Discussion
swilly said:
Thank you for that correction Pigeon - I admit that I made no attempt to find out which body actually takes responsibility for the design and maintenance of crash barriers! So presumably it was the Highways Agency or their contractor that should have been in the dock for an inadequate barrier provision
Just to clarify, ownership of the bridge is not necessarily with the HA.
If the rail was there first and the bridge constructed to go over it, then the bridge is the responsibility of the HA or County Council.
If the road was there first, and the bridge constructed to get the rail through, then the bridge is the responsibility of what was Railtrack.
Furthermore, if the road was a motorway or trunk road, it is HA responsibility.
If it is any other road it is the local county council responsibility.
Design of crash barriers and their layouts and what goes where are contained in standard procedures that come frm the DoT.
>> Edited by swilly on Wednesday 13th October 08:27
Correct, except to say that the crash barrier leading up to the bridge, including the papapet crossing it, will be the responsibility of the Highways Agency (in the case of a motorway bridge).
There are only a few bridges left on the trunk road/ motorway network that are the responsibility of Network Rail.
Alright Iolaire lets try it like this:
You are just a simple apologet-nik, you'd sit on this board and apologise for any driver in any situation because in your eyes - they can do no wrong.
Now thats a tad of a generalisation but from your posts and posting style i'd say i'm on the mark. In your eyes drivers can do no wrong. The bottom line is this - you are responsible for your own actions, Hart can deny it as much as he wants and you can cry foul about the justice system in this case as much as you want - he was convicted on the evidence presented by his peers. Bang end of story. IIRC he appealed and it was thrown out, correct me if i'm wrong.
The only people dragging this country down are people like yourself who will try and turn us into an American state where someone else is always to blame for every action - god forbid they stand up and say "well actually it was my fault" and actually show some honesty and character.
You are just a simple apologet-nik, you'd sit on this board and apologise for any driver in any situation because in your eyes - they can do no wrong.
Now thats a tad of a generalisation but from your posts and posting style i'd say i'm on the mark. In your eyes drivers can do no wrong. The bottom line is this - you are responsible for your own actions, Hart can deny it as much as he wants and you can cry foul about the justice system in this case as much as you want - he was convicted on the evidence presented by his peers. Bang end of story. IIRC he appealed and it was thrown out, correct me if i'm wrong.
The only people dragging this country down are people like yourself who will try and turn us into an American state where someone else is always to blame for every action - god forbid they stand up and say "well actually it was my fault" and actually show some honesty and character.
kurgis said:
Alright Iolaire lets try it like this:
You are just a simple apologet-nik, you'd sit on this board and apologise for any driver in any situation because in your eyes - they can do no wrong.
Now thats a tad of a generalisation but from your posts and posting style i'd say i'm on the mark. In your eyes drivers can do no wrong. The bottom line is this - you are responsible for your own actions, Hart can deny it as much as he wants and you can cry foul about the justice system in this case as much as you want - he was convicted on the evidence presented by his peers. Bang end of story. IIRC he appealed and it was thrown out, correct me if i'm wrong.
The only people dragging this country down are people like yourself who will try and turn us into an American state where someone else is always to blame for every action - god forbid they stand up and say "well actually it was my fault" and actually show some honesty and character.
Now you're getting me angry.
Don't have time to respond to this just now, but I will do when I return.
Let me suggest in the interim period that you read the posts carefully and learn something from all the contributors and not just myself.
If you think I'm some sort of softy do gooder you really have no idea what you're talking about and you just don't see it.
I'll be back!
kurgis said:
Yup DvD and this man is a villain.
Convicted by a jury of his peers on evidence.
Don't like that statement or the justice system?
Emigrate.
Excuse me?
Villan?
What a pile of sh!te.
Definition "a wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberately"
Did he DELIBERATELY crash onto the railway line - NO
Did he DELIBERATELY derail the train - NO
Have you NEVER made a mistake, an error of judgement? That is what I believe happened here - he drifted off the road because something happened - he either fell asleep or his steering failed. A normal accident and he should be punished for that, nothing else.
It is incredibly sad that as a result of said accident ten people lost their lives, but he did not set out that morning thinking of killing ten people, so by no stretch can he be considered a villan.
Just to let you all know I went the crash site a few days ago and yes the motorway barrier has not increased in size BUT the is a blood big crash block of rubble and other stuff just down the hill from the motorway which by its look would stop a tank, its about 3 metres wide by 1.50 in height and about 4 metres long.
You can also see it on the TV program when Gary Hart visits the site; it’s in the background left of the wooden fence. Although Gary Hart does say “he can not believe the crash barrier has not increased in size so his crash could happen again”, and make a big deal about this in the show.
“What’s that behind you, Scot mist, or have you got sleep in your eyes”.
motorbiker said:
Just to let you all know I went the crash site a few days ago and yes the motorway barrier has not increased in size BUT there is a blood big block of rubble and other stuff just down the hill from the motorway which by its look would stop a tank, its about 3 metres wide by 1.50 in height and about 4 metres long.
You can also see it on the TV program when Gary Hart visits the site; it’s in the background left of the wooden fence. Although Gary Hart does say “he can not believe the crash barrier has not increased in size so his crash could happen again”, and he makes a big deal about this in the show.
“What’s that behind you, Scot mist, or have you got sleep in your eyes”.
mondeoman said:
So IF Mr Hart's vehicle had come to rest against the barrier rather than missing it WOULD he have been charged with, and convicted of, dangerous driving?
In a word - no. He'd've called the AA/RAC and been towed home and no-one would've noticed.
And then been done for "failing to report"?
Did say earlier on wasn't going to post anything further on this thread, but I can make U-turns too you know. 
Just come back to say the programme changed nothing for me. Of course it was just a narrow view of the whole issue.
The incident was investigated and reported.
IMO NYP etc. got it right.
However certain things came out of that investigation which had to be judged in open court.
The court decided that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and applied a sentence.
Still think that vengeance has no place in the justice system, clearly the families and survivors still want that vengeance. Seems to me he was tried for the original mistake and sentenced for the aftermath.
I wonder how much of the comments about Prescott were edited out. Sorry just me being a cynic.
Off at a tangent: Considering all TV programmes such as this are often subject to very cynical editing. Anyone agree with my view that the worst behaviour throughout the entire programme was displayed by journalists?
Just come back to say the programme changed nothing for me. Of course it was just a narrow view of the whole issue.
The incident was investigated and reported.
IMO NYP etc. got it right.
However certain things came out of that investigation which had to be judged in open court.
The court decided that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and applied a sentence.
Still think that vengeance has no place in the justice system, clearly the families and survivors still want that vengeance. Seems to me he was tried for the original mistake and sentenced for the aftermath.
I wonder how much of the comments about Prescott were edited out. Sorry just me being a cynic.
Off at a tangent: Considering all TV programmes such as this are often subject to very cynical editing. Anyone agree with my view that the worst behaviour throughout the entire programme was displayed by journalists?
Unfortunately I only caught the last 15 mins of the programme.
However, I did find it a little strange that he did NOT say " I think I may have fell asleep"
OR
" I had a catastrophic vehicle failure and did my best to avoid an accident"
His reaction was strange IMO.... and only stated "I have evidence that I think still proves I am innocent"... Then burnt it!
I still believe justice has been done, but it is an unfortunate "incident" for all involved.....
Cheers,
Steve.
However, I did find it a little strange that he did NOT say " I think I may have fell asleep"
OR
" I had a catastrophic vehicle failure and did my best to avoid an accident"
His reaction was strange IMO.... and only stated "I have evidence that I think still proves I am innocent"... Then burnt it!
I still believe justice has been done, but it is an unfortunate "incident" for all involved.....
Cheers,
Steve.
kurgis said:
Alright Iolaire lets try it like this:
You are just a simple apologet-nik, you'd sit on this board and apologise for any driver in any situation because in your eyes - they can do no wrong.
Now thats a tad of a generalisation but from your posts and posting style i'd say i'm on the mark. In your eyes drivers can do no wrong. The bottom line is this - you are responsible for your own actions, Hart can deny it as much as he wants and you can cry foul about the justice system in this case as much as you want - he was convicted on the evidence presented by his peers. Bang end of story. IIRC he appealed and it was thrown out, correct me if i'm wrong.
The only people dragging this country down are people like yourself who will try and turn us into an American state where someone else is always to blame for every action - god forbid they stand up and say "well actually it was my fault" and actually show some honesty and character.
Alright Kurgis, I'm back to deal with this issue and you. I see from your profile you are a Road Safety Researcher; that elevates your remarks to a totally different level, because you now have to justify what you said on a professional as well as personal level.
I am desperately interested in watching you do this.
I am pulling out all the stops on this because, unlike a great many individuals involved, I can see the monstrously dangerous implications of what is happening here.
The very thing that you accuse me of, the blame culture, is exactly the antithesis of reality.
It is individuals like you who seek to prosecute people like Hart in similar circumstances because you have no perception of, or regard for, natural justice, that nurture and propagate the blame culture.
Hart was NOT convicted on clear evidence; the evidence against him was manufactured in theory only and was wholly circumstantial; there wasn't a single shred of solid MATERIAL evidence to support the theory that he fell asleep.
He was NOT convicted by the whole jury, the judge accepted a majority verdict, which, when taken into account the evidence being wholly circumstantial is positively outrageous, and is in itself a clear miscarriage of justice; nothing short of a unanimous verdict should have been acceptable.
Hart had NOT exhausted the Appeal Procedure; he still had one process left in this country and the option of going to Europe. He gave up on the system, utterly sickened and disillusioned by what had transpired.
In the documentary he tells you that whilst burning the case notes to try and put the event behind him.
Flat in Fifth mentioned cynicism in journalism and he couldn't have been more spot on.
Gary Hart was positively crucified by the media, their thirst for bloody revenge on behalf of their readership elevated to new, greater and even more disgraceful levels.
Even throughout the documentary the commentator's voice-over repeatedly asserted that he was attempting to get Hart to admit he had done it and apologise.
Did it ever occur to him for one second that he might be innocent! It was supposed to be an objective overview of the whole incident.
It is undoubtedly the case that if Hart had admitted that he fell asleep and taken sole responsibility for the accident, his sentence would have been very much lighter, possibly even suspended; perhaps you can explain to me that if he is the villain that you and others claim he is, why he did not simply take this route to save himself?
The prime issue here of course is that it is totally immaterial whether or not Hart fell asleep, or if he is guilty or innocent. At the locus of the accident a vehicle was permitted to intrude onto the main line carrying a 120 mph express train because the crash barriers are totally and grossly inadequate.
It is utterly staggering that they are STILL the same to this day.
Get your head round this Kurgis, if Hart did have a mechanical failure it would have made absolutely no difference to the event horizon, except that Hart would probably have been hailed a hero for trying to get help on the phone.
Get your head round the fact that exactly the same thing could happen in an hour's time, or tonight, or tomorrow; THERE ARE NO CRASH BARRIERS!!; GOT IT!!
In the midst of the original debate on here I find myself stating this and then discovering that it DID happen again, (www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=143)
Almost a clone of the Selby incident and a Land Rover once again, only this time the driver paid with his life, and the whole thing received the absolute minimum of attention from the media.
It will happen again Kurgis, because people in your position, the roads agencies and the rail network, have failed totally to recognise the essence of the problem, and are quite content to sit on their cowardly, apathetic arses and let the sad scapegoat figure of Gary Hart, bowed down by the weight of enforced responsibility, stagger on trying to rebuild his life.
Make no mistake Kurgis, if you put a foot wrong in the same way, the bastards will hunt you down; will it be because you're guilty?
Not a chance! You are just an easy and appropriate target to satisfy the hunger of revenge.
Each and every one of us has to sleep that little bit lighter because of this case, and if you don't see that now, you are seriously deluding yourself.
As a footnote to your assertion about me defending drivers and seeing them as blameless; this proves to me that you clearly have not read my posts or made no attempt to understand what I say.
I frequently agree with the Trafpol on this site about the standard of driving in this country. If I had my way I would revoke the licences of about fifty percent of drivers, that's how bad I consider them to be.
The law however frequently and deliberately targets the wrong people, the talented drivers; I won't tolerate that.
As for me "dragging the country down"; a remark like that is almost beyond contempt, I'm going to put it down to youth.
Just ask yourself how much the fiasco of Hart's investigation and subsequent trial cost the country and what difference it made.
Look into your eyes in the mirror Kurgis and think!
Sorry Ted, but this time I make no apologies for the length of the post.
>> Edited by IOLAIRE on Thursday 28th October 15:08
motorbiker said:
Just to let you all know I went the crash site a few days ago and yes the motorway barrier has not increased in size BUT there is a blood big block of rubble and other stuff just down the hill from the motorway which by its look would stop a tank, its about 3 metres wide by 1.50 in height and about 4 metres long.
You can also see it on the TV program when Gary Hart visits the site; it’s in the background left of the wooden fence. Although Gary Hart does say “he can not believe the crash barrier has not increased in size so his crash could happen again”, and he makes a big deal about this in the show.
“What’s that behind you, Scot mist, or have you got sleep in your eyes”.
I'm sorry do you mean the pile of rubble that you talk about. Can I suggest that if you live nearby you take a couple of pics of this and post it on the site so we can see it.
Please remember that I'm up in Scotland, not on the back of a horse.
I'm surprised at your reaction Kurgis, I copied my mine from another thread.
'To start with this crash occured because someone fell asleep, he was tired. Are we all immune from that, I am on a temporary nightshift which requires me to drive 37 miles, I'm tired, if it happened to me would I be so reviled?
What happened afterwards is subject to debate, albeit limited because so much evidence is missing or has been buggered around with. It's safe to say it was ambiguous.
Lastly the guy has been affected (not surprisingly) and he may be reacting because of his perceived injustice/denial/guilt, who knows.
I just think he did something we all have done/could do and it turned into a hideous nightmare, It makes me very, very uneasy about the way our legal system and the media have become entwined.'
>> Edited by Apache on Thursday 28th October 15:55
'To start with this crash occured because someone fell asleep, he was tired. Are we all immune from that, I am on a temporary nightshift which requires me to drive 37 miles, I'm tired, if it happened to me would I be so reviled?
What happened afterwards is subject to debate, albeit limited because so much evidence is missing or has been buggered around with. It's safe to say it was ambiguous.
Lastly the guy has been affected (not surprisingly) and he may be reacting because of his perceived injustice/denial/guilt, who knows.
I just think he did something we all have done/could do and it turned into a hideous nightmare, It makes me very, very uneasy about the way our legal system and the media have become entwined.'
>> Edited by Apache on Thursday 28th October 15:55
I have no access to the TV programme. How far does this extra 'barrier' extend? Remember that if you end up behind the crash barrier you 'may' travel almost parallel for a while before going down the slope.
The barrier needs to be a single barrier extending the whole length of that section of road.
The barrier needs to be a single barrier extending the whole length of that section of road.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff