Discussion
mrmaggit said:
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.
Perhaps he was too tired to remember that!
james_j said:
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 someone may have caused the death of 10 people through their irresponsibility then the money spent to bring them to justice is, well, justified, is it not? Just imagine it was your child, wife, mother, boyfriend etc, on the train.
telecat said:
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.
You don't have to be an expert to work out that 5 hours sleel in 48 hours then drivin for 65 miles would leave you less than being "on top of your game" give it a try but do the 65 miles on a simulator.
Why, exactly, would you discount the sleep evidence in these circumstances?
towman said:
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
Then Steve are we saying that all the railway accidents (many) over very recent years are not the fault of the railways.
Let us remember as a organisation offering a public service they have a duty of care. This care is not just for passengers but to their property and equipement in such to prevent accidents.
If there is a potential problem with crash barriers that could effect the railways safety then it should have been identified.
The evidence stacked against Gary Hart was based on probabilities for which the judicial system failed to recognise.
An excellent report Iolaire 10/10 *[gold]
>> Edited by cen on Friday 8th October 19:12
Well that woke you all up!!
This whole witch hunt was driven by the blame culture, the thirst for revenge to hang a label of responsibility on the first, and usually the softest target, Gary Hart.
The accident was a direct result of the Land Rover getting on to the track; proper barrier protection absolutely would have prevented that.
The worst case scenario then would have been Hart, if indeed he did nod off, wakening with a start when he hit the barrier; we would never even have heard of him.
As the case unfolded, two individuals had the courage to stand up and state the obvious. The first was Peter Lawrence of the pressure group, Rail Future, the second Dr. Ralph Harrington of the Institute of Railway Studies. Both of these men can be truly considered railway experts.
They concluded in their own politically correct way that there was a case for extended barriers to prevent a reoccurrence of a similar accident.
towman 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.
Steve
This whole witch hunt was driven by the blame culture, the thirst for revenge to hang a label of responsibility on the first, and usually the softest target, Gary Hart.
The accident was a direct result of the Land Rover getting on to the track; proper barrier protection absolutely would have prevented that.
The worst case scenario then would have been Hart, if indeed he did nod off, wakening with a start when he hit the barrier; we would never even have heard of him.
As the case unfolded, two individuals had the courage to stand up and state the obvious. The first was Peter Lawrence of the pressure group, Rail Future, the second Dr. Ralph Harrington of the Institute of Railway Studies. Both of these men can be truly considered railway experts.
They concluded in their own politically correct way that there was a case for extended barriers to prevent a reoccurrence of a similar accident.
StressedDave said:
Iolaire,
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.
.
Actually Dave, according to the reports I read, it was three weeks of examination that went into the Land Rover.
I have to tell you that one reason I raised this point about steering failure is that in the cases of investigation I have been involved in not once did I meet a qualified motor engineer, plenty of Traffic Inspectors yes, forensic men, yes, and brilliant in the lab they were too, but that is not what we're talking about here.
What I want to see is a guy who is a Land Rover expert, who has got his hands dirty, who has worked on them for years and knows them inside out.
I have over thirty years experience and, whilst not an expert on Land Rovers, do know them sufficiently well to realise that they are desperately flawed in design in many departments.
I do however have two colleagues who are older than me and truly are experts; they are both utterly convinced that Hart's vehicle suffered steering failure, everything points to that. But what we would all like to see, especially in the light of the photographs of the vehicle, are the actual components and the appalling state that they MUST be in after the collision.
This brings us neatly to Occam's razor; you have to understand that this is not a legal precedent, but a thirteenth century philosophical principle; as such it only stands up on the basis of all considered factors being true and accurate.
If however you wish to apply it, I would argue that the concept of steering failure is the only conclusion that would be the correct one.
If you study Professor Horne's work and other such studies, you will know that the term "falling asleep at the wheel" is misleading. The majority of driver's that experience this are not actually asleep, but loose their awareness usually only for one or two seconds, which of course in a vehicle at speed is all that's required for an accident to occur.
When they do hit something they are instantly awake and pumped to the brim with adrenalin at the shock of what is happening.
It would be fair to assume then that if Hart had nodded off he would have instantly been awakened by the jolt of his vehicle running off over the hard shoulder and onto the grass. Why then did the vehicle continue another FIFTY YARDS and then down the embankment and onto the track? Hart simply could not control it; let me remind you 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".
gemini said:
You been watching the recent TV interview or are you a relative?
Are you Mr Hart/
My Force were the investigators together with BTP
we got it right
IMO
The sentence was dished out by a court - that might have been debatable but he was responsible!
If you read my posts you will know exactly who I am.
I have never met Mr Hart or any of his family or friends.
I have deliberately not watched the interview so that it would not influence my thinking on this, although I will watch it now.
Whether or not you think you got it right has no real bearing on the principles discussed here.
If the safety systems are not radically altered in this country it will happen again, and this time it could be hundreds of lives.
Had the crash barriers prevented that vehicle from leaving the road the accident would never have happened. Indisputable fact.
IOLAIRE said:
Actually Dave, according to the reports I read, it was three weeks of examination that went into the Land Rover.
Apologies, I wasn't the forensic scientist involved in the case, my office mate was and he spent a week examining the Land Rover. No doubt Humberside Police spent quite a bit longer.
IOLAIRE said:
I have to tell you that one reason I raised this point about steering failure is that in the cases of investigation I have been involved in not once did I meet a qualified motor engineer, plenty of Traffic Inspectors yes, forensic men, yes, and brilliant in the lab they were too, but that is not what we're talking about here.
What I want to see is a guy who is a Land Rover expert, who has got his hands dirty, who has worked on them for years and knows them inside out.
I have over thirty years experience and, whilst not an expert on Land Rovers, do know them sufficiently well to realise that they are desperately flawed in design in many departments.
I do however have two colleagues who are older than me and truly are experts; they are both utterly convinced that Hart's vehicle suffered steering failure, everything points to that. But what we would all like to see, especially in the light of the photographs of the vehicle, are the actual components and the appalling state that they MUST be in after the collision.
Not wishing to denigrate your talents in any way, but this guy has been doing the analysis of failed components since before I was born (literally - he started work one day before I came onto the planet!). I can't remember a time when his hands weren't dirty and he has plenty of experience of Land Rovers. In any case, we aren't talking about a design flaw, but whether a failure of any component caused the loss of control. For that you need an expert material scientist, rather than a qualified motor engineer. IMHO, had steering failure occurred there would have been different physical evidence at the scene which would have pointed to it as a potential cause.
IOLAIRE said:
If you study Professor Horne's work and other such studies, you will know that the term "falling asleep at the wheel" is misleading. The majority of driver's that experience this are not actually asleep, but loose their awareness usually only for one or two seconds, which of course in a vehicle at speed is all that's required for an accident to occur.
When they do hit something they are instantly awake and pumped to the brim with adrenalin at the shock of what is happening.
It would be fair to assume then that if Hart had nodded off he would have instantly been awakened by the jolt of his vehicle running off over the hard shoulder and onto the grass. Why then did the vehicle continue another FIFTY YARDS and then down the embankment and onto the track? Hart simply could not control it; let me remind you 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".
I have studied Jim Horne's work and agree with what you say up to a point. But the 'microsleep', for want of a better term, is only the first stage - eventually you do indeed fall completely asleep. Part of the problem is that you also have to remain asleep for around 20 minutes before the brain actually 'remembers' that you've been asleep, which often leads those who suffer to deny any possibility that they could have fallen asleep. The reasn why Gary Hart was tried was the knowledge that you just don't suddenly fall asleep - you get warning from these periods of 'microsleep' which should cause a careful and prudent driver to take some form of rest or at least douse his central nervous system in caffeine. Failing to do so was considered by the jury to be dangerous which is why he was convicted. Because the results of this dangerous driving played a part in the deaths of the rail passengers, the charge became causing death by dangerous driving. This isn't a one-off either - there was plenty of legal precedent for this conviction.
I agree that the absence of barriers had a significant part to play in the incursion of the Land Rover and trailer onto the railway, but the very shallow angle that the Land Rover left the road had not been considered, but you can't account for absolutely everything in an engineering design. At the end of the day it all boils down to cost - there are plenty of other sites on the UK's motorways where someone coming off the carriageway will have similar effects but the probability of it happening and the cost of preventing it happening usually outweigh the benefits of putting the extra bit of armco in place. It was an unfortunate mix of events that caused the loss of life in this case - as many people have pointed out in this thread had there been nothing to hit it would have been a matter between Gary Hart and the recovery vehicle. It's all too easy to come along after the event and point to a list of things that could have prevented the accident - sorry, collision, it's no longer PC to refer to them as accidents. The problem with hindsight is that you have perfect vision.
StressedDave said:
IOLAIRE said:
Actually Dave, according to the reports I read, it was three weeks of examination that went into the Land Rover.
Apologies, I wasn't the forensic scientist involved in the case, my office mate was and he spent a week examining the Land Rover. No doubt Humberside Police spent quite a bit longer.
IOLAIRE said:
I have to tell you that one reason I raised this point about steering failure is that in the cases of investigation I have been involved in not once did I meet a qualified motor engineer, plenty of Traffic Inspectors yes, forensic men, yes, and brilliant in the lab they were too, but that is not what we're talking about here.
What I want to see is a guy who is a Land Rover expert, who has got his hands dirty, who has worked on them for years and knows them inside out.
I have over thirty years experience and, whilst not an expert on Land Rovers, do know them sufficiently well to realise that they are desperately flawed in design in many departments.
I do however have two colleagues who are older than me and truly are experts; they are both utterly convinced that Hart's vehicle suffered steering failure, everything points to that. But what we would all like to see, especially in the light of the photographs of the vehicle, are the actual components and the appalling state that they MUST be in after the collision.
Not wishing to denigrate your talents in any way, but this guy has been doing the analysis of failed components since before I was born (literally - he started work one day before I came onto the planet!). I can't remember a time when his hands weren't dirty and he has plenty of experience of Land Rovers. In any case, we aren't talking about a design flaw, but whether a failure of any component caused the loss of control. For that you need an expert material scientist, rather than a qualified motor engineer. IMHO, had steering failure occurred there would have been different physical evidence at the scene which would have pointed to it as a potential cause.
Dave, that's also my background in a previous life, forensic materials science.
That's why I accept the findings of the investigation, and not the views of someone who appears to have made several consecutive assumptions all based on fixing a few Landies at the road side.
I do agree to some extent with Iolaire that as individuals following an extraordinary set of circumstances with a very unfortunate conclusion one is at an extreme disadvantage against the State and big business interests.
Consider what has come out of Ladbroke Grove and Potters Bar where it is proved there was corporate and individual malpractice.
Ladbroke Grove, to put that in a motoring context. Suppose on the way to work every morning one came to a traffic light which was so positioned that it was impossible to see clearly. Would one continue on the basis that it is normally green? Yet that, more or less, is what was happening.
Regardless of whether Gary Hart is a sound upstanding citizen or a total idiot I have no knowledge. Yes he was stupid in many ways, but people have been far more stupid and with definite criminal intent and got away with less punishment. As I say vengeance should be no motive for justice.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 9th October 08:58
Firstly, I must state that I've only the information shown here and what I gleaned from the media at the time.
However, IF the guy was so tired there is NO WAY he should have driven...no argument.....I repeat no way should he have driven.
Now whether there was steering failure or not, or he nodded off, result was he lost control of his vehicle which led to a tragic crash. If he'd have been more awake and not suffering form x-hours lack of sleep, he may have been able to stop the vehicle on time. He wasn't and didn't so whatever he's maybe (only partly) GUILTY!!!
IF he was hung out to dry by the Police, prosecution etc that's another matter, which the guy should take up with persons who would defend him.
I know that when I drive (up to 1400km/day, 100000km/year) and I feel tired, I pull out, have a nap and carry on. NO appointment is worth having an accident for, and we all want to get back to our families.......
However, IF the guy was so tired there is NO WAY he should have driven...no argument.....I repeat no way should he have driven.
Now whether there was steering failure or not, or he nodded off, result was he lost control of his vehicle which led to a tragic crash. If he'd have been more awake and not suffering form x-hours lack of sleep, he may have been able to stop the vehicle on time. He wasn't and didn't so whatever he's maybe (only partly) GUILTY!!!
IF he was hung out to dry by the Police, prosecution etc that's another matter, which the guy should take up with persons who would defend him.
I know that when I drive (up to 1400km/day, 100000km/year) and I feel tired, I pull out, have a nap and carry on. NO appointment is worth having an accident for, and we all want to get back to our families.......
Flat in Fifth said:
IOLAIRE said:
Actually Dave, according to the reports I read, it was three weeks of examination that went into the Land Rover.
Apologies, I wasn't the forensic scientist involved in the case, my office mate was and he spent a week examining the Land Rover. No doubt Humberside Police spent quite a bit longer.
IOLAIRE said:
I have to tell you that one reason I raised this point about steering failure is that in the cases of investigation I have been involved in not once did I meet a qualified motor engineer, plenty of Traffic Inspectors yes, forensic men, yes, and brilliant in the lab they were too, but that is not what we're talking about here.
What I want to see is a guy who is a Land Rover expert, who has got his hands dirty, who has worked on them for years and knows them inside out.
I have over thirty years experience and, whilst not an expert on Land Rovers, do know them sufficiently well to realise that they are desperately flawed in design in many departments.
I do however have two colleagues who are older than me and truly are experts; they are both utterly convinced that Hart's vehicle suffered steering failure, everything points to that. But what we would all like to see, especially in the light of the photographs of the vehicle, are the actual components and the appalling state that they MUST be in after the collision.
Not wishing to denigrate your talents in any way, but this guy has been doing the analysis of failed components since before I was born (literally - he started work one day before I came onto the planet!). I can't remember a time when his hands weren't dirty and he has plenty of experience of Land Rovers. In any case, we aren't talking about a design flaw, but whether a failure of any component caused the loss of control. For that you need an expert material scientist, rather than a qualified motor engineer. IMHO, had steering failure occurred there would have been different physical evidence at the scene which would have pointed to it as a potential cause.
Dave, that's also my background in a previous life, forensic materials science.
That's why I accept the findings of the investigation, and not the views of someone who appears to have made several consecutive assumptions all based on fixing a few Landies at the road side.
I do agree to some extent with Iolaire that as individuals following an extraordinary set of circumstances with a very unfortunate conclusion one is at an extreme disadvantage against the State and big business interests.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 9th October 08:58
You know FiF, you do yourself no favours trying to imply that I am some sort of grease monkey that's done a bit with Land Rovers.
If that's how you think I arrived at these conclusions then you really are missing a great deal of what's been said here.
I still see no one has offered to let me see the components from the Land Rover. What I am concerned about is the fact that they were so badly damaged by the collision with the train that it is impossible to state with a certainty that they had not failed.
The whole case for the prosecution is based on assumption, not material proof.
If assumption has to be made then if you put a highly experienced LandRover engineer on the stand and ask him if the accident was indicative of steering failure he would undoubtedly state that it was. This agrees precisely with the behaviour of the vehicle and Hart's testimony as to how it went out of control.
That is a far more plausible scenario than simply falling asleep.
The most important point here is that if the rear of the Land Rover had been destroyed and the front was still intact,and showed conclusively that the steering had failed, what do you think the outcome of the whole event would have been.
I can guarantee you the media would have hunted the railways to the ends of the earth and gone along the crash barrier/safety regulation route.
JMGS4 said:
Firstly, I must state that I've only the information shown here and what I gleaned from the media at the time.
However, IF the guy was so tired there is NO WAY he should have driven...no argument.....I repeat no way should he have driven.
Now whether there was steering failure or not, or he nodded off, result was he lost control of his vehicle which led to a tragic crash. If he'd have been more awake and not suffering form x-hours lack of sleep, he may have been able to stop the vehicle on time. He wasn't and didn't so whatever he's maybe (only partly) GUILTY!!!
IF he was hung out to dry by the Police, prosecution etc that's another matter, which the guy should take up with persons who would defend him.
I know that when I drive (up to 1400km/day, 100000km/year) and I feel tired, I pull out, have a nap and carry on. NO appointment is worth having an accident for, and we all want to get back to our families.......
Absolutely spot on! Liebchen
Two hours sleep - even if he did not completely nod off - he may have been too tired to correct.
Und what about this "steering defect"? I can tell if my cars are feeling "poorly" when I am driving them - und I stop und check them. Have called AA und have sat provocatively on the bonnet flashing a bit of stocking whilst I file me claws!
As for question of barriers, warnings to trains en route, whether or not fullest facts were established - then perhaps his defence may have been lacking. Perhaps his sentence was longer than it need have been because he was one of those "creatures in cars and they deserve it!"
But - to drive after just two hours sleep and tow trailer and continue to drive if you "feel" the pull on the steer for any reason ....
Not what I expect of responsible driver.... but you must realise that I have a personal bias here as well - which I admit colours my judgement of this man. WildCat said:
But - to drive after just two hours sleep and tow trailer and continue to drive if you "feel" the pull on the steer for any reason ....
The steering feel is so dead on a Land Rover Wildy, even when it's new, that you just don't see it coming.
What's your personal bias?
IOLAIRE said:
But - to drive after just two hours sleep and tow trailer and continue to drive if you "feel" the pull on the steer for any reason ....
The steering feel is so dead on a Land Rover Wildy, even when it's new, that you just don't see it coming.
What's your personal bias?
ach! Not driven one of these things ....
Personal bias - man was taken fatally ill on my way to work some 14 and bit years ago... Was in wrong place - wrong time - wrong freak circumstances.
Pulled up in traffic jam - last car in this jam. Man had fatal some 20 cars clear run behind me and he hit throttle at high speed and hit me.... hard! Whole thing was nasty and - OK - not same as falling asleep at wheel - but man did suffer from heart condition and was stroke materials. Und he had complained he did not feel well before he set out that day according to his wife at inquest into his death and this accident.....took long painful time to recover..... so thus - bit biased on someone driving when "under the weather" und mit 2 hours' sleep - he must have felt the drowsiness .....must have been something in that car which must have given him clue of defect though.... surely? If he claims after even there was one?
Let me see if I understand what is being said here. Train driver jumps rails (for whatever reason) alongside road. Comes to rest on road. Phones police to tell them to switch traffic lights on road to red as his train is on the road. Truck comes along, driver fails to avoid great big bloody train on road, hits train, bounces off into opposing lane, coach comming from opposite direction fails to avoid great big bloody truck, kills ten.
Train driver gets long prison sentence.
Train driver gets long prison sentence.
diesel ed said:
Let me see if I understand what is being said here. Train driver jumps rails (for whatever reason) alongside road. Comes to rest on road. Phones police to tell them to switch traffic lights on road to red as his train is on the road. Truck comes along, driver fails to avoid great big bloody train on road, hits train, bounces off into opposing lane, coach comming from opposite direction fails to avoid great big bloody truck, kills ten.
Train driver gets long prison sentence.
Your analogy is a clever one Ed, but I think it will be lost on most people.
But it demonstrates the point that Hart did not in actual fact kill anyone, it was the train crash.
I repeat once again, proper barriers would have prevented his vehicle from accessing the track and therefore would have prevented the accident.
Believe it or not, they STILL haven't renewed the barriers.
IOLAIRE said:
If the safety systems are not radically altered in this country it will happen again, and this time it could be hundreds of lives.
Had the crash barriers prevented that vehicle from leaving the road the accident would never have happened. Indisputable fact.
Moving on from the blame culture, or just moving on to the future, perhaps the comments above are the most important. Deformable crash barriers, rumble strips, bloody great concrete walls or whatever is suitable whereever to protect the mass transit system really should be in place. However, its unlikely they will be as the upfront cost is too great to protect everywhere and sods law says its where its not protected that will come worst off.
Still, they could have a least made an effort and extended the barrier at this site. However, all you'll get is a speed camera . . .
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff