Gary Hart convicted of Selby crash
13 December 2001, 01:48 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
News just in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/stor...618108,00.html
[Edited by Brendan Hughes - 12/13/2001 1:58:45 PM]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/stor...618108,00.html
[Edited by Brendan Hughes - 12/13/2001 1:58:45 PM]
13 December 2001, 02:04 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Flame suit on.
IF that had been a road crash I would want the guy prosecuted. He was driving having had no sleep which is dangerous and irresponible. That fact he caused a train crash doesn't alter that.
IF he had not been asleep i.e merely had a puncture or other normal (is there such a think ?) crash I owuld not want to see hime prosecuted.
My inital reaction was that it seemed unfair to prosecute him - but having read the reports of how little sleep etc hed got and then set off driving - well *imho* he was indeed guilty.
Deano
IF that had been a road crash I would want the guy prosecuted. He was driving having had no sleep which is dangerous and irresponible. That fact he caused a train crash doesn't alter that.
IF he had not been asleep i.e merely had a puncture or other normal (is there such a think ?) crash I owuld not want to see hime prosecuted.
My inital reaction was that it seemed unfair to prosecute him - but having read the reports of how little sleep etc hed got and then set off driving - well *imho* he was indeed guilty.
Deano
13 December 2001, 02:11 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: X5 and MCS JCW country....London :)
Posts: 2,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selby Crash: Guilty
Gary Hart has been found guilty of causing the deaths of 10 people in the Selby train crash through dangerous driving.It took the jury of five men and seven women 12 hours to reach their decision by a 10-2 majority.
The judge warned Hart could face a substantial jail sentence because of the "enormity" of the case, but he would be bailed for pre-sentencing reports.
Shocked
As the guilty verdict was read out by the jury foreman, Hart held his head in his hands. His shoulders slumped and he stared intently at the floor as his barrister, made representations to the judge.
It was a gesture mirrored by his wife, who was supported by friends in the courtroom.
Mrs Hart sat behind some of the people injured in the disaster and only a few feet away from the relatives of the 10 people who died in the rail crash.
140 mph crash
Hart, 37, from Lincolnshire, was accused after his Land Rover and trailer careered off the M62 onto the East Coast mainline.
Moments later his car was hit by a southbound GNER express train which then collided with a fully-laden coal train travelling in the opposite direction. The combined speed of the impact - 140 mph - is believed to be the fastest recorded in any train crash.
Six commuters and four railway staff died in the disaster at Great Heck, Yorkshire, on February 28.
Asleep claim
The case at Leeds Crown Court had centred round evidence that Hart had fallen asleep at the wheel, having had no sleep the night before.
He had instead spent several hours talking on the phone to a woman he had met on the internet and had left home in the early hours of the morning.
He had driven 70 miles before the accident having left home just after 4.30am - the crash happened at 6.13am.
Hart had denied falling asleep.
Character
The court heard evidence that his Land Rover had veered off the motorway and down the embankment without any apparent attempt on his part to correct the path of the vehicle.
Mr Hart said the steering had gone and he was unable to correct it but crash investigators found no trace of any mechanical faults which could have caused him to veer off the motorway and hurtle down an embankment.
In his summing up, judge Mr Justice Mackay had said Hart should be considered a man of good character. An earlier speeding offence and convictions for using a stolen MoT certificate and vehicle excise licence were also mentioned in court.
Gary Hart has been found guilty of causing the deaths of 10 people in the Selby train crash through dangerous driving.It took the jury of five men and seven women 12 hours to reach their decision by a 10-2 majority.
The judge warned Hart could face a substantial jail sentence because of the "enormity" of the case, but he would be bailed for pre-sentencing reports.
Shocked
As the guilty verdict was read out by the jury foreman, Hart held his head in his hands. His shoulders slumped and he stared intently at the floor as his barrister, made representations to the judge.
It was a gesture mirrored by his wife, who was supported by friends in the courtroom.
Mrs Hart sat behind some of the people injured in the disaster and only a few feet away from the relatives of the 10 people who died in the rail crash.
140 mph crash
Hart, 37, from Lincolnshire, was accused after his Land Rover and trailer careered off the M62 onto the East Coast mainline.
Moments later his car was hit by a southbound GNER express train which then collided with a fully-laden coal train travelling in the opposite direction. The combined speed of the impact - 140 mph - is believed to be the fastest recorded in any train crash.
Six commuters and four railway staff died in the disaster at Great Heck, Yorkshire, on February 28.
Asleep claim
The case at Leeds Crown Court had centred round evidence that Hart had fallen asleep at the wheel, having had no sleep the night before.
He had instead spent several hours talking on the phone to a woman he had met on the internet and had left home in the early hours of the morning.
He had driven 70 miles before the accident having left home just after 4.30am - the crash happened at 6.13am.
Hart had denied falling asleep.
Character
The court heard evidence that his Land Rover had veered off the motorway and down the embankment without any apparent attempt on his part to correct the path of the vehicle.
Mr Hart said the steering had gone and he was unable to correct it but crash investigators found no trace of any mechanical faults which could have caused him to veer off the motorway and hurtle down an embankment.
In his summing up, judge Mr Justice Mackay had said Hart should be considered a man of good character. An earlier speeding offence and convictions for using a stolen MoT certificate and vehicle excise licence were also mentioned in court.
13 December 2001, 02:18 PM
#7
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the only thing he was done for is lack of sleep how does this now affect all the wagon drivers, train drivers, and chemical plant opperators working nights I myself work as an engineer/operator on a refrigeration plant using Ammonia nasty stuff and my first night shift is always hard not much sleep before work and is compounded if the people in the street are noisy in the day worse in the school hols
I only know what has been in the press but there seams a lot of far reaching questions now to be asked of 24hr working practices.
Paul
I only know what has been in the press but there seams a lot of far reaching questions now to be asked of 24hr working practices.
Paul
Trending Topics
13 December 2001, 02:36 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many reports that airline aircraft maintenance staff are often so exhausted that critical errors are frequently made. Luckily most of the time these are picked up by QC, but at some point it won't.
I presume this conviction has been obtained on a causing death by dangerous driving charge, but you can look forward to a much broader application of this principle in future in relation to establishing negligence.
I presume this conviction has been obtained on a causing death by dangerous driving charge, but you can look forward to a much broader application of this principle in future in relation to establishing negligence.
13 December 2001, 02:41 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
This was a criminal charge, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Negligence is tortious, IIRC to be poven on the balance of probabilities. (Long time since I studied that....)
I certainly remember that negligence has the test of the chain of causation, and I don't know here how much it would have passed. I think you could reasonably foresee an accident and perhaps death from falling asleep at the wheel, but the particular way in which the accident happened was freaky.
Note also it was a 10-2 majority verdict, not unanimous.
I certainly remember that negligence has the test of the chain of causation, and I don't know here how much it would have passed. I think you could reasonably foresee an accident and perhaps death from falling asleep at the wheel, but the particular way in which the accident happened was freaky.
Note also it was a 10-2 majority verdict, not unanimous.
13 December 2001, 02:50 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'He had driven 70 miles before the accident having left home just after 4.30am - the crash happened at 6.13am.'
The police tried to recreate the journey including a CCTV recorded stop at a service station. They where unable to do so even though they had a motorbike blue light escort. Maybe the guy is exceptionally unfortunate, but he must have been caning it as well...
The police tried to recreate the journey including a CCTV recorded stop at a service station. They where unable to do so even though they had a motorbike blue light escort. Maybe the guy is exceptionally unfortunate, but he must have been caning it as well...
13 December 2001, 02:58 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry brenden but that is a load of ****.
Two massive train crashes where the corporations which run the train lines were entirly (IMO) at fault and what was done?
**** all.
One crash where a third party was at fault and what happens?
He gets sent down. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Those at railtrack must be laughing their ***** off at this poor guy who's only fault was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh, and not to be the head of a major company with proper responsibilities to the safety of its passengers.
This is so, so, wrong.
Next railtrack manager I see in waterloo will be spat on.
astraboy.
Two massive train crashes where the corporations which run the train lines were entirly (IMO) at fault and what was done?
**** all.
One crash where a third party was at fault and what happens?
He gets sent down. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Those at railtrack must be laughing their ***** off at this poor guy who's only fault was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh, and not to be the head of a major company with proper responsibilities to the safety of its passengers.
This is so, so, wrong.
Next railtrack manager I see in waterloo will be spat on.
astraboy.
13 December 2001, 03:17 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Astraboy, morally I agree with you (though as a lawyer I am not sure what morals are 
) The problem is this is charging an individual. The other rail disasters AIUI were, erm not, corporate manslaughter. This latter is one of the hardest charges ever to make stick, and I think the legal world acknowledges that it needs a total overhaul to have any inkling of credibility. Which it lacks at present for precisely the reasons you illustrate.
BJH
) The problem is this is charging an individual. The other rail disasters AIUI were, erm not, corporate manslaughter. This latter is one of the hardest charges ever to make stick, and I think the legal world acknowledges that it needs a total overhaul to have any inkling of credibility. Which it lacks at present for precisely the reasons you illustrate.BJH
13 December 2001, 03:23 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Croydon (ish)
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I THINK that this is the right result.
He spent hours on the phone and was evidently not in a fit state to drive. He also should have known this. If he'd fallen asleep and crashed into your Subaru, child or Mother, would you be so leinient? (sp?)
But to pick up on what Astraboy said, I agree that Railtrack management should also be prosecuted for the recent train accidents and not be able to hide behind faceless coperate business.
MY OPINIONS not neccessarily yours
He spent hours on the phone and was evidently not in a fit state to drive. He also should have known this. If he'd fallen asleep and crashed into your Subaru, child or Mother, would you be so leinient? (sp?)
But to pick up on what Astraboy said, I agree that Railtrack management should also be prosecuted for the recent train accidents and not be able to hide behind faceless coperate business.
MY OPINIONS not neccessarily yours
13 December 2001, 04:16 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the verdict was correct, when I drove back and forth from where I live to Rugby every day (67 odd miles) after doing anywhere between 13-20 hour shifts - I used to get to the point where I knew I wasn't safe to drive so I used to pull into services and sleep for an hour and get a lot of caffiene down me.
You control your own destiny nobody else does - I could have chosen to srive on and maybe cause a massive accident on the motorway if I had fallen asleep.
With regards to how it affects lorry drivers etc - I work for a transport and distribution firm, there are strict laws governing working time etc, etc as well as company laws, including thorough training and union guidelines......to prevent tiredness.....
Cheers
Michelle
You control your own destiny nobody else does - I could have chosen to srive on and maybe cause a massive accident on the motorway if I had fallen asleep.
With regards to how it affects lorry drivers etc - I work for a transport and distribution firm, there are strict laws governing working time etc, etc as well as company laws, including thorough training and union guidelines......to prevent tiredness.....
Cheers
Michelle
13 December 2001, 04:39 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at this case in isolation, I now think maybe this is a fair conviction. If the guy was drunk then nobody would disagree, but is driving when you just as unfit to drive due to tiredness any better ? Probably not I suggest.
But taking this into the real world, it seems over the top, especially considering the comment is he should get a 'substantial custodial sentence'. This will be far more than some terrorists, rapists etc and as already said, when the Train companies arent held responsible how can this unfortunate driver ????
But taking this into the real world, it seems over the top, especially considering the comment is he should get a 'substantial custodial sentence'. This will be far more than some terrorists, rapists etc and as already said, when the Train companies arent held responsible how can this unfortunate driver ????
13 December 2001, 04:41 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One word. Scapegoat. It makes me furious. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
They are simply trying to divert attention away from their own failings as a company (IMO) and it stinks.
astraboy.
[Edited by astraboy - 12/13/2001 4:43:13 PM]
They are simply trying to divert attention away from their own failings as a company (IMO) and it stinks.
astraboy.
[Edited by astraboy - 12/13/2001 4:43:13 PM]
13 December 2001, 04:43 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
string 'em all up - it's the only language these people understand....bring back flogging....the birch....makes yer sick...I 'ad that Inspector James Anderton in the back of the cab once...that'll be 37 pounds 90 Guv...Ta.
13 December 2001, 04:45 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think someone is silly to drive after that much sleep but at the end of the day legally there is no requirement that you have had so many hours sleep in the last 24hours. Just up to you to make sure you are fit to drive.
Even then say he fell asleep... surely there should have been better barriers stopping him getting only the track..
So it cannot fully be his fault for getting his vehicle onto the rails and then the train hit him remember... I know it is a train but come on... if this had been a railway crossing and he had stalled the landrover and it wouldn't restart and the train hit is would it be the same verdict?
It is a real shame that 10 people were killed....
But banning him from driving for life would surely be more fitting.
What about the lack of barrier, surely that is rail tracks fault!
It was a landrover, bigger than a car, but what if it was a lorry..
how many other barriers are crap? all of them if you are a biker, as they are a death trap.... another subject entirely...
JGM
Even then say he fell asleep... surely there should have been better barriers stopping him getting only the track..
So it cannot fully be his fault for getting his vehicle onto the rails and then the train hit him remember... I know it is a train but come on... if this had been a railway crossing and he had stalled the landrover and it wouldn't restart and the train hit is would it be the same verdict?
It is a real shame that 10 people were killed....
But banning him from driving for life would surely be more fitting.
What about the lack of barrier, surely that is rail tracks fault!
It was a landrover, bigger than a car, but what if it was a lorry..
how many other barriers are crap? all of them if you are a biker, as they are a death trap.... another subject entirely...
JGM
13 December 2001, 04:48 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong place at the wrong time? I don't follow that. I fail to see how Failtrack can be implicated in anyway shape or form for the Selby (not that its anywhere near Selby BTW) rail crash.
I can understand the Hatfield crash, because that was down to rail fatigue, not sure on the others.
--
Mike
I can understand the Hatfield crash, because that was down to rail fatigue, not sure on the others.
--
Mike
13 December 2001, 04:50 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Railtrack have nothing to do with this. If the CPS think there is a case, they prosecute.
Railtrack didn't make him a scapegoat, and I would think they probably are not laughing about the tragic death of 2 staff and 8 passengers.
The barriers are a moot point. As Mr Jolly points out they help in some accidents, and not in others. You are on a hiding to nothing if you really think that every barrier can be made resilient to every type of crash. Get real.
The guy made a decision to carry on driving when sleepy. The same as making the decision to drive when drunk or otherwise incapable. Removing his licence is as laughable as everyone else always states when people are killed in other traffic offences.
There is only one choice: a castodial sentence.
KF.
Railtrack didn't make him a scapegoat, and I would think they probably are not laughing about the tragic death of 2 staff and 8 passengers.
The barriers are a moot point. As Mr Jolly points out they help in some accidents, and not in others. You are on a hiding to nothing if you really think that every barrier can be made resilient to every type of crash. Get real.
The guy made a decision to carry on driving when sleepy. The same as making the decision to drive when drunk or otherwise incapable. Removing his licence is as laughable as everyone else always states when people are killed in other traffic offences.
There is only one choice: a castodial sentence.
KF.
13 December 2001, 04:53 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What pisses me off about this whole affair is that no-one in authority has brought up the most important issue here.
Namely how in the hell do the authorities, responsible for the safety of railways and road transport, allow a situation, where a vehicle can come off a motorway and end up on a high speed section of railtrack?
A vehicle leaving a motorway at high speed, for whatever reason, is not that an unusual event. Surely it must have figured in the design stage of this particular section of motorway. Maybe it didn't!!
OK the guy shouldn't have been driving in that state of fatigue.
However it is not his fault that those responsible for allowing this to happen. Those who built a section of motorway crossing the main east coast railway should have foreseen, that a vehicle coming off the carriageway would or could have ended up on the railway. Imagine how much worse it would have been, had the express from York struck a 40 ton truck, rathe than a Landrover.
To my mind the authorities have found it very convenient to have a scapegoat, who is demonstrably guilty of Dangerous Driving. Otherwise they might have had to have yet another Public Enquiry into yet another train disaster.
Rant over.
Namely how in the hell do the authorities, responsible for the safety of railways and road transport, allow a situation, where a vehicle can come off a motorway and end up on a high speed section of railtrack?
A vehicle leaving a motorway at high speed, for whatever reason, is not that an unusual event. Surely it must have figured in the design stage of this particular section of motorway. Maybe it didn't!!
OK the guy shouldn't have been driving in that state of fatigue.
However it is not his fault that those responsible for allowing this to happen. Those who built a section of motorway crossing the main east coast railway should have foreseen, that a vehicle coming off the carriageway would or could have ended up on the railway. Imagine how much worse it would have been, had the express from York struck a 40 ton truck, rathe than a Landrover.
To my mind the authorities have found it very convenient to have a scapegoat, who is demonstrably guilty of Dangerous Driving. Otherwise they might have had to have yet another Public Enquiry into yet another train disaster.
Rant over.
13 December 2001, 04:53 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The barriers in question are (somebody correct me if Im wrong), the responsibility of the Local Highways Dept. To say that its railtracks fault for not having suitable barriers in place is ridiculous. The guy did the best part of an offroad driving course to get his landy to the railway track. The blame, although a sad set of cicumstances and events, lies entirely at Gary Harts door.
-
Mike
-
Mike
13 December 2001, 04:55 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the News of the World will publish names and addresses of all known convicted dangerous drivers, like they did for paedophiles...the roads would be a safer place then.
13 December 2001, 04:57 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got nowt to do with rail track, but the previous three crashes were all down to them.
I was on the line a couple of miles to the east at the same time of the paddington disaster when it happened. To get into work with my phone approaching meltdown with the amount of messages and missed calls from upset family members is unnaceptable IMO. IMO railtrack are putting profit before safety and even when the government step in to call a halt, railtrack do their best to stop it to avoid losing face. It aint on. it really aint. Now this guy has been made a scapegoat for one crash which he may or may not have caused. I dont really care about him, its the fact that railtrack have escaped scott free from 3 rail disasters without any form of punishment is totally unaceptable IMO.
I was on the line a couple of miles to the east at the same time of the paddington disaster when it happened. To get into work with my phone approaching meltdown with the amount of messages and missed calls from upset family members is unnaceptable IMO. IMO railtrack are putting profit before safety and even when the government step in to call a halt, railtrack do their best to stop it to avoid losing face. It aint on. it really aint. Now this guy has been made a scapegoat for one crash which he may or may not have caused. I dont really care about him, its the fact that railtrack have escaped scott free from 3 rail disasters without any form of punishment is totally unaceptable IMO.
