Tram operator sued over e-scooter rider death at Waddon Marsh West footpath crossing

[AlterEgo]

I wonder whether Death By Misadventure (Driving [i.e. riding] without Due Care and Attention) will be set, as:
"The furniture delivery worker had his hood up and did not slow down as he entered Waddon Marsh West footpath crossing at the same time as the tram"

This isn't an inquest. There will be no verdict of this sort.

 

[SoloSR334022]

I wonder how or if this case would go if the line was still a Railway, obviously different circumstances but it does make you think...

 

[Trackman]

It is a pity that this thread is tucked away in this section as it has relevance across the railway.

It's under correct section, I always click 'new posts' so you can see everything that is currently going on.

That is true but it's a bit disingenuous because there are none that comply with the law at present. Only e-bikes do. The only legal way to ride an e-scooter in a public place is for it to be a hire scooter.

I've not the read story correctly, I assumed it was an e-bike.

I think the location may be here, as it is the only crossing immediately west of Waddon Marsh:

I've had a look at this, it is clearly signed about looking out for trams, has a fence chicane of sorts and is lit at night and there is long stretch of straight rail for visibility, I cannot see anything wrong with crossing as it stands.

 

[mmh]

I wonder how or if this case would go if the line was still a Railway, obviously different circumstances but it does make you think...

If it was a railway line Network Rail would either have already closed or be planning to close it on safety grounds, and some of the same people saying it's a perfectly safe crossing would be defending the closure decision.

 

[Merle Haggard]

If it was a railway line Network Rail would either have already closed or be planning to close it on safety grounds, and some of the same people saying it's a perfectly safe crossing would be defending the closure decision.

I can't remember the exact details but there was a fatality at a crossing on the Nottingham - Worksop line in not-dissimilar circumstances. From memory, the accident report said that the victim, a cyclist, was wearing headphones set at 'very loud'; cycled towards a crossing - warned by someone of an approaching train - but ignored (presumably didn't hear) cycled into the path of it. The footpath wasn't closed, but a rail speed restriction was imposed.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't remember the exact details but there was a fatality at a crossing on the Nottingham - Worksop line in not-dissimilar circumstances. From memory, the accident report said that the victim, a cyclist, was wearing headphones set at 'very loud'; cycled towards a crossing - warned by someone of an approaching train - but ignored (presumably didn't hear) cycled into the path of it. The footpath wasn't closed, but a rail speed restriction was imposed.

I think it is one of these two:

Report 19/2013: Fatal accident at Bayles and Wylies footpath crossing

Person struck and fatally injured at Bayles and Wylies footpath crossing, Bestwood, Nottingham, 28 November 2012.

www.gov.uk

At around 19:00 hrs on 28 November 2012, a young person who was using the crossing over the tramway at Bayles and Wylies crossing, Bestwood, Nottingham was struck and fatally injured by a tram that was travelling at 70 km/h (43 mph).

The young person moved into the path of the tram as it approached the crossing and appeared to be unaware of the tram’s approach. The RAIB has been unable to positively establish why she seemingly did not see and react to the approaching tram or respond to the horn. Apart from a break of 0.3 seconds, this was sounded continuously as she walked towards and onto the tram track.

Closed-circuit television coverage from the front of the tram indicates that she did not look towards the tram after she entered the crossing through a chicane on its west side. However, there is no clear evidence to indicate what actions she took at the chicane; it is possible that she may not have looked towards the approaching tram, or looked but not seen it. Furthermore, although there is no direct evidence, it can not be ruled out that she saw the tram approaching and thought that she had enough time to cross, or that it would stop or slow down.

Report 32/2009: Double fatality at Bayles & Wylies footpath crossing

Accident at Bayles and Wylies footpath crossing, Bestwood, Nottingham which caused fatalities to two pedestrian on 22 November 2008.

www.gov.uk

At approximately 18:38 hrs on 22 November 2008, an East Midlands Trains passenger train travelling from Worksop to Nottingham struck and fatally injured a woman and her grandson on the crossing.

The immediate cause of the accident was the pedestrians being unaware of the oncoming train as they crossed in front of it.

Significant factors in the accident were:

• the point at which pedestrians make their decision to cross was not clearly identified
• there was no appreciation that crossings in darkness present different risks to pedestrians compared within during daylight hours
• the risk to pedestrians presented by tram operations running parallel to the Network Rail line was not considered by any party.

