Kosy

iTrader: (2)

lol Im a bit slow!!

ChrisB

Why don't we have barriers seperating the road from the pavement on all our streets?

MichelleWRX1994

IF convicted drivers were named and shamed then that would mean they would be off the road more and generate less money for the police :rollleyes: as if the police will allow that why do you think drink drivers get such low sentences????

(sarcastic rant off)

KF

"I was on the line a couple of miles to the east at the same time of the paddington disaster when it happened. "
I am glad you weren't directly affected. I think it would be more charitable of you to consider how someone who was would feel reading your post. This crash, BTW, was due to a train going thorough a stop sign. I didn't know that Railtrack were responsible for driving the trains too.

I hope you were joking about spitting on the next Railtrack manager.

KF.

devils_ad69

Why couldn't the train stop in the distance that the driver could see to be clear? After all, Speed Kills.

To my mind, this was simply a minor car accident that developed into a major train accident. Since when have we started taking into account the effects of peoples actions when deciding the sentence? i.e. how many times have we read of drivers causing accients where people have died and they escape with a ban and a fine.

By all means punish the offence (falling asleep at the wheel?) but not the fact that that incdent had a dramatic outcome.

dsmith

Astraboy

Whatever you feel about the culpability of railtrack for previous accidents it has naff all to do with Selby. Some guy chose to drive when he was unfit to do so. That decision cost 10 peoples lives. He should go to jail. Hes made a scapegoat ??? How ?? We as individuals all have the responsibilty to ensure our actions are safe fro everyone - whether thats a decsison to do 80 down a motorway or dirve when tired (or even get in car in the first place )

If every barrier for a mile each side of any road/rail crossing were made completely impenetrable to every conceivable collision at the expense of railtrack I would gues you'd be looking at 10 mile train journey costing a bit more than it does now. like a 1000% more. However much money is thrown at issues like this someone somewhere will contrive to cause an accisnet to get round it.

I'm just glad its not my job to a) go and clear up after - have you read the 999 call transcript or b) have to make the decisions how to balance a limited budget against possible safety measures.

Jolly Green Monster 2

I pretty much agree with what Charles and Devil say...

I keep swinging between his fault or not whilst reading....

It was his fault for falling asleep or how ever he crashed, and this can happen so quickly sometimes due to your own mistake or stupidity or due to something out of your control (I should know).
You can analysis a situation so much and in the end I concluded that if I had not driven home from work I'd not have had an accident, or if I had never bought a car.. I am being extreme but I hope I make sense. also my accident was nothing like on this scale....
The seriousness of driving is not put accross enough in my opinion.. perhaps although I don;t want it to happen the points on your licence scheme should be scrapped in favour of jail sentences... obviously there is not enough jails.
We'd all drive sensibly though knowibng that you could get two days time for ever mph over the limit.
Strange that the police struggled to get the time from petrol station to location he said he did though, in a landrover with a trailer you are not going to go particularly fast even if you try... they are slow enough without a trailer and car in tow.
There is no proof other than him have little sleep that he fell asleep.. what if he is telling the truth, something went bang and it swerved... there is no way they could be fully sure there was nothing wrong with the landrover mechanically after that surely? I know the experts have looked at it and say they find no evidence of mechinical failure but surely the landrover and trailer were in a few pieced by this point? how could they check that none of the brakes were locked on or that tyres were not flat or that suspension didn't fail when it is (I presume as I only remember seeing a pic of the back of the landrover) in a number of pieces.

JGM

rr_ww

Im sorry to disagree with you DSMITH, but Railtrack shouldn't have to balance a limited budget against possible safety measures. A sizeable amount of their profits go to shareholders and not back to investing in a knackered infrastructure.

Didn't the maintenance contractors say the line on the bend was cracking? Shouldn't our public transport have some systems to stop trains running red lights?

But all this costs money and a loss of profits will affect the FTSE100 performance and we cant have that can we!!!

IMO the government did the right thing regarding Railtrack but as someone said RT still moan about the legality of closing them rather than relising they were doing a Sh*t job of managing it.

Again MY OPINIONS not neccessarily yours

BT52b

This bothers me an awful lot
Why? Because as far as I can see there is no proof that he did anything wrong. How on earth can be prosecuted on a load of assumptions as to his condition? I'm not aware of anyone ever breaking the law by "not getting enough sleep even though there is no mandatory amount of sleep you have to have"

"Innocent until there's some faint possibility that you might be guilty" Is that what we go on these days?

MichelleWRX1994

What quite surprises me is that the justice system can give a heavy sentence to him yet merely take the licence away of a driver who causes death through drink driving.......

Maybe I am more angry due to the fact that I have lost a close friend due to a drink driver who effectively walked away with no punishment......

dsmith

BT52b - I think its the "balance of probabilities" though I stand to be corrected.

rr-ww - Unfortunately there is always a balance. There will never be unlimited money, there will always be more that could be done. Someone has to make the decision......I'm not saying they got it wrong/right - just glad its not me thats gotta decide.

KF

Hang on a mo. This guy hasn't been sentenced yet. Any speculation on the sentence is merely that - speculation. Let's have a thread about that when we know the facts.

Regarding the police attempt to make the journey in the same ammount of time - they took the time to replacate the car and trailer, but not the traffic conditions. Did anyone else see the footage of the trailer threading up the hard shoulder at 15mph whilst trying to avoid a traffic jam?

Ignoring everything else, the underpinning principle of our justice system in this country is trial by peer. 12 good men and all that. He was found GUILTY. End of story. The court heard more details than I could bear to listen to, so let's trust their judgement.
KF.

Z75

Many people have probably left the road at one time or another. This is that one in a million where he causes a catastrophic rail crash. If matey boy had just run of the road into some innocuous field and spent the night in the ditch the police would have done no more than slap him with a careless driving charge and the case would not have made for than a few lines in the local paper.

This is a very high profile case which is why the police went to the trouble of trawling through this bloke's past with a toothcomb. They got the story that he had spent the previous night talking to a woman on the internet (wonder what his wife thought about that!).

It was right that he was convicted plus given the profile of this case I reckon he's looking at the wrong side of 5 years. Taken in isolation this does not seem unfair given the casualties involved. Yes, he was unlucky but it is not all bad luck.

I side with astraboy's comments though which seem to have been misinterpreted. Two earlier rail accidents were people were killed went unpunished so where is the consistency here. There should have been custodial sentences for bosses at Railtrack and the respective service operators. Instead the bosses squirmed their way out of it spouting barnloads of bullsh1t and no doubt they received millions when they left having achieved nothing and ruined everything.

I live near Kemble which apart from hosting excellent track days at the nearby airfield is a commuter train station that feeds into Paddington. After the Paddington disaster dozens of unclaimed cars stood at Kemble station in a poignant reminder of the tragedy that had befallen their owners. Where is the justice for the families of THESE people? This is the point here - the inconsistency in the treatment of 3 rail disasters in recent times.

If the prosecution have gone to so much trouble in unearthing even the exact bowel movements of the Selby driver why could not the same investigation have been carried out into the people who run the railways.

(Well I know the answer, money and power, as OJ Simpson proved)

Astraboy how do you get the angry smileys in the message I might be needing some.

- Angry with injustice, hypocrisy and inconsistency.

GazP

Scapegoat!

One rule for the rich and powerful, one for us the public.

scud8

iTrader: (1)

BT52b - The police weren't able to prove he fell asleep at the wheel, but they were able to prove (to the satisfaction of the jury at least) that there was no other plausible explanation for the accident and that he lied about the steering failure.

IIRC, he drove off-road for several hundred yards before dropping onto the track, so I think it would be very difficult to attach any of the blame (for this accident at least) to Railtrack or the Highways Agency. Paddington et al are another question, and I agree with Astraboy that it is obscene for the directors to be taking home £millions but not take any responsibility for astonishing lapses in safety practice in the organisations they run.

BT52b

I always thought you had to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" and that if you had any doubt whatsoever then you were supposed to say not guilty.
Personally I reckon he probably did fall asleep, but if I was on the jury I wouldn't be able to say there was no doubt.

What annoyed me was the statement that the police chief read out saying that he "did" this and "caused" that etc. whereas he should have said "it seems likely that", and "he probably" etc.

Mellow Yellow !

iTrader: (1)

Remember all, a very well respected member on this board, MikePD (Mike Peck) as seen on last nights programme re; this incident, was the chief investigator with regards to the mechanics etc...of this unfortunate incident.
He may/may not be able to give 1st hand comments....at least I know my roll cage was designed by the best !!!

Gordo

I love the people who always try to blame 'the authorities' or try to make a distinction between classes (i.e. one rule for the rich etc). get real guys - we live in a world where failures and accidents happen. you cannot whinge about the state trying to impose restrictions and stopping your freedom on one hand and then shout for a nanny state (safer barriers, stop people taking drugs etc) on the other.

you have here a numpty who drove like an **** and he was not in a fit state. the affect on his driving ability was impaired the same as if he'd had several lagers. would you all feel so sorry for him if he'd been pissed?

the penalty might seem harsh (e.g. what would have happened if the landrover had just ended up in a field, what about all the drink drivers who walk away scot free from killing people) but if it sends out a timely reminder to people that they are culpable for their own actions (rather than blaming everyone else) then terrific. If nothing else it has prompted this debate.

Gordo

scud8

iTrader: (1)

BT52b - I agree about needing proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but the fact that the police proved pretty conclusively that he lied about the steering failure and that he drove off-road so far without any apparent attempt to stop would sway it for me.

Dave P

I fell asleep at the wheel once on the way to the South of France with my wife and kids on board. Fortunately my wife woke me before anything happened. Whilst on holiday we were telling this to a couple we met and the same thing had happened to them the year before. It scared me crazy, but it's worth saying that I didn't think I was a danger and didn't think I would fall asleep. A mate of mine also fell asleep one night on the M25 a few years ago bounced off the central reservation and ended up the worng way on the hard shoulder. Interestingly I don't know anyone in my group of friends who drinks and drives.

My point is that the Government (no I am not blaming them merely making an observation, choose to puh the message speed kills and don't drink and drive, but they keep missing the most important message drive and think safely.

Re Mr Hart, the jury who were privy to ALL the evidence as opposed to us who just read the press, found him guilty therefore he was. I question the judges comment about a substantial custodial sentance. He has to live with what he did every day of his life, it is unlikely he will make the same mistake. A custodial sentance will only serve to destroy the lives of another family.

Re Railtrack. I hardly think profits are the issue as the government has driven them into administration. Since that time I for one have noticed a serious deterioration of the rail infrastructure.

I also remember one Mr Prescott standing at the Hatfield site promising £1 Billion for Train Protection Systems.... another false promise.

Dave

Mice_Elf

Unfortunately in today's society we are very fond of standing there and shouting that we are not responsible for our own actions and try to pass the blame onto someone else. Just look at all the warnings that have sprung up everywhere to try to protect people from their own stupidity (for example - on the sides of take-away coffee cups - WARNING : CONTENTS MAY BE HOT.....et al.)

What seems to have happened here is that this chap fell asleep at the wheel, thus making him a danger not only to himself but others to, as evinced in the fact that due to his actions, he killed 10 other people. A great tragedy, no one is doubting, but we can't blame the Council or the Railway for not putting up a barrier in case of this eventuality. It's not like he fell off the road directly onto the track - he had to drive quite a way before ending up there.

With regards to lorry drivers, they are allowed to drive 4 hours, then they MUST have a half hour stop at least. Penalties for doing over your hours include loss of your O-Licence. All a policeman needs to do would be to check the tachograph which shows the speed of the lorry, how many miles he has done and how long he has been driving.

While I might hate it to be done, I think that this would be a good idea in cars as well. It removes the doubt concerning speed, if nothing else. (not that I am sitting here proclaiming that I have never broken the speed limit. I have and it was illegal, obviously. Fortunately nothing untoward happened. And yes, I have fallen asleep while driving as well. Coming back from a weekend in Torquay, I went to overtake someone and suddenly it was the stones from the crash barrier hitting the underside of the car that woke me up. It was that quick. Fortunately I was planning to stop at the next services anyway for an hour's nap and some caffeine. )

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that the chain of causation leading to these 10 deaths is unbroken from the time Gary Hart allegedly fell asleep. His actions caused those deaths and he should be punished acordingly.

DISLAIMER : These opinions are mine, no one else's.

Norman D. Landing

Ok theres already a whole host of opinion being expressed on this thread so I'm not going to rant on, I'd simply like to ask all the people who think it's his own fault .....

Q. When I'm on call with my job 24 hours and happen to work 35 miles from my house, if I get called at 3:00 am do I refuse to drive the 35 miles in a tired state or even refuse to drive the 35 miles home after copletion of my duties ?

You cannot jail somebody on an assumption that he was tired, he may have been, he may not have been, who can tell. I and other members of this board work all day and play online games into the early hours (sad I know ) so do I present a danger each morning when I drive to work knackered ?

