Discussion
This man has come up in some posts recently and in view of his recent release I thought I would comment on what I believe is something that affects us all as motorists, whether it be directly or otherwise.
As you read this, have no illusions about the fact that with a few possible exceptions any of you could be in the same position as Gary Hart.
In my research into this case on the web, I discovered some local discussion groups brimming with vitriolic hatred towards this man, some suggesting that he should have been given a life sentence; one even that his case merits the restoration of the death penalty!
Amidst the baying of human wolves for blood, and make no mistake, the credit for some of the leadership of the pack has to go to the investigating police officers, is the complete and utter absence of justice.
The whole sorry affair is the nation’s shame; here is a case that history may prove to be the motorist’s legal Waterloo if we do nothing to redress the damage.
Let's consider some of the facts, NOT what was alleged at the trial and afterwards, but the FACTS.
Gary Hart never "murdered" anyone, he was an ordinary man instantly catapulted into extraordinary circumstances.
Neither did he kill anyone; all of the victims died due to a collision between two trains, brought about by the most dreadful quirk of fate imaginable; destiny at it's most savage.
The people that know him best, friends, family and colleagues describe him as an extremely hard working, dedicated businessman; a first class, highly experienced driver. He came into the court with a spotless record, no criminal convictions, not even a parking ticket.
His conviction hinged solely on the belief that he fell asleep at the wheel.
What material proof do we have of this?
Absolutely none.
It is an assumption, based on a case built up against him by over a THOUSAND police officers. An assumption they make because they claim to have found nothing wrong with Hart's Land Rover, therefore he must have been lying when he asserts mechanical failure.
Consider this: Hart's Land Rover was struck head on by the mainline express at over 70 MPH; this is a huge, solid steel battering ram with a kinetic energy of many thousands of tons at that speed. His Land Rover was smashed into over EIGHT HUNDRED pieces; check this out, www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,444217,00.html, and you will see that there is virtually nothing left of the vehicle from the B post forward: they couldn't find anything wrong with it??? Well, well!!
Hart claims that there was a bang from under the vehicle and then it slewed to the left on to the verge and slid along BEHIND the crash barrier, I repeat, BEHIND the crash barrier. Remember that, it is very important. It then slid down the embankment onto the track. In court he stated, “I jerked at the steering wheel and there was no resistance at all, it went straight on, it was as if I was on ice.”
Those of you who are familiar with Land Rovers will know that Hart's vehicle was the traditional style Defender type which utilises the Range Rover chassis and running gear. At the extreme front of the vehicle is a track rod running parallel with the front axle joining both hub assemblies.
On the driver's side of the vehicle is a drop arm from the steering box to the offside hub.
This makes a total of three swivel joints all of which are vital to the steering gear of the vehicle.
I have lost count of the number of times I have replaced these joints on Land Rovers, many times at the roadside when they have totally failed. They fill up with water and then simply corrode away until they pop; or the adjustment thread on the track rod corrodes away and the end pulls out of the tube.
Either way it results in an instant and heart stopping loss of steering control of the vehicle. Most times it will be detected at a service or an MOT test, but if you’re unlucky it will happen on the road.
Again, most times it happens at very slow speed and on full lock on a corner, but if you’re unlucky it can occur at the most unfortunate time.
The events as described by Gary Hart in court and by the investigating officers are precisely indicative of an instant steering failure; this is in harmony with the fact that he had no control of the vehicle and couldn’t remove it from the tracks before the train hit.
So where did this theory come from about falling asleep at the wheel? It came from a police officer interviewing Hart and discovering that he had been talking to his new girlfriend on the phone for hours so therefore must have been too tired to drive and fell asleep at the wheel.
The Prosecution seize on this idea and employ a professional witness in the form of Professor Jim Horne who claims that Hart must have been suffering sleep deprivation symptoms because he was talking to his girl friend all night.
Did he examine Hart immediately after the accident? No.
Did he examine Hart within a few days of the accident even? No.
How does he know then? He doesn’t, he assumed it.
Hart was subjected to a full physical examination including drugs tests immediately after the accident and was given a clean bill of health.
The police then set up an identical Land Rover, trailer with vehicle on back, driven by a highly experienced and qualified traffic officer, and duplicate Hart’s journey up to the point of the accident and claim that for him to have done the journey in that time he would have to have driven, “like a bat out of hell!”
Can you think of a more unlikely person to fall asleep at the wheel than a man who is sexually charged with adrenalin through a new relationship, driving a LAND ROVER, like a “bat out of hell”, with a trailer on the back carrying another vehicle?
The weather conditions that night were also described as atrocious, making concentration all the more intense.
Consider this: how on earth did Hart’s Land Rover get behind the crash barrier?
Simple, it was woefully and culpably inadequate, and that is the whole issue here.
Imagine if Hart had retained steering control and was in the process of removing the vehicle from the tracks when the train hit him; he would have died a hero in the eyes of the media circus.
Imagine if the vehicle on that occasion had been a coach with sixty passengers, or a forty four ton articulated vehicle; the consequences don’t even bear thinking about!
The accident was elevated from a minor incident to a total disaster because the road engineering is such that a vehicle can access the tracks, a completely undeniable FACT.
The roads agency and the rail management for that area share a corporate responsibility for the standards of all safety equipment, not an individual motorist.
If any prosecution was appropriate, it should have been brought to bear on either or both of these agencies, not on Hart.
It is vital that as motorists you all fully realize the implications of this prosecution.
It sets a precedent for ANY motorist who is placed in a compromising situation through the actions or failure of others, to be prosecuted to the highest extent of the Law, to have any possibility of reasonable doubt completely removed or discounted from the Defendant’s submissions simply due to the influences of more powerful, and supposedly untouchable bodies.
Gary Hart has been miserably and shamefully abandoned through the apathy and lack of moral courage of his peers and the very people who should have represented him.
You may be interested to note that DCS Nick Bracken who was the Senior Investigating Officer is not an ordinary policeman; he is with the Transport Police.
That’s right, he works for the railways.
As you read this, have no illusions about the fact that with a few possible exceptions any of you could be in the same position as Gary Hart.
In my research into this case on the web, I discovered some local discussion groups brimming with vitriolic hatred towards this man, some suggesting that he should have been given a life sentence; one even that his case merits the restoration of the death penalty!
Amidst the baying of human wolves for blood, and make no mistake, the credit for some of the leadership of the pack has to go to the investigating police officers, is the complete and utter absence of justice.
The whole sorry affair is the nation’s shame; here is a case that history may prove to be the motorist’s legal Waterloo if we do nothing to redress the damage.
Let's consider some of the facts, NOT what was alleged at the trial and afterwards, but the FACTS.
Gary Hart never "murdered" anyone, he was an ordinary man instantly catapulted into extraordinary circumstances.
Neither did he kill anyone; all of the victims died due to a collision between two trains, brought about by the most dreadful quirk of fate imaginable; destiny at it's most savage.
The people that know him best, friends, family and colleagues describe him as an extremely hard working, dedicated businessman; a first class, highly experienced driver. He came into the court with a spotless record, no criminal convictions, not even a parking ticket.
His conviction hinged solely on the belief that he fell asleep at the wheel.
What material proof do we have of this?
Absolutely none.
It is an assumption, based on a case built up against him by over a THOUSAND police officers. An assumption they make because they claim to have found nothing wrong with Hart's Land Rover, therefore he must have been lying when he asserts mechanical failure.
Consider this: Hart's Land Rover was struck head on by the mainline express at over 70 MPH; this is a huge, solid steel battering ram with a kinetic energy of many thousands of tons at that speed. His Land Rover was smashed into over EIGHT HUNDRED pieces; check this out, www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,444217,00.html, and you will see that there is virtually nothing left of the vehicle from the B post forward: they couldn't find anything wrong with it??? Well, well!!
Hart claims that there was a bang from under the vehicle and then it slewed to the left on to the verge and slid along BEHIND the crash barrier, I repeat, BEHIND the crash barrier. Remember that, it is very important. It then slid down the embankment onto the track. In court he stated, “I jerked at the steering wheel and there was no resistance at all, it went straight on, it was as if I was on ice.”
Those of you who are familiar with Land Rovers will know that Hart's vehicle was the traditional style Defender type which utilises the Range Rover chassis and running gear. At the extreme front of the vehicle is a track rod running parallel with the front axle joining both hub assemblies.
On the driver's side of the vehicle is a drop arm from the steering box to the offside hub.
This makes a total of three swivel joints all of which are vital to the steering gear of the vehicle.
I have lost count of the number of times I have replaced these joints on Land Rovers, many times at the roadside when they have totally failed. They fill up with water and then simply corrode away until they pop; or the adjustment thread on the track rod corrodes away and the end pulls out of the tube.
Either way it results in an instant and heart stopping loss of steering control of the vehicle. Most times it will be detected at a service or an MOT test, but if you’re unlucky it will happen on the road.
Again, most times it happens at very slow speed and on full lock on a corner, but if you’re unlucky it can occur at the most unfortunate time.
The events as described by Gary Hart in court and by the investigating officers are precisely indicative of an instant steering failure; this is in harmony with the fact that he had no control of the vehicle and couldn’t remove it from the tracks before the train hit.
So where did this theory come from about falling asleep at the wheel? It came from a police officer interviewing Hart and discovering that he had been talking to his new girlfriend on the phone for hours so therefore must have been too tired to drive and fell asleep at the wheel.
The Prosecution seize on this idea and employ a professional witness in the form of Professor Jim Horne who claims that Hart must have been suffering sleep deprivation symptoms because he was talking to his girl friend all night.
Did he examine Hart immediately after the accident? No.
Did he examine Hart within a few days of the accident even? No.
How does he know then? He doesn’t, he assumed it.
Hart was subjected to a full physical examination including drugs tests immediately after the accident and was given a clean bill of health.
The police then set up an identical Land Rover, trailer with vehicle on back, driven by a highly experienced and qualified traffic officer, and duplicate Hart’s journey up to the point of the accident and claim that for him to have done the journey in that time he would have to have driven, “like a bat out of hell!”
Can you think of a more unlikely person to fall asleep at the wheel than a man who is sexually charged with adrenalin through a new relationship, driving a LAND ROVER, like a “bat out of hell”, with a trailer on the back carrying another vehicle?
The weather conditions that night were also described as atrocious, making concentration all the more intense.
Consider this: how on earth did Hart’s Land Rover get behind the crash barrier?
Simple, it was woefully and culpably inadequate, and that is the whole issue here.
Imagine if Hart had retained steering control and was in the process of removing the vehicle from the tracks when the train hit him; he would have died a hero in the eyes of the media circus.
Imagine if the vehicle on that occasion had been a coach with sixty passengers, or a forty four ton articulated vehicle; the consequences don’t even bear thinking about!
The accident was elevated from a minor incident to a total disaster because the road engineering is such that a vehicle can access the tracks, a completely undeniable FACT.
The roads agency and the rail management for that area share a corporate responsibility for the standards of all safety equipment, not an individual motorist.
If any prosecution was appropriate, it should have been brought to bear on either or both of these agencies, not on Hart.
It is vital that as motorists you all fully realize the implications of this prosecution.
It sets a precedent for ANY motorist who is placed in a compromising situation through the actions or failure of others, to be prosecuted to the highest extent of the Law, to have any possibility of reasonable doubt completely removed or discounted from the Defendant’s submissions simply due to the influences of more powerful, and supposedly untouchable bodies.
Gary Hart has been miserably and shamefully abandoned through the apathy and lack of moral courage of his peers and the very people who should have represented him.
You may be interested to note that DCS Nick Bracken who was the Senior Investigating Officer is not an ordinary policeman; he is with the Transport Police.
That’s right, he works for the railways.
IOLAIRE said:
The roads agency and the rail management for that area share a corporate responsibility for the standards of all safety equipment, not an individual motorist.
Sorry, i disagree. You are falling into the trap of the "blame cuture". This tragic accident was a result of either driver error or mechanical failure (it matters not).
The lack of barriers was in no way responsible for the accident.
The kneejerk reaction which has seen probably millions spent around the country on protecting bridges etc is a classic case of "bolting the stable door etc".
You may as well blame the train company for the inefficiencies of locomotive brakes.
This country will remain in it`s present pisspoor state until we stop trying to blam others for our own failures.
Steve
Iolaire,
Not wanting to stoke your fire too much, as it clearly needs none.
The SIO would come from British Transport Police - all the deaths occurred on the railway, which is under their jurisdiction and so a BTP officer would have been appointed. It may interest you to know that over a week was spent examining the various parts of the Land Rover in question by a mixture of Police accident investigators and a wholly independant forensic scientist. If the steering had failed as you suggested it would have been obvious compared to the myriad of failures caused by the impact of the train.
As for Professor Horne's testimony, ISTR that Mr Hart had his own expert in the field who agreed fully with Professor Horne's findings at trial. Professor Horne is the leading expert on people falling asleep while driving. It isn't so much a case of Gary Hart being let down by a massive conspiracy on the part of the Police, more a case of Occam's razor being properly applied. In the absence of any defect to the vehicle which would have caused a loss of control and the patent unlikelihood of someone deliberately driving off the road and on to the railway (not withstanding the lack of armco at the point where he went off the road, some significant distance before the railway embankment), then the driver falling asleep is the only cause of such behaviour. There are many other factors which also point to this being the cause.
As for the lynch-mob that seems to follow this case, any death is an emotive issue and where it is felt that the law is insufficiently strong to punish someone, you will get pressure groups trying to create a cause celebre. I should know, I used to have to deal with BRAKE and Roadpeace making mountains out of molehills in minor accidents.
Not wanting to stoke your fire too much, as it clearly needs none.
IOLAIRE said:
You may be interested to note that DCS Nick Bracken who was the Senior Investigating Officer is not an ordinary policeman; he is with the Transport Police.
That’s right, he works for the railways.
The SIO would come from British Transport Police - all the deaths occurred on the railway, which is under their jurisdiction and so a BTP officer would have been appointed. It may interest you to know that over a week was spent examining the various parts of the Land Rover in question by a mixture of Police accident investigators and a wholly independant forensic scientist. If the steering had failed as you suggested it would have been obvious compared to the myriad of failures caused by the impact of the train.
As for Professor Horne's testimony, ISTR that Mr Hart had his own expert in the field who agreed fully with Professor Horne's findings at trial. Professor Horne is the leading expert on people falling asleep while driving. It isn't so much a case of Gary Hart being let down by a massive conspiracy on the part of the Police, more a case of Occam's razor being properly applied. In the absence of any defect to the vehicle which would have caused a loss of control and the patent unlikelihood of someone deliberately driving off the road and on to the railway (not withstanding the lack of armco at the point where he went off the road, some significant distance before the railway embankment), then the driver falling asleep is the only cause of such behaviour. There are many other factors which also point to this being the cause.
As for the lynch-mob that seems to follow this case, any death is an emotive issue and where it is felt that the law is insufficiently strong to punish someone, you will get pressure groups trying to create a cause celebre. I should know, I used to have to deal with BRAKE and Roadpeace making mountains out of molehills in minor accidents.
I was there at the trial.
Gary Hart was and is a real piece of shit.
He was an accident waiting to happen.
He lied and lied again in the court case.
He showed no remorse to the 10 families of his victims.
I am sorry but you really are talking out your ass. If you kill someone through your actions, you should face the consequences of your actions. It is up to the jury to say weather you are guilty or not. Gary Hart kill 10 people and has served two and a half years for the crime; the maximum is 14 years per death.
I have been to the crash site too, the last time I was there the crash protection on the bridge has not been extended.
>> Edited by motorbiker on Friday 8th October 14:50
Gary Hart was and is a real piece of shit.
He was an accident waiting to happen.
He lied and lied again in the court case.
He showed no remorse to the 10 families of his victims.
I am sorry but you really are talking out your ass. If you kill someone through your actions, you should face the consequences of your actions. It is up to the jury to say weather you are guilty or not. Gary Hart kill 10 people and has served two and a half years for the crime; the maximum is 14 years per death.
I have been to the crash site too, the last time I was there the crash protection on the bridge has not been extended.
>> Edited by motorbiker on Friday 8th October 14:50
I recall hearing that he had two hours sleep the night before and (I think) only about three the previous night. He was on the 'net chatting to a girlfriend (phone records and her evidence).
Doing any long drive in those circumstances is silly, let alone in bad weather and towing.
Gareth
Doing any long drive in those circumstances is silly, let alone in bad weather and towing.
Gareth
Iolaire that link doesn't work.
Nevertheless.......
At the time I remember that personally felt very unhappy about the way Hart was treated. Made some comments elsewhere about it at the time, both during the investiagtion and after Hart charged.
A case of someone being tried for the consequences of an action rather than the action itself.
Let us assume, for the purpose of discussion, that the incident with the train had never happened, but that the Land Rover and trailer had slithered to a halt in a field. Chances are when hauled out by recovery truck called by plod, he would have got away with anything from a flea in his ear to being put on report. Of course a mechanical fault would have been easier to discover in that situation.
Seems to me we are looking at justice being applied more for vengeance than anything else.
As for the accident investigation: some points which Iolaire neglects to mention.
The vehicle examination lasted three weeks and a representative of Hart was present at all times. Also present were a vehicle examiner, and representatives from Railtrack and the health and safety executive.
In all 700 pieces of Land Rover were recovered. The only piece missing was from the drive mechanism.
The Humberside police accident investigation team found no sign of mechanical failure and no signs of braking on the grass.
Land Rover speed test: Hart made 999 call at 6.17am. He had travelled nearly 65 miles, from near Louth (where his vehicle was spotted on closed-circuit television footage) to the crash site near Great Heck. It had only taken him 70 minutes. As part of the investigation officers replicated the journey with an identical vehicle and load. After going like a "bat out of hell", breaking the speed limit and driving in the fast lane - which is illegal with a trailer - and with a police escort, they managed it with two minutes to spare.
Nevertheless.......
At the time I remember that personally felt very unhappy about the way Hart was treated. Made some comments elsewhere about it at the time, both during the investiagtion and after Hart charged.
A case of someone being tried for the consequences of an action rather than the action itself.
Let us assume, for the purpose of discussion, that the incident with the train had never happened, but that the Land Rover and trailer had slithered to a halt in a field. Chances are when hauled out by recovery truck called by plod, he would have got away with anything from a flea in his ear to being put on report. Of course a mechanical fault would have been easier to discover in that situation.
Seems to me we are looking at justice being applied more for vengeance than anything else.
As for the accident investigation: some points which Iolaire neglects to mention.
The vehicle examination lasted three weeks and a representative of Hart was present at all times. Also present were a vehicle examiner, and representatives from Railtrack and the health and safety executive.
In all 700 pieces of Land Rover were recovered. The only piece missing was from the drive mechanism.
The Humberside police accident investigation team found no sign of mechanical failure and no signs of braking on the grass.
Land Rover speed test: Hart made 999 call at 6.17am. He had travelled nearly 65 miles, from near Louth (where his vehicle was spotted on closed-circuit television footage) to the crash site near Great Heck. It had only taken him 70 minutes. As part of the investigation officers replicated the journey with an identical vehicle and load. After going like a "bat out of hell", breaking the speed limit and driving in the fast lane - which is illegal with a trailer - and with a police escort, they managed it with two minutes to spare.
Flat in Fifth said:
At the time I remember that personally felt very unhappy about the way Hart was treated. Made some comments elsewhere about it at the time, both during the investiagtion and after Hart charged.
A case of someone being tried for the consequences of an action rather than the action itself.
If he had come off the road elsewhere then he'd have got a slap on the wrist (As a friend of mine did - wrote off a hire car and signpost when he fell asleep - had to do a driving improvement course to avoid points etc for DWODC).
Again another one of these cases were I would discount the "Sleep" evidence because it is circumstancial. An "expert" stating facts so far beyond the event is stretching belief. However Towman, the blame culture is operating here in wanting to find the scapegoat. As for the rest I doubt they could prove the steering wasn't faulty so had to concerntrate on other possibilities to "get their man".
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 8th October 16:33
>> Edited by telecat on Friday 8th October 16:33
Was the case really built up using over a 1000 police officers?
If this is true, it's incredible how this enourmous financial burden on the taxpayer could be justified.
Did they use that many officers on a murder case, for example, the yorkshire ripper?
It sounds like desperation to exonerate some and create a scapegoat.
If this is true, it's incredible how this enourmous financial burden on the taxpayer could be justified.
Did they use that many officers on a murder case, for example, the yorkshire ripper?
It sounds like desperation to exonerate some and create a scapegoat.
I never towed a trailer in bad weather conditions in but averaging 60 mph at that time in the morning doesn't sound reckless.
Millions of us fly long haul overnight, drive our cars from the airport. Or work all night. First nightshift of the week having not slept all monday daytime – drive home.
Is it relevant or persuasive whether the Land Rover was driven by a churchgoing mother driving her kids back after flying in from Disney Land, or a Bloke who’s been chatting up a woman on the internet all night ?
Personal responsibility arguments only work if we are prepared to throw the rulebook at everyone equally for outcome not intent.
Millions of us fly long haul overnight, drive our cars from the airport. Or work all night. First nightshift of the week having not slept all monday daytime – drive home.
Is it relevant or persuasive whether the Land Rover was driven by a churchgoing mother driving her kids back after flying in from Disney Land, or a Bloke who’s been chatting up a woman on the internet all night ?
Personal responsibility arguments only work if we are prepared to throw the rulebook at everyone equally for outcome not intent.
Mr E said:
more a case of Occam's razor being properly applied.
I was unaware you could be convicted on Occams razor.
What I meant was that if you can discount all the other possible cuases of the accident, then the only one remaining was the one that the jury believed and convicted on.
and said:
I never towed a trailer in bad weather conditions in but averaging 60 mph at that time in the morning doesn't sound reckless.
I have and it is. I tow my Chimaera to sprints, mostly very early in the morning when traffic is light. I allow an average of 50mph when the route is mostly or entirely motorway. You get a lot less if there's any amount of non-motorway - home to Debden last weekend, for example, was ~50 miles, none of it motorway, and took 90 minutes. (BTW, the limit on motorways for trailers is 60mph and on non-divided roads 50mph.)
Nonetheless I think Hart is being pilloried because of his lifestyle, because he is an "evil motorist" and because of the consequences of his actions. None of this make me very comfortable.
>> Edited by zumbruk on Friday 8th October 16:28
and said:Indeed. I think it was demonstrated pretty clearly that what he did was irresponsible, but the outcome of his irresponsibility was out of all proportion to what one could reasonably expect to have happened. BEFORE the accident took place, a safety inspection report had drawn attention to the inadequate nature of the barrier between the road and track. The recommendation was ignored. By all means punish the man in proportion to his irresponsibility, but you can't justify punishing him for the inadequate safety barrier or his stunningly bad luck.
Personal responsibility arguments only work if we are prepared to throw the rulebook at everyone equally for outcome not intent.
StressedDave said:
more a case of Occam's razor being properly applied.
I was unaware you could be convicted on Occams razor.
What I meant was that if you can discount all the other possible cuases of the accident, then the only one remaining was the one that the jury believed and convicted on.
Or even "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Fact...........if there hads been proper barriers between road and railway this would not have happened.
If a driver was to have a heart attack or similar at the whel this could happen again.
What reason is there for no proper barriers>> Is it just cost?
He didnt help himself with his attitude in court however he has no served his sentence.
I was discussing this in the pub just after it happened. I was surprised (and said so) that he had some minutes on the track prior to the train hitting the Landrover. I wondered why he hadn't tried to stop the train by shorting out the rails. The signalling system flows a low voltage current along one rail, and back the other. Short across the rails (the wheels of a train also do this), the system thinks the track is occupied, all the signals go to red, train stops.
Apparently, I was the only one that knew this.
He could then have talked to the police, knowing that he had, in railway parlance, "protected the train".
I agree though, that he did seem, at the time, at best, a little short on apologies.
Apparently, I was the only one that knew this.
He could then have talked to the police, knowing that he had, in railway parlance, "protected the train".
I agree though, that he did seem, at the time, at best, a little short on apologies.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff