road, Talysarn appeared before Caernarfon court on Monday.

The Grade 2 listed Pont Bodfel situated on the A497 in Boduan, Gwynedd , was cordoned off back in January due to structural damage.

Motorists faced an eight-mile detour before a single-lane temporary Bailey bridge was erected while repair works were carried out.

Morris was filmed by one of his passengers moving the safety barriers and lifting a traffic cone to the side of the A487 in February.

The footage was posted onto social media with people slammed slamming the taxi driver for "putting people's lives at risk" by unblocking one of the two lanes.

North Wales Police were informed of the incident and following their enquiries Morris was identified as being the taxi driver and summonsed to court.

He was fined £250, ordered to pay £775 CPS costs and pay a £30 victim surcharge.

Sergeant Meurig Jones of the Roads Policing Unit said: “This was a costly mistake by Morris, who risked lives by moving the barriers and cone that were placed there for safety reasons.

“This was completely unacceptable, senseless and shocking behaviour from a so-called professional driver. This was a dangerously damaged section of road yet he opened himself, his passengers and other innocent motorists to danger.

“We’d like to thank the passenger who filmed the whole incident and then placed it onto social media, despite not willing to provide a statement this was a successful prosecution.

"I hope that the sentence will send a message to anybody who is caught doing something similar that they will be brought to justice.”

A Gwynedd Council spokesperson said: “As the local licensing authority, we are considering the court’s verdict in the context of taxing licensing issues.”

What's the betting the passengers were quite happy for him to do this, perhaps egged him on, or were even getting lairy if he was refusing to play ball.

In fact if you look at the video on the newspaper's website, make sure the sound is turned on, and it's obvious that the punters just think it's all a big laugh. Sounds about right.

So the passenger uploaded the video just for laughs, but police got wind of it, hence the prosecution. And all that would explain why the passenger wouldn't provide a statement.

So the driver is a grand out of pocket, and could yet lose his badge

Quite.

The punter could have got out at any time, but wanted to be Billy Big Bollocks online.

_________________
IDFIMH

Agree with your sentiments but Billy Big Bollocks should be charged with aiding,abetting and encouraging the driver to commit a crime.

I suspect that's one of the reasons BBB didn't give a statement.

_________________
IDFIMH

we've all been there passengers yelling at you to put your foot down demanding you take a no left turn because they want you to take a shortcut

letting the passengers dictate like that is how it leads to things like this

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

It's often the case when there are more wanting to get into your cab than the plate at the back says so, and of course the buggy travelling with the baby still in it.

_________________
IDFIMH

In a wav you can strap the buggy in facing backwards 99 times out of a hundred I never had a problem because as long as you secure the buggy the buggy's straps will secure the baby and if they are facing backwards then the bulkhead/rear seats absorbed all braking forces and in the unlikely event of a sideways impact the seat belt should hold the buggy

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

You could be right, but as night follows day should there be an accident then the insurers/courts will ask you to produce crash test certificates for those straps in those buggies.

And I bet they don't exist.

_________________
IDFIMH

Taxi driver filmed moving safety barriers to drive over damaged Gwynedd bridge wins appeal

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north- ... y-17589088

Judge rules there was no evidence David Gwynedd Morris, 55, had driven over Pont Bodfel to avoid an eight-mile detour


Image: North Wales Live

A taxi driver filmed moving safety barriers and cones on a damaged bridge closed to traffic has won his appeal against conviction.

The Grade II listed Pont Bodfel on the A497 in Boduan near Pwllheli, was cordoned off in January last year because of structural damage.

Video footage of David Gwynedd Morris moving the barriers a few days later was posted on social media and passed onto police.

Morris, 55 of Nantlle Road, Talysarn near Penygroes was charged with intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause, interfering with traffic equipment in such circumstances that "it would have been obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous".

He was fined £250 and ordered to pay £775 costs and a £30 victim surcharge by magistrates last September.

The passenger who filmed Morris, an experienced taxi driver of more than 12 years, moving the barriers was not identified.

Morris appealed against sentence at a hearing at Caernarfon Crown Court on Friday.

He told the court he had picked up six people near Capel Salem, Pwllheli, at about 2am on January 27 and was going to Dinas.

He approached the A497 from a minor road and had not seen the road closed signs placed by Gwynedd Council Highways staff at the junction.

Nearing the barriers he saw green and white cones had been placed in front of the metal barriers and thought there would be a path through.

He added some of his passengers had told him the bridge was not badly damaged. He had moved the barriers and cones and had intended to drive closer to see for himself.

Morris insisted he had driven no further than the barriers and there was no evidence to contradict his claims.

Allowing the appeal Judge Huw Rees, sitting with two magistrates, said the road was obviously closed and did not accept his evidence that he had not seen the signs.

"You may well have been egged on by your passengers. We have looked at your actions and they were fast, borne out of frustration and with enthusiasm.

"It was extremely foolish behaviour by a taxi driver and should not happen again," the judge said.

But the lack of evidence that Morris had driven across the bridge and had turned around and taken the detour persuaded the bench to allow the appeal.

An application by Morris' barrister, Simon Blakeborough, for costs was rejected.

The judge said the court was satisfied Morris had brought the case upon himself.

Motorists had faced an eight-mile detour before a single-lane temporary Bailey bridge was erected while repair works on the bridge were carried out.

Was he expected to lean on a shovel for a while?

Frustration?

So it's 2am, he's got some drunks in the car, who could well have told him the bridge was OK, they might have agreed a fare, blah, blah. But at least the judge acknowledged that the passengers may have egged him on.

Reminds me of one I had at about that time, a run of about ten miles. I agreed the fare, but when we almost got to the destination we came to a ROAD CLOSED sign. The passenger hadn't told me, but said it was OK to go through. In fact it was just a bit of resurfacing work, so there was no problem, at least that I could see. I've no issue with road being closed while the men are working on it, or whatever, but in the early hours??

So it all worked out OK, but what if I'd had to take a detour of several miles, or whatever. Who pays the fare - do I just have to take it on the chin, or risk a big kick off with some drunks? Like the headcase in the Stoke video?

And even though it turned out OK, you then worry that someone may report you (as per this case) and either police and/or councillors will throw the book at you.

And in fact we don't know if licensing is taking any action as regards the driver here.

By the way, I think it's "born out of frustration", not "borne"

I think it’s “borne”

Indeed.

One has to wonder what evidence convicted him in the first place.

_________________
IDFIMH

Think borne with an 'e' comes from 'bear', as in to carry something.

So the Collins online dictionary has these as a couple of examples:

"And the cost of dismantling and transportation, together with insurance, will be borne by the Crown Agents."

"Lunch and supper came and went on trays, borne by the same, silent woman."


'Born' in the way that the judge uses it, I think, means, as per Collins:

"If something is born of a particular emotion or activity, it exists as a result of that emotion or activity."

And Collins provides this example:

"Energy conservation as a philosophy was born out of the 1973 oil crisis."


Which, I think, is very similar to how the judge here used it:

"We have looked at your actions and they were fast, born(e) out of frustration and with enthusiasm."


In fact I think the more common usage is simply 'born of' rather than 'born out of'. So if I see 'borne of', I would immediately question it.


So, anyway, you could say:

"The driver's decision to move the cones was born of his fear that his drunken passengers would otherwise kick off."

Meanwhile:

"The driver has borne his defence costs here, because the judge said that he had brought the case on himself."


Incidentally, not so sure about the judge's logic here about costs.

How can he say that the driver "had brought the case upon himself" if in fact there was no prosecution evidence to support the case in the first place

I think removing the barriers is the key to that view. If he wasn't going to cross the bridge why remove the barrier?

If you ask the fella on the Clapham Omnibus what happened I'm pretty sure he would say the driver crossed the bridge.

I'm also pretty sure most of those in the court would agree with the fella from Clapham. However the lack of evidence that the driver did cross that bridge is why his appeal was allowed.

_________________
IDFIMH