What about doctors on call ? What about Shift workers ? What about Police officers on night shift ? Could we all be treading the line between our normal day to day activities and a jury's assumption that we're tired enough to fall asleep at the wheel ?

zoog

I'm a doctor and in my junior days a decade ago I would have to drive home after working CONTINUOUSLY from Saturday 0900 through to Monday 1700hrs (!!!) with less than 3- 4 hours sleep and on occasion none, and often restricted food intake as it was just so busy. It made the Selby guy look alert by comparison. I would hallucinate the bleeper going off even though it was charging up back at the hospital:

1) I would have gone to prison if there had been a crash
2) Would you have wanted to see me as your doctor on the monday?
3) There are double standards here somewhere!!
4) Would you have wanted me as your Dr. on Tuesday morning even?

(PS couldn't get a cab the pay was so ****e and we didn 't get expenses.)



[Edited by zoog - 12/14/2001 12:05:47 PM]

[Edited by zoog - 12/14/2001 12:08:41 PM]

[Edited by zoog - 12/14/2001 12:09:49 PM]

ian/555

IIRC you cannot be prosecuted for speeding offences, just on the evidence of a tachograph. The Police have to actually catch you speeding!
As far as operators licenses being lost so what? most company's would probably say, as they would just hire/train someone else with an operators licence to take responsibility.
As far as night time drivers being able to tell there employer that they are not fit for driving as they have had no sleep that day, previous to there first night back on the job. How many would still be employed? Not many as most companies could not give a flying ****! In my own experience of Transport managers. As the saying goes "there is always someone else willing to do it, if you are not!"
It would be nice to live in an ideal world but in my own experience it is only when you are being persecuted sorry I ment prosecuted that this so called ideal world exists!
ian

astraboy

Though not as bad as Zoog, I have worked for 22 hours non stop then driven through central london. The only way I could stay awake was giving it maximun attack everywhere I went and only slowing up for the cameras. It was the only way I could concentrate.
I have also been unlucky enough to drive from Junction 13 of the M25 to stockport and back in one night. 600 odd miles IIRC.
On both occasions I was absolutely caning the redbull to stay awake. But I still felt knackered. The windows were open, the tunes were right up and somehow I made it back. Does that make me as guilty as Mr. Hart? Not whether i killed someone or not, but whether I was fit enough to drive.
This is a very grey area that the law courts have led us into. I for one will deffo think twice If I have to repeat anything like the above. Simply because I would not be able to stomach a 5 year stretch if it all goes **** up.
Scary indeed.
astraboy.
[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] is done by removing the space after the first : : mad:

KF

If you suspect you are not fit to drive, for everyone's sake DON'T. The life you save may be your own.
I am shocked by seemingly intelligent people trying to plead that circumstances made what they were doing in some way reasonable - it isn't.
Knackered? Park up, take a 20 minute nap (not more - your sleep phase changes and you will wake up feeling worse). Repeat every 4 hours as necessary.
KF.

Tiggs

.

[Edited by Tiggs - 12/14/2001 4:35:23 PM]

MichelleWRX1994

Working closely with the transport side of the company I work for.....despite them being bad employers the actual transport side is run VERY well.

Drivers are disciplined accordingly for tachograph offences, routes are planned out so they do take a break. We have a tracking system on all our vehicles and can monitor whether or not they are taking a break/driving - whatever........
ANY breach of tachograph is dealt with harshly especially ones that break the working hours regulations for drivers as a close competitor of hours had two accidents highlighted on national TV...

Michelle

NBW

I suspect that whatever Gary Hart's sentence is, it will be nothing compared to how he already feels about causing the death of 10 people.

I also think that many of us have done stupid things, and got away with them. Think about it - another foot to the left or right, another mm of tyre tread, a few mph less, a few minutes either way.... it's a sobering thought....

Norman D. Landing

I agree, he'll be feeling bad enough anyway (not as bad as the people who're dead granted but still bad).

"Take a nap for 20 minutes" ??? Impossible (for me anyway) and I'm not joking here, I couldnt sleep for 20 minutes then feel refreshed, I'd be more likely to perform innumerable acts of road rage soon afterwards due to grumpiness (no, I'm not joking and not trying to make light of the situation).

Simply put, there are loads of people in Mr. Harts situation, we just havent crashed yet, hopefully we wont.

I will not stop driving home after I've been called in to work simply because I'm tired, I want to go home to bed BECAUSE I'm tired. The M62 usually keeps me awake anyway !