Incident Croydon tram
Discussion
oobster said:
PF62 said:
oobster said:
PF62 said:
And the driver won't be prosecuted even though they killed seven and seriously injured fifty - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50212531
Do you believe the driver should be prosecuted? Trams seem to be a joke. And the safety regime seems far more lax than trains . How do you fall asleep and go faster?
One of those times the driver should have had a menacing foreign name and they would have thrown the book at him like
someone that serves an idiot something with nuts in it.
One of those times the driver should have had a menacing foreign name and they would have thrown the book at him like
someone that serves an idiot something with nuts in it.
PF62 said:
The same as any other prosecution when someone's act has caused seven people to die and 50 to be seriously injured - It punishes that person for causing it and makes everyone else think "I had better not do that".
I am not arguing whether the decision not to prosecute the driver is the right decision, I now see that the decision was ALSO not to prosecute the company operating the trams but what I am saying, concious that I am not always great at putting my views across and also concious that I don't have any 'dog in this fight' is....The guy made a mistake. He wasn't deliberately negligent, as far as the evidence seems to suggest, he fell asleep momentarily, or had a 'micro sleep' which caused him to be not sufficiently concious enough to slow down.
He has been described as a 'reliable and experienced driver', this was before dawn and during a period of low workload. Yes, his actions resulted in loss of life and serious injury, but he didn't INTEND to fall asleep.
In your job, if you make a mistake, what happens? A customer is angry, you might get in trouble from your boss, it might cost the company some money to sort, perhaps there is a risk of injury. This tram driver probably knew that falling asleep would or could lead to extremely serious consequences but he didn't deliberately, from all accounts, think "I'll have a quick nap before the next station".
Perhaps more concerning is that the design of the tram meant that most of the deaths and injuries were a result of people falling through the side windows and onto the track then the tram coming down on top of them. Should the windows be reinforced, made smaller, passengers restrained better?
Should the tram have been fitted with an automatic speed detection and warning system, that applies brakes if there is no human input?
This guy, the driver, is going to have to live with the fact for the rest of his life that his mistake has had enormous consequences for many people - what 'good' comes from his prosecution? Are the rest of us, where we have jobs that depend on us being awake and concious throughout in order to ensure the safety of others, supposed to think 'oh I must remember not to go for a snooze or I might get prosecuted'? Really?
oobster said:
PF62 said:
The same as any other prosecution when someone's act has caused seven people to die and 50 to be seriously injured - It punishes that person for causing it and makes everyone else think "I had better not do that".
I am not arguing whether the decision not to prosecute the driver is the right decision, I now see that the decision was ALSO not to prosecute the company operating the trams but what I am saying, concious that I am not always great at putting my views across and also concious that I don't have any 'dog in this fight' is....The guy made a mistake. He wasn't deliberately negligent, as far as the evidence seems to suggest, he fell asleep momentarily, or had a 'micro sleep' which caused him to be not sufficiently concious enough to slow down.
He has been described as a 'reliable and experienced driver', this was before dawn and during a period of low workload. Yes, his actions resulted in loss of life and serious injury, but he didn't INTEND to fall asleep.
In your job, if you make a mistake, what happens? A customer is angry, you might get in trouble from your boss, it might cost the company some money to sort, perhaps there is a risk of injury. This tram driver probably knew that falling asleep would or could lead to extremely serious consequences but he didn't deliberately, from all accounts, think "I'll have a quick nap before the next station".
Perhaps more concerning is that the design of the tram meant that most of the deaths and injuries were a result of people falling through the side windows and onto the track then the tram coming down on top of them. Should the windows be reinforced, made smaller, passengers restrained better?
Should the tram have been fitted with an automatic speed detection and warning system, that applies brakes if there is no human input?
This guy, the driver, is going to have to live with the fact for the rest of his life that his mistake has had enormous consequences for many people - what 'good' comes from his prosecution? Are the rest of us, where we have jobs that depend on us being awake and concious throughout in order to ensure the safety of others, supposed to think 'oh I must remember not to go for a snooze or I might get prosecuted'? Really?
The guy who killed seven and injured 50 fell asleep (or claimed they fell asleep) and failed to slow down which directly caused the accident and the resulting deaths and injuries. Everything else happened because of their action (or inaction by not slowing down).
If I fell asleep on the drive to work because I got up before dawn, killing seven and injuring 50 would I expect any sympathy from the courts - of course not.
Would I expect any sympathy because the speed limit signs were not as good as they could be - of course not.
Would I expect any sympathy because the people I killed or injured were in an old car without the latest safety devices - of course not.
People died because the driver didn't do what they should have done, which was simply slow down.
Corect result re driver - why does it take so long to conclude these things
Surely there ought to be some review of signals or automatic braking though if there's only one tiny speed limit sign to warn drivers they could come off the rails if they miss it -and there were previous incidents
Surely there ought to be some review of signals or automatic braking though if there's only one tiny speed limit sign to warn drivers they could come off the rails if they miss it -and there were previous incidents
This is a bad decision by the CPS.
The driver should absolutely be prosecuted as he was negligent, not as if the track had suddenly changed shaped or something, he knew the corner was there and failed to act appropriately or in accordance with his training.
If he had a heart attack and then crashed that would be different but he didn't.
The driver should absolutely be prosecuted as he was negligent, not as if the track had suddenly changed shaped or something, he knew the corner was there and failed to act appropriately or in accordance with his training.
If he had a heart attack and then crashed that would be different but he didn't.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 31st October 23:01
The Mad Monk said:
gottans said:
The driver should absolutely be prosecuted as he was negligent,
We don't know that, and neither do you.gottans said:
Do the CPS need a slam dunk so obvious a blind man could see it case before they do anything, they are so risk averse its embarrassing, they should be called the NPS - the Non-Prosecution Service. They had to be embarrassed into continuing after Warbouys to keep him in jail by some very brave women, it really is disgraceful in my book.
In most areas of the law the CPS will only prosecute if there is a very good chance of a guilty verdict, that is the world of austerity where budgets are limited and there are insufficient staff and resources available. If the politicians want to say they are for law and order then they need to fund it properly.saaby93 said:
Corect result re driver - why does it take so long to conclude these things
Surely there ought to be some review of signals or automatic braking though if there's only one tiny speed limit sign to warn drivers they could come off the rails if they miss it -and there were previous incidents
He was an experienced driver, he managed to go round that bend before without falling over which would imply he'd seen the sign before or was experienced enough to not try and go round the bend at four times the speed limit.Surely there ought to be some review of signals or automatic braking though if there's only one tiny speed limit sign to warn drivers they could come off the rails if they miss it -and there were previous incidents
greygoose said:
gottans said:
Do the CPS need a slam dunk so obvious a blind man could see it case before they do anything, they are so risk averse its embarrassing, they should be called the NPS - the Non-Prosecution Service. They had to be embarrassed into continuing after Warbouys to keep him in jail by some very brave women, it really is disgraceful in my book.
In most areas of the law the CPS will only prosecute if there is a very good chance of a guilty verdict, that is the world of austerity where budgets are limited and there are insufficient staff and resources available. If the politicians want to say they are for law and order then they need to fund it properly.Pledging to put money back into the CPS, modernising courts and rescuing a creaking justice system is not a vote winner and headline maker.
Posturing at your party conference, about being tough on crime and "making criminals scared" is though....
Just been watching a program about the Chanel Tunnel , in it some time is spent in the cab with the drivers of the Shuttle .
As part of the safety features , the driver is required to tap a foot peddle every few seconds to show they are alert , if this is not done , the train stops .
Am I right in reading the unions are opposed to this sort of system , if so they should get their sandwiches wrapped in a road map and shown the door, and people who would accept this system put in the cab .
I haven’t trawled through the whole thread , Is the driver still driving trams or even his car ? as the findings suggest he may have dropped off while at the at the controls , heaven forbid it happens whilst he is driving home during the school run
As part of the safety features , the driver is required to tap a foot peddle every few seconds to show they are alert , if this is not done , the train stops .
Am I right in reading the unions are opposed to this sort of system , if so they should get their sandwiches wrapped in a road map and shown the door, and people who would accept this system put in the cab .
I haven’t trawled through the whole thread , Is the driver still driving trams or even his car ? as the findings suggest he may have dropped off while at the at the controls , heaven forbid it happens whilst he is driving home during the school run
In my view, the decision not to prosecute on manslaughter is correct. But I feel some lesser charge should be brought against the driver.
People refer to safety systems, but in my view again, the driver [I]is[\i] the safety system. He failed in that duty, and that failure should have a legal consequence.
I won't repeat all the paralles with coaches and cars, but it struck me too that a magistrate would give the square root of feck all to any driver committing this sort of error, and it would be sent up to the high court.
As for TfL / tramtracks etc...the windows and electronic safety systems obviously need improving, but impossible to prove they knew that before hand.
As for the unions...unions played an important role to improve the safety of workers and providing care for injured workers and their families...once.
Now? Blocking measures that will demonstrably improve safety because their members might get caught sleeping or speeding? Beyond the pale in my view.
People refer to safety systems, but in my view again, the driver [I]is[\i] the safety system. He failed in that duty, and that failure should have a legal consequence.
I won't repeat all the paralles with coaches and cars, but it struck me too that a magistrate would give the square root of feck all to any driver committing this sort of error, and it would be sent up to the high court.
As for TfL / tramtracks etc...the windows and electronic safety systems obviously need improving, but impossible to prove they knew that before hand.
As for the unions...unions played an important role to improve the safety of workers and providing care for injured workers and their families...once.
Now? Blocking measures that will demonstrably improve safety because their members might get caught sleeping or speeding? Beyond the pale in my view.
Edited by Ian Geary on Friday 1st November 09:24
gottans said:
This is a bad decision by the CPS.
The driver should absolutely be prosecuted as he was negligent, not as if the track had suddenly changed shaped or something, he knew the corner was there and failed to act appropriately or in accordance with his training.
If he had a heart attack and then crashed that would be different but he didn't.
The train was travelling at three times the speed limit for that bend - hardly a 'micro-sleep' I would suggest.The driver should absolutely be prosecuted as he was negligent, not as if the track had suddenly changed shaped or something, he knew the corner was there and failed to act appropriately or in accordance with his training.
If he had a heart attack and then crashed that would be different but he didn't.
Edited by gottans on Thursday 31st October 23:01
motco said:
The train was travelling at three times the speed limit for that bend - hardly a 'micro-sleep' I would suggest.
Micro-sleep can last from a few seconds and up to a minute, plenty of time to get yourself into all sorts of trouble.Also there is a thing called ‘cognitive underload’ which is can be a problem in jobs where you perform repetitive tasks with little mental stimulus. This can be a problem in certain parts of the rail industry such as metro lines, tubes, trams where there is little variation in your workload and your brain can go into a ‘low demand’ state and even if you can see a problem ahead it takes longer for your brain to send appropriate signals to compensate such as apply brakes. It’s a recognised problem within the industry and steps are been made to compensate for it but it is a relatively newly recognised phenomena and different companies are taking different measures.
As for the unions preventing safety measures and equipment being implemented, it’s the unions that have demanded that a more robust system is installed. TfL wanted to implement a cheap, quick system that merely sends an alarm to the driver (not much cop if he’s deep asleep!). The unions want that a similar system to the railway is installed so that if the driver doesn’t react to a speed violation or signal, the brakes are put on automatically. It’s a better system the union wants, not a half arsed quick-fix.
The report into the accident highlighted that the reporting of fatigue to bosses had to be examined which indicates to me that a certain management culture exists where you are pressured into working even when tired or you have to book off sick and that poor rostering exacerbated this. I don’t know the trams rosters but I imagine it’s similar to the rails which as any rail employee will tell you, it can be tough. If overtime was allowed, was this also monitored?
I’m not going to comment as to whether the driver should have been prosecuted or not as that’s not my arena but maybe if they prosecuted the driver, they’d be forced to prosecute the company? The unions would definitely be pushing (I’m surprised they’re not already) as the RAIB report does ask questions on fatigue monitoring, management culture, rostering, etc but infuriately doesn’t really answer them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff