Incident Croydon tram
Discussion
What I don't understand is he's driven that section numerous times. He knows it. It's not unfamiliar or new. Regardless of any automatic safety systems that you could argue for there's an element of boredom in the role and maybe over familiarness, boredom equals being reckless? Of course unproven but for me the verdict seems odd.
I don't endorse the website I'm linking to below. However, occasionally they do post well balanced, thought provoking articles.
This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
Ian Geary said:
I don't endorse the website I'm linking to below. However, occasionally they do post well balanced, thought provoking articles.
This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
Interesting - especially if it was "an accident waiting to happen". As has been pointed out, it is odd that in this day and age (albeit a few years ago) such things can happen.This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
Ian Geary said:
I don't endorse the website I'm linking to below. However, occasionally they do post well balanced, thought provoking articles.
This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
A human is still in the loop partly for liability reasons, partly for passenger trust reasons, and partly for technological reasons.This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
A large part of it is liability. If the company could get rid of the people in their systems, they would.
coanda said:
Ian Geary said:
I don't endorse the website I'm linking to below. However, occasionally they do post well balanced, thought provoking articles.
This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
A human is still in the loop partly for liability reasons, partly for passenger trust reasons, and partly for technological reasons.This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
A large part of it is liability. If the company could get rid of the people in their systems, they would.
I'm not sure I agree with that decision myself based on the evidence given on the drivers actions which, for me, were very negligent but I can still understand the juries decision.
Ian Geary said:
I don't endorse the website I'm linking to below. However, occasionally they do post well balanced, thought provoking articles.
This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
Seems like a fair article. Such a shame it had to be written in the first place.This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
Ian Geary said:
I don't endorse the website I'm linking to below. However, occasionally they do post well balanced, thought provoking articles.
This is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
Its another perspective, that tries to deflect any responsibility from the driver, completely ignoring his failures, and obvious lies afterwardsThis is their most recent one on the tram:
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/06/20/time-has-come...
It gives another perspective.
The article suggests rail accidents are the cumulative effect of lots of failures. However, the reason a human is still in the process is surely to give that failsafe?
Idk, the court heard the evidence, and I didn't.
He was at the end of a long set of shifts
He wasn't at the end of the day
It was a route he knew very well
The speed limit for that section of track was posted and he was well aware of it
He was exceeding the safe limit at that location by a long way, and that in itself was the cause of the crash
Not shift patterns or working hours
The nonsense he came out with about not knowing which way he was going is laughable, or would be if the results of his actions hadn't been so devastating
freedman said:
Its another perspective, that tries to deflect any responsibility from the driver, completely ignoring his failures, and obvious lies afterwards
He was at the end of a long set of shifts
He wasn't at the end of the day
It was a route he knew very well
The speed limit for that section of track was posted and he was well aware of it
He was exceeding the safe limit at that location by a long way, and that in itself was the cause of the crash
Not shift patterns or working hours
The nonsense he came out with about not knowing which way he was going is laughable, or would be if the results of his actions hadn't been so devastating
I am inclined to agree. If I crash my car into a bus queue mid way through the day and used the excuse that I had been working for 12 hours and didnt know which way I was going, I would expect to have the book thrown at meHe was at the end of a long set of shifts
He wasn't at the end of the day
It was a route he knew very well
The speed limit for that section of track was posted and he was well aware of it
He was exceeding the safe limit at that location by a long way, and that in itself was the cause of the crash
Not shift patterns or working hours
The nonsense he came out with about not knowing which way he was going is laughable, or would be if the results of his actions hadn't been so devastating
blueg33 said:
freedman said:
Its another perspective, that tries to deflect any responsibility from the driver, completely ignoring his failures, and obvious lies afterwards
He was at the end of a long set of shifts
He wasn't at the end of the day
It was a route he knew very well
The speed limit for that section of track was posted and he was well aware of it
He was exceeding the safe limit at that location by a long way, and that in itself was the cause of the crash
Not shift patterns or working hours
The nonsense he came out with about not knowing which way he was going is laughable, or would be if the results of his actions hadn't been so devastating
I am inclined to agree. If I crash my car into a bus queue mid way through the day and used the excuse that I had been working for 12 hours and didnt know which way I was going, I would expect to have the book thrown at meHe was at the end of a long set of shifts
He wasn't at the end of the day
It was a route he knew very well
The speed limit for that section of track was posted and he was well aware of it
He was exceeding the safe limit at that location by a long way, and that in itself was the cause of the crash
Not shift patterns or working hours
The nonsense he came out with about not knowing which way he was going is laughable, or would be if the results of his actions hadn't been so devastating
They're all fair points.
I am not setting myself up as the defender of this judgement- it has left me scratching my head about the responsibility a driver of a vehicle takes on.
Maybe it's something to do with the law under which the prosecution was raised? It being specifically about safety in the workplace has allowed this defence of "an unsafe workplace" to be argue?
When driving my car: I am responsible, workplace or no.
Lorry drivers get the book thrown at them for "workplace" injuries they cause behind the wheel, so they might look on this judgement in askance. Though dangerous driving laws are probably easier to use when the workplace is on a road.
I am not setting myself up as the defender of this judgement- it has left me scratching my head about the responsibility a driver of a vehicle takes on.
Maybe it's something to do with the law under which the prosecution was raised? It being specifically about safety in the workplace has allowed this defence of "an unsafe workplace" to be argue?
When driving my car: I am responsible, workplace or no.
Lorry drivers get the book thrown at them for "workplace" injuries they cause behind the wheel, so they might look on this judgement in askance. Though dangerous driving laws are probably easier to use when the workplace is on a road.
Ian Geary said:
They're all fair points.
I am not setting myself up as the defender of this judgement- it has left me scratching my head about the responsibility a driver of a vehicle takes on.
Maybe it's something to do with the law under which the prosecution was raised? It being specifically about safety in the workplace has allowed this defence of "an unsafe workplace" to be argue?
When driving my car: I am responsible, workplace or no.
Lorry drivers get the book thrown at them for "workplace" injuries they cause behind the wheel, so they might look on this judgement in askance. Though dangerous driving laws are probably easier to use when the workplace is on a road.
But if he was a social worker who made a mistake and did not check up on a child who later got killed or a police officer who issued a gun licence and the person later murdered others they wouldn't be prosecuted. How often do we hear of deaths in the NHS because of mistakes and no one gets hauled in front of a judge.I am not setting myself up as the defender of this judgement- it has left me scratching my head about the responsibility a driver of a vehicle takes on.
Maybe it's something to do with the law under which the prosecution was raised? It being specifically about safety in the workplace has allowed this defence of "an unsafe workplace" to be argue?
When driving my car: I am responsible, workplace or no.
Lorry drivers get the book thrown at them for "workplace" injuries they cause behind the wheel, so they might look on this judgement in askance. Though dangerous driving laws are probably easier to use when the workplace is on a road.
SydneyBridge said:
I know it is a big fine, but what an absolute joke...
The utter joke is that the operator is rightly fined, but the actual driver, the one was in charge of driving it when it crashed, gets away scott free, despite there being no evidence of mechanical failure etc etc. . Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff