Merseyrail Martin Zee case - Not Guilty verdict reached

[WatcherZero]

May I ask, is this a particular website or something? Thanks.

Liverpool echo live blogged court proceedings.

 

[razor89]

Thanks.

So is the suggestion in the case that the procedure should be:-

1. Walk away from train and check signal
2. Return to train and press close, turning around to watch the monitor until it appears the doors are closed
3. Walk away from the train and check for any obstructions and that the signal is still off
4. Return to train and "ding ding"?

Would that have prevented the incident?

Quite possibly, but it's very difficult to say without actually seeing the CCTV or having been there. An issue with using the monitor is that not all trains stop accurately enough for the guard to actually use it, and in the interest of consistency guards may choose not to use it at all.

The prosecutions case seems to be that Zee saw the first woman arrive on the platform and instead of actually watching her get on the train, he just waited an arbitrary length of time before closing the doors. The fact that Merseyrail cleared him suggests they think he didn't. As a guard myself I'd say that just leaving a few seconds and hoping for the best isn't clever whatsoever, so much so that I'd be very surprised if that turns out to be what he did.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Reading this I can see why drivers are not keen to operate the doors and cannot imagine why guards want to hang on to it.

Andrew

 

[Onedirection]

Technically he shouldnt have been guessing the time that the first woman would require before blindly closing them though, it was the first mistake which led in a series of events to the accident.

You sound as though you've made your mind up in your decision of what has been done wrong in this case! You clearly have no clue as moonshot has quite rightly pointed out, all processes required to close doors and procedures to follow before re opening doors and then closing them the second time were followed and cleared by the TOC in question along with RAIB and ORR bodies.

This is what makes the prosecutions defence case totally weak.

A question that should be asked is what if any, actions were being taken by the passenger to safeguard their own safety when they heard the hassle alarm going off. Judging by this case- nothing!

I'll give you heads up now, verdict will the ACCIDENT!

 

[Matt Taylor]

I can't believe that someone would shut the doors and hope for the best given what happened at the very next station a short time ago and Christopher McGee. I have to dispatch from a number of stations where the curvature of the platform means I can't see the whole train from a single spot and there are no dispatch cameras to assist, you just have to do your best, shut the doors then walk in either direction until you're certain nobody is trapped and then go back to your local door to get the train moving.

It's a tenuous prosecution but I can see why the CPS have brought it, but from my point of view it doesn't matter whether you've reopened the doors or not, the same checks must be made.

 

[Onedirection]

I can't believe that someone would shut the doors and hope for the best given what happened at the very next station a short time ago and Christopher McGee. I have to dispatch from a number of stations where the curvature of the platform means I can't see the whole train from a single spot and there are no dispatch cameras to assist, you just have to do your best, shut the doors then walk in either direction until you're certain nobody is trapped and then go back to your local door to get the train moving.

It's a tenuous prosecution but I can see why the CPS have brought it, but from my point of view it doesn't matter whether you've reopened the doors or not, the same checks must be made.

Hi Matt ,
The understanding in this case was the point at which Martin zee turned his back to go to the door panel to press the close door button- was when the lady attempted to board the train and hold onto the door flaps( the hassle alarm would be sounding at this point on pressing close)It inevitable for a few seconds your back in this case is turned away to operate the buttons. On realising this, he's the re- opened the doors and knock passenger off balance. But before Martin went to press the close button, the dispatch area was clear and safe to close the door. However, the situation quickly changed for those few seconds he had his back turned

Just a point worth noting

 

[razor89]

Hi Matt ,
The understanding in this case was the point at which Martin zee turned his back to go to the door panel to press the close door button- was when the lady attempted to board the train and hold onto the door flaps( the hassle alarm would be sounding at this point on pressing close)It inevitable for a few seconds your back in this case is turned away to operate the buttons. On realising this, he's the re- opened the doors and knock passenger off balance. But before Martin went to press the close button, the dispatch area was clear and safe to close the door. However, the situation quickly changed for those few seconds he had his back turned

Just a point worth noting

That's not what the prosecution are alleging.

They say that initially the platform was clear and the guard went to press the door close button. However before he did, he spotted the first woman walk onto the platform. To allow her to board he held off on pressing the button for a few seconds, then pressed it without making a second visual check that the woman had boarded and the platform was clear. Because of this and the curved nature of the platform, he did not see the second woman walk onto the platform. The woman then attempted to board whilst the doors were closing. The guard noticed this and reopened them which caused the woman to fall between the train and platform edge.

 

[WatcherZero]

But before Martin went to press the close button, the dispatch area was clear and safe to close the door. However, the situation quickly changed for those few seconds he had his back turned

Just a point worth noting

Yes an 89 year old with a zimmer frame can move like a flash. :roll:

To be fair it will probably come down to the jury deciding whether the guards initial written testimony that he saw two people before closing the doors or his defense in court that he only saw one and couldnt possibly have seen the second is the correct version. The video evidence is he would have seen her if he used the CCTV but at that time it wasnt mandatory to use it.

 

[Gareth]

I'll give you heads up now, verdict will the ACCIDENT!

Nah, it'll be either guilty or not guilty. Also, prosecutions don't have a defence.

 

[razor89]

Yes an 89 year old with a zimmer frame can move like a flash. :roll:

Regardless of her speed, the guard didn't see her.

Regardless of whether the guard did or did not make a second check before pressing the door close button, the fact is that the woman attempted to board the train while the hustle alarm was sounding/ doors closing, in breach of railway bylaws. It's my personal opinion that because of this the guard should have no case to answer.

Put it this way. Suppose this incident occurred on a straight platform. The guard sees the woman enter the platform, however the train is due to leave and he presses the door close button as he is entitled to do. It would be reasonable to assume that on hearing the hustle alarm the woman would not attempt to board, and yet that's exactly what she does, grabbing the rubber door edge for support just as the door starts to move. The natural reaction of the guard is then to reopen the doors which he does, causing the woman to fall. The same thing happens whether he sees the woman or not!

 

[AlterEgo]

Regardless of her speed, the guard didn't see her.

The guard's initial statement says he did see her.

 

[185]

I can't believe that someone would shut the doors and hope for the best

Sadly, at this stop (platform curves right / concave) you have to.

The set procedure for Merseyrail, when in the tunnels / underground sections, guard must be at the rear.

For most guards, this local rule goes against the natural behaviour of moving and positioning ourselves at a more suitable door panel ie- the middle of the train.

 

[coxxy]

Let's just remember that none of us were there. It's the prosecutions job to make it sound as bad as they possibly can to try and secure a conviction.

Let's leave this well alone until the verdict in a few weeks, all the speculating in the world does no one any good.

 

[Moonshot]

Sadly, at this stop (platform curves right / concave) you have to.

The set procedure for Merseyrail, when in the tunnels / underground sections, guard must be at the rear.

For most guards, this local rule goes against the natural behaviour of moving and positioning ourselves at a more suitable door panel ie- the middle of the train.

Now this is a bit interesting, and I had not realised this. What is that particular local rule trying to mitigate? Certainly when I have been on platforms with a bend I will despatch from a more suitable carriage if I cant see the whole length of the train from the rear.

 

[Bertie the bus]

So far on this thread we have learned the RMT have investigated and cleared the guard – they’ve done neither. RAIB haven’t investigated because it is such a cut and dry case but despite not investigated they are appearing for the defence and have created a report which has apparently cleared the guard, despite nobody on here having seen its contents.

With such informed comment who needs a trial?

 

[AlterEgo]

So far on this thread we have learned the RMT have investigated and cleared the guard – they’ve done neither. RAIB haven’t investigated because it is such a cut and dry case but despite not investigated they are appearing for the defence and have created a report which has apparently cleared the guard, despite nobody on here having seen its contents.

With such informed comment who needs a trial?

RAIB are appearing as a defence witness??

 

[Bertie the bus]

According to post #28 they are.

 

[whoosh]

Let me get this straight....


Whether or not he saw the woman before he pressed doors close, when he did become aware that she could become trapped in the doors he re-opened them, and because she was holding the door as it opened, she fell?


So we shouldn't close doors in case people run at the last minute and get their hands squashed, and we shouldn't re-open doors in case people are leaning on them and fall?

This is pathetic.


Ambulance chasing lawyers....

 

[bnm]

Let me get this straight....
Ambulance chasing lawyers....

Really? I was under the impression it was the Crown Prosecution Service who have decided that Martin Zee should face trial.

The victim in this incident has not instructed lawyers - ambulance chasing or otherwise.

I'd check the definition of that phrase if I were you. :roll:

 

[yorkie]

This is pathetic.

It is indeed, pathetic of the CPS.

 

[whoosh]

Really? I was under the impression it was the Crown Prosecution Service who have decided that Martin Zee should face trial.

The victim in this incident has not instructed lawyers - ambulance chasing or otherwise.

I'd check the definition of that phrase if I were you. :roll:

Yes you are right, it's the CPS. But it's the mindset. The Ambulance-chasing mindset. That when something happens - there's blame. There's never an unfortunate set of circumstances, someone has to hang for it. The Hindsight Police come out and pick through anything and everything they can so they can point their finger and cry, "That awful man!"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes you are right, it's the CPS. But it's the mindset. The Ambulance-chasing mindset. That when something happens - there's blame. There's never an unfortunate set of circumstances, someone has to hang for it. The Hindsight Police come out and pick through anything and everything they can so they can point their finger and cry, "That awful man!"

Whose "ambulance-chasing mindset" are you referring to above?

What indisputable factual evidence do you have to corroborate what you say above?

 

[the sniper]

If the prosecution is successful it'll set a bizarre conundrum for the industry. Surely they'll have to advise that you leave people to get trapped in the closing doors after you've initially seen the doors are clear and decide to shut them, leaving any passenger subsequently entering to get stuck and needing to free themselves, rather than reopening them which might unsettle them and lead to them falling on the track...?

I suppose if you're allowing people to break the law and get themselves trapped in the doors, you're not doing something to unsettle them into falling on to the track...? :roll:

 

[neilb62]

I'm glad this thread has brought up the point that it is illegal to try to enter a train whilst the hustle alarms are sounding. This is the case at the Hayes & Harlington incident where the Driver is to stand trial, also pursued by the
CPS.

 

[EM2]

That when something happens - there's blame.

There *is* always blame somewhere. I haven't read any details of this case, so I am not going to comment on specifics, but there is always a root cause of any incident, whether that is someone being careless, something being badly designed, a procedure being badly written or some other reason.

 

[bahnause]

Indeed, on the new FLIRTs doing so would have caused an automatic reopen.

It depends on the installed door system. In the original FLIRT it wouldn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It depends on the installed door system. In the original FLIRT it wouldn't.

Pretty sure the Merseyrail ones have specced edge detection. Indeed, they have specced a number of things that appear to be based on this incident.

 

[Onedirection]

Pretty sure the Merseyrail ones have specced edge detection. Indeed, they have specced a number of things that appear to be based on this incident.

Unfortunately the doors have no sensitive detection system. When they close they close and if you put any obstruction in its path when closing it will continue to close

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately the doors have no sensitive detection system. When they close they close and if you put any obstruction in its path when closing it will continue to close

On the 507/508s yes, I was referring to the specification for the new Stadler FLIRT fleet, which seem to have been designed specifically, more so than any other rolling stock, to avoid the issues in this and the previous case.

 

[Onedirection]

On the 507/508s yes, I was referring to the specification for the new Stadler FLIRT fleet, which seem to have been designed specifically, more so than any other rolling stock, to avoid the issues in this and the previous case.

Definitely, your right. Then new ones will