York - Harrogate level crossing crash

[DaleCooper]

I don't think the judge did so. I read 'greater blame' to mean 'root cause' rather than 'greater part of the blame'.

I really can't agree with that interpretation of the judge's words.

“It would be an affront to justice if I was to deprive you of your liberty,” he told the forestry worker. “The greater responsibility for this accident lies elsewhere rather than with you.”

Don't forget that he could easily have caused a derailment and many injuries or even deaths. A fine and community service? He thinks he's got away with it.

 

[Pinza-C55]

In this case though, we are dealing with a poorly implemented safety system that didn't take human behaviour into consideration.

The tractor driver would have seen the green light as he approached the crossing. Based on that, he would have pressed the button to release the gate - in his mind the light is still green. He's probably hurrying a bit as he doesn't want to take too much time crossing the railway. There was no sign to remind him to check the light again and the position and sizing of the lights meant that the now-red light didn't stand out.

Should he have checked again? Of course. And that's why he's been fined and given community service. But anyone who claims with 100% certainty that they would definitely have checked again is either not human or lying.

In this case it's probably a good thing as NR doesn't appear to have acted on the recommendations in the RAIB report. Maybe they will now.

That is all pure supposition.

 

[GB]

The tractor driver would have seen the green light as he approached the crossing. Based on that, he would have pressed the button to release the gate - in his mind the light is still green. He's probably hurrying a bit as he doesn't want to take too much time crossing the railway. There was no sign to remind him to check the light again and the position and sizing of the lights meant that the now-red light didn't stand out

Does common sense or logic not exist these day? He had at perhaps 10 meters to traverse from pressing the button to reaching the crossing and if he was concentrating he should have thought to himself he better check the lights.

He knew enough to know that the buttons open the gates, a red light in his field of view should have sparked alarm bells. Did he stop at the hexagonal stop sign? If he did then again the light should have been an obvious thing to (re)check.

Edit) in fact he had some 20 meters to reach the lights.

 

[TheEdge]

The tractor driver would have seen the green light as he approached the crossing. Based on that, he would have pressed the button to release the gate - in his mind the light is still green. He's probably hurrying a bit as he doesn't want to take too much time crossing the railway. There was no sign to remind him to check the light again and the position and sizing of the lights meant that the now-red light didn't stand out.

That is all pure supposition.

Its not even that, its purely wrong.

The tractor driver has stated that he drove slowly towards the crossing after pressing the button on the left-hand roadside post. The limited footage from the crossing’s CCTV recording also suggests that he was driving slowly.

 

[yorkie]

TheEdge is talking sense.

Surely the most important Health and Safety Officer is yourself?
We are to ready to Blaim others for our inability to be aware of our safety

We do not apply common sense in this country, well at least judges like this one don't. Many people are killed or seriously injured in other areas e.g. road incidents, and yet the judge does not insist on improvements to prevent many deaths and injuries.

People like this judge can't make money grow on trees, so presumably they want money diverted away from schemes that, for example, make it safer to cross roads, in order to fund making obscure crossings used by a handful of tractor drivers (some of whom are still going to end up putting themselves in danger, even if the crossings are made safer; the only safe crossing is one that doesn't exist, but you cannot abolish them all!).

The idea that safety should be persued on the railways at any cost, while in other areas it is just accepted that many people will be killed, is absurd, but perpetuated by people like this judge. *Sigh*

It's a broken system, and the people who lose out are people like us.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Does common sense or logic not exist these day? He had at perhaps 10 meters to traverse from pressing the button to reaching the crossing and if he was concentrating he should have thought to himself he better check the lights.

He knew enough to know that the buttons open the gates, a red light in his field of view should have sparked alarm bells. Did he stop at the hexagonal stop sign? If he did then again the light should have been an obvious thing to (re)check.

Edit) in fact he had some 20 meters to reach the lights.

Plus of course he might have actually heard a train coming , given that this a fairly flat area which is why it has lots of level crossings.

 

[najaB]

Its not even that, its purely wrong.

The fact that he drove slowly doesn't change the sequence of events. My reference to 'hurrying' was to his thought processes, not the speed of action.

 

[DaleCooper]

The fact that he drove slowly doesn't change the sequence of events. My reference to 'hurrying' was to his thought processes, not the speed of action.

Exactly how would the speed of his thought processes affect the time taken to cross the railway? This really is the most egregious backtracking, let's look at your actual words:

He's probably hurrying a bit as he doesn't want to take too much time crossing the railway.

If that doesn't refer to the speed of his actions then it has no meaning at all.

 

[al78]

But how does any of that remove the onus of the user to check crossing signals? The judge is implying this is more NR's fault than the driver of the tractor.

I don't think that is the case. It sounds more like a contributory negligence situation, where a portion of the blame is laid with NR.

 

[DaleCooper]

I don't think that is the case. It sounds more like a contributory negligence situation, where a portion of the blame is laid with NR.

Not just a portion but the majority; the judge's words as quoted in post #31:

“It would be an affront to justice if I was to deprive you of your liberty,” he told the forestry worker. “The greater responsibility for this accident lies elsewhere rather than with you.”