|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 24, 2012 9:09:36 GMT
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, let's ditch the smoke and mirrors and see the reality. One can argue until the cows come home about the factors that led to a stoned teenager being where she was. Her friends were probably stoned too but whether they were or were not is irrelevant to the cause of the fatality. The bottom line quite simply is that it was up to the guard to ensure that passengers remaining on the platform were standing clear before giving the signal to the driver to move and she wasn't. The question is whether this was a simple misjudgement or a clear case of negligence. The reported evidence says the latter but even if it was not the guard is still to blame. His defence hung upon alleging that she was not leaning on the train when he gave the signal to depart and the CCTV proved it not to be so. At the end of the day the guard was responsible for the safety of the passengers and failed in his duty. Now there may be all sorts of excuses for wanting to get the train away, we'll never know. However, put yourself in his shoes and think of the responsibilities, would it ever be worth not taking an extra few seconds to keep passengers safe. What is a life worth? IMHO that's rather subjective and can have many answers but in the scenario in question, why chance one's livelihood and liberty on keeping the service on time, which can be the only possible reason for the guard's action if it was not wilfulness, incompetence or negligence. Perhaps there is something to smoke and mirrors after all, what pressures perhaps had the management placed upon the guard's shoulders other than those written into his job description. You've once again completely ignored what have to be three of the fundamental issues of this case: 1) There is nothing in the least unusual about a train departing when people are touching it - or, in the days of slam door stock, in contact with people in it. 2) If a train cannot depart because someone is touching it (or so close that the guard will not take the risk that they may touch it as it starts to depart) then it is only a matter of time before some action group cottons on to a way to completely disrupt the rail service. 3) This was a completely freak accident. People used to stand against the doors of departing trains all the time (and I've seen people with their faces pressed against the window as a train with their g/f or b/f departs), without anyone coming to grief. This seems to be the elephant in the room as far as this forum is concerned. No one else seems prepared to say that this sort of thing happens all the time. Then there is a freak accident and the unfortunate guard who happened to be involved gets a long prison sentence. I understand what you are saying but it is irrelevant because times have changed and the world has moved on. Because it has always been 'custom and practice' doesn't make it right. It may well be that service timetables have to be 'screwed' to prioritise passenger safety in the short term but we do now live in a world where people are expecting to be protected against themselves, rightly or wrongly, and the government and the laws of the land have held that view for many years, the railways are simply way behind. You're quite right about slam door stock, 40 years ago I was jumping out of such trains before they'd come to rest when I was in a hurry, and I used to jump off moving open platform buses too. We all did such things then and sometimes we came to grief and learned a valuable lesson but that is simply not the way in the world today! Having spent almost 30 years on the 'tube' and being a Londoner for more than 50 years before I moved away I can see the arguments on both sides of the conundrum but the bottom line nowadays is safety first full stop regardless of the scenario. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747 
|
Post by class411 on Nov 24, 2012 11:35:48 GMT
I can see the arguments on both sides of the conundrum but the bottom line nowadays is safety first full stop regardless of the scenario. I have no disagreement whatever with safety being the number one priority. What I find disturbing about this case is that the guard seems to being 'made an example of' for doing something that guards have been doing for over a century almost invariably without incident. (And I have never heard of someone falling between the train and the platform and coming to grief. If it had happened before I would have expected signs, posters, and 'train departing' alarms to have been around for a while.) It may be that we need to move on and have recognised limits for how close a passenger may be to a train before it can be allowed to depart - together, of course, with a new offence: "standing too close to a train waiting to depart a station". Plus, of course, guidelines for how drunk (or sleepy) a person must appear to the responsible operator before the specified distance must be doubled, etc, etc. That may sound absurd but if people are going to be locked up for many years it is vital that they know exactly what they need to do to ensure that they do not fall foul of the rules. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 24, 2012 12:44:58 GMT
My thoughts rest with her family. Toby. I won't go into full details my views on this subject but it's interesting that there seems to have been no note of contrition from the girl's parents. They've blamed the guard but it appears they haven't looked at themselves: where were they that night while their sixteen year old daughter was literally off her face miles from home? At some point people themselves must realise that being so totally out of control is going to lead to catastrophic results. The part that irritates me is the way the mother's statement portrayed her daughter's actions as quite normal and acceptable. So it's quite okay for a 16-year-old to go out and get drunk to extreme, take illegel drugs, and then repeatedly interfere with the safe operation of a railway? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2012 13:36:53 GMT
It is a factor certainly, but the fact he gave the signal to the driver that it was safe to depart knowing she was drunk and using the side of the train to balance herself outweighs everything else. Agree, the guard should not of given the signal to the driver to depart. Easy to say that with the benefit of hindsight eh? This scenario could have happened 10,000 times over and in 9,999 cases there wouldn't have been a problem. How was the guard supposed to know drunk she was? This is a freak accident and making the guard a scapegoat serves no purpose at all, the problem lays with our binge drinking culture and not with the rail industry. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 24, 2012 13:47:13 GMT
How was the guard supposed to know drunk she was? From the Judge's sentencing remarks: Meols is seven stops before James Street, about half an hour journey. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,776
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 24, 2012 14:00:28 GMT
A couple of things that have not been mentioned here that have been brought up on another railway related forum are relevant to consider:
The OTMR data apparently showed the guard had not been following the correct procedure at a number of stations on the route, according to comments negligently so. He also apparently did not follow the correct procedure at the incident station.
The girl (and possibly her friends, I'm not sure) had been playing a 'game' whereby they attempt to get off and back on the train at each station, racing the doors.
These combine to make it clear in my mind that both parties were equally responsible for the tragic outcome. The guard was negligent in his duties. The girl was being reckless with her own safety, possibly in an unfit state to travel and in violation of railway bylaws.
I think that the guard was right to be convicted of negligence. I think the sentence is grossly unfair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2012 14:16:18 GMT
How was the guard supposed to know drunk she was? From the Judge's sentencing remarks: Meols is seven stops before James Street, about half an hour journey. I must admit I wasn't aware of that but don't the girl and her friends bear some responsibility for such dangerous behaviour? And is it really the guards responsibility to in effect 'babysit' them? As for the sentence, well there are numerous comparisons that could could be made but just one example is of Roy Whiting (who subsequently went on to murder a child) abducting and abusing a child and being jailed for four years whilst Mr McGee is jailed for five years for at worst making an error of judgement, crazy! If Mr McGee did act incorrectly, and that is highly questionable, then losing his job and having to live with what he did is surely more than enough punishment? |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 24, 2012 14:45:02 GMT
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, let's ditch the smoke and mirrors and see the reality. One can argue until the cows come home about the factors that led to a stoned teenager being where she was. Her friends were probably stoned too but whether they were or were not is irrelevant to the cause of the fatality. The bottom line quite simply is that it was up to the guard to ensure that passengers remaining on the platform were standing clear before giving the signal to the driver to move and she wasn't. The question is whether this was a simple misjudgement or a clear case of negligence. The reported evidence says the latter but even if it was not the guard is still to blame. His defence hung upon alleging that she was not leaning on the train when he gave the signal to depart and the CCTV proved it not to be so. At the end of the day the guard was responsible for the safety of the passengers and failed in his duty. Now there may be all sorts of excuses for wanting to get the train away, we'll never know. However, put yourself in his shoes and think of the responsibilities, would it ever be worth not taking an extra few seconds to keep passengers safe. What is a life worth? IMHO that's rather subjective and can have many answers but in the scenario in question, why chance one's livelihood and liberty on keeping the service on time, which can be the only possible reason for the guard's action if it was not wilfulness, incompetence or negligence. Perhaps there is something to smoke and mirrors after all, what pressures perhaps had the management placed upon the guard's shoulders other than those written into his job description. You've once again completely ignored what have to be three of the fundamental issues of this case: 1) There is nothing in the least unusual about a train departing when people are touching it - or, in the days of slam door stock, in contact with people in it. 2) If a train cannot depart because someone is touching it (or so close that the guard will not take the risk that they may touch it as it starts to depart) then it is only a matter of time before some action group cottons on to a way to completely disrupt the rail service. 3) This was a completely freak accident. People used to stand against the doors of departing trains all the time (and I've seen people with their faces pressed against the window as a train with their g/f or b/f departs), without anyone coming to grief. This seems to be the elephant in the room as far as this forum is concerned. No one else seems prepared to say that this sort of thing happens all the time. Then there is a freak accident and the unfortunate guard who happened to be involved gets a long prison sentence. However, there is a difference between someone just touching the train and someone leaning against it in a drunken state, using the train for support. It is clear, from the pdf linked on page 1, that the person was supported by the train when the guard decided to signal the driver and it was this movement which lead to her falling between the train and platform. The sentence is probably too harsh, but what is the point of guards if not to prevent such incidents. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 24, 2012 16:02:11 GMT
A couple of things that have not been mentioned here that have been brought up on another railway related forum are relevant to consider: The OTMR data apparently showed the guard had not been following the correct procedure at a number of stations on the route, according to comments negligently so. He also apparently did not follow the correct procedure at the incident station. The girl (and possibly her friends, I'm not sure) had been playing a 'game' whereby they attempt to get off and back on the train at each station, racing the doors. These combine to make it clear in my mind that both parties were equally responsible for the tragic outcome. The guard was negligent in his duties. The girl was being reckless with her own safety, possibly in an unfit state to travel and in violation of railway bylaws. I think that the guard was right to be convicted of negligence. I think the sentence is grossly unfair. I do find it astonishing that based on a statement made on a forum, it's possible to reach a conclusion that, firstly, the guard was not following correct procedures, and secondly, that this was a factor in what happened at James Street. Before making such connections, one needs to wait for the RAIB report to be released. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,776
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 24, 2012 23:12:03 GMT
My conclusion is based on a statement that cites the evidence presented in the trail. The RAIB explicitly does not investigate liability, a court of law explicitly does.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,776
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 27, 2012 10:09:22 GMT
|
|
cso
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by cso on Nov 27, 2012 10:36:51 GMT
I'm surprised this is published so soon after the court case is over...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2012 10:40:01 GMT
It is an incredibly clear and detailed report, certainly provides plenty of diagrammatic and photographic explanations as to what happened. Not being a railway person I can't comment on the findings, but the process seems to be very thorough, and the author is obviously trying to ensure an independent assessment of the events.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 27, 2012 10:54:00 GMT
Having read the RAIB report I would have to say that Merseyrail procedures were partly to blame. There is also a reference which tends to suggest that trains could not be kept to timetable if the guards followed that procedure religiously so the inference is added pressure upon the guard. I still believe, however, that the guard could have done more and simply didn't bother. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 27, 2012 10:56:12 GMT
No reference was made in the RAIB report to the actions of the young person's friends at preceding stations, i.e. the 'playing chicken with the doors' that was mentioned by someone in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Nov 27, 2012 12:51:47 GMT
I'm surprised this is published so soon after the court case is over... In fact, it could have been published earlier, but was delayed due to the court case. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 27, 2012 13:10:46 GMT
Having read the RAIB report I would have to say that Merseyrail procedures were partly to blame. There is also a reference which tends to suggest that trains could not be kept to timetable if the guards followed that procedure religiously so the inference is added pressure upon the guard. I still believe, however, that the guard could have done more and simply didn't bother. I think too much emphasis has been put on 'procedures', and it's interesting that the RAIB report doesn't really dwell on this area, apart from forming the conclusion that had the guard followed the procedure to the letter, the accident would still have happened. The basic issue is that the girl placed herself in a hazardous environment, and the guard either didn't see or misjudged the danger she was in. It was known that the service in question is troublesome on Saturday nights, and it is known that in general late-night services on Friday and Saturday nights can be problematic in urban areas throughout the country. Yet nothing ever seems to be done to support the railway staff on duty at a time when staffing levels are already likely to be at their minimum. Drunks can be unpredictable in their actions, by nature one never knows how they are going to react. If approached they may turn aggressive or violent, or alternatively may throw up all over you! When part of a larger group there's always the potential for the situation to go out of control, and then guess who's on their own... Had the railway not been made to be an annex to an 18th-birthday party on that particular night, the accident would not have happened. |
|
|
|
Post by charleyfarley on Nov 27, 2012 13:20:05 GMT
The unfair severity of the custodial sentence is so obvious it needs no further comment from me. However, I would like to point out that whereas today’s prisons are certainly not as grim as depicted on the BBC sitcom “Porridge”, they are certainly not the “holiday camps” the media seem to love implying they are.
It seems the media really expect prisoners to be permanently locked in their cells doing absolutely nothing at all and totally denied the activities that we all take for granted. Why is this?
A prison sentence today involves:-
Loss of freedom
Strict regime
Being locked up between 8PM and 7AM on weekdays and between 5PM and 7AM on weekends and public holidays /
Being required to work or follow a course of academic study – inmates receive a stipend of around £10 per week if so occupied.
Prisons are divided into “wings” and even during the free association period following the evening meal, an inmate is confined on his/her own wing.
There is no communal dining in British prisons. An inmate collects his/her meal from the server and takes it back to the cell. This, unfortunately, requires the inmate to sit down at his table and eat less than 10 feet away from his WC.
All present day cells are heated with WC and fresh running water (hot and cold) and a portable size TV which may be removed by staff for a serious infraction.
The worst aspect of a custodial sentence is boredom along with being allowed to receive visitors only every 1-2 weeks.
Although many prisoners smoke, tobacco products are sold by the prison canteen at full retail price – the reason for many inmates resorting to loose tobacco and papers, used as currency along with items of confectionery. A haircut from a fellow inmate known for his skills may cost you 2 Mars bars or 2-3 “roll-ups” if the barber is a smoker. Staff turn a blind eye to this type of innocent transaction although technically against the rules.
I am assured it is not a bad life in prison – if you are a mature and well behaved person ready to comply with the requirements of the regime. The penalty for fighting is severe as a deterrent. Nobody wants to be sent to the segregation block, although some of today’s young prisoners (early 20’s) regard being sent down the block as some sort of achievement, to be proud of.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 27, 2012 13:35:49 GMT
Having looked back at the summing up, the second point the judge made, the fourth point and the fifth are at odds with the RAIB report and as such would give grounds for appeal against the sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 27, 2012 14:11:47 GMT
The unfair severity of the custodial sentence is so obvious it needs no further comment from me. However, I would like to point out that whereas today’s prisons are certainly not as grim as depicted on the BBC sitcom “Porridge”, they are certainly not the “holiday camps” the media seem to love implying they are. It seems the media really expect prisoners to be permanently locked in their cells doing absolutely nothing at all and totally denied the activities that we all take for granted. Why is this? A prison sentence today involves:- Loss of freedom Strict regime Being locked up between 8PM and 7AM on weekdays and between 5PM and 7AM on weekends and public holidays / Being required to work or follow a course of academic study – inmates receive a stipend of around £10 per week if so occupied. Prisons are divided into “wings” and even during the free association period following the evening meal, an inmate is confined on his/her own wing. There is no communal dining in British prisons. An inmate collects his/her meal from the server and takes it back to the cell. This, unfortunately, requires the inmate to sit down at his table and eat less than 10 feet away from his WC. All present day cells are heated with WC and fresh running water (hot and cold) and a portable size TV which may be removed by staff for a serious infraction. The worst aspect of a custodial sentence is boredom along with being allowed to receive visitors only every 1-2 weeks. Although many prisoners smoke, tobacco products are sold by the prison canteen at full retail price – the reason for many inmates resorting to loose tobacco and papers, used as currency along with items of confectionery. A haircut from a fellow inmate known for his skills may cost you 2 Mars bars or 2-3 “roll-ups” if the barber is a smoker. Staff turn a blind eye to this type of innocent transaction although technically against the rules. I am assured it is not a bad life in prison – if you are a mature and well behaved person ready to comply with the requirements of the regime. The penalty for fighting is severe as a deterrent. Nobody wants to be sent to the segregation block, although some of today’s young prisoners (early 20’s) regard being sent down the block as some sort of achievement, to be proud of. No-one will ever convince me that prison is hard. Being deprived of one's liberty is not sentence enough, having rights and privileges as inmates is outrageous, what about the rights and privileges denied to the victims in the cockeyed world of UK law and order which is so heavily weighted in favour of offenders? As for the guard's sentence, what is fair for manslaughter? Like it or not that is what it amounts to and he got off lightly. Read the report, all 40+ pages and note that the incident could have occurred seven stations earlier and half an hour before it did. The guard it appears was well aware of the state of the victim and had no excuse not to take more care. The fact that the report states in several paragraphs that some different action would have made no difference to the outcome simply cannot exonerate the guard for abdicating his reponsibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 27, 2012 14:18:06 GMT
Supposing the guard had stuck to the published procedure, in which he had returned to his cab, made a check of the platform and noted the girl just starting to move away from the platform wall, could have been leaving the platform to go home - who knows, turned to his panel to close the cab door, looked out of the window and not seen her due to the restricted view, then given the away signal etc...
Would we have been looking at a charge of corporate manslaughter?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Nov 27, 2012 14:22:06 GMT
Would we have been looking at a charge of corporate manslaughter? Some of the more adversarial elements of the legal profession would think so, yes. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,776
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 27, 2012 14:37:01 GMT
Having looked back at the summing up, the second point the judge made, the fourth point and the fifth are at odds with the RAIB report and as such would give grounds for appeal against the sentence. But note paragraphs 1 and 2 of the RAIB report (pdf page 6), " t is inappropriate that RAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame, or determine liability"
(although this is not as strong as the warning on an MAIB report I was reading the other day (PDF page 2) which explicitly says "[this report] shall be inadmissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or blame.".) |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 27, 2012 15:03:13 GMT
I feel there are several "elephants in the room" here
1) The parents of the girl want to blame anyone and everyone but themselves for her under age drinking and drug taking. The guard became their easiest target.
2) The unions, for their case for having guards is weakened by the failure of a train with a guard to prevent a death
3) The employers who do not want the expense of having guards will "sit out" and await developments although they were responsible for pressurising train staff for punctuality, and has been said, if the guard had acted in strict accordance with every "Health & Safety" rule, the train would have probably been stuck 4 stations back alongth the line.
4) Her mates have avoided all responsibility, as has the person who illegally supplied her with alcohol and the person who supplied her with illegal drugs. This means the guard is the only one they could "go for"
5) None of the above will admit that the guard was being placed in an impossible "no win"situation, and because of the girl's behaviour. If it had been a 16 stone drunken football supporter instead of the 16 year old girl, the result would have been the same but the press coverage would have been different, and a totally different slant would have been put on things.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 27, 2012 15:11:55 GMT
Quite so. But it doesn't clear itself from use in determining sentences, nor does it prohibit the duplication of information if such technical detail is presented as part of the case. Where there are such irrefutable discrepancies between reality and what was presented in court, then the proceedings could be called into question.
Judge: ...as the guard of the train, you were in complete control of the movement of the train.
RAIB: The guard had no direct and immediate way to stop the train from moving
Judge: You were not ... required to turn away in order to operate the controls.
RAIB: ...the controls are located in the opposite direction to the platform/train interface...
Judge: ... a moment to give one more ring on the bell to signal the driver to stop before the train had really begun to move.
RAIB: ... receive the code less than 3 seconds earlier ... 3 metres shorter ... would not have affected the outcome ...
Was the court shown a photograph of the control panel layout with respect to the cab door? Was the court made aware that the guard has no direct control of the brake circuits on this model of train?
I'm not doubting the verdict, the guard could clearly have delayed the service in order to either remove the girl from the station or made sure she was locked safely inside the carriage. We haven't seen the video evidence ourselves on this forum, which was strongly influential in the determination of negligence or not, but I do now have doubt that all the relevant technical details have been presented to the court.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 27, 2012 15:21:28 GMT
1) The parents of the girl want to blame anyone and everyone but themselves for her under age drinking and drug taking. The guard became their easiest target. They did not bring the case, the CPS did. 2) The unions, for their case for having guards is weakened by the failure of a train with a guard to prevent a death Did the unions provide any legal representation in this case? Was the guard a member of a union? I thought that the RMT at least did provide legal cover. They certainly haven't made any statement that I'm aware of. 3) The employers who do not want the expense of having guards will "sit out" and await developments although they were responsible for pressurising train staff for punctuality, and has been said, if the guard had acted in strict accordance with every "Health & Safety" rule, the train would have probably been stuck 4 stations back alongth the line. This fact was not and probably could not have been made available to the courts. It may have been presented in a case for corporate manslaughter, as established procedures were not being enforced or regulated. 4) Her mates have avoided all responsibility, as has the person who illegally supplied her with alcohol and the person who supplied her with illegal drugs. This means the guard is the only one they could "go for" Did they avoid all responsibility? Really? And ultimately the guard was responsible for the safety of the train and its passengers, as were other parts of the system, the police for failing to arrest the drug dealers, the clubs for serving intoxicated persons, MerseyRail for not evaluating procedures properly, National Rail for not minimising the platform edge gap... multiple failures in a system which had a tragic consequence, but only one person who was clearly grossly negligent. 5) None of the above will admit that the guard was being placed in an impossible "no win"situation, and because of the girl's behaviour. If it had been a 16 stone drunken football supporter instead of the 16 year old girl, the result would have been the same but the press coverage would have been different, and a totally different slant would have been put on things. I don't think press coverage would have been any different, to be honest, and a 16 stone drunken football supporter would probably not have fallen down that gap anyway. The RAIB notes several other incidents of a similar nature. Interesting to see if these were brought to court at all. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on Nov 27, 2012 17:05:42 GMT
but only one person who was clearly grossly negligent. Clear to you, maybe, not so clear to others. You still haven't answered the questions I have asked more than once: 1) When will TPTB provide specifications for how drunk a person appears to be before they are no longer considered able to do something as basic as stand back from a train that starts to move? 2) What will happen when some campaigning group realises that they can bring any rail system to a halt by the simple expedient of standing so close to a train that the operator cannot tell if it's safe to move off? 3) When will we see the introduction of an offence: "standing close to a train that is waiting to depart" to counteract (2)? Exactly. And that's probably just where they have been informed - i.e it's just the tip of an enormous iceberg. This has been going on for ever. The guard did nothing different to what other guards have done thousands of times before. Yet suddenly it's 'clearly, grossly, negligent'. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 27, 2012 17:36:51 GMT
Clear to you, maybe, not so clear to others. Clear to a jury of twelve. You still haven't answered the questions I have asked more than once: Me? Why do I have to answer? 1) When will TPTB provide specifications for how drunk a person appears to be before they are no longer considered able to do something as basic as stand back from a train that starts to move? That's an emotionally loaded question. The Powers That Be leave it in the hands of the police and the magisteriate to determine when a person is drunk, under the influence, incapable, insensible etc. This passenger's level of intoxication MUST have been considered in the trial and STILL the verdict was returned as it was. 2) What will happen when some campaigning group realises that they can bring any rail system to a halt by the simple expedient of standing so close to a train that the operator cannot tell if it's safe to move off? They can already if they so choose. And they do so already by chaining themselves to railings, marching through the streets etc etc 3) When will we see the introduction of an offence: "standing close to a train that is waiting to depart" to counteract (2)? Be sensible... Exactly. And that's probably just where they have been informed - i.e it's just the tip of an enormous iceberg. This has been going on for ever. The guard did nothing different to what other guards have done thousands of times before. Yet suddenly it's 'clearly, grossly, negligent'. Not suddenly. We haven't, and probably never will, see the full video of the incident. Should I counter by asking when it clearly isn't grossly negligent? For example the woman who had her hand trapped in the door, or the gentleman whose coat tail was caught in the door? Evidence suggests that the guard was well aware that the single greatest area of risk on the railway is the platform/train interface, and that therefore he had an overwhelming responsibility to ensure the safety of the passengers he had observed hanging around at that interface. He knew the likely consequences for her if she fell. The fact that this is allegedly a daily occurrence for guards/TOps should make it even MORE critical that excess caution is displayed. If he had to hold up service to do it, then so be it. If he makes everyone 20 minutes late trying to get her back on the train or waiting for the BTP to turn up to take her away, well, it's the last train of the day. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,776
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 27, 2012 17:45:10 GMT
You still haven't answered the questions I have asked more than once: 1) When will TPTB provide specifications for how drunk a person appears to be before they are no longer considered able to do something as basic as stand back from a train that starts to move? 2) What will happen when some campaigning group realises that they can bring any rail system to a halt by the simple expedient of standing so close to a train that the operator cannot tell if it's safe to move off? 3) When will we see the introduction of an offence: "standing close to a train that is waiting to depart" to counteract (2)? On LU there are some relevant bylaws: 4 (1): No person shall enter, attempt to enter or remain on the railway if he is unfit as a result of being drunk or under the influence of controlled drugs. 4 (5): Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway or is in possession of alcohol in contravention of any provision of Byelaw 4, the authorised person may: (i) require him to leave the railway; 5: No person shall enter or remain on the railway if, in the reasonable opinion of an authorised person, he is in an unfit or improper condition... 6 (8): No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway. 13 (2): No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person. 13 (3): No person whilst on the railway shall wilfully obstruct or impede any authorised person in the execution of his duty. The first three of these should, if enforced, prevent someone being in Georgia's state on LU in the first place. The last three should allow for the removal of anyone attempting what you describe in your points 2 and3. NR will have similar bylaws. Edit: The DfT site is utterly broken since the move to the single gov.uk (whose bright idea was that?) but Google found the copy on South West Trains website, and clauses I quote above are identical and identically numbered in both SWT and TfL byelaws. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on Nov 27, 2012 18:45:46 GMT
Clear to you, maybe, not so clear to others. Clear to a jury of twelve. So, had the jury decided 'not guilty', you would have been posting that the guard was 'clearly not grossly negligent'. OK, fine. I didn't say you had to, merely noted that you hadn't. However, it doesn't do much for the credibility of a position if the person holding it will not deal with corollary problems an adherence to that position might throw up. ROFLMAO. So, by your logic, a guard cannot start the train if he considers it possible that a person close by may be incapable until he has consulted with the police or magistrates. I can see train travel is going to become a lot slower in the future. And there are already ways of dealing with those events. The main difference here is that the effort involved is minimal and there is no easy test to determine if the protagonist is wilfully obstructing the railway or just happens to be standing very close to the platform edge. Cheap and easy retort but it does not answer the question of what will TPTB do if people decide that it's a laugh to stand right next to a train to prebent it leaving. Really? Can you provide links to the court cases where the hundreds of other operators who have allowed trains to depart with people holding onto their loved ones through a window were prosecuted. Or, maybe a few where passengers fell between the train and the platform? As there are so many drunks and it's 'obvious' what might happen, it must have happened many times before. Really? So, how often has someone been killed like this before? Must happen a lot for him to 'know the likely consequences'. Had he realised the risk he would almost certainly have delayed. This was a freak accident. It's just not what you would expect to happen because people stand near to moving trains every day and yet we do not have a string of fatalities from this cause. |
|
