<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>

I find it very sad that the relatives of the victims can only get
satisfaction by seeing the perpetrator punished. Maybe he deserves to
be punished by I see no reason why that would make any difference to
the lives of the relatives of the victims.

Guy Gorton

On 24/03/2022 12:45, Guy Gorton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>
> I find it very sad that the relatives of the victims can only get
> satisfaction by seeing the perpetrator punished. Maybe he deserves to
> be punished by I see no reason why that would make any difference to
> the lives of the relatives of the victims.
>

It's human nature to want someone to take the blame in such a situation.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 24/03/2022 12:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 12:45, Guy Gorton wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>
>> I find it very sad that the relatives of the victims can only get
>> satisfaction by seeing the perpetrator punished.  Maybe he deserves to
>> be punished by I see no reason why that would make any difference to
>> the lives of the relatives of the victims.
>>
>
> It's human nature to want someone to take the blame in such a situation.
>
>

Looking at the tram cars, they are practically undamaged, at least on
the upper side.

Underneath, we cannot see, but I assume the passengers have partially
fallen through shattered windows, and then had body parts removed by the
window frames and broken glass. It was a relatively benign crash, with
no real impact, and yet 7 people were killed and 19 seriously injured.

I would therefore blame the designers of the tram cars and the
regulators who have allowed this design defect to be perpetuated.

On 24/03/2022 14:52, GB wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 12:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 24/03/2022 12:45, Guy Gorton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>>
>>> I find it very sad that the relatives of the victims can only get
>>> satisfaction by seeing the perpetrator punished.  Maybe he deserves to
>>> be punished by I see no reason why that would make any difference to
>>> the lives of the relatives of the victims.
>>>
>>
>> It's human nature to want someone to take the blame in such a situation.
>>
>>
>
>
> Looking at the tram cars, they are practically undamaged, at least on
> the upper side.
>
> Underneath, we cannot see, but I assume the passengers have partially
> fallen through shattered windows, and then had body parts removed by the
> window frames and broken glass. It was a relatively benign crash, with
> no real impact, and yet 7 people were killed and 19 seriously injured.
>
> I would therefore blame the designers of the tram cars and the
> regulators who have allowed this design defect to be perpetuated.

There's an RAIB report which describes the accident in great detail
which you could look at.

On 24/03/2022 14:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 14:52, GB wrote:
>> On 24/03/2022 12:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 12:45, Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>>>
>>>> I find it very sad that the relatives of the victims can only get
>>>> satisfaction by seeing the perpetrator punished.  Maybe he deserves to
>>>> be punished by I see no reason why that would make any difference to
>>>> the lives of the relatives of the victims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's human nature to want someone to take the blame in such a situation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Looking at the tram cars, they are practically undamaged, at least on
>> the upper side.
>>
>> Underneath, we cannot see, but I assume the passengers have partially
>> fallen through shattered windows, and then had body parts removed by
>> the window frames and broken glass. It was a relatively benign crash,
>> with no real impact, and yet 7 people were killed and 19 seriously
>> injured.
>>
>> I would therefore blame the designers of the tram cars and the
>> regulators who have allowed this design defect to be perpetuated.
>
> There's an RAIB report which describes the accident in great detail
> which you could look at.
>

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-182017-overturning-of-a-tram-at-sandilands-junction-croydon

" All of the passengers who were killed, and many of those who were
seriously injured, fell through the windows or doors as the tram tipped
over. "

Amongst the recommendations:
"improving the strength of doors and windows"

The full report discusses the windows, starting at page 105. It states
that the windows were toughened glass, not laminated, and they all
shattered and failed to contain passengers. It also states that the
glass met the regulatory standard.

There is a detailed recommendation:

UK tram operators and owners should, in consultation with appropriate
tram manufacturers and other European tramways, review existing
research and, if necessary, undertake further research to identify means
of improving the passenger containment provided by tram windows and
doors. The findings should then be used to:
i. provide a time-bound plan to modify doors and windows on existing
trams when practical to do so (eg during planned refurbishment);
ii. promote changes to the specifications and standards governing the
doors and windows of new trams; and
iii. inform the Department for Transport of the findings to allow
implementation of the safety advice at paragraph 492.

Published 7 December 2017 - does anyone know whether a single tram has
had doors and windows strengthened in the intervening 4+ years? There's
also a recommendation that coaches and minibuses should have
strengthened windows.

In message <t1i0o9$12h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:05 on Thu, 24 Mar
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 24/03/2022 14:52, GB wrote:
>> On 24/03/2022 12:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 12:45, Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>>>
>>>> I find it very sad that the relatives of the victims can only get
>>>> satisfaction by seeing the perpetrator punished.  Maybe he deserves to
>>>> be punished by I see no reason why that would make any difference to
>>>> the lives of the relatives of the victims.
>>>
>>> It's human nature to want someone to take the blame in such a situation.
>>>
>> Looking at the tram cars, they are practically undamaged, at least
>>on the upper side.

>> Underneath, we cannot see, but I assume the passengers have
>>partially fallen through shattered windows, and then had body parts
>>removed by the window frames and broken glass. It was a relatively
>>benign crash, with no real impact, and yet 7 people were killed and
>>19 seriously injured.

>> I would therefore blame the designers of the tram cars and the
>>regulators who have allowed this design defect to be perpetuated.
>
>There's an RAIB report which describes the accident in great detail
>which you could look at.

And it wasn't speeding just a little bit, it was completely out of
control.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1i0o9$12h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:05 on Thu, 24 Mar
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 24/03/2022 14:52, GB wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 12:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2022 12:45, Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it very sad that the relatives of the victims can only get
>>>>> satisfaction by seeing the perpetrator punished.  Maybe he deserves to
>>>>> be punished by I see no reason why that would make any difference to
>>>>> the lives of the relatives of the victims.
>>>>
>>>> It's human nature to want someone to take the blame in such a situation.
>>>>
>>> Looking at the tram cars, they are practically undamaged, at least
>>> on the upper side.
>
>>> Underneath, we cannot see, but I assume the passengers have
>>> partially fallen through shattered windows, and then had body parts
>>> removed by the window frames and broken glass. It was a relatively
>>> benign crash, with no real impact, and yet 7 people were killed and
>>> 19 seriously injured.
>
>>> I would therefore blame the designers of the tram cars and the
>>> regulators who have allowed this design defect to be perpetuated.
>>
>> There's an RAIB report which describes the accident in great detail
>> which you could look at.
>
> And it wasn't speeding just a little bit, it was completely out of
> control.

The driver had lost all situational awareness, and failed to slow down on
the approach to the very sharp curve. But, more disturbingly, there was no
technology to compensate for the inevitable human error. The tram had been
running on a former BR line, but with no mainline train type protection.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>

I still maintain there is an inconsistency. Here the driver is being
prosecuted for what appears to be a moment of inattention apparently
because he broke the speed limit. At Carmont the view seems to be
that the driver is not considered to have committed any crime because
he did not break the speed limit.

I think the test should be the same as the Road Traffic Act: if the
standard of driving falls far below that of a careful and competent
driver [in the face of an obvious risk] this should constitute the
crime. The 'careful and competent driver' test would of course be
adapted to rules and practices in the rail industry. On any basis,
the driver has to take some responsibility for the safety of the
train.

"Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t1i8bl$3um$1@dont-email.me...
> The driver had lost all situational awareness, and failed to slow down on
> the approach to the very sharp curve. But, more disturbingly, there was no
> technology to compensate for the inevitable human error. The tram had been
> running on a former BR line, but with no mainline train type protection.

The curve on which the tram derailed did not exist in BR days, when the line
only went straight ahead. The curve is far tighter than would have been
allowed on a BR line because the vehicles are shorter. But a safe speed
limit for a tram was set - and the tram driver exceeded it by a considerable
margin. It is hard to see how he can escape severe punishment - like the
driver of the Purley train in the 1980s which missed a signal and careered
down a high embankment, there aren't really any mitigating circumstances. In
both cases, automatic safety systems *might* have prevented the crash but
only if they kicked in early enough.

In message <miap3hhb6k59lt3ttv14a9aht8gcgte49q@4ax.com>, at 17:35:55 on
Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>
>I still maintain there is an inconsistency. Here the driver is being
>prosecuted for what appears to be a moment of inattention apparently
>because he broke the speed limit.

It was more than a moment, and according to the RAIB he was doing 73kph
on a line with a 20kph speed limit.

>At Carmont the view seems to be that the driver is not considered to
>have committed any crime because he did not break the speed limit.

See above.

>I think the test should be the same as the Road Traffic Act: if the
>standard of driving falls far below that of a careful and competent
>driver [in the face of an obvious risk] this should constitute the
>crime. The 'careful and competent driver' test would of course be
>adapted to rules and practices in the rail industry. On any basis,
>the driver has to take some responsibility for the safety of the
>train.

I don't think it's OK to drive my car at 3.5x the speed limit, however
much I might be annoyed by 20mph speed limits in town centres. But then
I'm not asleep, when making that decision.
--
Roland Perry

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:t1i8bl$3um$1@dont-email.me...
>> The driver had lost all situational awareness, and failed to slow down on
>> the approach to the very sharp curve. But, more disturbingly, there was no
>> technology to compensate for the inevitable human error. The tram had been
>> running on a former BR line, but with no mainline train type protection.
>
> The curve on which the tram derailed did not exist in BR days, when the line
> only went straight ahead. The curve is far tighter than would have been
> allowed on a BR line because the vehicles are shorter. But a safe speed
> limit for a tram was set - and the tram driver exceeded it by a considerable
> margin. It is hard to see how he can escape severe punishment - like the
> driver of the Purley train in the 1980s which missed a signal and careered
> down a high embankment, there aren't really any mitigating circumstances. In
> both cases, automatic safety systems *might* have prevented the crash but
> only if they kicked in early enough.
>
>

That’s right, punish the poor driver because his employer had failed to
design and implement a safe system.

In message <t1ick2$98m$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:38 on Thu, 24 Mar
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:t1i8bl$3um$1@dont-email.me...
>>> The driver had lost all situational awareness, and failed to slow down on
>>> the approach to the very sharp curve. But, more disturbingly, there was no
>>> technology to compensate for the inevitable human error. The tram had been
>>> running on a former BR line, but with no mainline train type protection.
>>
>> The curve on which the tram derailed did not exist in BR days, when the line
>> only went straight ahead. The curve is far tighter than would have been
>> allowed on a BR line because the vehicles are shorter. But a safe speed
>> limit for a tram was set - and the tram driver exceeded it by a considerable
>> margin. It is hard to see how he can escape severe punishment - like the
>> driver of the Purley train in the 1980s which missed a signal and careered
>> down a high embankment, there aren't really any mitigating circumstances. In
>> both cases, automatic safety systems *might* have prevented the crash but
>> only if they kicked in early enough.
>
>That’s right, punish the poor driver because his employer had failed to
>design and implement a safe system.

The driver also has a responsibility not to agree to work unrealistic
shifts which apparently cause him literally to fall asleep on the job.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1ick2$98m$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:38 on Thu, 24 Mar
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:t1i8bl$3um$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> The driver had lost all situational awareness, and failed to slow down on
>>>> the approach to the very sharp curve. But, more disturbingly, there was no
>>>> technology to compensate for the inevitable human error. The tram had been
>>>> running on a former BR line, but with no mainline train type protection.
>>>
>>> The curve on which the tram derailed did not exist in BR days, when the line
>>> only went straight ahead. The curve is far tighter than would have been
>>> allowed on a BR line because the vehicles are shorter. But a safe speed
>>> limit for a tram was set - and the tram driver exceeded it by a considerable
>>> margin. It is hard to see how he can escape severe punishment - like the
>>> driver of the Purley train in the 1980s which missed a signal and careered
>>> down a high embankment, there aren't really any mitigating circumstances. In
>>> both cases, automatic safety systems *might* have prevented the crash but
>>> only if they kicked in early enough.
>>
>> That’s right, punish the poor driver because his employer had failed to
>> design and implement a safe system.
>
> The driver also has a responsibility not to agree to work unrealistic
> shifts which apparently cause him literally to fall asleep on the job.

Oh yeah - that works. P&O shows exactly what power the folk at the bottom
have. Anyone setting unrealistic shift patterns or allowing them to be
given to a driver is the person really responsible. You’ve an unrealistic
view of the empowerment of those at the bottom of the sh** funnel.

On 24/03/2022 16:16, Roland Perry wrote:

> And it wasn't speeding just a little bit, it was completely out of control.

There's no doubt that that is what caused the accident. However, the
severity of the outcome was due to the windows not keeping the
passengers inside. The RAIB report makes that perfectly clear.

The report also made a recommendation for redesign of windows. Does
anyone know how far that has gone?

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:t1ig63$7en$1@dont-email.me...
> On 24/03/2022 16:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> And it wasn't speeding just a little bit, it was completely out of
>> control.
>
> There's no doubt that that is what caused the accident. However, the
> severity of the outcome was due to the windows not keeping the passengers
> inside. The RAIB report makes that perfectly clear.

I would regard the primary cause of the accident to be the excessive speed:
without that, the crash would not have happened. The poor design of the
windows was the secondary reason that the crash caused so many casualties.

As with so many horrific crashes, let's hope some good comes out of it:
firstly to avoid shifts which leave drivers tired and/or to test drivers'
alertness; secondly to improve the design of the windows which if they were
only toughened glass were not fit for the purpose of restraining passengers
from going through them and being sandwiched between the tram and the
ground.

On 24/03/2022 17:35, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>
> I still maintain there is an inconsistency. Here the driver is being
> prosecuted for what appears to be a moment of inattention apparently
> because he broke the speed limit. At Carmont the view seems to be
> that the driver is not considered to have committed any crime because
> he did not break the speed limit.
>

No inconsistency at all, Carmont was a pure accident, Croydon was a
combination of inattention by the driver and the lack of anyway to
enforce a known speed limit.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:26:47 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 24/03/2022 17:35, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>
>> I still maintain there is an inconsistency. Here the driver is being
>> prosecuted for what appears to be a moment of inattention apparently
>> because he broke the speed limit. At Carmont the view seems to be
>> that the driver is not considered to have committed any crime because
>> he did not break the speed limit.
>>
>No inconsistency at all, Carmont was a pure accident, Croydon was a
>combination of inattention by the driver and the lack of anyway to
>enforce a known speed limit.

I think you are missing the point. As the law stands at present, it
probably is non-culpable. What I was suggesting was to *change* the
law to place a duty on the driver similar to that on vehicle drivers
(and masters of a ship or captain of an aircraft) to use skill to
assess all the circumstances.

On 24/03/2022 21:42, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:26:47 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2022 17:35, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>>
>>> I still maintain there is an inconsistency. Here the driver is being
>>> prosecuted for what appears to be a moment of inattention apparently
>>> because he broke the speed limit. At Carmont the view seems to be
>>> that the driver is not considered to have committed any crime because
>>> he did not break the speed limit.
>>>
>> No inconsistency at all, Carmont was a pure accident, Croydon was a
>> combination of inattention by the driver and the lack of anyway to
>> enforce a known speed limit.
>
> I think you are missing the point.

No, you don't seem to understand how railways work.

As the law stands at present, it
> probably is non-culpable. What I was suggesting was to *change* the
> law to place a duty on the driver similar to that on vehicle drivers
> (and masters of a ship or captain of an aircraft) to use skill to
> assess all the circumstances.

Railways don't work like that. By the very nature of things a great deal
of the responsibility is that of the signalman, not the driver.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 24/03/2022 21:55, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 21:42, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:26:47 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/03/2022 17:35, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>>>
>>>> I still maintain there is an inconsistency.  Here the driver is being
>>>> prosecuted for what appears to be a moment of inattention apparently
>>>> because he broke the speed limit.  At Carmont the view seems to be
>>>> that the driver is not considered to have committed any crime because
>>>> he did not break the speed limit.
>>>>
>>> No inconsistency at all, Carmont was a pure accident, Croydon was a
>>> combination of inattention by the driver and the lack of anyway to
>>> enforce a known speed limit.
>>
>> I think you are missing the point.
>
> No, you don't seem to understand how railways work.
>
>  As the law stands at present, it
>> probably is non-culpable.  What I was suggesting was to *change* the
>> law to place a duty on the driver similar to that on vehicle drivers
>> (and masters of a ship or captain of an aircraft) to use skill to
>> assess all the circumstances.
>
> Railways don't work like that. By the very nature of things a great deal
> of the responsibility is that of the signalman, not the driver.

Trams are an awkward edge case. Sometimes they're driven on sight;
at other times the driver must trust the signallers as on a railway.
The two modes often alternate within a single journey.

In message <t1if4s$uip$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:00:44 on Thu, 24 Mar
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1ick2$98m$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:38 on Thu, 24 Mar
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:t1i8bl$3um$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> The driver had lost all situational awareness, and failed to slow down on
>>>>> the approach to the very sharp curve. But, more disturbingly, there was no
>>>>> technology to compensate for the inevitable human error. The tram had been
>>>>> running on a former BR line, but with no mainline train type protection.
>>>>
>>>> The curve on which the tram derailed did not exist in BR days, when
>>>>the line only went straight ahead. The curve is far tighter than
>>>>would have been allowed on a BR line because the vehicles are
>>>>shorter. But a safe speed limit for a tram was set - and the tram
>>>>driver exceeded it by a considerable margin. It is hard to see how
>>>>he can escape severe punishment - like the driver of the Purley
>>>>train in the 1980s which missed a signal and careered down a high
>>>>embankment, there aren't really any mitigating circumstances. In
>>>>both cases, automatic safety systems *might* have prevented the
>>>>crash but only if they kicked in early enough.
>>>
>>> That’s right, punish the poor driver because his employer had failed to
>>> design and implement a safe system.
>>
>> The driver also has a responsibility not to agree to work unrealistic
>> shifts which apparently cause him literally to fall asleep on the job.
>
>Oh yeah - that works. P&O shows exactly what power the folk at the bottom
>have. Anyone setting unrealistic shift patterns or allowing them to be
>given to a driver is the person really responsible. You’ve an unrealistic
>view of the empowerment of those at the bottom of the sh** funnel.

The driver still has a responsibility to ensure he's not over-tired, or
sick. The average taxi river or white van man has no-one monitoring his
hours, but shouldn't be putting himself and others at risk. And then
there's the unions to help people who are victimised by employers.
--
Roland Perry

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:26:47 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2022 17:35, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:32:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60859046>
>>>
>>> I still maintain there is an inconsistency. Here the driver is being
>>> prosecuted for what appears to be a moment of inattention apparently
>>> because he broke the speed limit. At Carmont the view seems to be
>>> that the driver is not considered to have committed any crime because
>>> he did not break the speed limit.
>>>
>> No inconsistency at all, Carmont was a pure accident, Croydon was a
>> combination of inattention by the driver and the lack of anyway to
>> enforce a known speed limit.
>
> I think you are missing the point. As the law stands at present, it
> probably is non-culpable. What I was suggesting was to *change* the
> law to place a duty on the driver similar to that on vehicle drivers
> (and masters of a ship or captain of an aircraft) to use skill to
> assess all the circumstances.
>

In the Carmont case the driver is not in a position to assess the
situation. Trains are not driven on sight. The drivers depend on accurate
signalling. If your proposal came to pass no train would move at night
beyond walking pace and every time it rained they would similarly slow down
to a crawl.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1if4s$uip$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:00:44 on Thu, 24 Mar
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t1ick2$98m$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:38 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:t1i8bl$3um$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> The driver had lost all situational awareness, and failed to slow down on
>>>>>> the approach to the very sharp curve. But, more disturbingly, there was no
>>>>>> technology to compensate for the inevitable human error. The tram had been
>>>>>> running on a former BR line, but with no mainline train type protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> The curve on which the tram derailed did not exist in BR days, when
>>>>> the line only went straight ahead. The curve is far tighter than
>>>>> would have been allowed on a BR line because the vehicles are
>>>>> shorter. But a safe speed limit for a tram was set - and the tram
>>>>> driver exceeded it by a considerable margin. It is hard to see how
>>>>> he can escape severe punishment - like the driver of the Purley
>>>>> train in the 1980s which missed a signal and careered down a high
>>>>> embankment, there aren't really any mitigating circumstances. In
>>>>> both cases, automatic safety systems *might* have prevented the
>>>>> crash but only if they kicked in early enough.
>>>>
>>>> That’s right, punish the poor driver because his employer had failed to
>>>> design and implement a safe system.
>>>
>>> The driver also has a responsibility not to agree to work unrealistic
>>> shifts which apparently cause him literally to fall asleep on the job.
>>
>> Oh yeah - that works. P&O shows exactly what power the folk at the bottom
>> have. Anyone setting unrealistic shift patterns or allowing them to be
>> given to a driver is the person really responsible. You’ve an unrealistic
>> view of the empowerment of those at the bottom of the sh** funnel.
>
> The driver still has a responsibility to ensure he's not over-tired, or
> sick. The average taxi river or white van man has no-one monitoring his
> hours, but shouldn't be putting himself and others at risk. And then
> there's the unions to help people who are victimised by employers.

Sick is relatively easy to define. Tired is much harder, especially if
working shifts that move around and involve nights. My doctor son works
blocks of 3 night shifts in a row and then goes to days. He’s permanently
tired as this pattern messes up your body. If he didn’t go to work because
he self declared as tired he’d never go to work, nor would many others. I
don’t know how tram driver shifts move around, but if similar then they
will also be fatigued. Tram drivers will be pressured to fill shifts by
various means.

Tweed wrote:

>Sick is relatively easy to define. Tired is much harder, especially if
>working shifts that move around and involve nights. My doctor son works
>blocks of 3 night shifts in a row and then goes to days. He’s permanently
>tired as this pattern messes up your body. If he didn’t go to work because
>he self declared as tired he’d never go to work, nor would many others. I
>don’t know how tram driver shifts move around, but if similar then they
>will also be fatigued. Tram drivers will be pressured to fill shifts by
>various means.

My summer job, before college, is the only time I have ever done
shift work, which was an experience I have no desire to repeat.

IIRC the shift changes were 06:00 - 14:00 - 22:00.

It was interesting how differently the shifts affected me, even
to the number of meals I ate.

I do recall the bank holiday week, where I worked on my two days
off, thus fitting 8 shifts into 7 days, and with premiums,
getting paid for 96 hours.

I don't think you are allowed to do that these days - 8 hours
between shifts on the days off. (1)

(1) If the normal sequence was Days - Afternoons - Nights, then
the work pattern could be DDDDDxxAAAAAxxNNNNN. However, working
on your day off could be DDDDDNNAAAAA, giving 8 hours between
the end of one shift and the start of the next, at changeover. I
was somewhat zombie-like.
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

Tweed wrote:

>In the Carmont case the driver is not in a position to assess the
>situation. Trains are not driven on sight. The drivers depend on accurate
>signalling. If your proposal came to pass no train would move at night
>beyond walking pace and every time it rained they would similarly slow down
>to a crawl.

Indeed so. I remember the first time I got to see the front view
from an EMU at night, during some technical testing, and being
astonished how little could be seen. Obvious really, but I had
never thought about it.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.