Whitland Train Crash: Lorry Driver gets suspended jail term

[Captain Chaos]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-21553799

A hay truck driver who caused a train crash injuring passengers has been given a suspended jail sentence.

Oswald Davies, 49, was told he had shown a "high degree of neglect" after admitting endangering passengers' lives at Whitland, Carmarthenshire.

The driver of the Milford Haven to Manchester train could not stop in time after spotting the lorry across the line, Swansea Crown Court heard.

Davies' nine-month sentence was suspended for 18 months.

The court heard 24 passengers suffered minor injuries in the accident which caused £250,000 in damages to the train and the cost of diverting services.

Bales of hay were scattered across the track after the train hit the lorry on the Henllan Amgoed railway crossing.

Davies, of Llanboidy, Carmarthen, was also ordered to carry out 300 hours of community work.

'Warning'

Judge Keith Thomas told him: "There was a high degree of neglect on your part.

"You were driving a truck and trailer carrying hay towards a sign telling drivers they must stop and phone to obtain permission to cross the line.

"You did not obey the sign."

The court heard that Davies had driven over the same crossing hundreds of times in the past few years.

He told Swansea Crown Court: "I was terrified when it happened but thankfully no-one was killed."

But he claimed he did not think that the signs warning long-load drivers applied to him.

Judge Thomas said: "This deserves a custodial sentence but because of Davies's good character I am able to suspend the sentence."

After the hearing, Chf Insp Sandra England, the British Transport Police Welsh sector commander, said it was "astounding that no one was seriously injured or killed in this incident".

"Davies's actions not only put rail staff and passengers' lives at risk but also caused massive disruption to the rail infrastructure."

Mike Tapscott, operations director for Arriva Trains Wales, said the "severity and impact of level crossing misuse to the safe running of the railway" should not be underestimated.

I think it's a bit of a joke to be honest. Could of been even more serious than it was already. Weak sentence imho.

 

[anthony263]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-21553799



I think it's a bit of a joke to be honest. Could of been even more serious than it was already. Weak sentence imho.

I second your comment as I think a few other members of this forum. we can also be thankful the class 175 stood up as well as it did as we could have been looking at something major with high numbers of injuries.

 

[merlodlliw]

He was given a jail sentence, It was the Judges decision to suspend the sentence, I would advise RF colleagues to be careful what they put up.

Bob

 

[GatwickDepress]

I don't think prison would've been effective in these circumstances. If I may partake in an optimistic assumption of character on my part, Mr. Davis will certainly have learnt his lesson and the shock combined with knowledge that crash could have been a great deal worse is more than enough to compensate lucky human negligence.

 

[Goatboy]

Could of been even more serious than it was already. Weak sentence imho.

Thankfully our legal system doesn't sentance based on 'What perhaps maybe could have happened'.

 

[merlodlliw]

I don't think prison would've been effective in these circumstances. If I may partake in an optimistic assumption of character on my part, Mr. Davis will certainly have learnt his lesson and the shock combined with knowledge that crash could have been a great deal worse is more than enough to compensate lucky human negligence.

I fully agree,well put, he has to live with it now

 

[ian959]

I would think that the fact that he admitted to driving over the crossing hundreds of times under the belief that the long load warnings did not apply to him would indicate that the judge has been rather lenient in suspending and arguably inadequate jail sentence. I see no good character in the driver at all since he flouted the law hundreds of times.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I would think that the fact that he admitted to driving over the crossing hundreds of times under the belief that the long load warnings did not apply to him would indicate that the judge has been rather lenient in suspending and arguably inadequate jail sentence. I see no good character in the driver at all since he flouted the law hundreds of times.

I am rather shocked that simple human neglect apparently qualifies the driver for an instant withdrawal of any possibility of good character. There is no excuse for his actions, but effectively demonising him is not going to help anything.

Sadly, its unlikely his community sentence will be appropriate. I believe something such as assisting in a National Rail safety information film aimed at haulage firms on level crossings would do a lot more than fifty years of prison would ever do.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Similar lapses of concentration from rail colleagues may not have the sane effect with some of you I sense?

 

[andykn]

Thankfully our legal system doesn't sentance based on 'What perhaps maybe could have happened'.

In some ways it does, your sentence for speeding or drink driving will be higher the faster you are going or more drunk yet, in either case nothing at all may have happened.

 

[martybabes]

In some ways it does, your sentence for speeding or drink driving will be higher the faster you are going or more drunk yet, in either case nothing at all may have happened.

You will be sentenced on what you did, NOT what you might have done or were capable of doing.

And in this case, only the Judge and those in court are aware of all the facts, and any sentence handed down will conform to the sentencing guidelines all criminal courts are required to observe.

 

[Tiny Tim]

I've no wish to persecute the lorry driver, but I really wonder what he considered to be a 'long load' if not a lorry towing a trailer.

 

[merlodlliw]

I would think that the fact that he admitted to driving over the crossing hundreds of times under the belief that the long load warnings did not apply to him would indicate that the judge has been rather lenient in suspending and arguably inadequate jail sentence. I see no good character in the driver at all since he flouted the law hundreds of times.

I dont wish to respond to your comments, perhaps the laws in your country are different.

 

[Flamingo]

I dont wish to respond to your comments, perhaps the laws in your country are different.

If one of our legal eagles would like to clarify this, but I was under the impression that after a court case has ended, 1, there are no restrictions in commenting about the case in a public forum, and 2. There are no restrictions in commenting on a Judges decisions (with the usual caveat of libel/slander).

What exactly are your objections on this case being discussed?

 

[yorksrob]

If one of our legal eagles would like to clarify this, but I was under the impression that after a court case has ended, 1, there are no restrictions in commenting about the case in a public forum, and 2. There are no restrictions in commenting on a Judges decisions (with the usual caveat of libel/slander).

What exactly are your objections on this case being discussed?

Quite. The day we have to button our lip over questionable decisions by the judiciary will be the day we cease to be free citizens.

 

[jopsuk]

it isn't a "lapse in concentration" if he's used the crossing "hundreds of times" without realising the sign applies to him

 

[merlodlliw]

If one of our legal eagles would like to clarify this, but I was under the impression that after a court case has ended, 1, there are no restrictions in commenting about the case in a public forum, and 2. There are no restrictions in commenting on a Judges decisions (with the usual caveat of libel/slander).

What exactly are your objections on this case being discussed?

I never said don't discuss it, what I stated was

I would advise RF colleagues to be careful what they put up.

at times some want assassination.

Bob

 

[Flamingo]

I never said don't discuss it, what I stated was

He was given a jail sentence, It was the Judges decision to suspend the sentence, I would advise RF colleagues to be careful what they put up.




Bob

at times some want assassination.

Bob

He was given a jail sentence, It was the Judges decision to suspend the sentence, I would advise RF colleagues to be careful what they put up.

Bob

Well, taken in company with your other post (which was posted very early in the thread, before anybody had really commented), I read your posts as a suggestion that anybody commenting unfavouribly on the result of this case could be leaving themselves open to legal action of some sort.

Sorry if I misinterpeted your posts.

 

[merlodlliw]

Well, taken in company with your other post (which was posted very early in the thread, before anybody had really commented), I read your posts as a suggestion that anybody commenting unfavouribly on the result of this case could be leaving themselves open to legal action of some sort.

Sorry if I misinterpeted your posts.

Thats OK, perhaps I could have put it better, yes I was concerned following other cases on the web where legal action was taken.I did not want fellow RF members to leave themselves open.

 

[daikilo]

it isn't a "lapse in concentration" if he's used the crossing "hundreds of times" without realising the sign applies to him

Indeed, it is not. Maybe, in his mind a long load meant a risk of grounding and not being able to move at all. We have all seen the consequences of this. There was no risk his trailer would do that as he had probably proved many times before.

I cannot remember what the sign actually said but seem to recall there was reference to slow-moving vehichles. But what is slow moving vehichle? A tractor and trailer capable of say 30 mph or a road-roller capable of 5mph.

If the sign said
"When the lights are flashing and/or the bells ringing, STOP.

You may have only xx seconds to cross completely from the time you pass the barrier. If you are unsure you can do so in less than this time, STOP before the barrier, and use the telephone to call the signalman for instructions.

Trains here travel at up to 75mph and cannot stop if you are still on the crossing"

he might have had a better picture of what might be just round the corner.

If I had been the judge, I just might have thought that the lack of help with understanding the above could be considered as a mitigating factor.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

I cannot remember what the sign actually said but seem to recall there was reference to slow-moving vehichles. But what is slow moving vehichle? A tractor and trailer capable of say 30 mph or a road-roller capable of 5mph.

...

A picture of the signage may be seen in Figure 5 in paragraph 20 of the RAIB report at http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/120927_R202012_Llanboidy.pdf

It says what means "large" and what means "slow" (5mph or less).

 

[D1009]

If the sign said
"When the lights are flashing and/or the bells ringing, STOP.

You may have only xx seconds to cross completely from the time you pass the barrier. If you are unsure you can do so in less than this time, STOP before the barrier, and use the telephone to call the signalman for instructions.

Trains here travel at up to 75mph and cannot stop if you are still on the crossing"

If the sign said that it would encourage normal vehicles to cross after the lights started flashing.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, it is not. Maybe, in his mind a long load meant a risk of grounding and not being able to move at all. We have all seen the consequences of this. There was no risk his trailer would do that as he had probably proved many times before.

I cannot remember what the sign actually said but seem to recall there was reference to slow-moving vehichles. But what is slow moving vehichle? A tractor and trailer capable of say 30 mph or a road-roller capable of 5mph.

If the sign said
"When the lights are flashing and/or the bells ringing, STOP.

You may have only xx seconds to cross completely from the time you pass the barrier. If you are unsure you can do so in less than this time, STOP before the barrier, and use the telephone to call the signalman for instructions.

Trains here travel at up to 75mph and cannot stop if you are still on the crossing"

he might have had a better picture of what might be just round the corner.

If I had been the judge, I just might have thought that the lack of help with understanding the above could be considered as a mitigating factor.

No driver on the Queens higway should need a sign to tell them that flashing red lights and bells mean stop.

 

[AndyPJG]

A picture of the signage may be seen in Figure 5 in paragraph 20 of the RAIB report at http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/120927_R202012_Llanboidy.pdf

It says what means "large" and what means "slow" (5mph or less).

...and in paragraph 21 it states the driver had previously been reported for the vehicle being longer than the legal maximum, so should have been aware of its length.

 

[daikilo]

No driver on the Queens higway should need a sign to tell them that flashing red lights and bells mean stop.

Agreed, but if you don't remind them they may misinterpret. And what about this subpart of rule 293:

"Keep going if you have already crossed the white line when the amber light comes on."

Firstly, if you've passed the light you can't see it and secondly it appears to say continue to cross!

 

[Goatboy]

It says if you've passed the LINE, not the LIGHT. The white stop line is before the lights.

 

[daikilo]

It says if you've passed the LINE, not the LIGHT. The white stop line is before the lights.

Good point, does that mean that even if the light comes on you should keep going, or is it open to individual interpretation?

 

[Zoidberg]

Good point, does that mean that even if the light comes on you should keep going, or is it open to individual interpretation?

It's just like an amber traffic light. It means STOP unless unsafe to do so. So if one is so close to the line that one is unable to safely stop when the light comes on, continue through.

From the Highway Code:

AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident

 

[TDK]

I think this quote is paramount:

"You were driving a truck and trailer carrying hay towards a sign telling drivers they must stop and phone to obtain permission to cross the line.

"You did not obey the sign."

If this is in fact true this is gross neglegence no matter what anyone says and should be treated as so! As for the sentance that is the law but I feel that compensation should be paid by the guilty party in the sum of what it cost the train company if his insurance company has not paid. That would be justice in my book!

 

[Clip]

I think this quote is paramount:

"You were driving a truck and trailer carrying hay towards a sign telling drivers they must stop and phone to obtain permission to cross the line.

"You did not obey the sign."

If this is in fact true this is gross neglegence no matter what anyone says and should be treated as so! As for the sentance that is the law but I feel that compensation should be paid by the guilty party in the sum of what it cost the train company if his insurance company has not paid. That would be justice in my book!

Was he charged with gross negligence? what was the actual charge does anyone know?

I'm sure this forum turns into the daily mail at times full of what its and such.