Kidwelly train crash farmer 'incredibly stupid'

[GB]

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.

Prison is to also act as punishment and people have been "sent down" for less.

 

[Wyvern]

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.

There was another a few weeks ago but there isnt an RAIB report as yet.
Railway Eye used the somewhat suspect heading "Oh Deere"
It was in the Kings Lynn News

 

[Agent Smirnoff]

I think that is too lenient. The jackass should have got an actual custodial sentence.

He endagered peoples ****ing lives!

 

[Bedpan]

Does anybody actually know what his excuse was for leaving he trailer across the line? Looking at the video footage, the trailer seems to be some way back from the tractor and whilst the picture is not the clearest, I cannot see anything attaching it to the tractor. I'm wondering if it somehow became detached as he went over the crossing. Its very negligent of him not to check that the line was clear before he left the tractor, but if something like that had happened it would be more of a mistake than a deliberate act (which I agreee ought to result in a custodial sentence).

 

[HSTEd]

Is the trailer moving off the crossing just prior to impact, it looks like it is?

 

[Phil6219]

Is the trailer moving off the crossing just prior to impact, it looks like it is?

Yes it suddenly starts to move as the train is around 35 feet away.

Rather fortunate that it did I guess as otherwise it would have been far more serious.

The Kings Lynn incident was reported on the BBC website (national) and also in the Metro.

Are these accidents/incidents on the increase or is it just the media reporting them more often than they used to?

Also there was this "incident" last week... :roll:
Car Abandoned on Level Crossing

Phil

 

[Wyvern]

THere was also the one the other week that involved the Police helicopter - another car abandoned as I recall. Possibly to distract the pursuing police?

 

[HH]

Seriously, who parks a tractor and trailer in the close proximity of a level crossing?

(cue jokes about welsh people)

John Henry Watkyn-James doesn't sound very Welsh to me.

 

[aspierail]

Parking a tractor on a level crossing is just stupid.

 

[merlodlliw]

John Henry Watkyn-James doesn't sound very Welsh to me.

I don't understand your point?


Bob

 

[alexjames]

Dunno why folk above think he will not get billed for the damage.

Nothing in the quoted report to suggest that he was driving whilst uninsured thus he will get the bill or his insurers will. Given that its rather a lot of money, his claim might well get properly checked. All sorts of dangers here - " Mr Farmer, you forgot to mention a speeding conviction when you last renewed thus you are in breach of the policy. Its now cancelled. Here's a cheque for £70 representing the unexpired month or two. I guess NR etc will be looking to you to pay up".

Tis the sort of thing that inspires the old adage that you do not know whether you have valid insurance until a major claim against you is paid. Most people never have to test that principle - quite a few of them would otherwise discover that they are uninsured when they thought that they were properly covered.

 

[Bedpan]

If his policy is voided due to non disclosure of a material fact, his insurers will still have to deal with the third party claim under the terms of the Road Traffic Act, although they will theoretically be able to recover their outlay from him afterwards. They may (probably will, in fact I can't believe that they would not) heavily load his policy or even decline to renew it, and he would find it difficult to insure elsewhere at a reasonable rate in view of his claims history.

 

[merlodlliw]

A few of you seem to imply he committed an offence under road traffic acts,as amended, if the farmer is not using public roads, he does not require insurance at all, if the land he owns or farms does not have a public roadway to the railway, but a mere crossing place, it does not come under road traffic offences, OK common sense says have 3rd party insurance, but it is not mandatory & tractors have exemption from road tax, if applied for,which requires 3rd party insurance but does not require MOTs as tractors are exempt . Just to clear a point.

Bob

 

[BestWestern]

A few of you seem to imply he committed an offence under road traffic acts,as amended, if the farmer is not using public roads, he does not require insurance at all, if the land he owns or farms does not have a public roadway to the railway, but a mere crossing place, it does not come under road traffic offences, OK common sense says have 3rd party insurance, but it is not mandatory & tractors have exemption from road tax, if applied for,which requires 3rd party insurance but does not require MOTs as tractors are exempt . Just to clear a point.

Bob

...I had that thought also, I guess if it isn't a public roadway, which I doubt it is, then his insurance may well be irrelevant. Shame

 

[michael769]

...I had that thought also, I guess if it isn't a public roadway, which I doubt it is, then his insurance may well be irrelevant. Shame

Motor insurance does still cover you off road, which is why if you damaged your car on your own driveway they would still pay for any repairs. He will almost certainly have some form of public liability cover for his business as well.

Still he is going to find it pretty hard to get affordable cover now..... Shame....

By far the best punishment would be to close that crossing and any other occupational crossings on his land. It might potentially cause him severe problems, but his actions clearly demonstrate that he is not a fit person to be allowed onto railway property.

 

[merlodlliw]

Motor insurance does still cover you off road, which is why if you damaged your car on your own driveway they would still pay for any repairs. He will almost certainly have some form of public liability cover for his business as well.

Still he is going to find it pretty hard to get affordable cover now..... Shame....

By far the best punishment would be to close that crossing and any other occupational crossings on his land. It might potentially cause him severe problems, but his actions clearly demonstrate that he is not a fit person to be allowed onto railway property.

NR can not close crossings on private land.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

NR can not close crossings on private land.

The crossing is on NR's land, as is the railway. It's a private crossing, and I suspect there will be no contract existing, so they would be quite within their rights to fence it off.

 

[IanXC]

The crossing is on NR's land, as is the railway. It's a private crossing, and I suspect there will be no contract existing, so they would be quite within their rights to fence it off.

