Discussion
Fat Audi 80 said:
If Gary Hart had not have been TIRED the accident would not have happened.
[david brent] FACT [david brent]
He was therefore driving dangerously and deserves to be tried accordingly.
The jury found him guilty. End of story.
Exactly the same would have happened if he had hit a van load of kids broken down on the hard shoulder....
And what EXACTLY is the penalty for Dangerous Driving? Or is it dependant on the final outcome of the ensuing accident?
kevinday said:
Reasonable doubt!!!
Yup. This is the bit that bothers me somewhat.
It's very possible the Jury got it right, and the man is an idiot who should be punished.
As pointed out, if the incident occured a few minutes earlier, the landy would have ended up in a field and we'd never have heard about. The man did not set out to kill people, and it's simply a whole bunch of nasty events that led to the deaths.
Flat in Fifth said:
Mr E said:
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
Yes indeed, and then you *investigate* and *prove* this impobable cause.
Innocent until proven guilty? Or innocent until the media/courts decide they need a scapegoat and judge you on "probable cause".
I'm serious here. Is probable cause enough to be convicted for taking a life?
Fat Audi 80 said:
If Gary Hart had not have been TIRED the accident would not have happened.
[david brent] FACT [david brent]
He was therefore driving dangerously and deserves to be tried accordingly.
The jury found him guilty. End of story.
Exactly the same would have happened if he had hit a van load of kids broken down on the hard shoulder....
I cannot believe that despite three pages now of debate that anyone can still simply stick to a line like that.
You MUST examine viable possibilities that are achievable.
If Gary Hart hadn't bought a LandRover the accident wouldn't have happened; or if Land Rover wouldn't have made the God awful thing in the first place, the accident wouldn't have happened!! Unachievable.
If Gary Hart had been more awake the accident wouldn't have happened.....possibly.
If the steering on the Land Rover hadn't failed the accident wouldn't have happened......possibly.
If the crash barriers had been twice as long and four feet high the accident wouldn't have happened.....absolutely definitely certain!!!
So what's the solution?
Prosecute Gary Hart.
What does this achieve in material terms?
Nothing.
What have we learned from this and what has changed to prevent this happening again?
Absolutely nothing!
Virtually the same accident happened less than two years later with an almost identical vehicle and another two trains on a main line!!!
The crash barriers at the locus of both these sites are totally unchanged and grossly inadequate.
Is there a mechanism whereby we can guarantee that not one single driver will fall asleep, speed, skid out of control or suffer mechanical failure anywhere near these kind of locations?
Absolutely not!
Is there a mechanism whereby we can guarantee that a vehicle that is out of control cannot intrude onto the railway conduit?
Absolutely yes. A properly constructed and erected crash barrier!
Why haven't we done this?
MONEY.
Errrr Hello.
Gary Hart WAS DRIVING the car.
Driving involves human input and decision.
The court cannot prove he feel asleep but it has been shown it was highly likely and your THEORY about the steering has not been shown to be highly likely so a large proportion of the blame falls squaerly on the shoulder of a man who has driven a motor vehicle on very little sleep over 48 hours.
QED.
Incidentally I have been a passenger in a vehilce having worked 21 out of 24 hours previously had had a couple of "microsleeps" whilst trying to stay awake and you don't know they have happened until you wake up.
Gary Hart has been irresponsible. IMO.
Cheers,
Steve.
Gary Hart WAS DRIVING the car.
Driving involves human input and decision.
The court cannot prove he feel asleep but it has been shown it was highly likely and your THEORY about the steering has not been shown to be highly likely so a large proportion of the blame falls squaerly on the shoulder of a man who has driven a motor vehicle on very little sleep over 48 hours.
QED.
Incidentally I have been a passenger in a vehilce having worked 21 out of 24 hours previously had had a couple of "microsleeps" whilst trying to stay awake and you don't know they have happened until you wake up.
Gary Hart has been irresponsible. IMO.
Cheers,
Steve.
Fat Audi 80 said:
Errrr Hello.
Gary Hart WAS DRIVING the car.
Driving involves human input and decision.
The court cannot prove he feel asleep but it has been shown it was highly likely and your THEORY about the steering has not been shown to be highly likely so a large proportion of the blame falls squaerly on the shoulder of a man who has driven a motor vehicle on very little sleep over 48 hours.
QED.
Incidentally I have been a passenger in a vehilce having worked 21 out of 24 hours previously had had a couple of "microsleeps" whilst trying to stay awake and you don't know they have happened until you wake up.
Gary Hart has been irresponsible. IMO.
Cheers,
Steve.
IRRESPONSIBLE??!!
For God's sake Steve, Gary Hart was prosecuted for causing the deaths of ten people!!
Not for being "irresponsible".
He was at the very worst irresponsible, just like most of us are many times in our lives.
How can you honestly believe, with all the factors taken into account, that this man was SOLELY responsible for the multiple slaughter of ten people!!
That is what the judgement is, solely responsible.
I cannot for the life of me understand why some of you cannot grasp this concept; I just hope to God it never happens to you.
But if it does you better pray that there are people like me around to represent your case.
kevinday said:
Mr Hart after managing only 5 hours sleep in the previous 48, drove 65 miles and probably fell asleep causing his vehicle to leave the road into the path of an oncoming train.
Or is that just what the jury believed?
To answer your question - Yes, that is what the jury believed, however, I believe Iolaire makes a good point in that there IS reasonable cause to doubt this. Therefore the conviction should have been not guilty. Remember, for a guilty conviction of a criminal offence it must be 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
Madram - Liebchen -
I asked my legal beagle cousin about this. He agrees that he would have played it on the "difficult to prove 100% beyond doubt that he actually fell asleep" Und he would have played up the "steering" question - which must be what his defence did.
Case would have been difficult on each side - because of intense media speculation before it even came to trial. This may have unduly influenced the trial as well - because average jury member is not so objective even when presented mit black and white facts. (remember I am bit biased in any case regarding those who drive when feeling unfit - was on receiving end once - so am not very sympathetic towards this guy - but am prepared to acknolwedge other side of coin!) But then Rose West has argued same - trial by media swayed jury into thinking she was "guilty"...
Und we are all unwilling to face our dark sides, und in case of Mr Hart - he is normal law-abiding person und a nice family bloke who cannot come to terms with unpalatabe fact that he either fell asleep at wheel, failed to note a steering defect and stop and call AA - or even was in process of pulling onto hard shoulder to make the call when vehicle served down embankment as result of steering defect - und he was in deepest shock himself - und that this resulted in 10 deaths and a lot of disruption to rail networks.... it is human conditions.
kevinday said:
I find it hard to believe that somebody could fall asleep if driving a vehicle combination at that speed, the level of effort required keeps the concentration level sufficiently high to avoid sleep. I would say that if they estimated his average speed as around 30 there is much more likelyhood of him falling asleep.
But people say driving at 70 mph makes them sleepy .... but yes I would have been aware of what I was driving and towing - but if he had too little sleep as constant .... then he could well have nodded off. I nearly got arrested in a very cold and drafty train station in Hanover for falling asleep in the waiting room at 4.30 a.m. - Was student in transit and had been travelling across Europe and waiting for long periods for connections - was totally knackered by this... German railway cops....
kevinday said:
If I read the material correctly he had been working with these levels of sleep for some time, therefore he may well be one of those few who do not need as much sleep as the average person.
Perhaps - but human machines can only cope with this for so long und when guards are down - or they reach certain level of exhaustion - it catches up with them. Perhaps CPS were able to "prove" this to jury as well.....
But still say - if guy had mechanical problem - he should have been able to pick it up during the drive - and he should have ensured he had sufficient sleep, stops, black coffee und chocolates (Nothing like chocolate and pickled gherkins in a sandwich for revitalising you when kitten to be wears you out
) But will grudgingly acknowledge that chap may have had some element of rough justice - but that one would have to read the case notes and transcript of trial and evidence to understand whys and wherefores properly.
IOLAIRE said:
Errrr Hello.
Gary Hart WAS DRIVING the car.
Driving involves human input and decision.
The court cannot prove he feel asleep but it has been shown it was highly likely and your THEORY about the steering has not been shown to be highly likely so a large proportion of the blame falls squaerly on the shoulder of a man who has driven a motor vehicle on very little sleep over 48 hours.
QED.
Incidentally I have been a passenger in a vehilce having worked 21 out of 24 hours previously had had a couple of "microsleeps" whilst trying to stay awake and you don't know they have happened until you wake up.
Gary Hart has been irresponsible. IMO.
Cheers,
Steve.
IRRESPONSIBLE??!!
For God's sake Steve, Gary Hart was prosecuted for causing the deaths of ten people!!
Not for being "irresponsible".
He was at the very worst irresponsible, just like most of us are many times in our lives.
How can you honestly believe, with all the factors taken into account, that this man was SOLELY responsible for the multiple slaughter of ten people!!
That is what the judgement is, solely responsible.
I cannot for the life of me understand why some of you cannot grasp this concept; I just hope to God it never happens to you.
But if it does you better pray that there are people like me around to represent your case.
Okay, I have read the thread, I have NOT seen the Show (programme), I was not in court, but I put my trust in fellow MOP that were on jury duty that were on duty that day.
Either that or he is the unluckiest bloke on the planet... :scratch:
I don't know who you are , and doubt I will need your help in the future, I am giving you my opinion based on what I have read here and seen elsewhere.
It seems to me his lack of responsibility contributed to the death of ten people. He had control of what he was driving, how well it was maintained, when he drove how fast he drove, how much sleep he had etc.....
Sorry, you can't convince me he was not responsible....
Thanks,
Steve.
Whether the guy is guilty or not, he has to live with the consequences of that day and only he knows what really happened in that Land Rover.
I know that there are many families affected by what happened but it's something that I'd find very hard to live with personally, if innocent, and almost impossible if guilty.
I know that there are many families affected by what happened but it's something that I'd find very hard to live with personally, if innocent, and almost impossible if guilty.
kevinday said:
Sorry, you can't convince me he was not responsible....
Thanks,
Steve.
And what about the responsibility of the railway authorities (Railtrack?) to ensure that no encroachment can occur? or the Highways Authority for failing to provide adequate barriers?
I've been out today and just got back to these responses.
I've been thinking about this case all afternoon and can tell you it's been a long time since I felt so strongly about something; not just about Gary Hart and what happened to him, but about the principles behind the whole thing and how potentially dangerous a precedent it sets.
I can understand all the points of view on both sides and where they are coming from, but I believe that there should be basic social principles in law and justice that almost to a man we should recognise and agree on.
I also believe that this is being desperately erroded by the way our society is going, and people of my age have a responsibility, mainly accrued by experience and comparative memory, to ensure the trend is stopped and reversed.
It also occurred to me that the actual legal principle of the conviction is possibly being missed.
Gary Hart was convicted on ten counts of causing death by dangerous driving; consider the leap that is required to return a guilty verdict on this.
If he had fallen asleep and ran into another vehicle and killed the occupants he has undoubtedly caused their deaths.
But you have to differentiate between an obviously unintended act like that and someone driving like a lunatic with baldy tyres, no insurance, etc.
In every other respect Gary Hart was squeeky clean, absolutely no convictions and described as a first class driver.
But he did not hit another vehicle, nor a pedestrian, nor as it happens anything except a wooden fence, that was all that separated the motorway from the railway.
It was when his vehicle was stationary that IT was struck by the train; when the train derailed it struck another train coming in the opposite direction.
Apart from the obvious problems with no crash barriers, there was no safety equipment whatsoever in place to give any sort of warning to the approaching trains; was Gary Hart then responsible for that also?
In terms of the law I do not believe so, and if the judge directed the jury to convict him and ignore all of the above points, that was a gross injustice.
If he instructed the jury to take into account the above factors then the only correct verdict would have been not guilty.
It HAS to be seen, as Kevin states, as a collective responsibility.
The verdict has allowed every other entity to escape responsibility and nothing has been done to prevent another disaster.
The prosecution will now use this as a precedent in any future case with similar circumstances, against any of you if you're unlucky to be the one.
Scary dangerous!
kevinday said:
Mr Hart after managing only 5 hours sleep in the previous 48, drove 65 miles and probably fell asleep causing his vehicle to leave the road into the path of an oncoming train.
Or is that just what the jury believed?
kevinday said:
To answer your question - Yes, that is what the jury believed, however, I believe Iolaire makes a good point in that there IS reasonable cause to doubt this. Therefore the conviction should have been not guilty. Remember, for a guilty conviction of a criminal offence it must be 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
Beyond allreasonable doubt doesnt mean "absolutely no doubt at all". There remains some element of doubt but that does not mean that a decision cannot be considered beyond reasonable doubt.
kevinday said:
I find it hard to believe that somebody could fall asleep if driving a vehicle combination at that speed, the level of effort required keeps the concentration level sufficiently high to avoid sleep. I would say that if they estimated his average speed as around 30 there is much more likelyhood of him falling asleep.
The level of concentation and allertness required to drive and the ability to stay awake when tired are unfortunately not really connected. If you are tired then you will eventually fall asleep. There has been some rubbish spouted about speed and stimulation and that is exactly what it is rubbish.
kevinday said:
If I read the material correctly he had been working with these levels of sleep for some time, therefore he may well be one of those few who do not need as much sleep as the average person.
Yet the circumstances strongly suggest that he fell asleep.
kevinday said:
Sorry, you can't convince me he was not responsible....
Thanks,
Steve.
And what about the responsibility of the railway authorities (Railtrack?) to ensure that no encroachment can occur? or the Highways Authority for failing to provide adequate barriers?
You seem to be trying to blame anyone but the driver. The barriers were most probably adequate and up to standard but were not robust enough to survive the full impact of the vehicle. Are you suggesting barriers that prevent some sort of shock absoption and are therefore a compromise between concrete walls and no barrier.
destroyer said:
You seem to be trying to blame anyone but the driver.
IOLAIRE 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.
Yup, lost on most people.
I wonder why?
destroyer said:
Fat Audi 80 said:
Sorry, you can't convince me he was not responsible....
Thanks,
Steve.
And what about the responsibility of the railway authorities (Railtrack?) to ensure that no encroachment can occur? or the Highways Authority for failing to provide adequate barriers?
You seem to be trying to blame anyone but the driver. The barriers were most probably adequate and up to standard but were not robust enough to survive the full impact of the vehicle. Are you suggesting barriers that prevent some sort of shock absoption and are therefore a compromise between concrete walls and no barrier.
Destroyer, it is imperative in the issues dicussed here that everyone reads the threads properly.
There were NO BARRIERS at the point the Land Rover left the road, that is the whole point. There was NOTHING to stop that vehicle or any other vehicle from going straight on to the track.
It could happen again tonight, they are still not there.
That is the whole issue about collective responsibility.
Just think about this: if Hart had been wide awake and did suffer steering failure, it would have made no difference, these people would still have died.
What if it does happen again, who are you going to blame this time for the deaths?
The whole thing does seem a bit odd. Whether he fell asleep or not how come the car managed to go such a distance behind the barrier without stopping? Surely whatever the cause he'd have had time to apply the brakes? Would be suprising if he was that asleep that he didn;t come awake with a start and brake.
However regardless of the cause of the accident I believe the biggest questions are over the senteencing, accident investigation etc.
Simple fact is that there is a suspicion that many accidents are caused by the driver falling asleep. How many of these are investigated to such an extent? Many probably aren;t even reported to the police.
It was the consequences of this accident that lead to the investigation, court case etc and this seems unfair.
I suspect that many people here have done stupid things, and in most cases got away with it. However here the intention appears to be to make an example of someone, which in my opinion is wrong.
Gary Hart presumably knows the truth and he has to live with it. For those killed it was a tragic accident, irresective of whether it was mechanical failure or not, and that is how it should be seen.
However regardless of the cause of the accident I believe the biggest questions are over the senteencing, accident investigation etc.
Simple fact is that there is a suspicion that many accidents are caused by the driver falling asleep. How many of these are investigated to such an extent? Many probably aren;t even reported to the police.
It was the consequences of this accident that lead to the investigation, court case etc and this seems unfair.
I suspect that many people here have done stupid things, and in most cases got away with it. However here the intention appears to be to make an example of someone, which in my opinion is wrong.
Gary Hart presumably knows the truth and he has to live with it. For those killed it was a tragic accident, irresective of whether it was mechanical failure or not, and that is how it should be seen.
I remeber this case well, what worries me then and what worries me now is as people have said:
He was convicted on the basis that he fell asleep, Yet there was no proof of this, was it a probability.. yes. But it was something that could not be proved and that in my book makes it NOT beyond resonable doubt.
Therefore he should have been found not guilty.
The fact that he was found guilty should be a warning sign that our justice system is going down the plughole!
>> Edited by vixpy1 on Tuesday 12th October 00:54
He was convicted on the basis that he fell asleep, Yet there was no proof of this, was it a probability.. yes. But it was something that could not be proved and that in my book makes it NOT beyond resonable doubt.
Therefore he should have been found not guilty.
The fact that he was found guilty should be a warning sign that our justice system is going down the plughole!
>> Edited by vixpy1 on Tuesday 12th October 00:54
I love these threads of pointless one sided arguments. Any accident/incident is the result of a series of occurences which, had one not occurred, could have prevented the accident.
A number of these occurences COULD have been beyond Mr Hart's control.
A number of these occurences COULD have been within Mr Hart's control.
In his case the occurences added up to the accident.
His innocence or guilt cannot be argued solely on an individual occurence i.e. his vehicle suffering a mechanical defect making him innocent or him falling asleep making him guilty.
Consideration of all occurences must made.
PERHAPS he was drowsy, a mechanical problem developed which he was unable to respond to sufficiently due to his drowsiness leading to the subsequent events.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff