Merseyrail Guard on Trial (Report now out)

[Clip]

and Angmering, where a 16-year old three times over the legal limit and wearing high heels fell - shudderingly familiar, though in this case it looks like the guard was not prosecuted.

I also noticed reference to this in the RAIB report too.


Could someone tell me what is the legal limit for alcohol in your bloodstream please? If there isnt one then there is no reason why it should be used as a measuring stick.

And even if they are referring to the drink drive limit then that is wrong also as these people are not driving and the limit is prohibitivly low for a very specific reason and should not be used as a comparison to people who are not walking around.

 

[8J]

Yes, but don't forget that there are bye laws in place meaning that you cannot travel if merseyrail see you unsafe to do so. This is not strictly applied enough to stop accidents like this happening again...

 

[Clip]

But thats not what I am asking.

 

[Phil6219]

Could someone tell me what is the legal limit for alcohol in your bloodstream please? If there isnt one then there is no reason why it should be used as a measuring stick.

As far as I understand it there isn't one (for everyday sitting around) the limits come in when undertaking tasks such as driving, flying, reporting for duty etc...

That's not to say the police will not arrest someone for being too drunk to move, hence the charge "Drunk and Incapable".

My biggest query is the actual term "under the influence of alcohol", how can the law define at what point does someone become under the influence? Everyone has a different tolerance, If I drank a full bottle of scotch I would consider myself very much under the influence but if I only had 2 jars then I wouldn't. The court on the other hand may disagree.

With regard to the measuring stick in this case, the girl was very much underage and shouldn't have had any alcohol to start with. She was very much under the influence given the extreme difficulties in standing up, moving around and getting off at the wrong station twice on the same journey.

Either way that's a bit of a digression on my part. For a change

Phil

 

[eastdyke]

...
Could someone tell me what is the legal limit for alcohol in your bloodstream please?
...

I think that if you are in your own home it is as much as you can drink?

Outside your own home your own personal limit would be slightly less.

Reference to the 'Drink Drive Limit' is reference to an arbitrary level where you might or might not be able to safely complete a given task (driving a motor vehicle). And seems to have more or less universal use to imply capablity to do anything at all.

 

[transmanche]

Could someone tell me what is the legal limit for alcohol in your bloodstream please? If there isnt one then there is no reason why it should be used as a measuring stick.

And even if they are referring to the drink drive limit then that is wrong also as these people are not driving and the limit is prohibitivly low for a very specific reason and should not be used as a comparison to people who are not walking around.

From the RAIB report:

"The toxicology report concluded that her blood alcohol concentration was nearly three times the UK legal drink drive limit of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, which would cause a high level of intoxication in the average social drinker, most of whom would experience adverse effects including a lack of co-ordination and impaired judgement. The toxicology report also recorded evidence of mephedrone in the young person’s blood. However, the report concluded that the drug’s influence on her behaviour was not known as there is little published information on expected blood concentrations following use or how quickly it is eliminated from the body."

As you can see, they were referring to the legal drink drive limit. But that makes sens as it's a frame of reference that most people can understand. And they've also explained the effects that might have. (And also consider her age and build too.)

 

[Clip]

As far as I understand it there isn't one (for everyday sitting around) the limits come in when undertaking tasks such as driving, flying, reporting for duty etc...
That's not to say the police will not arrest someone for being too drunk to move, hence the charge "Drunk and Incapable".

My biggest query is the actual term "under the influence of alcohol", how can the law define at what point does someone become under the influence? Everyone has a different tolerance, If I drank a full bottle of scotch I would consider myself very much under the influence but if I only had 2 jars then I wouldn't. The court on the other hand may disagree.

Either way that's a bit of a digression on my part. For a change

Phil

And thats my point. Why are people constantly using it as a measuring tool. Driving you can have a little. Flying and reporting for duty is zero tolerance.

Im sure there have been many of us who have gone out and had more than 3 times the drink drive limit in our blood and not been drunk and incapable yet still fell under a train and would have that used against us in a situation. Yet would still be steady on our feet and not drunk at all.

Remember the drink drive limit is very low. Something like a half or a pint of weak beer. so 3 of them and your 3 times over the limit. I could probably drink about 15 and still not be drunk as im a big lad, like, so it would be unfair to use that in court if i had 3 yet wasnt drunnk.

Which is why I ask why they use it for someone who is not driving. It is useless.

 

[richw]

And thats my point. Why are people constantly using it as a measuring tool. Driving you can have a little. Flying and reporting for duty is zero tolerance.

Im sure there have been many of us who have gone out and had more than 3 times the drink drive limit in our blood and not been drunk and incapable yet still fell under a train and would have that used against us in a situation. Yet would still be steady on our feet and not drunk at all.

Remember the drink drive limit is very low. Something like a half or a pint of weak beer. so 3 of them and your 3 times over the limit. I could probably drink about 15 and still not be drunk as im a big lad, like, so it would be unfair to use that in court if i had 3 yet wasnt drunnk.

Which is why I ask why they use it for someone who is not driving. It is useless.

I'm also a big lad and 3 times the drink drive limit for me maybe twice as much alcohol as that for a small skinny person. My personal drink drive tolerance is zero, three times that is still zero.
I've been known to drink 20 pints and still be in control of myself, yet someone of a small build might be dangerous if they drunk this much. It's not a scale that is comparable.

 

[transmanche]

Which is why I ask why they use it for someone who is not driving. It is useless.

See post #66

 

[Clip]

See post #66

I did. But they still cannot use it to ascertain for sure if any person is actually drunk. Its not a marker for a universal 'You're over the limit so you must be drunk' claim which is my point.

Its a limit for a certain activity.

And they also cant differentiate whether it was the mephadrone in her system that was making her act like she was or the drink. Its all theory.


But in case I havent made myself clear one bit - the drink drive limit for how much alcohol you have in your system can not and should not be the measure for if you are drunk or not. If you think it should be then after a pint of a reasonable beer with a high strength then not one of you should be travelling on the railway as you are drunk.

Doesnt seem fair now does it. Maybe we should introduce breathalisers at all stations so no one can get the train because they are drunk because they are over the drink drive limit. That includes many on here who enjoy a drink whilst at the restaurant car or from the trolley. Im going to breathalise you because you have had 2 heinekens and are now over the limit so you must leave at the next station please because you are now drunk.


Extreme I know - but if you are going to use it as a barometer for one then you need to use it for all or stop using it.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't read it as the RAIB attempting to indicate how drunk she was but simply an easy way of quickly indicating the level of alcohol found in her system. I don't know about you but telling me her blood/alcohol level was three times that of the legal limit for driving means far more than telling me she had 240 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Also I've not had chance to read the report in full yet but I don't think that the RAIB have suggested that there is a need to set a limit for being on the railway (that could then be tested)? They're simply using it a way of giving information in a clear and understandable manner. At least that's my reading of it.

 

[swj99]

Could someone tell me what is the legal limit for alcohol in your bloodstream please?
.....even if they are referring to the drink drive limit then that is wrong also as these people are not driving and the limit is prohibitively low for a very specific reason and should not be used as a comparison...........

Apart from drink drive limits, I don't know if there are any.

There are of course, prohibitions on the consumption of alcohol for various people in safety critical roles, I'm not aware of any other legal limits on alcohol in the bloodstream, apart from common sense, or a lack of it, and the fact that everyone has their limits, beyond which death by alcohol poisoning and other related conditions and accidents becomes more than just a remote possibility.

I think the reason the drink drive limit is mentioned in situations such as this is for comparison purposes. As has already been quite correctly mentioned, this is not totally accurate, because some people have a higher tolerance to alcohol (and drugs) than others, and not everyone behaves the same when they have consumed alcohol.
There is however, other legislation which is used, or intended to be used in relation to alcohol. From what has already been said in this thread, it would appear there is a railway byelaw which can be used to remove a person from a train or railway property if they are considered to be intoxicated. I understand that this is subjective and really depends on whether someone else believes a person to be drunk. The problem with this is that there are occasions where it is difficult to tell if someone is drunk, or simply ill.
There are even laws relating to serving alcohol to people who already appear drunk, however in practice, if these rules were strictly enforced, even more pubs would close forever and be demolished or turned into flats.

I've got no problem with anyone having a drink if they want one. Or several drinks if they can actually handle it. What I do object to is situations where people drink lots of alcohol, and then act as if they are no longer responsible for their actions, or attempt to use their alcohol induced state as an excuse for their behaviour. In a few tragic cases, people take it too far, and end up dead.

Driving you can have a little

Personally, I don't drink at all if I'm driving. I know I've had alcohol after just one drink, so I prefer not to risk it. I don't feel much different whether it's one glass of wine, or a whole bottle, but I certainly wouldn't do anything afterwards of a safety critical nature, whether it was legal or not.

Christopher McGee's actions and the RAIB report notwithstanding, I believe Georgia Varley may well have still been alive today if she had not been so intoxicated.

 

[khib70]

Certainly train dispatch is and may become a bit of a hot potato relations-wise at present - sitting entirely on the fence regarding the merits or otherwise, but stating a fact, all RMT guards, platform staff and retail staff at East Midlands Trains are being balloted for industrial action short of a strike regarding the expansion of self dispatch of trains by guards within the company.

Absolutely

But this is a good juncture to remember that thousands of rail staff despatch thousands of trains on a daily basis. And while any accident is tragic, the number of deaths and injuries is incredibly low, considering that any interaction between a large moving object and humans is potentially lethal. Factor in crowds, alcohol and time pressures and the low accident rate is a tribute to the professionalism of rail staff.

In the light of a lapse by a single individual, who has more than paid the price, we shouldn't ever forget that.

 

[IanXC]

Remember the drink drive limit is very low. Something like a half or a pint of weak beer. so 3 of them and your 3 times over the limit. I could probably drink about 15 and still not be drunk as im a big lad, like, so it would be unfair to use that in court if i had 3 yet wasnt drunnk.

Remember that that alchohol is therefore spread over a larger amount of blood, so to reach the same concentration of alchohol in your blood would require a proportionally larger amount of alchohol. Perhaps not 15 but the measure isn't a blunt instrument.

 

[snail]

I did. But they still cannot use it to ascertain for sure if any person is actually drunk. Its not a marker for a universal 'You're over the limit so you must be drunk' claim which is my point.

But it is a marker for being under the influence of alcohol. You may not feel drunk after your 15 pints but some functions will be impaired (including your ability to recognise how much effect the alcohol is having). What is notable in this case is that the RAIB and court evidence refer to the young person having been drinking and conclude that it will have had some impact on her judgement, which the guard should have taken account of under his duty of care.

People will have a reasonable idea of what it means to be over the legal limit for driving and the effect that has on people, so stating that someone is 3 times the limit suggests they should be visibly intoxicated. The RAIB refer to that, and the fact she was wearing high heels, as making the young person more likely to fall and the guard should have noted that.

 

[Flamingo]

Alcohol is a drug that effects the central nervous system, the warning " do not drive or operate heavy machinery" would be applied to it if prescribed. It used to be used as an anaesthetic agent before the introduction of more efficient agents.

A certain level of tolerance can be developed from repeated exposure to it, but this would vary according to the individual concerned, and the dose of the drug that causes impairment vary widely.

However, there is no argument that it does cause impairment, both in physical coordination and thought processes. The impairment of thought processes may occur long before any loss of physical co-ordination is apparent.

Any argument that this unfortunate young lady would not have been suffering from mental and physical effects from her alcohol consumption ( even taking the drugs out of the equation) are simply wrong. The only argument is by how much would she have been impaired, and by reference to others with a similar blood- alcohol level with similar physical characteristics, it is reasonable to assume she would probably have suffered a significant degree of impairment.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So on reading the report, 3 things for me stand out

Poor Training/Monitoring

Actions of the Guard

Poor design of rolling stock.




For me management need to really have a long hard look at themselves in all this from Director level Down, The trouble with the railway is the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. Training fails to move with the times as the population ages and the sub culture of drinking gets ever more present especially around the mid teen age range it needs to be made absolutely clear that we as Traincrew professionals have a care of duty and that is set in stone. Too many of us (me included in the past) have thought "everything will be fine" until something like this happens, luckily for a number of years now I have made myself determined to be professional and follow the procedures to the letter (had a scare to myself a few years ago which woke me up) but many still have that same attitude which since this dreadful day alot of people have realised what responsibility that they have.