As I understand it the crossing is likely to be stipulated in the Act covering construction of the line in the first place. NR couldn't close without agreement, (or non use for a period of time?) unless a new power to close misused crossings was enacted by Parliament.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As I understand it the crossing is likely to be stipulated in the Act covering construction of the line in the first place. NR couldn't close without agreement, (or non use for a period of time?) unless a new power to close misused crossings was enacted by Parliament.

A public crossing, yes. But I don't think private crossings were stipulated by parliament.

 

[merlodlliw]

The crossing is on NR's land, as is the railway. It's a private crossing, and I suspect there will be no contract existing, so they would be quite within their rights to fence it off.

Not without giving the official notice, then objections, also the field was there before the railway & as the railway put the crossing in for egress & access of the farmers, the railway recognise the crossing, you can not shut a level crossing anywhere, just because a fool jumps the barriers or misuses it.
Chances are its a public footpath anyway.

Bob

 

[michael769]

I am aware of the legal implications of closing a crossing, so my comments were a little tongue in cheek.

But it does raise an interesting question. What (if any) powers do NR have to deal with abuse of occupational crossings by their rightful users, other than via the criminal justice system with all the costs that entails, for sentences that I suspect are not always very effective deterrants?

It does seem to me that giving NR (perhaps after applying to court for permission, to ensure that it is not misused) the powers to close such crossings where users behave in the manner that was shown in this case, would be a very powerful deterrent for misuse given the severe impact that such closures potentially have.

 

[merlodlliw]

I am aware of the legal implications of closing a crossing, so my comments were a little tongue in cheek.

But it does raise an interesting question. What (if any) powers do NR have to deal with abuse of occupational crossings by their rightful users, other than via the criminal justice system with all the costs that entails, for sentences that I suspect are not always very effective deterrants?

It does seem to me that giving NR (perhaps after applying to court for permission, to ensure that it is not misused) the powers to close such crossings where users behave in the manner that was shown in this case, would be a very powerful deterrent for misuse given the severe impact that such closures potentially have.

I also wonder if the closure order would come from NR, as NR is a quasi not for profit Company, it is a difficult area, fortunately with thousands of these crossing in use, few accidents occur, and I appreciate the cost in bringing convictions by BTP, also the crossing would be for the farm, whose residents & tenants change over time & not for an individual.

 

[HH]

I don't understand your point?

Well, is he Welsh or is he an Englishman living in Wales? (responding to "cue jokes about Welsh people")

 

[Old Timer]

I also wonder if the closure order would come from NR, as NR is a quasi not for profit Company, it is a difficult area, fortunately with thousands of these crossing in use, few accidents occur, and I appreciate the cost in bringing convictions by BTP, also the crossing would be for the farm, whose residents & tenants change over time & not for an individual.

Network Rail, as the railway authority can apply for a level crossing closure, although this has to gain approval from the Secretary of State.

The provision of level crossings is either in perpetuity in the case of occupation crossings, or until the land awner changes on the opposite side of the Railway. The accommodation crossing being specifically provide to accommodate access by the land owner across the Railway.

An Order can be requested for an Accommodation crossing which has fallen into disuse, however the strategy was generally to leave well alone, remove the timbers and eventually close the fence. Because disuse has normally occurred because the farmer may have acquired access through, or possession of, fields on the other side it was considered better to let sleeping dogs lie, especially when "rights" of use get forgotten about.

With regards to the penalties imposed, the problem historically has been three-fold. Firstly rural Magistrates were typically drawn from the land owning classes, and those whose businesses depended on the farmers in the local area, thus there was always going to be an inbuilt bias. Secondly Magistrates have never ever taken the serious nature of incidents on the Railway very seriously as can be seen even today by the very light sentences still imposed even for the most breathtaking of abuse or act which has endangered trains. In this the Police have their hands tied, they can only bring the case to the Court. Thirdly, certainly in BR days we were seen as the overbearing Nationalised Industry trying to brow beat the humble poor old working Farmer who was struggling to live. This was re-inforced by the local media who would alsways portray this and that picture was then always taken up by the national papers who were always happy to use any opportunity to run a nasty BR story. It was always the same, either the farmer were a poor unfortunate who just happened to have been caught unawares by this hulking great train, or BR were responsible by not providing a fully automated crossing with signals, etc, etc even though there was clear evidence that telephones had not been used or a "crossing keeper" appointed by the farmer. Indeed in one particular case I remember a local paper pushing the line that because it was summer, and farmers were constantly crossing and recrossing over the crossings without stopping and checking, that BR should arrange for all trains to approach the crossing slowly ! :roll: :roll: :roll:

That pretty much sums matters up, and is probably as valid today as it was 40 odd years ago.

 

[The Decapod]

John Henry Watkyn-James doesn't sound very Welsh to me.

Watkin is a common name in Wales, often as part of a double-barrel name, depite the fact that the Welsh language doesn't normally use the letter 'k'.

 

[Pacerpilot]

A couple of pics I took after the incident...

By the time I got back to the crossing. The guy was at the far end of field, feeding his horses as If nothing had happened. Unbelievable.
The sentence is laughable. The train was doing 75mph on approach and the crossing is not blessed with the best sighting. Had it have been on of the 14Xs I dont know whether we'd have been as lucky.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Had it have been on of the 14Xs I dont know whether we'd have been as lucky.

However, someone cannot be convicted on what could have happened, only what did happen.

 

[Nym]

He endangered the life of every passenger on that train and interfered with railway operations, trespassed on the railway, need I go on?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

And that is an offence he could have been charged with. But you can't say "He should have been charged with murder because he could have killed someone if it was a class 142" as that didn't happen.

 

[BestWestern]

A couple of pics I took after the incident...

By the time I got back to the crossing. The guy was at the far end of field, feeding his horses as If nothing had happened. Unbelievable.

I'm glad it wasn't me driving that train, I'd have lumped the t*at