Kidwelly train crash farmer 'incredibly stupid'

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by GodAtum, 28 Oct 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GodAtum

    GodAtum Established Member

    Messages:
    2,195
    Joined:
    11 Dec 2009
    Shame he was given a prison sentance!
     
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. RPM

    RPM Established Member

    Messages:
    1,340
    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    I disagree. It seems a reasonable sentence to me, after all it was an act of stupidity not one of malice.
     
  4. Captain Speaking

    Captain Speaking Established Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Joined:
    23 Feb 2007
    Location:
    Wilmslow
    So why hasn't he been sent a bill for about £165K? He caused the loss, he should pay the cost. ATW (or their insurers if appropriate) should send him the bill!

    He should also have been locked up (not suspended) for the reckless endangerment of the driver and passengers on the train.

    Stupidity is no excuse for such an act.
     
  5. graham43404

    graham43404 Member

    Messages:
    214
    Joined:
    21 Jul 2011
    Location:
    Bolton
    Agreed. In cases like this courts should be sending out a message to people but yet again they choose not to.
     
  6. ChiefPlanner

    ChiefPlanner Established Member

    Messages:
    4,318
    Joined:
    6 Sep 2011
    Location:
    Herts
    Not hard enough sentence , he looks old enough to understand what a train is , how fast they go and how they cant stop in 4 yards>

    Some restitution to the driver , or at the very least a structured interview and apology would also be appropriate.
     
  7. Paul Sidorczuk

    Paul Sidorczuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,375
    Joined:
    17 Apr 2011
    Location:
    The very best part of rural Cheshire East.
    The report states that he was given a 36 week suspended jail sentence plus 200 hours community service. You do not serve a suspended jail sentence in prison.
     
  8. ukrob

    ukrob Established Member

    Messages:
    1,809
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2009
    Firstly, he wasn't, as Paul explained above.

    Secondly, why is it a shame?
     
  9. callum112233

    callum112233 Member

    Messages:
    379
    Joined:
    8 Sep 2011
    Location:
    Wigan
    Seriously, who parks a tractor and trailer in the close proximity of a level crossing? :s

    (cue jokes about welsh people)

    I think I read the RAIB report about this a few weeks ago. It was an ATW class 175?
     
  10. krus_aragon

    krus_aragon Established Member

    Messages:
    2,776
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    175 108 is pictured in the English BBC News article.
     
  11. Phil6219

    Phil6219 Member

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    15 Jul 2011
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Yes 175108.

    The report on another level crossing accident has recently been released too, also involving an ATW 175 on another Manchester - Milford Haven service (I believe).

    Phil 8-)
     
  12. sbt

    sbt Member

    Messages:
    256
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2011
    I suspect you are getting confused with the Sewage Tanker collision recently published. That occurred in 2010, before this collision. there are no reports that I can find for UWC collisions in 2011.
     
  13. callum112233

    callum112233 Member

    Messages:
    379
    Joined:
    8 Sep 2011
    Location:
    Wigan
    Sorry, this was the one I meant. 16th January 2010. It also went to Milford Haven which is why I got confused. :D

    http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/110228_R042011v2_Moreton_on_Lugg.pdf
     
  14. anthony263

    anthony263 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,166
    Joined:
    19 Aug 2008
    Location:
    South Wales
    He should also have been stripped of his drivers licence in my opinion.

    I also think he should be given the bill for repairing 175108
     
  15. Nestor

    Nestor Member

    Messages:
    57
    Joined:
    12 Jan 2011
    Location:
    Reading
    "act of stupidity"!............... 'Gross Negligence' comes to mind^*$€>=~\

     
    Last edited by a moderator: 29 Oct 2011
  16. alanf

    alanf Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    9 Jan 2010
    82k?are them cabs made of unobtanium?

    Alan
     
  17. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Hatfield or Surrey
    They can pursue him in civil court if they wish to recover the money.
     
  18. fsmr

    fsmr Member

    Messages:
    659
    Joined:
    11 Feb 2009
    The passengers must have had fair old ride to go from 75 mph to 0 in 100 yards

    quote "The train struck the trailer at 75mph and came to a stop about 100 yards further down the track." More likely 500 or more unless it had already decelerated to 40 before it hit it"
    I would have thought the bill would have been quite high as i doubt the NFU would cover the insurance for the damage to the tractor and trailer given the act of gross stupidity
     
    Last edited: 28 Oct 2011
  19. BestWestern

    BestWestern Established Member

    Messages:
    6,736
    Joined:
    6 Feb 2011
    How very disheartening to yet again find the courts just grudgingly doing the bare minimum, almost as if they would really rather just let the guilty party walk free. Presumably another out of touch judge who has little knowledge of the world he/she presides over, I wonder how often they travel by train?! :roll: The CCTV images clearly show that this idiot left the trailer parked well and truly across the line - not near it, but actually right over it - then left his vehicle to go and feed his horses. Why would you do that?

