Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by GodAtum, 28 Oct 2011.
Shame he was given a prison sentance!
I disagree. It seems a reasonable sentence to me, after all it was an act of stupidity not one of malice.
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.
Agreed. In cases like this courts should be sending out a message to people but yet again they choose not to.
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.
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.
Firstly, he wasn't, as Paul explained above.
Secondly, why is it a shame?
Seriously, who parks a tractor and trailer in the close proximity of a level crossing?
(cue jokes about welsh people)
I think I read the RAIB report about this a few weeks ago. It was an ATW class 175?
175 108 is pictured in the English BBC News article.
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).
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.
Sorry, this was the one I meant. 16th January 2010. It also went to Milford Haven which is why I got confused.
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
"act of stupidity"!............... 'Gross Negligence' comes to mind^*$€>=~\
82k?are them cabs made of unobtanium?
They can pursue him in civil court if they wish to recover the money.
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
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.
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?
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.
Totally agree, locking him up is no use to anyone!
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.
What is the point of suing if they don't have the money? I doubt he has £182 behind the sofa, let alone £182k!
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.
This may be happening via his insurers but would be a separate matter to the criminal case.
That wouldn't achieve a great deal in reality, in my opinion.
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.
Indeed. If it is not in his sole name the order is even less effective!
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.
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.