camk

Driver gets 5 years...there but the grace of God and all that. A real disaster for all involved on all sides.

Regards
Cammy

SWRTWannabe

Mixed feelings really - the guy drove while he quite clearly shouldn't and hence should take responsibility for his actions and the tragedy they caused.

On the other hand, he gets five years for a crime with no malice, the scum that arm themselves with knives and steal cars get a slapped hand and that's about it

scud8

iTrader: (1)

I can't help feeling that he would have been dealt with far more lightly if he had put his hands up at the beginning and admitted he fell asleep. The fact is he made up all kinds of stories and lied under oath trying to cover his ****.

McMiata Man

I'm surprised there's not more discussion about this, are we all feeling a bit guilty about all the times we've nearly nodded off?

We all have the deepest sympathy for the families of those lost, and I can't help thinking that it could happen to anyone.

I just can't quite agree with the sentence. Is he being jailed for causing an accident, is he being jailed for not getting enough sleep, and then, what IS enough sleep?

Would he have got the same sentence if he'd driven into a lamp-post causing some minor damage?
I would say that from the point he fell asleep onwards he had nothing more to do with what was going to happen, so therefore ANYONE falling asleep at the wheel could potentially cause this sort of dissaster. Does this mean that we can all expect a jail sentence for nodding off?

Surely you can only be charged with falling asleep at the wheel, what happens after that is in God's hands.

Perhaps I would feel differently if I was a relative of one of the victims, thankfully for me, I'm not.

boomer

...and how come the authorities (Highways Agency?) get off "scott free" even though they failed to provide adequate safety fencing around this particularly dangerous section of road??

What if Gary Hart _had_ suffered from a steering failure, or worse still, if an HGV had a mechanical failure, causing the vehicle to veer off the road at the same location???

mb

bug-eyed wonder

He was jailed because as a result of his actions 10 people died. Some may argue that the crash-barriers should have stopped him (i agree to a point) but the fact remains that the foolish actions of one man resulted in such a tragedy.
Unfortunately, as has been said before, criminals who use violence during crimes may not get any harsher treatment(totally wrong).

camk

below is the excert from a letter to todays Glasgow Herald on this subject, after reading it I'm more comfortable with the outcome, still a sad sad situation for all involved but a good thought provoking letter IMVHO.

Regards
Cammy

======
Your editorial on the Selby crash focuses entirely on the fate of the party who has been found guilty: Mr Hart (January 12). We should recognise that any sentence is a communication not just to the offender, but to the victims and to society at large. The good of all parties must be considered.
A fact widely reported by groups that succour the victims of motoristic wrongdoing is that those whose loved one has been killed by a motorist are deeply distressed by the lightness of penalties given to motorists who kill. These penalties are light precisely for the reasons given in your editorial: by conventional standards of culpability, the guilt of the motorist is small. But the effect is that survivors perceive the law as valuing a beloved life on a par or below that of goods stolen from a shop. A life sentence of grief becomes still harder to bear when compounded by the devaluation of the lost life.

It is true that we should not allow penal policy to be entirely dictated by the needs or wishes of victims of crime. We regard human life as so precious that we will not take that of a murderer, even though those who loved the victim may wish the perpetrator dead. But the law must show a consistency in delivering this message about the preciousness of life. If the survivors of motor-killings perceive the law as devaluing the life of their loved one, so surely do the public at large.

Children, whose lives are more threatened by motorists than by anything other than cancer, will receive the message that the life of a child is a small thing compared with the "right" of a motorist to drive as and when he pleases. This is hardly the way to inculcate respect for the life of others upon which our safety ultimately depends.

Mr Hart showed little concern for others' lives. He was driving a car-trailer combination unstable under braking (by his own admission). This required careful anticipation of all hazards to be handled safely. In a collision, it would be lethal to all pedestrians and the drivers of most other cars. The evidence showed that he could expect to lose control of this dangerous "rig" at some time during the trip. A comparison might be made with a man who fires a rifle in the general direction of a block of flats. In both cases the outcome would probably not be fatal, but nevertheless deserving of severe legal sanctions.

Through his wrongdoing, Mr Hart's life is in a mess. It is certainly absurd for D S Blackwood (Letters, January 12) to cast him as a scapegoat for the "negligence" of Railtrack. If I keep a tiger, it is for me to control it, not for my neighbour to cage his children against the beast. Responsibility for keeping road vehicles safely contained belongs primarily to drivers, and secondarily to the highway authorities. If all motorists took this responsibility as seriously as the best performers, middle-aged women, do, most of the thousands of lives lost per year on the roads could be saved, most of the searing of tens of thousands of lives by these losses could be avoided. The sentence on Mr Hart is an important step to stop this tide of human misery.
=======

SWRTWannabe

Hmm - childrens lives are not "threatened" by motorists. They are threatened by parents who cannot be bothered to keep an eye on them at all times to make sure they do not stray into tha path of oncoming vehicles.

It seems to me that the author of the letter would rather blame a motorist if their child were hit by a car, without even considering that they might have been able to prevent the accident by keeping their child under better control.

camk

SWRTWannabe,
So your quite happy for people to charge about as they please and if kids find themselves on the road then its their fault .Obviously you've not got any kids.
Children by nature are not totally aware of the dangers surrounding them as they are naive creatures due their lack of time here. They are also inquisitive and fast on their feet. I know of no parents who'd intentionally let their kids run on the road, however kids do get about by themselves especially those aged 7-11, ask youself this. Did your mum hold your hand on the way to school till you were 13 ?, possibly given your selfish outlook.
It is the Collective responsibility of all adults to try and ensure a safe as 'possible' an environment for children. Thats part of civilisation.
If we too your view we'd just have 60 zones everywhere and you just take your chances. Possibly you should change to your name to David Carradine......

Regards
Cammy

McMiata Man

Hmmm.

I am a parent of two AND a driver. We live at the end of a cul-de-sac but we still get loads of traffic (lost people). I NEVER let my children play on the road even though it's a dead-end. I even make them take my hand when we get in and out of the car if I've parked it in the street.

If one of my kids was hurt by a car I would not be blaming a driver, I would be too overcome with guilt for not watching them. Unfortunately there seems to be too many lazy moronic parents who can't be bothered to reprimand their kids for playing on the road. I have to crawl along my road in my car (about 5 - 10 mph) in fear of one of the wee rascals jumping out after a ball etc.

I blame the parents

SWRTWannabe

Camk - you are right - I don't have children. But when I do have children, I aim to make sure they have respect for the road and the dangers that come with it, and until they have this respect then it is up to me to make sure that whenever they come into contact with the roads, then they do it safely.

Maybe that sounds like an ideal, but my Mum managed - she accompanied me to school until I was able to respect the road and make accurate judgements about when it was safe to cross - which by the way happened many years before I was 13 . I can't remember precisely but I am quite sure that I had got the hang of it by about 7.

Personally, I drive at a reasonable speed (and within the speed limit) in residential areas and I am always on the lookout for children. However, short of driving at a walking pace there is only so much that I can do - parents of children have to take some responsibility too.

It is true that it is the collective responsibility of all adults to make a safe environment for children. But that is just it - ALL adults, not just the ones with cars.

Although maybe I didn't make it very well, the point I was trying to make in my post was just that - we ALL must be responsible for the safety of children - not just motorists.


[Edited by SWRTWannabe - 1/15/2002 8:58:23 AM]

22BUK

Ignoring "Acts of God", where, for example, the motorway is removed from underneath your wheels by an earthquake, it seems that there is no such thing as an "accident" when a car is involved.
If Gary Hart had crashed two minutes earlier or two minutes later the crash would have been avoided.
If the freight train had been on time, the crash would have been avoided.

While we're on the subject of trains, the Hatfield "accident".
Was it an accident? Somebody is/was responsible for the state of that piece of track. Are they in prison?

Hypothetical:
You drive home after an "all-nighter" at work, skid on some freshly-deposited diesel oil going round a sharp corner at 20 mph and go off the road into a bus-stop. Fortunately, the bus had arrived two minutes earlier to pick up the passengers that had been waiting there. Only damage = bent car. But what if the bus driver was late? Would you then be facing a long prison term?

Assuming that most of the people who frequent this bulletin board are responsible citizens and would never do anything to harm someone intentionally, it scares me that once we're in our cars we all become "potential" criminals.

camk

I think the message seems to be that regardless of intent, the outcome determines your fate. Unless you are a corporation of course.

Scary
Cammy

davidw

Although the sentance appears harsh I don't think you can deny that it was the right decision.

If someone had 10 pints of lager and then drove off the road onto the railway that night, they would not have intended to have an accident but as a result people may have died. Most people would agree that they should be locked up for longer than 5 years!

IMO. It was his responsibility to ensure he had sufficient sleep and was in a fit state to drive that night. Although what happened was a tragic accident he is as guilty as the drink driver would have been. This tradegy could have been avoided with a little common sense!




[Edited by davidw - 1/15/2002 1:59:27 PM]

Adam M

I entirely disagree that the sentence was just.

I also dont thinkit is fair that the outcome should reflect the punishment.

I ahve never heard of someone gettnig five years for death by dangerous driving. A year ban I have seen, and occasionally a year in prison. Ifimrly agree that once asleep, the outome was entirely an act of god.

But to say that he was not a scapegoat for the highway authorities lack of provision of adequate barriers is also nonsense.

Had he had a heart attack at the wheel and the same thing had happened, I do not believe teh highway authorities would have received any more blame than they did, but the outcome would have been the same.

I am sure they proved that the zebrugge incident was not a blameless accident but I dont recall anyone being jailed there despite the 400 or so deaths.

It just does not seem fair.

carl

Unfortunately in our increasingly litigious society (blaim "Claims Direct" and their ilk) there is no such thing as an accident any more. There was an article on the BBC News website about this a few months ago, which basically said that it is no longer accepted that people can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Back to the road -- if you were overtaking a lorry and for some reason during the maneouvre a vehicle comes the other way (perhaps it is going faster than you anticipated or something) you will either have to accelerate and cut in earlier or brake and drop back behind the lorry. Either action could cause an accident, and it's a judgement call, but what's the alternative? To dither and not make a decision is the worst of the three options as you definitely will cause an accident. Whatever you decide, if you're wrong and cause an accident in which people are seriously injured or killed you could end up facing a lengthy prison spell . And at the end of the day the outcome was down to bad luck rather than bad judgement.

carl

Another thing -- they proved that he was not in control of the vehicle and make no attempt to brake or steer when it left the road. How do they know he was asleep? What if he had blacked out, or had a petit-mal epileptic fit (absence)? Maybe they could scan for an underlying neurological condition but what if he'd never had it before or since?

And what if he'd set out believing himself to be OK to drive, then realized he wasn't at some point during the journey? He may have been intending to stop at the next service station -- it's illegal to stop on the motorway.



[Edited by carl - 1/15/2002 3:10:19 PM]

camk

Carl,
If you made the overtake and it was unsafe to do so then its dangerous or at least without due care and attention, and thats regardless of the outcome, even if you got off free by swerving back in but were seen doing so by the Rozzers then your up before the beak. If the outcome is then someone's death then its Causing Death by Dangerous driving and that carries(I think max 10 years but not 100% sure).
It will be interesting to see the next issue like this on road/rail or sea and see if its a consistent outcome, if it is consistent then possibly we're seeing an evolutionary change in 'Establishment' thinking.
I think there is an ongoing case in Italy at the moment of a Scottish guy who took his kids and some friends out on a hired boat and some of them drowned as a result of a freak storm, he's up for a neglegence/manslaughter charge. Same last year for the 2 parents who let their kids play on the railway line, they got 12 months each. Indeed on reflection as SWBWANNABEE said earlier, possibly some parents just don't think.

Regards
Cammy