Level crossing stupidity...

[phil-b259]

And the Japanese did it towards the end of WW2.

 

Not quite the same thing - Generally speaking having one sides military seeking to kill as many of the other sides military as possible is to be expected during wartime  - and the Japanese were by no means the first in the history of warfare to do this. Wasn't it a case that at Verdun in WW1, the Germans were not so much interested in capturing territory as using the offensive to simply kill as many French troops as possible?

[beast66606]

We're wandering a bit away from level crossings - there's more I could say but this is a level crossing thread.

[Wickham Green]

The mandatory ban for drink driving was brought in after a magistrate did not apply it to a drink driver as it would 'Interfere with his duties as master of the local foxhunt'. There was such an uproar that the magistrate was forced to retire from the bench. A prime example of not what you know but whome you know.

Didn't know you needed a driving license for a foxhunt .............

[BlackRat]

Again, why this assumption that "accident" and "blame" are mutually exclusive. Just because someone caused an accident in no way absolves them of the consequences of their lack of responsibility. If the consequences are serious enough and the lack of responsibility in their actions glaring enough then the person might not deserve to be treated any better than if they had acted deliberately.

30 years experience tells me that there's no such thing as a road traffic accident, only collisions.

 

Someone is always to blame.

 

Like I said.

[jamie92208]

30 years experience tells me that there's no such thing as a road traffic accident, only collisions.

 

Someone is always to blame.

 

Like I said.

The law also made specific provisions for certain circumstance beyond the driver's control. One was sudden mechanical defect and for the life of me I can't remember the other. Proving these though was a duty for the defence rather than the prosecution. However I did once deal with one that could have been very nasty that was caused by a sudden defect and no prosecution went forward. A fully loaded artic, carrying bottled beer, came down into Leeds on the M621 from the M62 and exited on the junction by Elland Road football ground (Islington interchange) The first time the drive needed his brakes was on the slip road approaching the roundabout. Total brake failure meant that the lorry went straight across the roundabout and got stuck in the boggy ground in the centre alongside the motorway embankment. Very fortunately there was no other traffic in his path when he crossed the carriageways on the roundabout and the eventual stop was gentle so the driver was uninjured. No beer bottles were broken either. We interviewed the driver under caution and also had our vehicle examiners check the lorry and trailer. IIRC the cause was a small metal blank from the manufacturing process which had been present in the air system and it had got into the system and caused total brake failure without emptying the main reservoir so the driver was unaware of this until he applied his brakes.

 

 

 

Slightly long winded but it does illustrate how difficult it is to invoke the statutory defences.

 

 

Jamie

 

Edit, after reflection. The point that needs to be made is that the defect needs to be sudden and undetectable beforehand. Poor maintenance is no defence as the owners of a lorry that suffered brake failure near Halifax found out when they were prosecuted for manslaughter due to their lack of a proper maintenance regime.

Edited October 10, 2018 by jamie92208

[alastairq]

Didn't know you needed a driving license for a foxhunt .............

 

In much the same way ramblers need driving licences?

 

[Otherwise they'd never ever get to where they want to ramble...but the chokka car parks they set up annoy me a bit    ]

[royaloak]

Yup, there's always fault or blame somewhere so.....no such thing as an accident any more.

Indeed, if I pushed somebody over and they bruised your elbow how should I be punished (by the Courts), how different would/should/could it be if I pushed them over, they banged their head and died?

My actions were the same but one has caused a bruise but the other has caused an unintended death!

 

To my way of thinking the outcome is important, I decided to push somebody over although I didnt intend to kill them, but that was the outcome so I should be charged with manslaughter rather than assault.

 

Until the law takes into account the outcome we will always have the "but I didnt mean to do it so let me off" attitude, especially among the drivers!

[96701]

[Coryton]

Indeed, if I pushed somebody over and they bruised your elbow how should I be punished (by the Courts), how different would/should/could it be if I pushed them over, they banged their head and died?

My actions were the same but one has caused a bruise but the other has caused an unintended death!

 

To my way of thinking the outcome is important, I decided to push somebody over although I didnt intend to kill them, but that was the outcome so I should be charged with manslaughter rather than assault.

 

 

It seems reasonable but I believe that for a conviction of murder there only needs to be an intent to injure, not to kill, even if it couldn't have been forseen that the injuries would be fatal - you "take the victim as you find them".

[Colin_McLeod]

30 years experience tells me that there's no such thing as a road traffic accident, only collisions.

Someone is always to blame.

Like I said.

Someone can be to blame for an accident. How can you say that there can be no such thing as a Road Traffic Accident?

 

Not all RTAs involve collisions. e.g. a tyre can blow causing a car to spin and roll over injuring the occupants without colliding with anything at all. Other examples are available.

[jamie92208]

Indeed, if I pushed somebody over and they bruised your elbow how should I be punished (by the Courts), how different would/should/could it be if I pushed them over, they banged their head and died?

My actions were the same but one has caused a bruise but the other has caused an unintended death!

 

To my way of thinking the outcome is important, I decided to push somebody over although I didnt intend to kill them, but that was the outcome so I should be charged with manslaughter rather than assault.

 

Until the law takes into account the outcome we will always have the "but I didnt mean to do it so let me off" attitude, especially among the drivers!

The law does already take that into account. It's called the concept of recklessness which unfortunately has 4 different legal definitions depending on the offence being charge. There have been quite a few manslaughter convictions for what are known as 1 punch fights where the victim falls over and bangs their head and dies from a brain injury. The whole area keeps a lot of lawyers very well paid.

 

 

Jamie

[96701]

  Twice now. Can we stick to level crossings on a level crossing thread? I would prefer to read about level crossing incidents. If people wish to discuss legal definitions, can they please create their own thread?

[Compound2632]

  Twice now. Can we stick to level crossings on a level crossing thread? I would prefer to read about level crossing incidents. If people wish to discuss legal definitions, can they please create their own thread?

 

The thread drift is perhaps indicative of there having been no new level crossing incidents to dissect recently, which I reckon must be a good thing. 

[BlackRat]

Someone can be to blame for an accident. How can you say that there can be no such thing as a Road Traffic Accident?

Not all RTAs involve collisions. e.g. a tyre can blow causing a car to spin and roll over injuring the occupants without colliding with anything at all. Other examples are available.

Was the tyre worn?

Was it over or under inflated?

Did the driver carry out regular checks to check for damage to the tyre or a possible ingress by a foreign object?

Was it the right speed and load rating for the type speed of vehicle?

How old was the tyre?

Was it correctly fitted and balanced?

Was there a manufacturing fault with the tyre?

Was there an issue with the valve?

Was the road surface at fault?

Did a vehicle have an insecure load which it had partially shed leaving debris in the road causing the tyre to damage?

 

Shall I carry on?

 

I guess like me you spent the majority of your career as a collision investigator, or if you didn't......like I said.

 

Please, don't go on..... I did it for a living ( very well too ta).

 

Back to level crossings now?

Edited October 10, 2018 by BlackRat

[96701]

Was the tyre worn?
Was it over or under inflated?
Did the driver carry out regular checks to check for damage to the tyre or a possible ingress by a foreign object?
Was it the right speed and load rating for the type speed of vehicle?
How old was the tyre?
Was it correctly fitted and balanced?
Was there a manufacturing fault with the tyre?
Was there an issue with the valve?
Was the road surface at fault?
Did a vehicle have an insecure load which it had partially shed leaving debris in the road causing the tyre to damage?

Shall I carry on?

I guess like me you spent the majority of your career as a collision investigator, or if you didn't......like I said.

Please, don't go on..... I did it for a living ( very well too ta).

Back to level crossings now?

Third time. What is it with you guys? This is a level crossing thread!

[BlackRat]

 

Third time. What is it with you guys? This is a level crossing thread!

Is it really?

 

Thanks.

 

Like I said.....back to level crossings now.

[Colin_McLeod]

Black Rat re post 2918 it would still be an accident. ie not on purpose. The answers to your questions would help determine who was to blame for the accident.

 

And still no collision.

 

 

 

96701. Your request is noted

[alastairq]

 

 

And still no collision.

 A vehicle collides with the road, using an unintended part of the vehicle.  

[peanuts]

The law also made specific provisions for certain circumstance beyond the driver's control. One was sudden mechanical defect and for the life of me I can't remember the other. Proving these though was a duty for the defence rather than the prosecution. However I did once deal with one that could have been very nasty that was caused by a sudden defect and no prosecution went forward. A fully loaded artic, carrying bottled beer, came down into Leeds on the M621 from the M62 and exited on the junction by Elland Road football ground (Islington interchange) The first time the drive needed his brakes was on the slip road approaching the roundabout. Total brake failure meant that the lorry went straight across the roundabout and got stuck in the boggy ground in the centre alongside the motorway embankment. Very fortunately there was no other traffic in his path when he crossed the carriageways on the roundabout and the eventual stop was gentle so the driver was uninjured. No beer bottles were broken either. We interviewed the driver under caution and also had our vehicle examiners check the lorry and trailer. IIRC the cause was a small metal blank from the manufacturing process which had been present in the air system and it had got into the system and caused total brake failure without emptying the main reservoir so the driver was unaware of this until he applied his brakes.

 

 

 

Slightly long winded but it does illustrate how difficult it is to invoke the statutory defences.

 

 

Jamie

 

Edit, after reflection. The point that needs to be made is that the defect needs to be sudden and undetectable beforehand. Poor maintenance is no defence as the owners of a lorry that suffered brake failure near Halifax found out when they were prosecuted for manslaughter due to their lack of a proper maintenance regime.

re your edit as a result of this incident the whole regime of hgv maintenance changed with operator licencing , documented  six weekly checks , and whoe betide any company whose truck fails an MOT  

[royaloak]

When did 96701 become chief moderator?

 

Perhaps we need to PM every post to 96701 for approval before actually posting on his thread?

It is his thread isnt it?

Edited October 11, 2018 by royaloak

[Andy Y]

Keep to the topic please.

[alastairq]

 

When did 96701 become chief moderator?

 

  Has he/she learnt the secret handshake, perhaps?

[beast66606]

  Has he/she learnt the secret handshake, perhaps?

 

Probably doesn't want an interesting thread locked by wanderings - a slight deviation is fine and dandy but often the wanderings become inflamed and the thread is locked.

[beast66606]

On a level crossing related note.

 

Yesterday I saw a blatant red light jumper at a local level crossing, when I pointed at the camera as he passed me (opposite direction) he flicked the Vs.

I'm currently uploading the dashcam footage and hopefully its clear enough to see him jump the lights and if so, a call to BTP will be made - now who's flicking the Vs Mr Richard Head ?

[beast66606]

On a level crossing related note.

 

Yesterday I saw a blatant red light jumper at a local level crossing, when I pointed at the camera as he passed me (opposite direction) he flicked the Vs.

I'm currently uploading the dashcam footage and hopefully its clear enough to see him jump the lights and if so, a call to BTP will be made - now who's flicking the Vs Mr Richard Head ?

 

 

Spoke to BTP - unfortunately my footage doesn't show the amber light (due to sunlight reflecting off the windscreen) and so there's not enough evidence for a prosecution - close but no cigar.