Network Rail made changes to the crossing in May 2009, subsequent to the accident, which have improved the visibility of trains for pedestrians, and reduced the time to cross the line. As a result RAIB has made no recommendations about the crossing layout.

As a consequence of this accident, RAIB has made eight new recommendations. Three are directed to Network Rail, two to Network Rail in conjunction with Nottingham Express Transit, two to Network Rail in conjunction with Nottinghamshire County Council, one to Network Rail in conjunction with Nexus (the operator of the Tyne and Wear metro) and one to the Rail Safety and Standards Board. The recommendations concern;

• provision of signs at the crossing
• assessment of the lighting and of possible additional protective measures at the crossing
• crossing inspections in the hours of darkness
• re-assessment of crossings when circumstances at its location have changed
• evaluating the risk from the operation of trains with varying luminous intensity from their headlights
• applying the lessons of this accident to two similar crossings in Tyne and Wear.

This one crosses both the tramway and the railway where they run alongside. But there have been quite a few serious accidents at footpath/cycleway crossings of tramways.

 

[railfan249]

While I have sympathy for the family why are things like this always someone elses fault?

Honestly this really needs to stop in this country. People need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

 

[35B]

While I have sympathy for the family why are things like this always someone elses fault?

Honestly this really needs to stop in this country. People need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

He died in 2022, the case is only now coming through. This suggests that the lawyers have exploited the parents grief for gain, and convinced them that there should be a payout.

 

[507 001]

The post accident operator decision to reduce the speed for trams could be seen as an admission of guilt.

Speaking from experience, there is often pressure on the operator to take measures to prevent repeat incidents. The pressure comes from the ORR, and essentially makes it the de facto responsibility of the operator to prevent incidents on NMU crossings, regardless of the behaviour of the user.

It is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

[Acathater]

If this had been in the USA I would half-expect the tram company to sue the parents for costs relating to the disruption, and the driver to sue for the parents for damages relating to loss of earnings / psychological stress following the accident

 

[AndrewE]

If this had been in the USA I would half-expect the tram company to sue the parents for costs relating to the disruption, and the driver to sue for the parents for damages relating to loss of earnings / psychological stress following the accident

Would they? I would expect the majority of defendants in such cases to be "men of straw" with no assets (or relevant insurance.) You might put someone out of their house, but what you made on selling that would hardly cover the legal costs...

 

[renegademaster]

I wonder if it was a TfL concession (Lime or Dott) e-scooter or a privately owned one. If the latter, it ought to be an open and shut case.
I also think it requires a particular type of chambers to take a case like this on.

Croydon doesn't have any schemes

 

[Taunton]

If this had been in the USA I would half-expect the tram company to sue the parents for costs relating to the disruption, and the driver to sue for the parents for damages relating to loss of earnings / psychological stress following the accident

Not dissimilar here. The legal 'game' is to claim a large sum, the lawyers do lots of one-sided press releases to embarrass the other side, the main organisation knows they will win but it will cost them £100k in legal fees to do so which they never will get back, eventually the other lawyers offer a 'deal' for less than this to go away, £60k agreed, lawyers take 50%. Rinse and repeat.

 

[AndrewE]

Not dissimilar here. The legal 'game' is to claim a large sum, the lawyers do lots of one-sided press releases to embarrass the other side, the main organisation knows they will win but it will cost them £100k in legal fees to do so which they never will get back, eventually the other lawyers offer a 'deal' for less than this to go away, £60k agreed, lawyers take 50%. Rinse and repeat.

it might be if it was the other way round... but the corporate body would know it couldn't recover much of its costs so wouldn't go after the victim (and nor would the driver or their Union.) The victim might sue, as in this case, but you would hope it would be thrown out straight away.

 

[Barry K]

Deleted

 

[kitchenoven]

He died in 2022, the case is only now coming through. This suggests that the lawyers have exploited the parents grief for gain, and convinced them that there should be a payout.

This independent article includes a longer quote from the lawyer that certainly makes me question the nature of the case, wherein they outright admit that the Reuben made an error (sadly resulting in his death)

“He didn’t look until the last minute and he made an error there. From time to time, people are going to make an error."
“You have to have health and safety measures in place that account for human error, that account for zoning out.”

(from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-croydon-escooter-reuben-abakah-b2962453.html)

I do wonder what "health and safety measures" they want in this regard? They go on to mention CCTV in the drivers cab, however the driver is not being brought at fault in this case so I don't really see why that is relevant. The most useful CCTV in this regard would be one on the exterior of the tram to capture the crossing incident taking place, but that no doubt would complicate their argument against Tramlink.

She did not operate the tram “at a safe speed in the circumstances” or use its audible warnings or brakes effectively, according to the family.

This seems to also be moot given the recorded speed as 37mph with the crossing rated at 43mph (I would totally get their point if the tram was speeding at this point). Maybe the argument is that she should have been slowing down given the presence of a pedestrian at the crossing, but with the signage and crossing layout a pedestrian must recognise the fact that the tram has priority in this regard and slowing down whenever other users of the space are around would lead to very poor tram service.

“The crossing should also be altered so that pedestrians like Reuben do not have their backs to approaching vehicles.”

Finally, this point seems to be rather disingenuous as it is as if the crossing completely blocks off view to approaching trams. While they do have the chicane which makes pedestrians physially have to move to enter the crossing (thus partially positioning them parallel to the active tramway - highlighted in yellow on my poor map) it is not as if their vision is completely blocked (and also disregards the fact they still have to move to enter the crossing) and no doubt serves as a physical confirmation that they are entering an active tramway (compounded by signage on posts and the floor). NOTE, not entirely sure if this is the "waddon marsh west" footpath crossing being talked about as couldn't find any direct references but point still stands as the design of footcrossings remains relatively standardised across safety measures.

Honestly this really needs to stop in this country. People need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

All in all I do somewhat agree with this point, it being sad of course that a death has taken place in the first place.

 

[edwin_m]

Finally, this point seems to be rather disingenuous as it is as if the crossing completely blocks off view to approaching trams. While they do have the chicane which makes pedestrians physially have to move to enter the crossing (thus partially positioning them parallel to the active tramway - highlighted in yellow on my poor map) it is not as if their vision is completely blocked (and also disregards the fact they still have to move to enter the crossing) and no doubt serves as a physical confirmation that they are entering an active tramway (compounded by signage on posts and the floor). NOTE, not entirely sure if this is the "waddon marsh west" footpath crossing being talked about as couldn't find any direct references but point still stands as the design of footcrossings remains relatively standardised across safety measures.

If it is indeed this crossing then from what you have posted it looks pretty much best practice for crossings of this type. The user is intentionally turned towards the approaching trams on the nearer track - pretty difficult to have them facing both ways! - and there is more time for either party to react to a potential collision if the tram is on the further track (not sure which was the case here). There is more chicaning here than on most tramway crossings, and from the posted photo and what I remember of this crossing the view is good in both directions..

 

[bb21]

Not dissimilar here. The legal 'game' is to claim a large sum, the lawyers do lots of one-sided press releases to embarrass the other side, the main organisation knows they will win but it will cost them £100k in legal fees to do so which they never will get back, eventually the other lawyers offer a 'deal' for less than this to go away, £60k agreed, lawyers take 50%. Rinse and repeat.

That is, unfortunately, the modus operandi of all ambulance chasing legal firms and has been for at least 20+ years. They often prey on small companies who they knew could ill afford protracted legal affairs, therefore would almost always settle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2026 ==

If it is indeed this crossing then from what you have posted it looks pretty much best practice for crossings of this type.

I am a regular user of the line and can vouch for the fact the level of misuse at the crossings on Tramlink is high and can be observed frequently, especially with people on bikes and scooters. The only safe solution I can think of without decimating the timetable (which Tramlink are struggling to keep to on the Wimbledon runs as it is) is to completely close all such crossings except at station platform ends, and replace with footbridges.

 

[Meole]

That is, unfortunately, the modus operandi of all ambulance chasing legal firms and has been for at least 20+ years. They often prey on small companies who they knew could ill afford protracted legal affairs, therefore would almost always settle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2026 ==


I am a regular user of the line and can vouch for the fact the level of misuse at the crossings on Tramlink is high and can be observed frequently, especially with people on bikes and scooters. The only safe solution I can think of without decimating the timetable (which Tramlink are struggling to keep to on the Wimbledon runs as it is) is to completely close all such crossings except at station platform ends, and replace with footbridges.

Alternatively rather than close crossings run at a safe speed, maybe 10 kph when approaching potentially dangerous locations, consideration needs to be given to wheelchairs, prams etc.

 

[Taunton]

That is, unfortunately, the modus operandi of all ambulance chasing legal firms and has been for at least 20+ years. They often prey on small companies who they knew could ill afford protracted legal affairs, therefore would almost always settle.

Part of the 'Game' is to find out what level of insurance cover the company have. So you have Legal Liability Insurance up to say £1 million, then the claimants' lawyers go for £1.5 million, putting what they are asking for outside any insurance cover, and into the prospect of real cash being paid out. In passing, never tell anyone your insurance liability limit, otherwise that will be taken advantage of in a possible claim.

 

[edwin_m]

I am a regular user of the line and can vouch for the fact the level of misuse at the crossings on Tramlink is high and can be observed frequently, especially with people on bikes and scooters. The only safe solution I can think of without decimating the timetable (which Tramlink are struggling to keep to on the Wimbledon runs as it is) is to completely close all such crossings except at station platform ends, and replace with footbridges.

Alternatively rather than close crossings run at a safe speed, maybe 10 kph when approaching potentially dangerous locations, consideration needs to be given to wheelchairs, prams etc.

Cyclists and scooters are a big problem for tramways especially at off-street crossings, because they move at speeds comparable to motor vehicles but are less protected and sometimes less aware. This probably also affects safety at road crossings in general.

 

[MotCO]

Cyclists and scooters are a big problem for tramways especially at off-street crossings, because they move at speeds comparable to motor vehicles but are less protected and sometimes less aware. This probably also affects safety at road crossings in general.

It's not the scooters per se, it is the riders that are the problem. Cyclist ignore traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, so why shouldn't they ignore railway crossings? Aftet all, nothing could go wrong, could it?

 

[johncrossley]

Not dissimilar here. The legal 'game' is to claim a large sum, the lawyers do lots of one-sided press releases to embarrass the other side, the main organisation knows they will win but it will cost them £100k in legal fees to do so which they never will get back, eventually the other lawyers offer a 'deal' for less than this to go away, £60k agreed, lawyers take 50%. Rinse and repeat.

If it is an open and shut case, why waste £60,000? Just go to court without any professional legal representation. If the law is on your side, it won't matter how good the lawyers are.

 

[507 001]

No. Bells/horns are a reactive warning device, and therefore there are no instances of instructional use.

Metrolink does. Perhaps it’s time other operators did too.

 

[mmh]

Metrolink does. Perhaps it’s time other operators did too.

I don't believe he's correct. Just like the Manchester trams with their toot / full horn, the Croydon trams have bells / full horn. They do use the bell in "instructional use", if they didn't I wouldn't know they had them!

 

[edwin_m]

A tram drive will typically use the bell (whistle for Metrolink) when about to move off, particularly in the street or from a platform where people may be about to cross the track at the end. It is also used when in motion, if the driver believes there are people in front who aren't aware of the approaching tram and may be about to step onto the track. I can't think of any tramway with the equivalent of a whistle board requiring a sound at a particular place.

 

[Meole]

There is a question as to whether open tramways are compatible with modern Britain, this isn't the continent where they never left and streets have been built to accommodate them instead of shoehorning into unsuitable urban infrastructure.

 

[rmHawk765]

There are many areas where you may need to cross a 40-60mph road with poor visibility. Typically not in urban areas but we don't hear anything about that, despite the much, much higher risk.

While I do personally think whistle boards should be standard at all ungated crossings, a tram's bell isn't really loud enough for this to work. Maybe only if drivers are instructed to sound it multiple times in succession, though some proper testing would need to be done regarding this.

 

[bb21]

Alternatively rather than close crossings run at a safe speed, maybe 10 kph when approaching potentially dangerous locations, consideration needs to be given to wheelchairs, prams etc.

Did you read the bit where I mentioned Tramlink are already struggling to keep up with the timetable as it is? You want to slow it down even more? The various single line sections already place immense restrictions on the construction of the timetable, slowing it down further will just wreck the whole thing.

 

[Farnborough]

It is a pity that this thread is tucked away in this section as it has relevance across the railway.

Indeed...

It is nonsense like this (unfortunate for the person concerned, I accept) that have resulted in excessive expenditure like the Farnborough North footbridge - where the lifts are defective more than they are working - and closing the gated crossing