The Actions of the guard mirrored what I have said above, he assumed that she would move away... she didn't, she died and only he can live with that error for the rest of his life, I still stand by my assumption he is guilty, dealt too harshly (IMHO) but guilty nonetheless.


And Rolling stock IMHO all rolling stock should be able to have drop leaf type windows in the rear cab so we can see out, obviously this cannot work totally on curved platforms etc. but then Network rail need to get there finger out and install mirrors etc in dangerous locations.


Its like the good old swiss cheese effect


When the holes line up, a girl dies and a guard will be scarred for life

and the directors will still get their bonuses

 

[transmanche]

But in case I havent made myself clear one bit - the drink drive limit for how much alcohol you have in your system can not and should not be the measure for if you are drunk or not.

It isn't. And it wasn't in the report.

It was used to give the figures a frame of reference that an ordinary person would understand.

Using that information, plus the knowledge that the deceased was:

• female
• 16 years old
• relatively small in height and build

means we can surmise that she probably was 'more than a little bit tipsy'.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the issue is here. The RAIB report is just stating facts to give context to the accident. It doesn't make a judgement as to whether it contributed to the accident, as that is something outwith the control of the railway. It's conclusions are solely related to those things within the contrl of the railway; i.e. those measures that the railway can take to stop it happening to another person - drunk or sober.

 

[Flamingo]

In any professional situation, if one follows the company written policy to the letter, then any fault that lies with the policy is the responsibility of whoever signed off the policy, and they will be the one in the dock. The company has to have regular reviews of all policies, and a mechanism in place that problems can be reported back in a timely manner, with changes communicated effectively.

The railway is actually quite good at communicating rule changes with safety-critical staff, with rule-book updates coming out, and signed for by staff, and (in my company anyway) memo's and posters about changes posted in obvious places and mail-dropped to individuals.

However, in a lot of other ways that that have a bearing on this case, the railway does not follow it's own procedures, going for the "quiet life" approach. A lack of enforcement of the bylaws, along with an attitude by staff of all grades that "somebody else will do it" ( a view often professed by managers to staff) means that a lot of the bylaws put in place for passenger safety (in this case the bylaws regulating passengers being under the influence of alcohol) are almost never enforced, as managers instruct staff not to get involved in any situation that might cause conflict.

So which instruction and policy do staff follow - Violence at Work, or do they enforce bylaws in place for customer safety (and the inevitable complaints)?

This case does highlight that for us rail staff, if we follow policies to the letter, we "should" be safe, and deviation from those policies allows the blame to be transferred onto us, even when we feel that we are making the right decision by deviating from those policies.

The only thing we now have to figure out is which of the written policies in place we should be following.

 

[jamesst]

That probably relates to Northern (also owned by Abellio and Serco) immediately went to a guard dispatches from the back of the train rule soon after the incident.

Wouldn't following an incorrect dispatch procedure mean an internal discipline opposed to charges?

Not when management actively encouraged it as it kept trains on time...

 

[Ediswan]

Flying and reporting for duty is zero tolerance.

The UK alcohol limit for aviation is 20mg per 100ml of blood.

 

[TDK]

Just shows how peverse the legal system is.

All this prosecution has acheived is vengence*. Nothing else.

Unnecessarily ruining a man and his family's lives so as to satisfy in part some sub human instincts.

Meanwhile the RAIB report will hopefully do some actual good.

I do not have confidence in the RIAB as most of them at no fault of their own are univercity graduates with no railway experience when they are given their jobs, surely the RIAB should have experience ex railway workers carrying out these incestigations? I know this is their recruitment policy as I was going to apply for a post at the RIAB but couldn't complete the application form because one of the questions was "what degrees did you receive when leaving univercity" and no mention on the application form at all regarding railway experience!

 

[daikilo]

Its very interesting that the RAIB report places a lot of emphasis on problems with the procedures of how the trains should be dispatched, technical problems with the stock and with the platform edge.

