On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.

Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
offence was committed on this occasion?
>
> 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.

What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
is described as a safety critical role.

Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> 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

It is quite an experience, which you don’t quite understand until you’ve
tried it. I’ve done three footplate driving experiences, including Tornado
on the Nene Valley Railway. Even at the low speeds of preserved railways
its very very different to driving a car. At mainline speeds it must be
quite different again.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>
> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>
>> 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.
>
> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
> is described as a safety critical role.
>

The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.

In message <t1jo79$j23$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:41:45 on Fri, 25 Mar
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1if4s$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.

I have shift working medics in the family, so I understand that (and in
former times I used to travel a lot and had a rule of thumb that I
wouldn't be operating at full efficiency unless I took time off at a
rate of one day per two hours timeshift). But if you are so tired you
are nodding off at the wheel, that's in a different league.

Nodding off in a boring afternoon meeting in India [5.5hrs time shift,
with no intermediate day off] which has happened to me, isn't quite as
life threatening. To put it in context, because such conferences usually
start the daily cycle with breakfast pre-meets, it's like getting up at
2am.
--
Roland Perry

In message <gavq3hlqtavrsarfc8fl7njla669jm2tll@4ax.com>, at 08:30:40 on
Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> remarked:
>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.

A lot of NHS shifts are 12.5hrs, to allow for handovers between the
night/day teams at often 7am. Which is a bit early even for many
entirely day-shift workers. And a railway aspect: try finding a train
to get you to work in most of the country at 6.45am on a Sunday.

>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.

Back in the 70's I did two weeks of evening shift on a 3-shift
engineering site. I think it was probably 4pm to midnight (so the day
shift would have started at 8am). Driving home on empty roads was a
revelation. And I had roughly 9am-3pm to do my own thing, which was
extremely handy.

The only thing some people might have missed was evening TV (no video
recorders or catch-up) but as it happened we didn't even have a TV at
home.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1k31c$ugr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:21 on Fri, 25 Mar
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>
>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>> is described as a safety critical role.
>
>The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.

And also speed limit signs (which might exist even on drive-on-sight
bits of track).
--
Roland Perry

On 25/03/2022 09:33, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>
> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
> offence was committed on this occasion?

Do you understand your proposed changes are unworkable?

>>
>> 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.
>
> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
> is described as a safety critical role.

I don't say what the drivers' responsibilities are, the law does.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:46:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>
>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>> is described as a safety critical role.
>>
>The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.

This cannot be exhaustive. If a driver sees a person or an
obstruction on the track or on a level crossing, you cannot be serious
it is 'not my job' to react to it. Similarly, you would not drive a
train with a mechanical fault at 73 mph on the basis that maintenance
is the responsibility of someone else?

On 25/03/2022 12:50, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:46:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>
>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>>> is described as a safety critical role.
>>>
>> The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.
>
> This cannot be exhaustive. If a driver sees a person or an
> obstruction on the track or on a level crossing, you cannot be serious
> it is 'not my job' to react to it. Similarly, you would not drive a
> train with a mechanical fault at 73 mph on the basis that maintenance
> is the responsibility of someone else?

You are talking rubbish I'm afraid. I've been on a train that had to do
an emergency stop from 50mph approx when some idiot jumped the gates at
a level crossing. I was in the 5th coach of a Meridian set and I ended
up next to the fool who was standing right up close to the crossing gate
on the wrong side looking petrified.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:17:12 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 09:33, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>
>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>
>Do you understand your proposed changes are unworkable?

I don't actually. A pilot at Heathrow has to over-ride air traffic
control if something happens that is not known to ATC but affects the
safety of the aircraft. I would expect no more and no less of a train
driver.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>> is described as a safety critical role.
>
>I don't say what the drivers' responsibilities are, the law does.

Which law are you thinking of? My impression is that 'the law' is
surprisingly quiet on railway matters, compared (say) with the Road
Traffic Act.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:24 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 12:50, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:46:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>>>> is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>
>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.
>>
>> This cannot be exhaustive. If a driver sees a person or an
>> obstruction on the track or on a level crossing, you cannot be serious
>> it is 'not my job' to react to it. Similarly, you would not drive a
>> train with a mechanical fault at 73 mph on the basis that maintenance
>> is the responsibility of someone else?
>
>You are talking rubbish I'm afraid. I've been on a train that had to do
>an emergency stop from 50mph approx when some idiot jumped the gates at
>a level crossing. I was in the 5th coach of a Meridian set and I ended
>up next to the fool who was standing right up close to the crossing gate
>on the wrong side looking petrified.

Point neatly made that you are talking rubbish. Of course it is not
the only job of the driver to obey the signals (as you seem to be
suggesting). The driver has responsibility for the safety of the
train. All I am saying is that it seems to me that the responsibility
should be more clearly defined if it does not include weather
conditions and other circumstances such as returning to start because
it is too dangerous to continue.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:16:28 +0000, Scott wrote:

....

All I am saying is that it seems to me that the responsibility should
> be more clearly defined if it does not include weather conditions and
> other circumstances such as returning to start because it is too
> dangerous to continue.

Of course the driver can't just "return to start". He has to contact
signalling / control and ask for a route back to be set up.

nib

On 25/03/2022 12:54, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:17:12 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2022 09:33, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>
>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>
>> Do you understand your proposed changes are unworkable?
>
> I don't actually. A pilot at Heathrow has to over-ride air traffic
> control if something happens that is not known to ATC but affects the
> safety of the aircraft. I would expect no more and no less of a train
> driver.

You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you? Even
with pilots, ATC usually are for more aware of the situation than the
individual pilots. There was a case a few years back where a pilot
ignored ATC instructions to go around at Southampton, made a downwind
landing and ended up on the M27. The pilot lost his licence IIRC.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 25/03/2022 13:16, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:24 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2022 12:50, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:46:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>>>>> is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>>
>>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.
>>>
>>> This cannot be exhaustive. If a driver sees a person or an
>>> obstruction on the track or on a level crossing, you cannot be serious
>>> it is 'not my job' to react to it. Similarly, you would not drive a
>>> train with a mechanical fault at 73 mph on the basis that maintenance
>>> is the responsibility of someone else?
>>
>> You are talking rubbish I'm afraid. I've been on a train that had to do
>> an emergency stop from 50mph approx when some idiot jumped the gates at
>> a level crossing. I was in the 5th coach of a Meridian set and I ended
>> up next to the fool who was standing right up close to the crossing gate
>> on the wrong side looking petrified.
>
> Point neatly made that you are talking rubbish. Of course it is not
> the only job of the driver to obey the signals (as you seem to be
> suggesting).

That is your interpretation, I never said that.

The driver has responsibility for the safety of the
> train. All I am saying is that it seems to me that the responsibility
> should be more clearly defined if it does not include weather
> conditions and other circumstances such as returning to start because
> it is too dangerous to continue.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about. Try reading
the relevant RAIB reports.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 24/03/2022 20:28, NY wrote:
> "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.

The RAIB made two additional points.

First, the toughened glass windows met the current standards (which
obviously need changing).

Second, exactly the same standards apply to coaches and minibuses.

AFAIK, nothing at all has been done to change anything!

More worryingly still, nothing seems to have been learnt from a similar
coach accident that happened in 2007.

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/newsandmedia/2007/august/m4-m25-national-express-coach-accident-update

(I remember that in the news. Was it really 15 years ago?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:53:52 -0000 (UTC), nib
<news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:16:28 +0000, Scott wrote:
>
>...
>
>All I am saying is that it seems to me that the responsibility should
>> be more clearly defined if it does not include weather conditions and
>> other circumstances such as returning to start because it is too
>> dangerous to continue.
>
>Of course the driver can't just "return to start". He has to contact
>signalling / control and ask for a route back to be set up.
>
I never suggested that. It is quite clear that the train was
returning to Aberdeen with permission. What I am saying is that the
*need* to return because it was not safe to proceed should have been a
step for a hint..

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:12:39 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 13:16, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:24 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2022 12:50, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:46:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>>>>>> is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.
>>>>
>>>> This cannot be exhaustive. If a driver sees a person or an
>>>> obstruction on the track or on a level crossing, you cannot be serious
>>>> it is 'not my job' to react to it. Similarly, you would not drive a
>>>> train with a mechanical fault at 73 mph on the basis that maintenance
>>>> is the responsibility of someone else?
>>>
>>> You are talking rubbish I'm afraid. I've been on a train that had to do
>>> an emergency stop from 50mph approx when some idiot jumped the gates at
>>> a level crossing. I was in the 5th coach of a Meridian set and I ended
>>> up next to the fool who was standing right up close to the crossing gate
>>> on the wrong side looking petrified.
>>
>> Point neatly made that you are talking rubbish. Of course it is not
>> the only job of the driver to obey the signals (as you seem to be
>> suggesting).
>
>That is your interpretation, I never said that.
>
Question (me) >>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of
the driver, then? It is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>>
Answer (you) >>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the
signalling system.

Why did you change the plural 'responsibilities' to the singular
'responsibility' then?

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:10:38 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 12:54, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:17:12 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2022 09:33, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>
>>> Do you understand your proposed changes are unworkable?
>>
>> I don't actually. A pilot at Heathrow has to over-ride air traffic
>> control if something happens that is not known to ATC but affects the
>> safety of the aircraft. I would expect no more and no less of a train
>> driver.
>
>You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you? Even
>with pilots, ATC usually are for more aware of the situation than the
>individual pilots. There was a case a few years back where a pilot
>ignored ATC instructions to go around at Southampton, made a downwind
>landing and ended up on the M27. The pilot lost his licence IIRC.

I don't care what is 'usual'. The point is that the pilot has
responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and if the control
instructs an unsafe manoevre, quite obviously the pilot will not carry
it out.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:12:39 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2022 13:16, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:24 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2022 12:50, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:46:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>>>>>>> is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.
>>>>>
>>>>> This cannot be exhaustive. If a driver sees a person or an
>>>>> obstruction on the track or on a level crossing, you cannot be serious
>>>>> it is 'not my job' to react to it. Similarly, you would not drive a
>>>>> train with a mechanical fault at 73 mph on the basis that maintenance
>>>>> is the responsibility of someone else?
>>>>
>>>> You are talking rubbish I'm afraid. I've been on a train that had to do
>>>> an emergency stop from 50mph approx when some idiot jumped the gates at
>>>> a level crossing. I was in the 5th coach of a Meridian set and I ended
>>>> up next to the fool who was standing right up close to the crossing gate
>>>> on the wrong side looking petrified.
>>>
>>> Point neatly made that you are talking rubbish. Of course it is not
>>> the only job of the driver to obey the signals (as you seem to be
>>> suggesting).
>>
>> That is your interpretation, I never said that.
>>
> Question (me) >>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of
> the driver, then? It is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>>>
> Answer (you) >>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the
> signalling system.
>
> Why did you change the plural 'responsibilities' to the singular
> 'responsibility' then?
>

It was me that stated the obligation to observe signalling system. It’s not
an exhaustive list. I was trying to counter your original point where you
seemed to imply that the driver ought to slow down in bad weather, and by
extension if the Carmont driver had done that all would have been well.

It is impossible to run the railway if drivers have to drive sufficiently
slowly to avoid hitting obstructions. That’s why safety is primarily
imposed by the signalling system.

On 25/03/2022 16:13, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:10:38 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2022 12:54, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:17:12 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2022 09:33, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand your proposed changes are unworkable?
>>>
>>> I don't actually. A pilot at Heathrow has to over-ride air traffic
>>> control if something happens that is not known to ATC but affects the
>>> safety of the aircraft. I would expect no more and no less of a train
>>> driver.
>>
>> You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you? Even
>> with pilots, ATC usually are for more aware of the situation than the
>> individual pilots. There was a case a few years back where a pilot
>> ignored ATC instructions to go around at Southampton, made a downwind
>> landing and ended up on the M27. The pilot lost his licence IIRC.
>
> I don't care what is 'usual'. The point is that the pilot has
> responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and if the control
> instructs an unsafe manoevre, quite obviously the pilot will not carry
> it out.
Why would ATC instruct an unsafe manoeuvre? Do you actually know
anything about ATC?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:42:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:12:39 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2022 13:16, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:24 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/03/2022 12:50, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:46:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>>>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of the driver, then? It
>>>>>>>> is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the signalling system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This cannot be exhaustive. If a driver sees a person or an
>>>>>> obstruction on the track or on a level crossing, you cannot be serious
>>>>>> it is 'not my job' to react to it. Similarly, you would not drive a
>>>>>> train with a mechanical fault at 73 mph on the basis that maintenance
>>>>>> is the responsibility of someone else?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are talking rubbish I'm afraid. I've been on a train that had to do
>>>>> an emergency stop from 50mph approx when some idiot jumped the gates at
>>>>> a level crossing. I was in the 5th coach of a Meridian set and I ended
>>>>> up next to the fool who was standing right up close to the crossing gate
>>>>> on the wrong side looking petrified.
>>>>
>>>> Point neatly made that you are talking rubbish. Of course it is not
>>>> the only job of the driver to obey the signals (as you seem to be
>>>> suggesting).
>>>
>>> That is your interpretation, I never said that.
>>>
>> Question (me) >>>>> What would you say are the responsibilities of
>> the driver, then? It is described as a safety critical role.
>>>>>>>
>> Answer (you) >>>> The responsibility is to properly observe the
>> signalling system.
>>
>> Why did you change the plural 'responsibilities' to the singular
>> 'responsibility' then?
>
>It was me that stated the obligation to observe signalling system. It’s not
>an exhaustive list. I was trying to counter your original point where you
>seemed to imply that the driver ought to slow down in bad weather, and by
>extension if the Carmont driver had done that all would have been well.
>
>It is impossible to run the railway if drivers have to drive sufficiently
>slowly to avoid hitting obstructions. That’s why safety is primarily
>imposed by the signalling system.

I accept that but there must be circumstances that are so exceptional
that a professional person exercising skill and care would require to
adapt to them. That's all I am saying. Otherwise, driverless trains
would be safer.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:09:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 16:13, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:10:38 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2022 12:54, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:17:12 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/03/2022 09:33, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand your proposed changes are unworkable?
>>>>
>>>> I don't actually. A pilot at Heathrow has to over-ride air traffic
>>>> control if something happens that is not known to ATC but affects the
>>>> safety of the aircraft. I would expect no more and no less of a train
>>>> driver.
>>>
>>> You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you? Even
>>> with pilots, ATC usually are for more aware of the situation than the
>>> individual pilots. There was a case a few years back where a pilot
>>> ignored ATC instructions to go around at Southampton, made a downwind
>>> landing and ended up on the M27. The pilot lost his licence IIRC.
>>
>> I don't care what is 'usual'. The point is that the pilot has
>> responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and if the control
>> instructs an unsafe manoevre, quite obviously the pilot will not carry
>> it out.
>Why would ATC instruct an unsafe manoeuvre? Do you actually know
>anything about ATC?

It's an example as you know perfectly well. Are you saying there are
no circumstances where the pilot would take emergency action without
an instruction from ATC? Do you know anything about the
responsibilities of the pilot of an aircraft?

In message <t1kt0d$lsf$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:33 on Fri, 25 Mar
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>The point is that the pilot has responsibility for the safety of the
>>aircraft and if the control instructs an unsafe manoevre, quite
>>obviously the pilot will not carry it out.

>Why would ATC instruct an unsafe manoeuvre?

By mistake. I'm sure I've heard about near misses which were a result of
ATC telling an aircraft to go up 1,000ft rather than down. Aircraft
(some?) have devices to detect that kind of thing (when working), which
wouldn't be necessary if ATC was infallible.

<https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-near-
miss-spain-air-traffic-control-b508996.html>

"Two Ryanair planes were involved in a near miss over northern
Spain because of a series of blunders by air-traffic controllers
and a malfunctioning warning system, an investigation has
concluded."
--
Roland Perry

On 25/03/2022 18:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t1kt0d$lsf$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:33 on Fri, 25 Mar
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> The point is that the pilot has responsibility for the safety of the
>>> aircraft and if the control instructs an unsafe manoevre, quite
>>> obviously the pilot will not carry it out.
>
>> Why would ATC instruct an unsafe manoeuvre?
>
> By mistake. I'm sure I've heard about near misses which were a result of
> ATC telling an aircraft to go up 1,000ft rather than down. Aircraft
> (some?) have devices to detect that kind of thing (when working), which
> wouldn't be necessary if ATC was infallible.

What device is this?

>
> <https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-near-
> miss-spain-air-traffic-control-b508996.html>
>
> "Two Ryanair planes were involved in a near miss over northern
> Spain because of a series of blunders by air-traffic controllers
> and a malfunctioning warning system, an investigation has
> concluded."

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 25/03/2022 18:23, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:09:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2022 16:13, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:10:38 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2022 12:54, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:17:12 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/03/2022 09:33, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:55:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you understand that I was proposing a change, not claiming that any
>>>>>>> offence was committed on this occasion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand your proposed changes are unworkable?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't actually. A pilot at Heathrow has to over-ride air traffic
>>>>> control if something happens that is not known to ATC but affects the
>>>>> safety of the aircraft. I would expect no more and no less of a train
>>>>> driver.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you? Even
>>>> with pilots, ATC usually are for more aware of the situation than the
>>>> individual pilots. There was a case a few years back where a pilot
>>>> ignored ATC instructions to go around at Southampton, made a downwind
>>>> landing and ended up on the M27. The pilot lost his licence IIRC.
>>>
>>> I don't care what is 'usual'. The point is that the pilot has
>>> responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and if the control
>>> instructs an unsafe manoevre, quite obviously the pilot will not carry
>>> it out.
>> Why would ATC instruct an unsafe manoeuvre? Do you actually know
>> anything about ATC?
>
> It's an example as you know perfectly well. Are you saying there are
> no circumstances where the pilot would take emergency action without
> an instruction from ATC? Do you know anything about the
> responsibilities of the pilot of an aircraft?

In other words you don't know and are constructing straw men to bolster
an increasingly weak argument.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.