McAuliffe Trucking Co

Yawns

slimjimmc wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56

Thx, makes for interesting reading!

As someone pointed out above tho, that is in relation to insurance and not dangerous driving. The driver could still be done for dangerous driving if caught. Same as say points for speeding.

January

I would think maybe the mods have deleted all his posts because he was posting on behalf of a company and it's against the rules.

Berty

January wrote: »

I would think maybe the mods have deleted all his posts because he was posting on behalf of a company and it's against the rules.

Doubt it. I post in Beer, Wine & Spirits on behalf of my company and everywhere else as myself. My Sig even confirms that I actively promote my company pages.

Nothing wrong with it as long as you are not touting/shilling.

Kenny Logins

johnson901 wrote: »

I'm appalled that so many posters are getting such great enjoyment and entertainment out of this, fair enough these lads took a risk on the road and shouldn't have done so, but as they said it was all for a good cause and no harm was meant, in my opinion this is all blown out of porportion, so many jobs and livelihoods could be put at risk just because some people on this wanted to create a bit of entertainment for themselves, fair play lads it wouldn't do much harm to get the facts right before you all post such harsh accusations

What good cause? The charity angle was an afterthought, and so far there has been no evidence to back up that claim.

Calhoun

The RTE article is faily tame Edit its above (damn you Saab )

VinLieger

johnson901 wrote: »

I'm appalled that so many posters are getting such great enjoyment and entertainment out of this, fair enough these lads took a risk on the road and shouldn't have done so, but as they said it was all for a good cause and no harm was meant, in my opinion this is all blown out of porportion, so many jobs and livelihoods could be put at risk just because some people on this wanted to create a bit of entertainment for themselves, fair play lads it wouldn't do much harm to get the facts right before you all post such harsh accusations

There is absolutely no proof that their claim of it was for charity is true, and even if it was that only accounts for 1 of the 4 videos that shows their complete disregard for the safety of other road users.
The Charity angle seems to be a last ditch effort to wriggle out of this mess which might have worked except the other 3 videos were posted and we managed find massive holes in the story they came up with for the original video of the bridge

ahyeahok

They seem to think they can bullshit their way out of owning up to their mistakes.

The original crash video had to be uploaded by one of the MacAuiliffe crew themselves, The photoshoot shot and the video shot was from the exact same spot

The other videos taken down had the trucks playing up to the camera, showing off, making as much noise as they could.
There was a nice picture of the whole gang standing besides the truck after the photoshoot but I wouldn't upload that even if I had saved it.

They should just unreservedly accept that what they were doing was wrong and dangerous. We would have a lot more respect for the companies involved if they did.

Arciphel

johnson901 wrote: »

I'm appalled that so many posters are getting such great enjoyment and entertainment out of this, fair enough these lads took a risk on the road and shouldn't have done so, but as they said it was all for a good cause and no harm was meant, in my opinion this is all blown out of porportion, so many jobs and livelihoods could be put at risk just because some people on this wanted to create a bit of entertainment for themselves, fair play lads it wouldn't do much harm to get the facts right before you all post such harsh accusations

dgt

Charity? Charity???

Do you know the average consumption of a truck? Let alone 4 including what looks like a peterbilt... Any money raised would have probably went into diesel, provided there was a "charity" to begin with

ahyeahok

VinLieger wrote: »

There is absolutely no proof that their claim of it was for charity is true, and even if it was that only accounts for 1 of the 4 videos that shows their complete disregard for the safety of other road users.
The Charity angle seems to be a last ditch effort to wriggle out of this mess which might have worked except the other 3 videos were posted and we managed find massive holes in the story they came up with for the original video of the bridge

There were more than 4 videos but I guess only 4 were saved.

MadsL

Mr Corkery described those who criticised the photoshoot as "begrudgers".

Care to debate that here Mr Corkery?

stevenmu

Well apparently we're all just 'begrudgers'. That's me put in my place anyway.

For Forks Sake

Saab Ed wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1017/youtube-mcauliffe-trucking-company.html

Mr Corkery, who is a manager with the company, accepted that the road had not been closed by gardaí during the photoshoot, but he insisted that company staff had acted as marshals, stopping traffic while the photoshoot had been in progress.

Good man, that'd explain why there were two cars hopping off each other during your photoshoot then?

He claimed he had permission from gardaí to do this.

:rolleyes:

Mr Corkery said he was affiliated to the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, a chartered body for health and safety professionals, which qualified him to conduct a risk assessment on this event.

I would really like to see proof of this.

Mr Corkery described those who criticised the photoshoot as "begrudgers".

When out of ideas, toss out the B word, even where it's utterly irrelevant.

MadsL

Arciphel wrote: »

This thread keeps giving.

