Chris M
Member
The same legal risk exists for other media. Where the cause is not known it is best (legally and morally) not to assume and/or mislead people into thinking that one party is at fault, even if they are statistically more likely to be.
All the health checks in the world prior to setting off can't prevent a stroke or cardiac event or similar. As the circumstances at the time weren't understood that was why the wording was as it was. In the fullness of time the cause of the incident will become clear, however your 'analysis' misses other possibilities. It may be one of the causes you listed, it may not be.The chances of somebody noticing that the car is rolling away soon enough to jump in but for the car to still get up to speed where it can do significant damage to itself or a person are suspiciously small.
Either the driver forgot to secure their vehicle, they failed to ensure their vehicle was in full working order, they failed to ensure that their health was proper for being in charge of a vehicle, or they panicked and failed to stop the vehicle by applying the brakes soon enough, or deliberate drove onto the crossing.
Cars do not move of their own volition. They are either driven, improperly maintained, or improperly secured. Drivers need to be held to their responsibilities to the road (and yes, I am a driver myself and I do not pretend to be a perfect driver).
Why? In this instance the media has accurately reported the statements provided by the railway and emergency services. The media can't speculate in a manner that leaves it or the railway open to legal scrutiny so has to simply present the facts. At the time it was reported all that was known was that a vehicle with the driver at the wheel had somehow hit the generator car. That's it. What else did you expect the media to say?I appreciate the legal risk to the railway. My point is a wider frustration at the general media coverage of road traffic incidents.
And meI thought the same, dust barely settled and there's already critique on how vague the reports taken from the immediate aftermath is. I suppose it takes all sorts but it did get a sigh out of me.
Emergency Services reports confused as there are 3 LCs in close proximity. News media then presumed that it was the LC over Yatt's Road.Picture is Google Maps Street View of the LC over Yatt's Road.
N-Yorks’ Police report states:
www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yorkshire/news/news/2023/05-may/collision-near-pickering/
a collision on a level crossing on Yatt's Road.
75m South of the LC over Yatt's Road, there is an occupation LC, from Street View it appears to be a POGO crossing; the gates open away from the railway.
I thought the same, dust barely settled and there's already critique on how vague the reports taken from the immediate aftermath is.
This is a case where What3Words would probably have resolved the location very quickly. A large proportion of the population have a smart phone with GPS capability, and for non tech people What3Words is simple to use, and gives an unambiguous location, which can easily be texted if phone reception is marginal. Yes you can also use grid references or Lat-Long but I suspect a lot of people wouldn't know where to start with giving a location in that form.Emergency Services reports confused as there are 3 LCs in close proximity.
It’s possible that the car was shunted from behind by another vehicle.
Possibly because a precise report, eg identifying the specific POGO crossing, might have identified the person concerned?It's not about them being naturally vague because they're immediate. It's about them being made vague deliberately.
The pictured car being a Tesla, how much autonomous equipment do they have that could have developed faultPicture is Google Maps Street View of the LC over Yatt's Road.
N-Yorks’ Police report states:
www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yorkshire/news/news/2023/05-may/collision-near-pickering/
a collision on a level crossing on Yatt's Road.
75m South of the LC over Yatt's Road, there is an occupation LC, from Street View it is a POGO crossing; the gates open away from the railway.
BBC Look North (Yorkshire) Evening News 17:50 Sunday 21/05/2023, showed the occupation LC 75m South of New Bridge signal-box and LC.
BBC News website photo updated to show car being removed from the LC.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-65665628
Even a correctly maintained car can develop an unexpected fault. Most of the time it doesn't have serious consequences, but every so often everything lines up and it results in an incident with more serious consequences.The pictured car being a Tesla, how much autonomous equipment do they have that could have developed fault
The pictured car being a Tesla, how much autonomous equipment do they have that could have developed fault
There is the point that [some but not all?] Teslas are fitted with "Autopilot" which is assumed by some of its owners to be self-driving AI, although Tesla themselves do a double act of hyping its capability while at the same time doing the legal footwork to evade any responsibility for it going wrong - as it often does. I could post numerous links to examples here but they are easily found, and the best summary of Autopilot's performance on typical UK secondary roads was given by someone who said it was like being chauffeured by a drunk.Even a correctly maintained car can develop an unexpected fault.
Legally in the UK is the driver not still responsible for monitoring the Autopilot and intervening if it fails to detect an obstacle?A question to which we might never know the answer (as in many "self-driving" crashes) is whether the Autopilot was engaged in this case at this time.
Yes the driver is still responsible, and Tesla tell you to remain alert with your hands on the wheel (which largely defeats the point of it). But that does not stop drivers from ignoring the requirement; and even if you do stay alert it takes a new type of skill to decide at what point to intervene with the Autopilot.Legally in the UK is the driver not still responsible for monitoring the Autopilot and intervening if it fails to detect an obstacle?
At which point, it is an active choice of the driver that the crash happened as sure as if they drove drunk.Yes they are, and Tesla tell you to remain alert with your hands on the wheel (which largely defeats the point of it). But that does not stop drivers from ignoring the requirement; and even if you do stay alert it takes a new type of skill to decide at what point to intervene with the Autopilot.
I think this this sentence is very important, and I suspect something that is not currently covered or developed, you could almost see the need for simulators to hone that sort of skill, and that massively complicates the learning required (and costs).it takes a new type of skill to decide at what point to intervene with the Autopilot.
Not sure if Moreton-on-Lugg was the most recent one, but it did cause one fatality and several injuries. Signaller error made dangerous by inadequate interlocking.When was the last time on the GB network that a collision between a railway train and a car (or similar other road vehicle) wasn't caused, directly or indirectly, by the action (or inaction) of the car driver, or some vehicle-related fault?
Thanks for clarifying. Think that incident was maybe just over thirteen years ago, now.Not sure if Moreton-on-Lugg was the most recent one, but it did cause one fatality and several injuries. Signaller error made dangerous by inadequate interlocking.
I believe there have been several incidents with collisions or near misses with agricultural vehicles on user worked crossings where the railway was at least partially to blame. One caused hysteria on the other popular enthusiasts forum with several people (including rail staff I suggest) calling for immediate jail sentences for the Polish Tractor Driver involved, only for it to be revealed shortly after that he'd been given permission to cross in front of the train by the signaller.When was the last time on the GB network that a collision between a railway train and a car (or similar other road vehicle) wasn't caused, directly or indirectly, by the action (or inaction) of the car driver, or some vehicle-related fault?
I believe there have been several incidents with collisions or near misses with agricultural vehicles on user worked crossings where the railway was at least partially to blame. One caused hysteria on the other popular enthusiasts forum with several people (including rail staff I suggest) calling for immediate jail sentences for the Polish Tractor Driver involved, only for it to be revealed shortly after that he'd been given permission to cross in front of the train by the signaller.