Discussion
This man has come up in some posts recently and in view of his recent release I thought I would comment on what I believe is something that affects us all as motorists, whether it be directly or otherwise.
As you read this, have no illusions about the fact that with a few possible exceptions any of you could be in the same position as Gary Hart.
In my research into this case on the web, I discovered some local discussion groups brimming with vitriolic hatred towards this man, some suggesting that he should have been given a life sentence; one even that his case merits the restoration of the death penalty!
Amidst the baying of human wolves for blood, and make no mistake, the credit for some of the leadership of the pack has to go to the investigating police officers, is the complete and utter absence of justice.
The whole sorry affair is the nation’s shame; here is a case that history may prove to be the motorist’s legal Waterloo if we do nothing to redress the damage.
Let's consider some of the facts, NOT what was alleged at the trial and afterwards, but the FACTS.
Gary Hart never "murdered" anyone, he was an ordinary man instantly catapulted into extraordinary circumstances.
Neither did he kill anyone; all of the victims died due to a collision between two trains, brought about by the most dreadful quirk of fate imaginable; destiny at it's most savage.
The people that know him best, friends, family and colleagues describe him as an extremely hard working, dedicated businessman; a first class, highly experienced driver. He came into the court with a spotless record, no criminal convictions, not even a parking ticket.
His conviction hinged solely on the belief that he fell asleep at the wheel.
What material proof do we have of this?
Absolutely none.
It is an assumption, based on a case built up against him by over a THOUSAND police officers. An assumption they make because they claim to have found nothing wrong with Hart's Land Rover, therefore he must have been lying when he asserts mechanical failure.
Consider this: Hart's Land Rover was struck head on by the mainline express at over 70 MPH; this is a huge, solid steel battering ram with a kinetic energy of many thousands of tons at that speed. His Land Rover was smashed into over EIGHT HUNDRED pieces; check this out, www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,444217,00.html, and you will see that there is virtually nothing left of the vehicle from the B post forward: they couldn't find anything wrong with it??? Well, well!!
Hart claims that there was a bang from under the vehicle and then it slewed to the left on to the verge and slid along BEHIND the crash barrier, I repeat, BEHIND the crash barrier. Remember that, it is very important. It then slid down the embankment onto the track. In court 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.”
Those of you who are familiar with Land Rovers will know that Hart's vehicle was the traditional style Defender type which utilises the Range Rover chassis and running gear. At the extreme front of the vehicle is a track rod running parallel with the front axle joining both hub assemblies.
On the driver's side of the vehicle is a drop arm from the steering box to the offside hub.
This makes a total of three swivel joints all of which are vital to the steering gear of the vehicle.
I have lost count of the number of times I have replaced these joints on Land Rovers, many times at the roadside when they have totally failed. They fill up with water and then simply corrode away until they pop; or the adjustment thread on the track rod corrodes away and the end pulls out of the tube.
Either way it results in an instant and heart stopping loss of steering control of the vehicle. Most times it will be detected at a service or an MOT test, but if you’re unlucky it will happen on the road.
Again, most times it happens at very slow speed and on full lock on a corner, but if you’re unlucky it can occur at the most unfortunate time.
The events as described by Gary Hart in court and by the investigating officers are precisely indicative of an instant steering failure; this is in harmony with the fact that he had no control of the vehicle and couldn’t remove it from the tracks before the train hit.
So where did this theory come from about falling asleep at the wheel? It came from a police officer interviewing Hart and discovering that he had been talking to his new girlfriend on the phone for hours so therefore must have been too tired to drive and fell asleep at the wheel.
The Prosecution seize on this idea and employ a professional witness in the form of Professor Jim Horne who claims that Hart must have been suffering sleep deprivation symptoms because he was talking to his girl friend all night.
Did he examine Hart immediately after the accident? No.
Did he examine Hart within a few days of the accident even? No.
How does he know then? He doesn’t, he assumed it.
Hart was subjected to a full physical examination including drugs tests immediately after the accident and was given a clean bill of health.
The police then set up an identical Land Rover, trailer with vehicle on back, driven by a highly experienced and qualified traffic officer, and duplicate Hart’s journey up to the point of the accident and claim that for him to have done the journey in that time he would have to have driven, “like a bat out of hell!”
Can you think of a more unlikely person to fall asleep at the wheel than a man who is sexually charged with adrenalin through a new relationship, driving a LAND ROVER, like a “bat out of hell”, with a trailer on the back carrying another vehicle?
The weather conditions that night were also described as atrocious, making concentration all the more intense.
Consider this: how on earth did Hart’s Land Rover get behind the crash barrier?
Simple, it was woefully and culpably inadequate, and that is the whole issue here.
Imagine if Hart had retained steering control and was in the process of removing the vehicle from the tracks when the train hit him; he would have died a hero in the eyes of the media circus.
Imagine if the vehicle on that occasion had been a coach with sixty passengers, or a forty four ton articulated vehicle; the consequences don’t even bear thinking about!
The accident was elevated from a minor incident to a total disaster because the road engineering is such that a vehicle can access the tracks, a completely undeniable FACT.
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.
If any prosecution was appropriate, it should have been brought to bear on either or both of these agencies, not on Hart.
It is vital that as motorists you all fully realize the implications of this prosecution.
It sets a precedent for ANY motorist who is placed in a compromising situation through the actions or failure of others, to be prosecuted to the highest extent of the Law, to have any possibility of reasonable doubt completely removed or discounted from the Defendant’s submissions simply due to the influences of more powerful, and supposedly untouchable bodies.
Gary Hart has been miserably and shamefully abandoned through the apathy and lack of moral courage of his peers and the very people who should have represented him.
You may be interested to note that DCS Nick Bracken who was the Senior Investigating Officer is not an ordinary policeman; he is with the Transport Police.
That’s right, he works for the railways.
As you read this, have no illusions about the fact that with a few possible exceptions any of you could be in the same position as Gary Hart.
In my research into this case on the web, I discovered some local discussion groups brimming with vitriolic hatred towards this man, some suggesting that he should have been given a life sentence; one even that his case merits the restoration of the death penalty!
Amidst the baying of human wolves for blood, and make no mistake, the credit for some of the leadership of the pack has to go to the investigating police officers, is the complete and utter absence of justice.
The whole sorry affair is the nation’s shame; here is a case that history may prove to be the motorist’s legal Waterloo if we do nothing to redress the damage.
Let's consider some of the facts, NOT what was alleged at the trial and afterwards, but the FACTS.
Gary Hart never "murdered" anyone, he was an ordinary man instantly catapulted into extraordinary circumstances.
Neither did he kill anyone; all of the victims died due to a collision between two trains, brought about by the most dreadful quirk of fate imaginable; destiny at it's most savage.
The people that know him best, friends, family and colleagues describe him as an extremely hard working, dedicated businessman; a first class, highly experienced driver. He came into the court with a spotless record, no criminal convictions, not even a parking ticket.
His conviction hinged solely on the belief that he fell asleep at the wheel.
What material proof do we have of this?
Absolutely none.
It is an assumption, based on a case built up against him by over a THOUSAND police officers. An assumption they make because they claim to have found nothing wrong with Hart's Land Rover, therefore he must have been lying when he asserts mechanical failure.
Consider this: Hart's Land Rover was struck head on by the mainline express at over 70 MPH; this is a huge, solid steel battering ram with a kinetic energy of many thousands of tons at that speed. His Land Rover was smashed into over EIGHT HUNDRED pieces; check this out, www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,444217,00.html, and you will see that there is virtually nothing left of the vehicle from the B post forward: they couldn't find anything wrong with it??? Well, well!!
Hart claims that there was a bang from under the vehicle and then it slewed to the left on to the verge and slid along BEHIND the crash barrier, I repeat, BEHIND the crash barrier. Remember that, it is very important. It then slid down the embankment onto the track. In court 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.”
Those of you who are familiar with Land Rovers will know that Hart's vehicle was the traditional style Defender type which utilises the Range Rover chassis and running gear. At the extreme front of the vehicle is a track rod running parallel with the front axle joining both hub assemblies.
On the driver's side of the vehicle is a drop arm from the steering box to the offside hub.
This makes a total of three swivel joints all of which are vital to the steering gear of the vehicle.
I have lost count of the number of times I have replaced these joints on Land Rovers, many times at the roadside when they have totally failed. They fill up with water and then simply corrode away until they pop; or the adjustment thread on the track rod corrodes away and the end pulls out of the tube.
Either way it results in an instant and heart stopping loss of steering control of the vehicle. Most times it will be detected at a service or an MOT test, but if you’re unlucky it will happen on the road.
Again, most times it happens at very slow speed and on full lock on a corner, but if you’re unlucky it can occur at the most unfortunate time.
The events as described by Gary Hart in court and by the investigating officers are precisely indicative of an instant steering failure; this is in harmony with the fact that he had no control of the vehicle and couldn’t remove it from the tracks before the train hit.
So where did this theory come from about falling asleep at the wheel? It came from a police officer interviewing Hart and discovering that he had been talking to his new girlfriend on the phone for hours so therefore must have been too tired to drive and fell asleep at the wheel.
The Prosecution seize on this idea and employ a professional witness in the form of Professor Jim Horne who claims that Hart must have been suffering sleep deprivation symptoms because he was talking to his girl friend all night.
Did he examine Hart immediately after the accident? No.
Did he examine Hart within a few days of the accident even? No.
How does he know then? He doesn’t, he assumed it.
Hart was subjected to a full physical examination including drugs tests immediately after the accident and was given a clean bill of health.
The police then set up an identical Land Rover, trailer with vehicle on back, driven by a highly experienced and qualified traffic officer, and duplicate Hart’s journey up to the point of the accident and claim that for him to have done the journey in that time he would have to have driven, “like a bat out of hell!”
Can you think of a more unlikely person to fall asleep at the wheel than a man who is sexually charged with adrenalin through a new relationship, driving a LAND ROVER, like a “bat out of hell”, with a trailer on the back carrying another vehicle?
The weather conditions that night were also described as atrocious, making concentration all the more intense.
Consider this: how on earth did Hart’s Land Rover get behind the crash barrier?
Simple, it was woefully and culpably inadequate, and that is the whole issue here.
Imagine if Hart had retained steering control and was in the process of removing the vehicle from the tracks when the train hit him; he would have died a hero in the eyes of the media circus.
Imagine if the vehicle on that occasion had been a coach with sixty passengers, or a forty four ton articulated vehicle; the consequences don’t even bear thinking about!
The accident was elevated from a minor incident to a total disaster because the road engineering is such that a vehicle can access the tracks, a completely undeniable FACT.
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.
If any prosecution was appropriate, it should have been brought to bear on either or both of these agencies, not on Hart.
It is vital that as motorists you all fully realize the implications of this prosecution.
It sets a precedent for ANY motorist who is placed in a compromising situation through the actions or failure of others, to be prosecuted to the highest extent of the Law, to have any possibility of reasonable doubt completely removed or discounted from the Defendant’s submissions simply due to the influences of more powerful, and supposedly untouchable bodies.
Gary Hart has been miserably and shamefully abandoned through the apathy and lack of moral courage of his peers and the very people who should have represented him.
You may be interested to note that DCS Nick Bracken who was the Senior Investigating Officer is not an ordinary policeman; he is with the Transport Police.
That’s right, he works for the railways.
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.
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.
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 ....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.
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?
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.
FiF, I would really appreciate you giving me just one example where I am constantly knocking other readers on this forum.
If you think I come across as supercilious or intellectually superior, then I assume you feel threatened or intimidated by the manner in which I put my points across.
If you met me and knew me you would realise that I am simply not like that; I go to enormous lengths to ensure that I am as objective as possible when I state a case about any subject on here.
I NEVER personally attack or insult anyone or resort to the kind of abusive language that is used on here regularly, a great many times by the BiB.
My reference to the analogy being wasted on here was simply because I have found that a great many responses to points raised are from people who obviously haven't read the post or thread properly and have missed something or picked it up wrongly.
Using an analogy will tend to complicate that because it adds another parameter into the argument.
I did not raise a case against Gary Hart, the CPS did.
Unlike the CPS, I do not have to justify myself to the public, but what I will do is forward theories, based on a great deal of research and experience, that offer what I consider to be a much more likely scenario.
Unlike the CPS, I offer no threat to an accused person, I cannot perpetrate what they did to Gary Hart.
Whether or not he fell asleep, I still consider that the actions taken against him, and the fact that the matter is now considered settled, are an absolute, bloody disgrace.
You can print this out and stick it on your office wall if you like and when another disaster happens in similar circumstances, maybe you'll look at it and think more kindly of me.
If you think I come across as supercilious or intellectually superior, then I assume you feel threatened or intimidated by the manner in which I put my points across.
If you met me and knew me you would realise that I am simply not like that; I go to enormous lengths to ensure that I am as objective as possible when I state a case about any subject on here.
I NEVER personally attack or insult anyone or resort to the kind of abusive language that is used on here regularly, a great many times by the BiB.
My reference to the analogy being wasted on here was simply because I have found that a great many responses to points raised are from people who obviously haven't read the post or thread properly and have missed something or picked it up wrongly.
Using an analogy will tend to complicate that because it adds another parameter into the argument.
I did not raise a case against Gary Hart, the CPS did.
Unlike the CPS, I do not have to justify myself to the public, but what I will do is forward theories, based on a great deal of research and experience, that offer what I consider to be a much more likely scenario.
Unlike the CPS, I offer no threat to an accused person, I cannot perpetrate what they did to Gary Hart.
Whether or not he fell asleep, I still consider that the actions taken against him, and the fact that the matter is now considered settled, are an absolute, bloody disgrace.
You can print this out and stick it on your office wall if you like and when another disaster happens in similar circumstances, maybe you'll look at it and think more kindly of me.
A link to The Scotsman, with an interesting article on the subject. It would appear I am not alone.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=30&id=1651552001
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=30&id=1651552001
This is getting spooky; ANOTHER main line and ANOTHER Land Rover!!
www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=143
www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=143
Dave, I understand your point about the capabilities of a materials scientist. I trained as a design engineer with Babcock in the days when they built nuclear power stations and enormous cranes.
I am fully aware of the concepts of stress and the metallurgic principles involved right down to atomic level. I am not implying however that this is a case where there was a molecular failure that would be difficult to detect, but rather the kind of failure that is common in Land Rovers could be masked by the collision with the train.
The vehicle was absolutely annihilated remember, so let's assume for sake of argument that your lads found the drop arm ball joint was separated from the track arm, and then assumed it had been done so by the train.
There is no absolutely no problem with this and their assumption is a fair one, but if it happened only two minutes before hand on the road then it was the cause of the Land Rover leaving the road and Hart having no steering control whatsoever.
I believe that it is impossible , beyond all reasonable doubt, to say which of these scenarios would be the correct one. I mean what scientific test or discipline are you going to apply to prove either?
I'll be perfectly honest Dave and say that if Hart had been driving a big, comfy BMW or Mercedes and cruising along with the heating on and some soft music on the audio, then the falling asleep theory becomes very powerful indeed; and the chance of steering failure so remote as to be acceptably discounted.
As we all know , that was not the case, and the point I have been trying to stress, and so has cen, who is a solicitor, in his submissions, is that the concept of reasonable doubt in this case seems to have been totally supressed.
If you go on to the Highways agency website you can download the photos of the accident site. The tracks of the Land Rover go straight down to the railway, there is no deviation whatsoever.
It is impossible to believe that a driver as experienced as Hart would make no attempt over a distance like this to swerve and avoid the railway.
If he had no steering it would be impossible for him to do so, this is what the tracks indicate.
But then I find this other accident last year, that is a virtual clone of Hart's except two people in the Land Rover were killed and it struck the mainline Virgin Express, fortunately on the side. Again fortunately, there was time to stop another goods train coming in the opposite direction before it hit the vehicle.
So what do we say this time?. Did this guy also fall asleep, was he speeding, or drunk maybe.
No hate campaign this time, in fact it hardly made the news, probably because the guy paid for the incident with his life.
There is only one thing to say; HOW DID HIS VEHICLE GET ON THE TRACK!!!!!!!
This is the last time I am going to say this, if we don't improve the safety standards of the road/rail network, many more people are going to get killed.
Please all note that in your diaries.
I am fully aware of the concepts of stress and the metallurgic principles involved right down to atomic level. I am not implying however that this is a case where there was a molecular failure that would be difficult to detect, but rather the kind of failure that is common in Land Rovers could be masked by the collision with the train.
The vehicle was absolutely annihilated remember, so let's assume for sake of argument that your lads found the drop arm ball joint was separated from the track arm, and then assumed it had been done so by the train.
There is no absolutely no problem with this and their assumption is a fair one, but if it happened only two minutes before hand on the road then it was the cause of the Land Rover leaving the road and Hart having no steering control whatsoever.
I believe that it is impossible , beyond all reasonable doubt, to say which of these scenarios would be the correct one. I mean what scientific test or discipline are you going to apply to prove either?
I'll be perfectly honest Dave and say that if Hart had been driving a big, comfy BMW or Mercedes and cruising along with the heating on and some soft music on the audio, then the falling asleep theory becomes very powerful indeed; and the chance of steering failure so remote as to be acceptably discounted.
As we all know , that was not the case, and the point I have been trying to stress, and so has cen, who is a solicitor, in his submissions, is that the concept of reasonable doubt in this case seems to have been totally supressed.
If you go on to the Highways agency website you can download the photos of the accident site. The tracks of the Land Rover go straight down to the railway, there is no deviation whatsoever.
It is impossible to believe that a driver as experienced as Hart would make no attempt over a distance like this to swerve and avoid the railway.
If he had no steering it would be impossible for him to do so, this is what the tracks indicate.
But then I find this other accident last year, that is a virtual clone of Hart's except two people in the Land Rover were killed and it struck the mainline Virgin Express, fortunately on the side. Again fortunately, there was time to stop another goods train coming in the opposite direction before it hit the vehicle.
So what do we say this time?. Did this guy also fall asleep, was he speeding, or drunk maybe.
No hate campaign this time, in fact it hardly made the news, probably because the guy paid for the incident with his life.
There is only one thing to say; HOW DID HIS VEHICLE GET ON THE TRACK!!!!!!!
This is the last time I am going to say this, if we don't improve the safety standards of the road/rail network, many more people are going to get killed.
Please all note that in your diaries.
destroyer said:
There is only one thing to say; HOW DID HIS VEHICLE GET ON THE TRACK!!!!!!!
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?
I wasn't talking about Hart's vehicle Destroyer. I was talking about the second LandRover in three years to go out of control and end up on a busy mainline railway track and almost cause yet another disaster.
I'll post the link for you again.
www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=143
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.
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:
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff