The Lawyer Of The Accused Bus Driver Is Arguing That The Height Barrier Violated Road Rules
Following the case of the Omani bus accident which took place on June 6 – where the bus crashed into the road height restriction causing the death of 17 of the passengers on board – this case has now been taken to court.
The 53-year-old Omani bus driver who was driving the bus at the time from Muscat to Dubai had admitted to have caused the accident which claimed the lives of several.
However, according to court reports the case is now getting heated as the defense lawyer – Mohammed Saif Al Tamimi – of the accused bus driver is now asserting that the barrier that tore up the left side of the vehicle had breached the GCC road guidelines and standards as it was inappropriately installed.
“The GCC guideline stated that if a road’s speed limit is 60kph, the distance between a warning signboard and a height restriction barrier should be 60 metres.”
Mohammed Saif Al Tamimi told the court, according to local sources
The bus driver’s defense lawyer had also argued that the warning signals were located 342 metres from the crash site.
The driver’s prosecution team had requested for a team of experts from RTA to be assigned to further evaluate the crash site to help in the understanding of the accident.
Through their investigation, the prosecution team had then confirmed that the warning signs were located 342 metres from the crash site.
Al Tamimi also argued that the barriers should have been made of concrete or other materials and not steel – which caused a more severe impact to the bus.
The prosecution lawyer further stated that the brightness of the sun affected the driver’s vision
According to local sources, Al Tamimi argued that the vision of the Omani driver was impaired by the bright sun at the time of the accident and he had missed the warning signs that had indicated about the metal barrier ahead.
The defense team also denied claims made on the driver for driving above the speed limit by 54kph – stating that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the allegation.
