The family of Reuben Abakah seek damages after he was hit by a tram as he crossed a line in Croydon.
www.bbc.co.uk
I think the location may be here, as it is the only crossing immediately west of Waddon Marsh:
Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.
www.google.com
While this is a sad case, I find it disappointing to see public money spent on such legal cases, which seem unlikely to be for the wider public good.
On the face of it, given this is a former railway line, with it being very clear that a railway/tramway track is being crossed and clear signage to this effect, it seems not at all unreasonable that the speed limit would be 43mph, and I am not at all convinced by the idea that there is no need for anyone to look when crossing rail/tram lines on the basis that drivers need to go slow enough to stop in case someone crossing doesn't look.
The message seems to be that public transport users should be forced to endure longer journeys on the basis that scooter riders have carte blanche to not bother looking, and it becomes the tram driver's problem, which doesn't make much sense to me.
I agree this is sending the wrong message. I see it on the roads more and more where people step out on the assumption that a car will stop. It relies on someone else taking evasive action possibly causing an accident.
As a pedestrian I would never deliberately do that BUT it does seem the younger generation think they are immune.
This type of rider would probably be lethal if they were driving a car.
Sadly someone has paid the price by losing their life, there will be a bereaved family and traumatised tram driver + passengers.
No one gains from this risk taking.
Do the trams have the equivalent of whistle boards before crossings? One of the arguments seems to be about when the first warning was sounded. If the driver didn't sound the correct warnings, or sounded then later than they are supposed to, then the operator could be held partially liable.
Trouble is this would mean a lot more noise for people living nearby.
I agree, though I think the inference between a general risk and the specific incident is probably a stretch. And the BBC report suggests to this layman that a) a tram running at the lower limit wouldn't have stopped and b) the limit remains one at which a tram/human collision is likely to be fatal.
I personally can't get beyond the basic fact of the deceased being on a wheeled vehicle and not just being inattentive, but dressed so that they lost their peripheral senses.
I agree - people need to be far more careful.
The careful obscuring of facial detail with mask and hood is required to avoid recognition on such machines, this obviously reduces awareness as consequence, clearly reality and the law are not aligned, accidents will happen until these machines are legal.
I am not sure legalising them will allow enforcement - I am beginning to see mopeds (ie petrol) driving like eBikes - through red lights and recently in my road with no helmet (I was amazed). Lets face it making something legally regulated does not work if there is no one to police it.
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.
You see this type of blinkered crossing attitude on the roads as well. Many times whilst riding on a bus I see someone stop out into the road - often with a phone held to the ear nearest the approaching bus so clues like sound or sight are lost. Its a big red bus !.
I have stood waiting to cross the road when the lights let me and someone (often on their mobile) has walked past into the traffic. A recent one was a young lady who had absolutely no idea that she had forced an emergency stop - I caught up with her and asked if she realised her near miss - she was clueless, I am not sure she believed me.
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.
I agree people nowadays always seem to think it is someone else's fault. This will lead to an unworkable society.
Making sure companies and people are responsible is good BUT it now leaves those less responsible to think they are a victim.
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...
I think the point should be that if companies do not fight off each and every claim regardless of cost then more and more claims will be tried.
Something I have noticed is possibly an approach of sue or be sued. Whoever blames firt wins. I saw it a few times at work where bullying was being achieved by tying someone up in knots with false accusations. Eventually the person repeatedly accused left and many of us believed they were innocent. It is an example perhaps of reverse psychology - people wanting to back the underdog/victim.
This does not alter the fact that, in this case, someone died. But the shoot first blame-wise approach seems to be what has followed.
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)
(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.
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.
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.
View attachment 204746View attachment 204747
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.
I have used that crossing and it certainly is designed to make you look unless your eyes are on your phone or your are blinkered by head-wear such as a hoodie.
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.
NO - there are so many crossings this would result in a totally useless tram service.
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.
eScooters and eBikes are even a problem on pedestrian footways. They tend to be driven rather to fast for the pedestrians around them. The fact that many of the fastest are ridden by someone wearing a hoodie makes things worse - they have no peripheral vision and any sounds are muffled/restricted.
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.
Not really relevant here as this section of tramway from Near East Croydon all the way to Wimbledon is on an old railway line - there is no on road running for miles and miles.
