Incident Croydon tram

[truck71]

Aslef have made a comment which on the face of it is the usual delusional nonsense, it's buried in here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38003934

However on reflection they make no attempt to exonerate the driver suggesting they realise he is likely to be at fault. Their comments then make some sense if not the language used; do drivers need protecting from their own poor actions (and subsequently the passengers are protected)?

[MitchT]

Dr Interceptor said:

MitchT said:

could it be that the driver did everything correctly but the braking was vastly impaired by leaves on the line?

Drives too fast up to the bend, brakes late and skids on leaves...? Not the kind of thing you should do with 60 members of public on board.

I can't see this going any way other than a prison sentence for the driver.

The information that I quoted suggested that he started braking at the correct point. Obviously if leaves on the line were an issue there should have been a directive stating that drivers should brake early during leaf fall season - in this case braking while still in the tunnel would have got the job done - but was such a directive issued?

[FrankAbagnale]

truck71 said:

FrankAbagnale said:

So it looks like the driver was travelling at the correct speed befoe the curve, started to brake 180m away from the curve which is where he should've started braking but didn't slow down enough for the curve?

Went from 50mph to 43.5mph, instead of 50mph to 12.5mph.

Not quite. There was some braking within the 180m zone but only enough to reduce from 50 to 43.5mph.

Right you are, I read it as started braking 180m from the curve, but the report says braked within the 180m. So he either pressed the brake and it didn't work, or he braked late?

[P5BNij]

I can't speak for any tram drivers but as a mainline driver I'm expected to use 'defensive driving' techniques in leaf fall conditions (amongst others), it's drummed into us at every opportunity and we receive daily 'low adhesion area' bulletins via our work ipads. I'd be interested to hear if this, or something similar is the case with regard to the tram system.

[ReallyReallyGood]

truck71 said:

However on reflection they make no attempt to exonerate the driver suggesting they realise he is likely to be at fault. Their comments then make some sense if not the language used; do drivers need protecting from their own poor actions (and subsequently the passengers are protected)?

Hang on. Don't these unions always kick up a stink at the mere mention of any kind of automation on the railways?! Usually citing passenger safety.

[jason61c]

43 in a 12

3 points and a fine?

[MX51ROD]

Lucky we have long since done away with lynching , otherwise the PH posse would be on their way to Croydon by now .
Until the FULL report is published , we still do not know the full circumstances of the crash.
All we know at present, is the driver used the brakes but the tram “appears “ not to have slowed down for the bend .No accusations , No blame as yet

[Robertj21a]

MitchT said:

Notwithstanding reports that these trams were previously driven too quickly around tight bends, given that trams are effectively in a 'channel' between two dense rows of trees between exiting the tunnel and reaching the bend, and that this was the first (I believe?) tram of the day, could it be that the driver did everything correctly but the braking was vastly impaired by leaves on the line?

Definitely not the first tram of the day - it's after 6am, there's been a few through well before then.

[12TS]

MX51ROD said:

Lucky we have long since done away with lynching , otherwise the PH posse would be on their way to Croydon by now .
Until the FULL report is published , we still do not know the full circumstances of the crash.
All we know at present, is the driver used the brakes but the tram “appears “ not to have slowed down for the bend .No accusations , No blame as yet

Some sense in amongst all the other jumping to conclusions going on here.

[RemyMartin]

MarshPhantom said:

Because a lot of people died because he was driving like an idiot maybe. People had also complained about the very poor driving standards on this tram prior to the accident.

You know that for 100% then?

What if he did black out, what if he was working st loads of overtime to pay the bills and had a micro sleep?

Guess you've never ever made a mistake. I'll wait for rhe full verdict before casting too many opinions.

[rover 623gsi]

MX51ROD said:

Lucky we have long since done away with lynching , otherwise the PH posse would be on their way to Croydon by now .
Until the FULL report is published , we still do not know the full circumstances of the crash.
All we know at present, is the driver used the brakes but the tram “appears “ not to have slowed down for the bend .No accusations , No blame as yet

You're right that no one is, or should be, being blamed yet. However, you are wrong to suggest that the tram 'appears' not to have slowed down for the bend. There is no 'appears' about it. The tram was travelling at 43.5mph at a point when it should have been travelling at a maximum of 12.5 mph.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

[MarshPhantom]

RemyMartin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Because a lot of people died because he was driving like an idiot maybe. People had also complained about the very poor driving standards on this tram prior to the accident.

You know that for 100% then?

What if he did black out, what if he was working st loads of overtime to pay the bills and had a micro sleep?

Guess you've never ever made a mistake. I'll wait for rhe full verdict before casting too many opinions.

Time will tell. The driver claiming to have passed out doesn't seem particularly plausible. This is supposed to have happened on a regular basis, speeding rather crashing obviously.

Mistakes? I've certainly never killed or injured anyone.

[NiceCupOfTea]

MarshPhantom said:

Mistakes? I've certainly never killed or injured anyone.

Plenty of people have been able to say that, right up to the point where they make a simple mistake or error of judgement when driving, for example.

[MarshPhantom]

NiceCupOfTea said:

MarshPhantom said:

Mistakes? I've certainly never killed or injured anyone.

Plenty of people have been able to say that, right up to the point where they make a simple mistake or error of judgement when driving, for example.

I barrel rolled my Renault 11 turbo when I was 19. Went over twice on it's roof while I wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Very lucky indeed to get out without a scratch. The coat that I wearing at fell to pieces eventually as it was sprayed with acid from the spare battery in the boot that flung itself around the interior of the car while rolling.




Athough the accident probably wouldn't have happened if I'd had passengers in the car, as I wouldn't have been driving like a lunatic.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Wednesday 16th November 22:16

[Stedman]

MarshPhantom said:

RemyMartin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Because a lot of people died because he was driving like an idiot maybe. People had also complained about the very poor driving standards on this tram prior to the accident.

You know that for 100% then?

What if he did black out, what if he was working st loads of overtime to pay the bills and had a micro sleep?

Guess you've never ever made a mistake. I'll wait for rhe full verdict before casting too many opinions.

Time will tell. The driver claiming to have passed out doesn't seem particularly plausible. This is supposed to have happened on a regular basis, speeding rather crashing obviously.

Mistakes? I've certainly never killed or injured anyone.

I'll wait and see what the full report say before calling him a knob and asking for a prison sentence.

Also, as a user of these trams it seems that the policy - or accepted driving standards - in less dense areas is harsh acceleration and braking, the latter reducing the margin for error. People complained about poor standards on the tram, not on HIS tram prior to the accident.

Take a step back and ask WHY it was travelling quickly before casting judgement or perhaps just read the full report.

[MarshPhantom]

Stedman said:

MarshPhantom said:

RemyMartin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Because a lot of people died because he was driving like an idiot maybe. People had also complained about the very poor driving standards on this tram prior to the accident.

You know that for 100% then?

What if he did black out, what if he was working st loads of overtime to pay the bills and had a micro sleep?

Guess you've never ever made a mistake. I'll wait for rhe full verdict before casting too many opinions.

Time will tell. The driver claiming to have passed out doesn't seem particularly plausible. This is supposed to have happened on a regular basis, speeding rather crashing obviously.

Mistakes? I've certainly never killed or injured anyone.

I'll wait and see what the full report say before calling him a knob and asking for a prison sentence.

Also, as a user of these trams it seems that the policy - or accepted driving standards - in less dense areas is harsh acceleration and braking, the latter reducing the margin for error. People complained about poor standards on the tram, not on HIS tram prior to the accident.

Take a step back and ask WHY it was travelling quickly before casting judgement or perhaps just read the full report.

OK, what if it turns out it is all the driver's fault? What punishment should he receive?

To me at least, the fact he's claimed to have passed out means he knows he fked up big time.

[jason61c]

What ever happened to the pilot who couldn't do a loop recently and killed 7+ people? He's not been charged?

Edited by jason61c on Thursday 17th November 01:49

[MarshPhantom]

jason61c said:

What ever happened to the pilot who couldn't do a loop recently and killed 7+ people? He's not been charged?

Edited by jason61c on Thursday 17th November 01:49

Where was that?

[H6Nathan]

Local New Addington firefighters are donating the wages they earned at the scene to fundraising appeal.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/8203-firefighte...

[Black can man]

davidc1 said:

I thought all the deceased had been named ?

They named 5 & my colleague was one of the last two that was named.



My post wasn't that clear i know.