Discussion
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.
IOLAIRE said:
[quote=kevinday]
[quote=Fat Audi 80]
Sorry, you can't convince me he was not responsible....
Thanks,
Steve.
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.
quote]
Sorry, but I cannot see the difference between your statement above and loosing control of a vehicle that is travelling in a straight line at supposed 60mph crashing through a fence down an embankment and on to a railway line and causing two trains to collide.
That is my point of view and I am sticking to it. I don't like some of the motoring laws in this country but I do believe in the UK justice system if not the penalties it dishes out.
Steve.
Phew - have read all the way through this thread and it was hard going at times!
I consider the court case to have resulted in an unsafe conviction - society is punishing someone who MAY have fallen asleep at the wheel and ended up the railway track rather than the management of the rail network who should have ensured that such an event was, as far as possible, protected against.
Cynical curmudgeon that I am, it is clear that a conclusion of failure on the part of the rail network administration to adequately protect its assets from accidental vehicular intrusion would have subsequently cost shedloads of wonga as they would have had to perform a lot of studies and upgrade a lot of crash barriers. However, this would have been the ONLY way to reduce the likelihood of such events reoccurring.
I would be interested to see what approach is used in a study justifying the layout of such crash barriers - i.e. is it all codified or is it probabilistic. If it is the former then, unless it is extremely conservative and belt and braces, there will be locations where the protection provided is inadequate. Bespoke crash barrier layouts based on a probabilistic approach (e.g. ALARP), taking into account the local topography, vegetation density, curb height, possible vehicle vectors, etc. would allow such barriers to be made more effective, but it would obviously cost money.
I consider the court case to have resulted in an unsafe conviction - society is punishing someone who MAY have fallen asleep at the wheel and ended up the railway track rather than the management of the rail network who should have ensured that such an event was, as far as possible, protected against.
Cynical curmudgeon that I am, it is clear that a conclusion of failure on the part of the rail network administration to adequately protect its assets from accidental vehicular intrusion would have subsequently cost shedloads of wonga as they would have had to perform a lot of studies and upgrade a lot of crash barriers. However, this would have been the ONLY way to reduce the likelihood of such events reoccurring.
I would be interested to see what approach is used in a study justifying the layout of such crash barriers - i.e. is it all codified or is it probabilistic. If it is the former then, unless it is extremely conservative and belt and braces, there will be locations where the protection provided is inadequate. Bespoke crash barrier layouts based on a probabilistic approach (e.g. ALARP), taking into account the local topography, vegetation density, curb height, possible vehicle vectors, etc. would allow such barriers to be made more effective, but it would obviously cost money.
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.
No. I am not trying to blame anyone but the driver, I am merely pointing out he should not take all the responsibility. The barriers should be adequate to prevent that sort of 'accident' happening, regardless of whether or not somebody falls asleep.
Let's look at a very similar scenario:
A Driver is towing a trailer with a Land Rover Defender along that stretch of road, all of a sudden the front tyre blows and the vehicle swerves off the road and heads for the railway line in exactly the same place as Gary Hart. The act of going up the kerbing causes the steering to fail, (maybe the steering box failed due to internal corrosion, this is common in LRs). A Driver was unable to change the direction of the vehicle and it ends up on the railway where the train hits it and derails into the path of another train. A Driver is calling the police to report it at the time.
Question 1 - Who is responsible for the deaths of the passengers on the train?
Question 2 - Is this responsibility different in this scenario when compared to Gary Hart's case? If so, why? (Remember there was no PROOF he was asleep and took no action).
IMHO it is very possible that GH did fall asleep, but also very likely that he did try to take action to prevent the vehicle ending up on the railway, this action failed, maybe because of steering failure, maybe not.
I will say that his defence must have been very poor for a conviction to be secured, unless there were instructions from higher authorities. This is a very scary case.
kevinday said:
kevinday 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.
No. I am not trying to blame anyone but the driver, I am merely pointing out he should not take all the responsibility. The barriers should be adequate to prevent that sort of 'accident' happening, regardless of whether or not somebody falls asleep.
Let's look at a very similar scenario:
A Driver is towing a trailer with a Land Rover Defender along that stretch of road, all of a sudden the front tyre blows and the vehicle swerves off the road and heads for the railway line in exactly the same place as Gary Hart. The act of going up the kerbing causes the steering to fail, (maybe the steering box failed due to internal corrosion, this is common in LRs). A Driver was unable to change the direction of the vehicle and it ends up on the railway where the train hits it and derails into the path of another train. A Driver is calling the police to report it at the time.
Question 1 - Who is responsible for the deaths of the passengers on the train?
Question 2 - Is this responsibility different in this scenario when compared to Gary Hart's case? If so, why? (Remember there was no PROOF he was asleep and took no action).
IMHO it is very possible that GH did fall asleep, but also very likely that he did try to take action to prevent the vehicle ending up on the railway, this action failed, maybe because of steering failure, maybe not.
I will say that his defence must have been very poor for a conviction to be secured, unless there were instructions from higher authorities. This is a very scary case.
If the last sentence of your last paragraph was true then I would be VERY WORRIED indeed. I am comfortable in this case that justice has been done. If however it came to light in the future that there was no case to answer by Mr Hart and he is indeed innocent and I will happily eat humble pie.
Cheers,
Steve.
nel said:
...someone who MAY have fallen asleep at the wheel and ended up the railway track rather than the management of the rail network who should have ensured that such an event was, as far as possible, protected against.
Cynical curmudgeon that I am, it is clear that a conclusion of failure on the part of the rail network administration to adequately protect its assets from accidental vehicular intrusion would have subsequently cost shedloads of wonga as they would have had to perform a lot of studies and upgrade a lot of crash barriers. However, this would have been the ONLY way to reduce the likelihood of such events reoccurring.
Not the RAIL network, the ROAD network. The primary failure in this incident was a failure of the road system to contain a road accident (by not having a sufficient length of armco on the elevated section). It's the same situation as if he had gone off the motorway and landed on another road and caused a pile-up, or if he had landed on housing and crushed people to death in their beds. The fact that he landed on a railway (and the consequences of that chance) is merely a distraction from the primary failure.
I agree with your cynical suspicion that the case was manipulated to avoid the call for the spending of shed-loads of wonga on upgrading crash barriers - but on behalf of the road network. The rail network is (supposed to be) privately funded and they don't seem to have too many qualms about imposing over-the-top costs on it under the "safety" banner well past the point of diminishing returns - OTT requirements for the installation of TPWS spring to mind. The road network is government-funded, and the inadequacy of crash barriers on overbridges is pretty well universal.
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.
The end effect is the same - Gary Hart gets banged up as a criminal for accidentally revealing the inadequacy of the crash barrier and the powers that be that were responsible for the design are not inculpated.
Maybe we are both TOO cynical - there seem to be numerous PHers on this thread who don't see this conviction in the same light....
The end effect is the same - Gary Hart gets banged up as a criminal for accidentally revealing the inadequacy of the crash barrier and the powers that be that were responsible for the design are not inculpated.
Maybe we are both TOO cynical - there seem to be numerous PHers on this thread who don't see this conviction in the same light....
nel said:
Maybe we are both TOO cynical - there seem to be numerous PHers on this thread who don't see this conviction in the same light....
Realisation has finally dawned - I think I now understand what has been troubling me about many of the posts on this forum. They are inconsistent because, subconsciously, people have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, but their minds refuse to accept it is a train about to wipe out their lifestyle.
Drive whilst tired, come off a road, driver coming the other way driving too fast to stop in the distance he can see to be clear (but within the speed limit), driver coming the other way bounces off you and into path of vehicle coming the other way, driver of vehicle coming the other way driving too fast to stop in the distance he can see to be clear (but within the speed limit), driver coming the other way crashes into vehicle that crashed into you, and ten die.
You get jailed.
Drive 1mph over limit, come off a road, driver coming the other way driving too fast to stop in the distance he can see to be clear (but within the speed limit), driver coming the other way bounces off you and into path of vehicle coming the other way, driver of vehicle coming the other way driving too fast to stop in the distance he can see to be clear (but within the speed limit), driver coming the other way crashes into vehicle that crashed into you, and ten die.
You get jailed.
Drive 1mph over limit, you couldcome off a road, driver coming the other way could be driving too fast to stop in the distance he can see to be clear (but within the speed limit), driver coming the other way could bounce off you and into path of vehicle coming the other way, driver of vehicle coming the other way could be driving too fast to stop in the distance he can see to be clear (but within the speed limit), driver coming the other way could crash into vehicle that crashed into you, and ten could die.
You could get jailed because you could have caused 10 deaths.
No wonder contributors won't face up to the facts.
diesel ed said:
Maybe we are both TOO cynical - there seem to be numerous PHers on this thread who don't see this conviction in the same light....
Realisation has finally dawned - I think I now understand what has been troubling me about many of the posts on this forum. They are inconsistent because, subconsciously, people have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, but their minds refuse to accept it is a train about to wipe out their lifestyle.
You could get jailed because you could have caused 10 deaths.
No wonder contributors won't face up to the facts.
The greatest human failing Ed is fear, in all it's guises; most people wouldn't recognise it if it jumped up and slapped them in the mouth.
They think fear is the feeling in the pit of your stomach as you sit in the dentist's chair, or your first flight in an aircraft when you feel the ground leave you as the acceleration pins you into the seat.
But the worst and most damaging form of fear is that of refusing to challenge the status quo, to be unconventional, to be radical, to stand out in the crowd; it takes real effort and courage and so many people just simply can't be bothered.
How many of us watched the saga of Gary Hart unfold, including those thousands of people involved in the case, and secretly sat at home whispering thanks to God that it wasn't them; at the same time feeling their conscience tugging at them, whispering to them that all is not well here. Why are we doing this to this man?
Is this going to make a difference to future occurrences?
The fear of permitting the conscience to guide creative thought prevents the implementation of natural justice.
NEL and PIGEON talked about cynicism; in our rapidly elevating blame culture it is quite clear that a prosecution brought to bear on the railways in a case like this would have opened the flood gates to numerous actions and required the spending of vast, and I mean VAST sums of money to ensure safety standards are correctly observed.
An exactly similar premise would apply to the Highways Agency, except that in their case it would be the Government paying up.
I believe their is nothing cynical in the recognition of these facts, it simply requires an open, enquiring mind.
Vehicle and train speeds in France and Germany are substantially greater than ours.
France hasn't had a single railway accident for over twelve years now, and I believe Germany is approaching the same sort of record. Why?
They invest in systems and the protection and nourishment of their societies.
As motorists in this country we are historically doomed from the moment we get behind the wheel.
From the act of charging people to park at the roadside when they have already paid road tax, through using electronic devices to entrap them for manufactured criminal offences that by their very nature are not criminal acts, all the way up to prosecuting an ordinary motorist for multiple manslaughters with no material evidence, our fear is demonstrated by the refusal to stop a Government that at all levels acts in exactly the same way as a dictatorship would.
The question is, are enough of us willing to do something about it now, or does Gary Hart just become another statistic?
nel 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
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
I would tend to go with that Swilly, in that there are several bodies involved here and it could well be the case that there is a joint responsibility, but it is a motorway so I would favour the Highways Agency.
I think most of the mainline railway tracks were laid down a very long time ago, over a hundred years in fact so it would be safe to assume that the Motorway was the latest of these additions to the network at this point.
What I think we can all agree on is that it most definitely not the responsibility of the individual motorist, other than perhaps pointing out defects to the appropriate authority when they are realised.
This case is way past that point however.
They now know about: they've done nothing.
David A said:
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.
Apparently, I was the only one that knew this.
I think you will find it's only people who know anything about railways who know this. It's hard to imagine a conversation turning to track circuiting if non-railway people are participatingProbably a good thing overall that the knowledge isn't more widespread, or we'd see main lines constantly "blocked" by toerags with jump leads.
Seriously - does that work? god help the daily commute if vandal monkeys get a hold of this idea!
Yes. It will turn the signals red, as will a broken track. There are phones at all signals. Most trains go far too fast to stop in the distance that they can see, which is why train signals are "multi aspect", which means that they tell the driver how much clear track there is in front of him.
If the circuit is shorted, the train stops, driver phones signal box. They know that it's not a train, 'cos trains can't materialise from nowhere, so they tell the driver to procede "on sight" which means go slowly enough that you can stop in the distance you can see. Driver comes to jump leads, removes them, stops at next signal to tell signal box what has happened. Everything gets back to normal.
If vandals put a jump lead just in front of a train, the driver won't have time to stop, so he'll slide past the red signal. However, the next signal will be green so the driver will carry on.
"Probably a good thing overall that the knowledge isn't more widespread, or we'd see main lines constantly "blocked" by toerags with jump leads".
Unlikely to become a problem, delaying a train isn't spectacular or uncommon. Throwing a shopping trolley off a bridge on to an overhead or 3rd rail is.......unfortunately
Unlikely to become a problem, delaying a train isn't spectacular or uncommon. Throwing a shopping trolley off a bridge on to an overhead or 3rd rail is.......unfortunately
DOCUMENTARY: One Life
Channel: BBC 1 South 101
Date: Tuesday 26th October 2004
Time: 22:35 to 23:20
Duration: 45 minutes.
Asleep at the Wheel.
Documentary about Gary Hart, the man who fell asleep at the wheel of his car, causing the Selby train crash which claimed ten lives. Though convicted, he refuses to apologise or admit responsibility, to the dismay of victims and their relatives who talk about the man who wrecked so many lives. Now released, Hart also speaks for the first time since the tragedy.
(Widescreen, Subtitles)
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from www.digiguide.com. Copyright ©1999-2004 GipsyMedia Ltd. Information copied from DigiGuide cannot be re-distributed, sold or used without prior written consent from GipsyMedia Ltd. All rights reserved.
Channel: BBC 1 South 101
Date: Tuesday 26th October 2004
Time: 22:35 to 23:20
Duration: 45 minutes.
Asleep at the Wheel.
Documentary about Gary Hart, the man who fell asleep at the wheel of his car, causing the Selby train crash which claimed ten lives. Though convicted, he refuses to apologise or admit responsibility, to the dismay of victims and their relatives who talk about the man who wrecked so many lives. Now released, Hart also speaks for the first time since the tragedy.
(Widescreen, Subtitles)
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from www.digiguide.com. Copyright ©1999-2004 GipsyMedia Ltd. Information copied from DigiGuide cannot be re-distributed, sold or used without prior written consent from GipsyMedia Ltd. All rights reserved.
Not wishing to start up old arguments again guys but just to once again remind you that the programme "ONE LIFE" is on tomorrow night around 11 on BBC; check your regions for times.
I have never seen the programme so I'm interested in how it will relate to the arguments on this post.
Happy viewing!
I have never seen the programme so I'm interested in how it will relate to the arguments on this post.
Happy viewing!
I don't know if many of you watched the documentary on this last night; it's the first time I have viewed it.
I am left in no doubt, despite some of the claims on here by people who were involved in the investigation, that regardless of Hart's guilt or innocence, one thing he is not is a cold hearted, murdering killer.
I thought the actual programme could have covered so much more.
Utterly disgusted, but frankly not surprised, to see that there is STILL no crash barrier at the site.
When will we ever learn.
I am left in no doubt, despite some of the claims on here by people who were involved in the investigation, that regardless of Hart's guilt or innocence, one thing he is not is a cold hearted, murdering killer.
I thought the actual programme could have covered so much more.
Utterly disgusted, but frankly not surprised, to see that there is STILL no crash barrier at the site.
When will we ever learn.
The tragic aspect of this case - and plenty others like it - is that EVERY ONE has lost.
My view is that, as a society we need to be a bit more grown up about accepting that accidents like this are just that - accidents. There but for the grace of God go all of us.
The guy may or may not have made a mistake (& only he knows). He paid a heavy price, now let him get on with his life
My view is that, as a society we need to be a bit more grown up about accepting that accidents like this are just that - accidents. There but for the grace of God go all of us.
The guy may or may not have made a mistake (& only he knows). He paid a heavy price, now let him get on with his life
Perhaps it was edited a little unfairly but it seemed that every time he showed remorse he spoiled it by saying something a bit selfish, eg. "well they have lost somebody but I lost a couple of years of my life in prison".
I think perhaps in prison he reasoned everything in his head to cope with it but hasn't realised that he shouldn't have talked about his own suffering in the same way as he talked about the victims.
As for his guilt I guess we will never know, but the evidence seems to be stacked against him.
Gareth
I think perhaps in prison he reasoned everything in his head to cope with it but hasn't realised that he shouldn't have talked about his own suffering in the same way as he talked about the victims.
As for his guilt I guess we will never know, but the evidence seems to be stacked against him.
Gareth
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff