Where should the law stand when it comes to personal responsibility?

[Bletchleyite]

Well of course you would ask her to move. Pushing would be a last resort. Now I have a feeling where this is going to lead to the question why didn't the guard ask the girl in question to move?

I don't know why he didn't, but the fact that he didn't (and wait for her to move) is why he was prosecuted. He had a safe option and he actively chose the dangerous option.

 

[Dai Corner]

But then she placed herself in danger by causing an obstruction - thus she would be to blame in my view. Whether it would be a court's view is a different matter. But in my world such a situation should not reach court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==


Well of course you would ask her to move. Pushing would be a last resort. Now I have a feeling where this is going to lead to the question why didn't the guard ask the girl in question to move?
Now in my view hearing the door mechanism operate would / should have the same effect and basically send a "stand clear" message.

Sounding a car's horn would send a similar message. Is that sufficient warning to a pedestrian that the driver is about to drive into her?

 

[O L Leigh]

Whether it would be a court's view is a different matter. But in my world such a situation should not reach court.

As diverting as this is, the answer to your question would be found in existing case law and precedent. And it would appear that you’d be quite a long way out on a very thin branch. No matter how much sense it may make in your world, the real world may not agree.

 

[John Luxton]

I don't know why he didn't, but the fact that he didn't (and wait for her to move) is why he was prosecuted. He had a safe option and he actively chose the dangerous option.

The only thing is we were not there at the time and we may not be fully aware of the prevailing environment in terms of other passengers and their behaviour given that probably she wasn't the only one not behaving in a rational / sober manner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only thing is we were not there at the time and we may not be fully aware of the prevailing environment in terms of other passengers and their behaviour given that probably she wasn't the only one not behaving in a rational / sober manner.

We weren't, but unless you dispute the decision of the Court (he didn't appeal) we can know as well as we ever will what happened by reading the court reports. I respect and agree with the Court's decision that he made a dangerous and negligent decision to cause a train to depart with someone leaning on it. It's as simple as that.

 

[stuu]

But then she placed herself in danger by causing an obstruction - thus she would be to blame in my view. Whether it would be a court's view is a different matter. But in my world such a situation should not reach court.

So someone might delay your journey and you would be ok if your actions killed them? Is that really your world view? Your time is more important than someone else's life?

 

[John Luxton]

We weren't, but unless you dispute the decision of the Court (he didn't appeal) we can know as well as we ever will what happened by reading the court reports. I respect and agree with the Court's decision that he made a dangerous and negligent decision to cause a train to depart with someone leaning on it. It's as simple as that.

True

But it was interesting to note that in the wake of the Kirkby crash a couple of Merseyside rail forums on FB on which that incident was discussed, reference was also made to James Street. Some of the comments made by what appeared serving railway staff were none to complimentary towards the BTP and their investigation and the punishment given. One must wonder why? Just loyalty to a fellow colleague or something else?

 

[ainsworth74]

The only thing is we were not there at the time and we may not be fully aware of the prevailing environment in terms of other passengers and their behaviour given that probably she wasn't the only one not behaving in a rational / sober manner.

Yes indeed:


(image shows conductor with head out window, passenger leaning on train and platform empty of any other passengers)

A great many distractions.

We weren't there but a jury were convinced such that they were sure that he was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. They didn't have to convict but they did because the evidence was such that they were sure he had committed the offence.

 

[John Luxton]

Yes indeed:
View attachment 111282

(image shows conductor with head out window, passenger leaning on train and platform empty of any other passengers)

A great many distractions.

We weren't there but a jury were convinced such that they were sure that he was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. They didn't have to convict but they did because the evidence was such that they were sure he had committed the offence.

Thank you I have not seen that image.

Obviously not many distractions.

 

[yoyothehobo]

True

But it was interesting to note that in the wake of the Kirkby crash a couple of Merseyside rail forums on FB on which that incident was discussed, reference was also made to James Street. Some of the comments made by what appeared serving railway staff were none to complimentary towards the BTP and their investigation and the punishment given. One must wonder why? Just loyalty to a fellow colleague or something else?

Most likely loyalty.

Roman Abramovich has just been sanctioned for being buddies with Putin and likely contributing to the war in some way (financially or materially), however Chelsea fans were still singing his name last night even though it has put the very future of the club at risk.

I daresay that many staff in the past have had to deal with similar occurrences, and have been frustrated by maybe the BTPs lack of action on drunk passengers at stations and then to have the BTP come down hard on a colleague when an incident occurred seems one sided. (I am not saying this IS the case, but it is not unimaginable to think this way and I have certainly been in situations - in other industries - where you could easily imagine a situation that had occurred to someone else having occurred to you)

 

[muz379]

The fact remains regardless of personal views towards people that get themselves intoxicated or views on the law. The guard involved in the James Street incident either did or ought to have known the risks of starting the train off with someone so close/in contact with it . You also know or ought to know that you have a duty of care to people that are less capable either because of some inherent characteristic or intoxication . Regardless of your own views the law expects you to exercise that duty of care with diligence which was not the case hence why following a police investigation he was charged with gross negligence manslaughter and was later found guilty of the offence in court .

One of the reasons offered up for why he gave the ready to start with the passenger in contact with the train is that he expected she would move away once the train started . If that was the case this suggests he had dispatched a train in similar circumstances before and got away without serious incident . If you operate in such a cavalier fashion eventually you will get found out.

Some of the comments here are suggesting that people in such positions shouldn't have duty if care towards the intoxicated . But the platform train interface is a huge area of risk in the industry and is a part of the operation of railways that has killed or seriously injured many people , not all of them intoxicated. I think it's right given the clearly identifiable risk that there is a duty of care . Of course at the time he could only assume she was intoxicated and intoxicated by her own actions . Are we saying that it's similarly alright for safety critical staff to have no duty of care towards someone who has been spiked ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2022 ==

Some of the comments made by what appeared serving railway staff were none to complimentary towards the BTP and their investigation and the punishment given. One must wonder why? Just loyalty to a fellow colleague or something else?

There is whether rightly or wrongly a lot of criticism of BTP among people working in the industry and the reasons and rights and wrongs of that are probably best left to a separate thread . But the BTP only investigate the alleged crime , they don't make any decisions on charges (that's the CPS) , guilt (that's the defendant &jury) or punishment (that's the trial judge) so you cannot really level much criticism in that case because if their investigation was way off the CPS wouldn't authorise charges and the jury could have acquitted .

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Well I would not see any problem knocking a trespasser off a ladder.

As for pedestrians if we get situations where people deliberately block roads, recent climate protests come to mind, I would not see any problem with a motorist using their vehicle to get them to move.

In both cases the ladder climber and the deliberate road blocker are the ones not conforming to normal standards of behaviour and potentially causing problems for other who are conforming.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==


I would still see the victim in this case as having the greater responsibility.

Despatching the train would probably have been an incentive for her to move. Most people would stand clear once the doors closed.

And your views on the following are?

road-rage-driver-killed-pedestrian-he-just-wanted-to-nudge-with-4x4

Road rage driver killed pedestrian he just wanted to ‘nudge’ with 4×4

A road rage driver who killed a father of two said he just wanted to ‘nudge’ his victim.

Muhammed Ghulam Ali, 37, has been jailed for over seven years after deliberately driving at Matthew Hancock and Brent Clayton who were on a night out in June last year.

Mr Hancock, 30, was killed in the ‘extreme road rage’ incident while Mr Clayton was injured.

Prosecutor Deborah Gould said: ‘The defendant began to rev his engine. The car engine continued to rev in short, sharp blasts.

‘Mr Clayton suddenly felt himself being hit by the vehicle. It accelerated, knocking him to the floor.

‘It didn’t stop despite hitting the two men. The defendant continued to drive forward and over the two men.’

The court heard Mr Hancock, from Clayton, Newcastle, was dragged under the vehicle and killed when one of the wheels went over him.

Ali, a restaurant boss, fled the scene in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, telling one of his waiters that he was going to set his Mitsubishi Shogun on fire and flee the country.

He told police he had driven at them deliberately saying he didn’t intend to cause serious harm. When it came to court he admitted manslaughter and inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Matthew worked at Potclays, in Etruria, with his dad, Steve, and brother Tom.

In a statement read to the court, Steve said: ‘I’ve lost a son, friend and work colleague.

‘At work, when I return to the yard, Matthew is not there and someone else is doing his job.

‘He died so close to home that it’s impossible to avoid the area, and that only adds to the sorrow I feel every day.’

Ali was given a seven-and-a-half-year prison sentence and banned from driving for six years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2022 ==

Or you might be lucky and just get a £50 fine and three points.

Driver Joyce Jenkins 'nudged Swansea baby's pram off crossing'

Swansea driver fined for nudging baby's pram off crossing

Published 21 February 2019

A woman who "nudged" her car into a pram carrying a nine-month-old baby to push it off a pedestrian crossing has been fined.

Great-grandmother Joyce Jenkins, 73, was cleared by a jury at Swansea Crown Court of dangerous driving but found guilty of careless driving.

Keranne Jones, 26, said Jenkins' action caused her pram to swing around.

Judge Ifan Wyn Lloyd Jones fined Jenkins £50 and gave her three points on her licence.

'No intention of stopping'​

A jury heard the lights turned green as Ms Jones crossed Carmarthen Road, Swansea, with baby daughter Amelia in April last year.

Jenkins, of Mayhill, Swansea, had started pulling forward in her blue Ford Fiesta and witnesses saw her "shouting" and "waving her hands" angrily.

"The blue car started edging forward. I stopped the pram just in case the driver didn't see me," Ms Jones told the court.

But Jenkins again "moved forward and nudged the pram", Ms Jones said.

"It caused it to swing around to the left," she added.

"She had no intention of stopping. It was just to get through those lights whether we were there or not."

Driver Judy Williams spotted Jenkins waving her arms and shouting.

"She was driving towards the baby's pram. It was distressing," Ms Williams said.

"The lady in the blue Fiesta continued to drive until she made contact with the pram.

"It was ridiculously dangerous. I thought the pram may tip over. She kept edging and edging forward."

 

[John Luxton]

And your views on the following are?

road-rage-driver-killed-pedestrian-he-just-wanted-to-nudge-with-4x4



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2022 ==

Or you might be lucky and just get a £50 fine and three points.

Driver Joyce Jenkins 'nudged Swansea baby's pram off crossing'

These incidents are just cases of wilfully bad driving.

My comments concerned those who may use vehicles to move people who are illegally / wilfully blocking a road.

A significant difference.

 

[507020]

These incidents are just cases of wilfully bad driving.

My comments concerned those who may use vehicles to move people who are illegally / wilfully blocking a road.

A significant difference.

When a member of the public witnesses either deliberate or just incompetent bad driving, you should be able to report it directly to the DVLA to have the driver’s license immediately and permanently banned.

Wilfully blocking a road and refusing to move accounts to murder, since the roads are used by ambulances you are preventing critically ill people from receiving medical aid or reaching hospital, which is likely to cause imminent death. Therefore, running them over is a lesser crime than the one being committed by the people in the road. If there are innocent people, with or without prams crossing the road legally, it is obvious that they aren’t there to be driven into/run over.

 

[AlterEgo]

When a member of the public witnesses either deliberate or just incompetent bad driving, you should be able to report it directly to the DVLA to have the driver’s license immediately and permanently banned.

Just on a witness statement?

Wilfully blocking a road and refusing to move accounts to murder, since the roads are used by ambulances you are preventing critically ill people from receiving medical aid or reaching hospital, which is likely to cause imminent death.

Balderdash.

Therefore, running them over is a lesser crime than the one being committed by the people in the road.

Please.

 

[muz379]

Wilfully blocking a road and refusing to move accounts to murder, since the roads are used by ambulances you are preventing critically ill people from receiving medical aid or reaching hospital, which is likely to cause imminent death.

Even a GCSE law student would be able to explain to you why this is not the case . Come on really

 

[Bluejays]

By taking any form of public transport you are essentially contracting out a bit of your responsibility for being safe. You're relying on the company to maintain their vehicles , tracks etc properly. You also rely on the trained staff to operate these vehicles safely. It's a perfectly legitimate expectation.

We live in a country where lots and lots of perfectly normal decent people get themselves into some pretty big States through alcohol on a regular/semi regular basis. It's surely therefore completely reasonable to expect that they should be kept safe aswell (within reason).

As a guard you work loads of trains where you come into contact with drunk people. You take the extra time at stations, you try and be proactive with certain people, you keep an eye on others. If you had an issue with someone leaning on the train you'd either wait it out , release the doors or call the btp if you thought it was needed. Doing your best to keep people safe is surely just a decent thing to do, it's also the fundamental part of your job as a guard. Q

 

[Baxenden Bank]

To whom it may concern. You cannot use your car as a protestor removal tool.

BBC News article

Insulate Britain: School-run mum admits dangerous driving near M25​

A mother has admitted using her car to try to move a climate change protester blocking the road in Grays, Essex, while she was on the school run.

Sherrilyn Speid, 35, of Grays, pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving when she appeared at Southend Magistrates' Court.
She was at the wheel of a Range Rover when she came across a sit-in near the M25 on 13 October at about 08:30 GMT.
Speid, who was given unconditional bail, will be sentenced in May.
The incident involving Speid was caught on camera by a passer-by and heavily bleeped footage was shown to magistrates.
Prosecutor Ashley Petchey said there were three Insulate Britain protesters sitting across the road and queues of traffic had built up behind them.
Speid got out of her vehicle and "remonstrated" with the protesters, the court heard.
The footage shows a woman telling the protesters they must "move out of the way now" and adding, "my son needs to go to school and I need to go to work".
On the dangerous driving count, Mr Petchey said: "It is not an excessive speed as the driver was using the brakes quite heavily.
But he said that "on two occasions" the "Range Rover stops very close to the female protester".
Mr Petchey said: "Clearly this was an incident where there was a risk, even if no injury was caused."
An assault charge against Speid, in which it was alleged that a protester had been beaten, was dismissed after the prosecution said it would produce no evidence.
The prosecution said it would ask for £310 in costs and a pre-sentence report has been ordered.
Peter Hoche, chairman of the magistrates bench, also banned Speid from driving by issuing her with an interim driving disqualification.

 

[Ediswan]

To whom it may concern. You cannot use your car as a protestor removal tool.

BBC News article

Is this is the same event: https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1450853306973237255?lang=en-GB
There the driver uses their vehicle to push the protestor a short distance along the road, thrice. The BBC report does not mention that.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Is this is the same event: https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1450853306973237255?lang=en-GB
There the driver uses their vehicle to push the protestor a short distance along the road, thrice. The BBC report does not mention that.

I guess so.

The driver appears to whizz around the queue of stationary traffic right up to the seated protestors, get out and rant, then get back into the car and use it as a battering ram. All egged on by a shouting bystander (or more) - go on do it, push them up the road, push them up the ******* road.

Responses to the tweet suggest that the car was untaxed.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

An update:

BBC News Article

Insulate Britain: School-run mum who drove at M25 protesters given driving ban​

A woman has been banned from driving after using her car to try to move protesters who were blocking the road while she was on the school run.
Sherrilyn Speid, 35, of Grays, pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving when she appeared at Southend Magistrates' Court in October.
She was at the wheel of a Range Rover when she came across a sit-in near the M25 on 13 October at about 08:30 GMT.
She was disqualified from driving for a year.
During sentencing at Basildon Magistrates' Court she was also handed a community order and ordered to pay £240.
Prosecutor Ashley Petchey said Speid got out of her car and "remonstrated" with three demonstrators who were sitting across the road in a scene that was filmed.
Heavily bleeped clips, which were shown in court, captured Speid getting out of her car before swearing and shouting at protesters.
She could be heard saying: "I don't care what the issue is.
"My son... needs to get to school today so move out the way and let me get my son to school."
In a separate video clip, the car could be seen jerking forward into the backs of protesters sitting on the road.
Mr Petchey said Speid was "clearly very angry and agitated by the situation".
She was not using "excessive speed" and "was using the brakes quite harshly", he added.
The prosecutor also played the court a clip of an interview Speid did with LBC the day after she pleaded guilty where she said she felt criminal proceedings against her were an "injustice".
However, Lauren Hebditch, defending, told the court that Speid was an "inspiring" woman who was "under severe pressure and stress".
Ms Hebditch said the footage clearly showed Speid was "anxious" and "stressed".
She added Speid accepted her actions and was "mortified" by the footage.
One of the protesters had written to the court saying they did not support the prosecution and did not want proceedings to continue, the court heard.
Ms Hebditch challenged the driving ban as it would mean Speid could no longer shop for her mother, who has multiple sclerosis, drive to work, or drop off her son at school or football.
However chairman of the bench Susan Hawkins said the offending was "serious enough" to warrant a ban.
She ordered Speid to pay £240 - a £40 fine, £95 victim surcharge and £105 in costs.
Speid was also told that she would have to retake her driving test.

 

[AlterEgo]

Quite right too.