    NR and Government need to stamp out this type of reckless, ludicrous behaviour. This isn't the first time, and may well not be the last. Too many land owners and their agents seem to find it perfectly acceptable to treat these crossings, provided and maintained for their personal convenience, with complete disdain, and think nothing of regularly abusing them. How often are trains delayed because of some idiot leaving a gate open? Any incident resulting in an accident such as this - or indeed repeated incidents of minor abuse such as disobeying safe use regulations - should result in the crossing concerned being permanently closed, and removed. If the land owner is left with a 60 mile round trip, tough. Such reckless disregard for public safety is simply not acceptable, why on earth should the railway continue to accomodate such attitudes.
     
  20. Bodie

    Bodie Member

    Messages:
    182
    Joined:
    10 Oct 2011
    Totally agree with everyone's comments. How this fool as managed to stay alive for 51 years old is anyone's guess.

    I didn't know ATW 175's had camera's in the cab. Are they alone in having this?
     
  21. scotsman

    scotsman Established Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2010
    Idiot, yes. Prison? no.

    Prison is to protect the public and deter offending. Is prison really an option? No. Prison would have been if anyone had been hurt, the suspended nature warns him that he was lucky for no-one to be seriously hurt.

    Prison would indeed be an excellent deterrent, but it would lead to a large number of people entering custody - much better to do community service. Only 48% of community services are completed, but the reoffending rate after them is much less than prison. Hitting them in the wallet won't work.
     
  22. GearJammer

    GearJammer On Moderation

    Messages:
    897
    Joined:
    12 Nov 2009
    Location:
    On the Southern
    Totally agree, locking him up is no use to anyone!
     
  23. Harlesden

    Harlesden Member

    Messages:
    854
    Joined:
    23 Jun 2010
    Location:
    LONDON NW10
    If the train was my property running along my track, and you blocked my track thereby causing my train to be seriously damaged, I would expect you to pay the full cost of repairs to my train along with the cost of hiring someone to check (and repair, if necessary) the affected section of track. If you were unable/unwilling tp pay, I would sue.
     
  24. oattam09

    oattam09 Member

    Messages:
    31
    Joined:
    4 Sep 2010
    What is the point of suing if they don't have the money? I doubt he has £182 behind the sofa, let alone £182k! :)
     
  25. IanXC

    IanXC Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    5,557
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2009
    I think this is the only way were going to see any improvement at these kind of crossings.


    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    Could get a charging order on the farm I suppose.

     
  26. TUC

    TUC Established Member

    Messages:
    1,837
    Joined:
    11 Nov 2010
    This may be happening via his insurers but would be a separate matter to the criminal case.
     
  27. Greenback

    Greenback Emeritus Moderator

    Messages:
    15,337
    Joined:
    9 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Llanelli
    I agree.


    That wouldn't achieve a great deal in reality, in my opinion.
     
  28. IanXC

    IanXC Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    5,557
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2009
    Assuming the farm is in his name it would probably be decades before you'd be able to enforce it.

    I think in reality his insurer will have paid.

     
  29. Greenback

    Greenback Emeritus Moderator

    Messages:
    15,337
    Joined:
    9 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Llanelli
    Indeed. If it is not in his sole name the order is even less effective!
     
  30. Captain Speaking

    Captain Speaking Established Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Joined:
    23 Feb 2007
    Location:
    Wilmslow
    If he is insured his insurer will probably have paid, but under the circumstances of his extreme negligence they might then persue the farmer for the money.... or for whatever part of the debt the farmer can raise.
     
  31. BestWestern

    BestWestern Established Member

    Messages:
    6,736
    Joined:
    6 Feb 2011
    I can agree to some extent that prison may not be appropriate, not because he doesn't deserve it but simply because in our current society we don't have the required resources. I would argue though that an individual who leaves agricultural vehicles parked over a main railway line whilst doing something completely unrelated to using the crossing, is a danger to the public. Very much so. This accident makes that obvious. How many times has he done this in the past I wonder, avoiding accidents through pure luck?

    If prison is not the appropriate sanction, then 'hitting him' in the wallet must surely be the only other sensible route. The person concerned required punishing, teaching a lesson, not simply a meaningless telling off. Was he not aware at the time of the incident that using a railway line as a personal parking area was both idiotic and illegal? Why did he chose to do such a thing? What good does a few hours community service do in the case of a stubborn individual who clearly holds a total disregard for rules and the people they protect?

    A very substantial fine should have been given out here, enough to make the person concerned appreciate the severity of their actions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page