Burned again.

stevenmu

I can't help wondering who is providing insurance to these clowns, I bet they'd be delighted to know exactly what type of risk they are covering.

dgt

Arciphel wrote: »

Let the detective work keep on truckin' :pac:

kirving

Their stupidity (which has a long track record, it seems) caused a crash on a motorway, and very nearly caused a few others. This wasn't a one off event, so I don't see why people care if the business suffers financially from these stunts. If I was a client, they'd have already lost my business. As for the drivers, it's just as much their fault as the manager. If it was a drunk (read: poor sense of judgement) driver who stopped on the motorway there'd be no compasion whatsoever.

vicwatson

johnson901 wrote: »

I'm appalled that so many posters are getting such great enjoyment and entertainment out of this, fair enough these lads took a risk on the road and shouldn't have done so, but as they said it was all for a good cause and no harm was meant, in my opinion this is all blown out of porportion, so many jobs and livelihoods could be put at risk just because some people on this wanted to create a bit of entertainment for themselves, fair play lads it wouldn't do much harm to get the facts right before you all post such harsh accusations

What are you on about? The point is they are SERIAL risk takers on public roads, that's the point, and they are acting like as if it's no big deal and they own the damn road. They should be banned from Irish roads until they improve their driving behaviour.

Four videos of deplorable blatant two fingers to the rules of the road is more than enough.:mad::mad::mad:

VinLieger

Pretty dissapointed with the RTE article but when you think about it its not really surprising that they would wimp out and take the side of the truckers

Chuck_Norris

VinLieger wrote: »

Pretty dissapointed with the RTE article but when you think about it its not really surprising that they would wimp out and take the side of the truckers

I don't think they took they side of McAuliffes, but I reckon there was a lot more they could have said, but didn't for whatever reason.

MadsL

I'm a bit suprised that they are letting the foreman handle this. Where are the directors in all of this?

http://www.irishtrucker.com/articles/2010/january/mcauliffe.asp

stoneill

I do believe that they got permission from the local garda to have a photoshoot on the Castleisland roads. The you tube video was an unauthorised video taken by a person not involved in the photoshoot.

As for the car swiping the back of the other truck under the bridge - that's his own fault.

VinLieger

stoneill wrote: »

I do believe that they got permission from the local garda to have a photoshoot on the Castleisland roads. The you tube video was an unauthorised video taken by a person not involved in the photoshoot.

As for the car swiping the back of the other truck under the bridge - that's his own fault.

Even theough the marketing photo at the end of the video is from exactly the same angle? Plus the youtube account it was originally uploaded on belongs to mcauliffes daughter so a few holes in that theory.

ahyeahok

stoneill wrote: »

I do believe that they got permission from the local garda to have a photoshoot on the Castleisland roads. The you tube video was an unauthorised video taken by a person not involved in the photoshoot.

As for the car swiping the back of the other truck under the bridge - that's his own fault.

The video angle is the same angle as a pic from their facebook photoshoot pics

Kenny Logins

stoneill wrote: »

I do believe that they got permission from the local garda to have a photoshoot on the Castleisland roads. The you tube video was an unauthorised video taken by a person not involved in the photoshoot.

As for the car swiping the back of the other truck under the bridge - that's his own fault.

The Youtube account it was originally hosted on was full of McAuliffe truck videos, are you suggesting they have a fan club?

kirving

Unauthorised? Whoever it was can film whatever they like in a public place.

And stopping a truck on a motorway poses no risk whatsoever?

For Forks Sake

MadsL wrote: »

I'm a bit suprised that they are letting the foreman handle this. Where are the directors in all of this?

http://www.irishtrucker.com/articles/2010/january/mcauliffe.asp

Ha. Although that article is almost 3 years old, maybe he's gotten promoted

MadsL

stoneill wrote: »

I do believe that they got permission from the local garda to have a photoshoot on the Castleisland roads. The you tube video was an unauthorised video taken by a person not involved in the photoshoot.

Who just happened to load that up to youtube along with other vids of Mcauliffe. And be standing right next to the photographer. Yeah right.
Look at the publicity shot at the end of the vid. They left that there for publicity shots.
Such nonsense about "unauthorised " person. They were related to the owners.

As for the car swiping the back of the other truck under the bridge - that's his own fault.

if he weren't distracted by two humongous lorries parked up above him.

alias no.9

stoneill wrote: »

I do believe that they got permission from the local garda to have a photoshoot on the Castleisland roads. The you tube video was an unauthorised video taken by a person not involved in the photoshoot.

As for the car swiping the back of the other truck under the bridge - that's his own fault.

Do you get home to the kingdom much?

-Corkie-

stoneill wrote: »

I do believe that they got permission from the local garda to have a photoshoot on the Castleisland roads. The you tube video was an unauthorised video taken by a person not involved in the photoshoot.

As for the car swiping the back of the other truck under the bridge - that's his own fault.

His daughter took the video....