Derailment at Kirkby (Merseyside) - 13/03/2021

[nedchester]

It was a custodial sentence.

The American justice system is an excellent demonstration of how “lock them up and throw away the key” sentencing has very little deterrent value.



Nope. A suspended sentence is only handed down where the custody threshold has been reached and a custodial sentence imposed. The decision to suspend is separate, based on other factors.

Are you saying that the sentencing judge was wrong to suspend the sentence? Why do you think you know better than them?



No again. There was no suggestion the driver crashed the train into the buffers deliberately. Allowing himself to become distracted by his phone was certainly an act of negligence, in fact a very serious one, as reflected by the fact it has resulted in a criminal conviction and immediate (suspended) custodial sentence for someone with no prior record. That’s in addition to job loss and the fact he’ll almost certainly never work in the industry again.



Indeed.

A sage reminder to keep phones off, and if there’s something in your personal life distracting you at work, tell someone. Also a reminder of how one slip can be enough to see you down the road in this job.

I love the way that the “brothers” are so protective of this idiot.

Texting whilst driving is a deliberate act whether you like it or not.

Why not do your profession a favour and express your revulsion and distance yourself from his actions rather than making excuses.

 

[AlterEgo]

Surprised you don't go to prison for that sort of thing, a really egregious driving offence which could have killed someone.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

And even more to the point what were the judges sentencing remarks? They'll explain why the sentence was what it was.

Struggling to find the whole sentencing remarks but so far I’ve found:

Sentencing, Judge David Potter said the train had been going too fast because Hollis was distracted by a combination of receiving and sending WhatsApp messages and leaning out of his cab to retrieve a bag which had fallen onto the floor.

He said: 'It's through sheer luck rather than judgment on your part that serious injury was not caused.

You accept that you were distracted by trying to retrieve your bag. You do not dispute that you received and sent a WhatsApp message while driving on the approach to Kirkby station. In doing so you disregarded basic safety.’

It’s also reported that the driver was also ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work, was made subject to an electronically monitored curfew for three months and ordered to pay £340 costs and a surcharge.

 

[scrapy]

Is the driver still able to claim on his pension considering he will be 60 by now even when you're sacked for such a serious incident ?

He will certainly be able to claim his own contributions. As he was sacked for gross misconduct it is likely the company will be able withdraw their contributions which will be a substantial amount of the total.

 

[Efini92]

I love the way that the “brothers” are so protective of this idiot.

Texting whilst driving is a deliberate act whether you like it or not.

Why not do your profession a favour and express your revulsion and distance yourself from his actions rather than making excuses.

The bigger question is why is there no safety system in place there to prevent a train from running into a bay platform at high speed.
It could quite easily have been an incapacitated driver rather than one that distracted themselves.

 

[Trackman]

Read today ..if it's not already been posted have searched.. his text(s) were about the F1 commentator Murray Walker's death.

 

[Watershed]

The bigger question is why is there no safety system in place there to prevent a train from running into a bay platform at high speed.
It could quite easily have been an incapacitated driver rather than one that distracted themselves.

It's one of the 'holes' in the Swiss cheese that is TPWS.

 

[Efini92]

It's one of the 'holes' in the Swiss cheese that is TPWS.

The only tpws there (to my knowledge) is the OSS in the bay itself. Which are normally set between 10-12mph. It’s certainly the case on the northern side that it’s all on the driver to control the speed of the train. 70mph then no further PSR’s until you are into the bay.
It’s hard to believe there’s no fail safe in this day an age.
We are quick to blame the individual, in this case blame does have to be apportioned to the driver. But blame should also be apportioned to network rail for allowing a train to be able to approach a terminal station at high speed.
I’m sure Kirkby isn’t the only location where there is a potential for this to happen. Colne, Blackpool south, ormskirk all spring to mind.

 

[craigybagel]

I love the way that the “brothers” are so protective of this idiot.

Texting whilst driving is a deliberate act whether you like it or not.

Why not do your profession a favour and express your revulsion and distance yourself from his actions rather than making excuses.

I don't think anyone's being protective here - every driver knows that this particular driver messed up and has rightly forfeited his entire career.

However, I think some of us can see that locking up a 60 year old man who's family is reliant upon, who presents no further risk to society and who would find it impossible to re-offend even if he somehow wanted to, is a waste.

 

[dctraindriver]

I love the way that the “brothers” are so protective of this idiot.

Texting whilst driving is a deliberate act whether you like it or not.

Why not do your profession a favour and express your revulsion and distance yourself from his actions rather than making excuses.

Please read and understand the CPS sentencing guidelines and the specific legislation pertaining to this matter before spouting stuff just to get a reaction. I for one as a “brother” am disgusted by his behaviour but this was the most likely outcome. I expect my other “brothers” feel the same. And my “sisters” might have the hump about it too.

 

[AlterEgo]

Please read and understand the CPS sentencing guidelines and the specific legislation pertaining to this matter before spouting stuff just to get a reaction. I for one as a “brother” am disgusted by his behaviour but this was the most likely outcome. I expect my other “brothers” feel the same. And my “sisters” might have the hump about it too.

What if people don’t like the law or the guidelines? Surely they’re allowed to feel frustrated that such a serious mistake which could have killed people has gone so leniently punished by the justice system.

 

[FileTrekker]

What if people don’t like the law or the guidelines? Surely they’re allowed to feel frustrated that such a serious mistake which could have killed people has gone so leniently punished by the justice system.

Sure, but what most of the drivers and others are saying on here is common sense and eloquently put, rather than just coming off as rude and attacking others for having a differing opinion.

"I think he should have been locked up" vs. "The "brothers" sticking up for an idiot"

 

[yorkie]

What if people don’t like the law or the guidelines? Surely they’re allowed to feel frustrated that such a serious mistake which could have killed people has gone so leniently punished by the justice system.

I agree; people are entitled to disagree with the law/guidelines and feel frustrated with any decision by the courts.

For example, I'm all for more severe offences when violent crimes are committed, and I get frustrated when people justify lenient sentences for such crimes.

However in this particular case, I personally can't argue with the decision and I don't think any further deterrent is necessary, but that's just my opinion. Those who disagree and think the sentence is too lenient are entitled to a different view. However we should avoid any such argument becoming too personal; we can agree to disagree!

 

[mmh]

What if people don’t like the law or the guidelines? Surely they’re allowed to feel frustrated that such a serious mistake which could have killed people has gone so leniently punished by the justice system.

Well, the reason

What if people don’t like the law or the guidelines? Surely they’re allowed to feel frustrated that such a serious mistake which could have killed people has gone so leniently punished by the justice system.

Well the reason we have law, regulations, procedures is exactly so that we don't have mob justice.

 

[John Luxton]

As I understand it I believe an early guilty plea and avoiding the cost of a trial often results in a more lenient sentence. He pleaded guilty. If it had gone to trial the sentence might have been custodial.

My view is he messed up seriously after a good and long career. I am not defending what he did and needs to be punished.

Loss of job, reputation, possibly loss of much of his pension as someone above suggested. Plus curfew and community service what more do people want?

I am someone who believes in being harsh on criminals and would be pleased to see the return of capital punishment but in the scheme of things the punishment was appropriate.

I enjoy watch watching Traffic Cops on C5. If people want to complain about light sentencing this is the programme to watch. Some of the encounters with seriously criminal motorists are hair raising putting many people in danger.

At the end of the program they tell you the sentences received. Frankly it is these light sentences that shock me. In fact some cases don't even lead to a prosecution.

These involve people who make criminal decisions to drive like total idiots.

This driver made a mistake which will live with him for the rest of his life. Who can honestly say they have not been careless in their job at some point in their career?

Myself and a colleague were supervising a group of children on a visit to Ireland about 20 years ago. I was driving the bus traffic and I picked the children and my colleague up. At the last minute one child was distracted looked in a shop window the others boarded and I drove off. Only about 30 miles down the road on the way back to our accomodation did we realise the boy was missing.

We phoned the Gardai they told us they knew about it and the boy was waiting at the shop to be picked up. We picked him, he said nothing when we got back to school. The Gardai didn't even ask for details of the school. It was a secret we kept. I fouled up, my colleague fouled up. What would have happened if he had wandered off? Been abducted?

Our guardian angels were looking after us that evening. Never again did we omit to do a roll call.

Lesson learnt and no harm done thank God but if it had gone pear shaped that would have been our careers down the pan.

 

[dctraindriver]

What if people don’t like the law or the guidelines? Surely they’re allowed to feel frustrated that such a serious mistake which could have killed people has gone so leniently punished by the justice system.

Lobby your MP

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, the reason

Well the reason we have law, regulations, procedures is exactly so that we don't have mob justice.

Yes I know why there are laws, I’m just pointing out in civil society you’re allowed to disagree with them. Going “look at the sentencing guidelines” isn’t a helpful response for people who believe a sentence is too lenient or too harsh save for stopping them believing the judge was “wrong”.

 

[PG]

The 'Deterrent to others' really is aimed at other Drivers. Drivers are regularly briefed and monitored within an inch of their lives. There have been various campaigns regarding mobile phone use in cabs, there are specific mobile phone policies at each TOC and this is not the first time someone has been involved in an incident caused by mobile phone use. Personally I know of 3 Drivers at my TOC who have lost their jobs due to mobile phone use.

I have no doubt that this incident will be used on further training and development days. But as a deterrent. The threat of jail time isn't really that effective.

I've no idea how many drivers there are at your TOC so while 3 is 3 too many, is phone use an on-going problem?

If so, since you suggest that the threat of jail isn't effective then how can the problem be dealt with? By that I mean things to prevent use, i.e. change attitudes/behaviour, rather than the threat of any punishment after the offence.

A sage reminder to keep phones off, and if there’s something in your personal life distracting you at work, tell someone.

Appreciate that you're talking to other drivers and not wishing to distract from your advice, I'm just wondering what would be likely to happen if a driver tells someone? i.e. potential to affect earnings which could be an additional worry.

Thanks to you both for your input into this discussion

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Lobby your MP

Correct. I’d advise those who feel passionately that this sentence was too lenient to read the following:

Our criteria for developing or revising guidelines – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

(A link to the Sentencing Council criteria for developing or revising sentencing guidelines).

 

[Bald Rick]

On the subject of sentencing. Not the same, but similar - there have been a few recent cases where airline pilots have turned up for duty well over the airline alcohol limit, which IIRC is a quarter of the U.K. driving alcohol limit. The two examples I can find received custodial sentences of 8-10 months.

Now you can argue whether texting a couple of times ‘at the wheel’ is more or less dangerous than flying an airliner whilst impaired through alcohol. But the sentence was similar, the difference being that the train driver had his suspended. The other consequences are the same though - lost job, etc etc.

 

[ComUtoR]

I've no idea how many drivers there are at your TOC so while 3 is 3 too many, is phone use an on-going problem?

Those 3 are 3 that I personally know of. There are more. It is absolutely an ongoing problem.

I've been around for 18 (ish) years now. Mobiles and various electronic devices were outright banned when I first started. Now they are in a kind of limbo. Mobiles are issued by TOCs and their use is regulated by local policy. Those policies include when, where and how to use your mobile and in some cases allow the use of a tablet in the cab. My TOC states your mobile should be off and in your bag but allows mobile use if you need to phone Fleet, The Signaller, or Control. Other TOCs restrict them down to 'airplane' mode.

Because we have a TOC issued mobile and a TOC issued tablet. Drivers tend to leave those off and in their bags. The company can track and access their use so there is a high chance you'd get caught using it. However, because access to your personal phone can't really be traced as easily or you can outright deny you have one. Drivers tend to keep those on. I guarantee they will ask in a post incident interview if you were using it but I know for a fact that Drivers will wipe their call history or text history. I've never heard of a TOC going to a phone company for records and now with GDPR I doubt they would get it.

If you read these forums on a regular basis you will no doubt see that there is a constant call for various technological solutions in the cab. Route knowledge tablets are a common one. I believe that some Freight companies allow the use of a Tablet whilst driving. Even the RSSB are trying desperately to device use into the cabs.

If so, since you suggest that the threat of jail isn't effective then how can the problem be dealt with? By that I mean things to prevent use, i.e. change attitudes/behaviour, rather than the threat of any punishment after the offence.

The threat of jail has barely been a deterrent for anything and we are already hammered on a regular basis that you could end up at Her Majesty's Pleasure. The threat is very real and already there, yet mobile use is widespread.

As to your second point. Attitude and culture really are the key here. Sadly, mobile phones are at a point where they are almost issued at birth and critical to our daily lives. They have saturated everything we do. I'd happily stick my phone away for a day and enjoy the peace and quiet from the kids but the younger Drivers have a different attitude. They will stick it in airplane mode and not turn it off because they see that as 'off' I've seen Drivers exit a cab and within seconds have their phones to their ear or are already checking messages. The 'Railway' just cannot keep up with the modern generation fast enough.

They are also very much tripping over themselves too. We cant use them, they are evil things that lose your job and can stick you in the clink. However, lets issue one to everyone and tell you to use it when required. Our GSMR has a direct link to Fleet but they still encourage you to use your mobile. Even the rulebook allows for mobile phone use where needed. 18 odd years ago it was black and white. DO NOT USE THEM. Now its a bit grey which some use regulated.

The other giant pink mammoth sitting in the corner of the room is more obvious to Internals. It isn't the phone that's the problem. It was the distraction. It doesn't matter if its a mobile, tablet, DAS, or GSMR or even quickly grabbing your bag. Doing something at a safety critical time can, and does, lead to incident.

There is a greater issue with situational awareness and the need to be focussed at safety critical times.

Thanks to you both for your input into this discussion

And to you for you inquiry. Please press 1 to leave a further response or to end the discussion please press #

 

[muz379]

I love the way that the “brothers” are so protective of this idiot.

Texting whilst driving is a deliberate act whether you like it or not.

Why not do your profession a favour and express your revulsion and distance yourself from his actions rather than making excuses.

I've not seen anyone be remotely "protective" of this driver . All I've seen is people challenge the logic of a custodial sentence for someone that is no longer in a position to be able to carry out the same negligent activity in an industry where everybody already knows full well that using a mobile device whilst carrying out safety critical work is already strongly penalised

As had already been pointed out all safety critical staff are well aware they should not use their mobile devices whilst carrying out safety critical work and are also aware of the consequences yet despite these huge financial and employability consequences people still do run the risk . As in any walk of life you have people that run the risk . I don't know what deterrence could be brought about given the consequences are already extremely severe .

Is the driver still able to claim on his pension considering he will be 60 by now even when you're sacked for such a serious incident ?.

Money already in the pot will be secure but depending on circumstances like his length of service there can be pretty fire consequences taking the pension early .

 

[43066]

I love the way that the “brothers” are so protective of this idiot.

Exactly the response I would have expected, complete with yet another sarcastic attack on train crew (maybe it’s time to give it a rest? You’re starting to sound like a broken record).

Have you actually read my post? If so, you evidently haven’t understood it. I’ve not defended anyone. I’ve just corrected your misinformed statements about suspended prison sentences.

Texting whilst driving is a deliberate act whether you like it or not.

You appear not to have grasped that “texting while driving” isn’t, in and of itself, what he has been sentenced for. That was one (inexcusable) factor in the distraction leading up to the incident which is essentially one of negligence:

Train driver sentenced for crashing train while distracted | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

He was charged with endangering person conveyed or being in or upon a railway by wilful omission or neglect.

In my previous post I acknowledged that this is a serious offence, hence the gravity of the sentence handed down.

Why not do your profession a favour and express your revulsion and distance yourself from his actions rather than making excuses.

Where have I made excuses? You don’t seem to be responding to what’s actually been written.

What if people don’t like the law or the guidelines? Surely they’re allowed to feel frustrated that such a serious mistake which could have killed people has gone so leniently punished by the justice system.

No issue with that discussion at all, so long as it’s honestly framed as such.

Personally I think the result in this case is about right. It is indeed a very serious mistake, as opposed to a deliberate act, which mercifully didn’t result in any injuries. A custodial sentence, albeit one the judge saw fit to suspend due to the circumstances in this case, a substantial community service order (along with inevitable permanent loss of livelihood) seems about right.

 

[muz379]

The other giant pink mammoth sitting in the corner of the room is more obvious to Internals. It isn't the phone that's the problem. It was the distraction. It doesn't matter if its a mobile, tablet, DAS, or GSMR or even quickly grabbing your bag. Doing something at a

This is an incredibly important point . It feels like the knee jerk reaction to incidents caused by mobiles being a distraction was to ban the distraction without any emphasis on encouraging safety critical staff to be more aware of the wider risk of distraction and give them tools to manage their own risks when out on the road .

 

[43066]

Appreciate that your talking to other drivers and not wishing to distract from your advice, I'm just wondering what would be likely to happen if a driver tells someone? i.e. potential to affect earnings which could be an additional worry.

TOCs are generally pretty supportive of this kind of thing given the increased awareness these days of the “human factors” aspect of the job. You’d most likely be taken off track for a period of time, depending on the nature of the issue. It goes without saying that it’s better to do this than to have an incident while distracted, by which time it’s too late.

It wouldn’t affect basic earnings, albeit clearly it wouldn’t be possible to do overtime while off track.

 

[SuspectUsual]

All I've seen is people challenge the logic of a custodial sentence for someone that is no longer in a position to be able to carry out the same negligent activity in an industry where everybody already knows full well that using a mobile device whilst carrying out safety critical work is already strongly penalised

Its an interesting legal question, whether the inability to reoffend should be taken into account at the sentencing stage. I don't know the answer, by the way. What also crosses my mind is that if the driver was happy using his mobile phone whilst driving a train, what kind of car driver is he? I don't suppose for a second that this is relevant to the sentencing discussion, but it seems perverse that he would be comfortable doing one but not the other, and therefore the opportunity to carry out a broadly similar act of negligence remains open to him. Let's hope he's bright enough to see the parallels

 

[Wyrleybart]

It was a custodial sentence.

The American justice system is an excellent demonstration of how “lock them up and throw away the key” sentencing has very little deterrent value.

Nope. A suspended sentence is only handed down where the custody threshold has been reached and a custodial sentence imposed. The decision to suspend is separate, based on other factors.

Are you saying that the sentencing judge was wrong to suspend the sentence? Why do you think you know better than them?

No again. There was no suggestion the driver crashed the train into the buffers deliberately. Allowing himself to become distracted by his phone was certainly an act of negligence, in fact a very serious one, as reflected by the fact it has resulted in a criminal conviction and immediate (suspended) custodial sentence for someone with no prior record. That’s in addition to job loss and the fact he’ll almost certainly never work in the industry again.

So if the custodial sentence is suspended for two years, is there a chance the driver might still go to prison ? If so then that will be a "ticking timebomb" in the person's life (including their partner) - even though they won't ever be able to commit the same crime again.

A sage reminder to keep phones off, and if there’s something in your personal life distracting you at work, tell someone. Also a reminder of how one slip can be enough to see you down the road in this job.

Absolutely.
Several years ago a driver at the TOC I work for made a call to the rosters while they were driving. Rosters heard the in-cab AWS sounds and that was that. A somewhat foolish phone call.

 

[Falcon1200]

It could quite easily have been an incapacitated driver rather than one that distracted themselves.

It is likely the DSD would have stopped the train if the Driver was incapacitated.

We are quick to blame the individual, in this case blame does have to be apportioned to the driver. But blame should also be apportioned to network rail for allowing a train to be able to approach a terminal station at high speed.

I think blaming, even partially, Network Rail is a bit harsh, but there is certainly a debate to be had regarding TPWS on dead end lines; Should an OSS now be provided at every such location, which must run into thousands across the UK network - Would the cost be justified, and was this considered when TPWS was being installed, bearing in mind that it is provided for many PSRs ? And as a matter of interest is there a fixed distant on the approach to the platform, with associated AWS equipment ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if the custodial sentence is suspended for two years, is there a chance the driver might still go to prison ? If so then that will be a "ticking timebomb" in the person's life (including their partner) - even though they won't ever be able to commit the same crime again.

Yes, it's about their general conduct. It wouldn't surprise me if the sentence were "unsuspended" if for instance he was to be convicted of a serious (car) driving offence.

 

[dctraindriver]

Yes I know why there are laws, I’m just pointing out in civil society you’re allowed to disagree with them. Going “look at the sentencing guidelines” isn’t a helpful response for people who believe a sentence is too lenient or too harsh save for stopping them believing the judge was “wrong”.

Well it is helpful response. That way people can understand why. The law is an ass. If people understand why then yes they can still be annoyed but maybe understand why.