Then again, RAIB reports are not to establish blame, but to recommend changes that reduce the chances of similar accidents happening again.

Indeed, the RAIB report clearly states that when all the "technical aspects" and "uncertainties" are analysed the guard did NOT take UNdue care. It would be good that courts sought RAIB investigation results before issuing their own, rather than the inverse.

As I believe every word of the RAIB report, there is NO WAY the guard has committed manslaughter.

 

[nag67]

I do not have confidence in the RIAB as most of them at no fault of their own are univercity graduates with no railway experience when they are given their jobs, surely the RIAB should have experience ex railway workers carrying out these incestigations?

90% of the investigators come directly from the railway industry. Their backgrounds cover all the technical and operational disciplines.

 

[Pumbaa]

I do not have confidence in the RIAB as most of them at no fault of their own are univercity graduates with no railway experience when they are given their jobs, surely the RIAB should have experience ex railway workers carrying out these incestigations?

Last I knew RAIB almost exclusively recruited from within the industry... Many people in the industry have degrees ya know...

 

[snail]

Indeed, the RAIB report clearly states that when all the "technical aspects" and "uncertainties" are analysed the guard did NOT take UNdue care.

Are you reading the same report as me? Neither of those phrases appear in it. I am still trying to work out 'not take undue care'...

 

[Ediswan]

It would be good that courts sought RAIB investigation results before issuing their own, rather than the inverse.

To quote the preface of the report:

Preface
1 The purpose of a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigation is to
improve railway safety by preventing future railway accidents or by mitigating their
consequences. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to establish blame
or liability.
2 Accordingly, it is inappropriate that RAIB reports should be used to assign fault
or blame, or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting
process has been undertaken for that purpose.


The AAIB (Air Accidents Investigation Branch) do exactly the same. Their reports are kept separate from any legal proceedings by design. The RAIB and AAIB seek to be objective, to identify facts and make recommendations. UK courts are adversarial and seek to allocate guilt/blame/liabilty, they do not seek the truth. These are two very different processes.

I am more familiar with the AIIB reports. They sometimes leave little doubt over who was responsible for a fatal accident, but they don't have to prove it. If the RAIB reports were part of the legal process, any and every detail could be challenged and argued over.

With the current system, you do get the objective report, eventually.

 

[blacknight]

Are you reading the same report as me? Neither of those phrases appear in it. I am still trying to work out 'not take undue care'...

Guard in James Street took additional measures for despatch for if he had followed official company dispatch process he would have not seen girl once local door was closed & would still have given driver the RA with same consequence.
Maybe if your read report for a second time & look at other examples of incidents that RAIB investigated
Brentwood Primary Cause
Identification of the immediate cause
38 Train 2W10 departed from Brentwood station with a passenger in an unsafe
position between the platform edge and the train.
Kings Cross
Identification of the immediate cause
17 The train departed with the passenger’s fingers trapped in the train doors.
James Street
28 The young person fell through the platform edge gap and onto the track as
the train began to move out of the station.
RAIB report for James Street only as guards actions as a causal factor Not that train departed with passenger in an unsafe postion which puts a hole in case for prosecution.
As in Brentwood incident driver admitted doing final safety check once train was on the move but no further action brought by CPS
As in Kings Cross incident member of staff made an assumption which was incorrect but no further action brought by CPS.
IMO CPS asked for James Street report not to be published because it weakened prosecutions case
Accidents do happen & thats what this was a tragic accident in which young lady died & guard as to bear that for rest of his life

 

[snail]

RAIB report for James Street only as guards actions as a causal factor Not that train departed with passenger in an unsafe postion which puts a hole in case for prosecution.

I think you're reading too much into this. @Ediswan sums up the role of RAIB very clearly. Their remit is to establish cause but not blame.

I don't get how you conclude that authorising the train to depart was not a causal factor. What else can "The guard sent the driver the ‘ready to start’ code, and no subsequent ‘stop’ code, while the young person was leaning against the train" mean (67 a, 'Causal factors')?

 

[blacknight]

I think you're reading too much into this. @Ediswan sums up the role of RAIB very clearly. Their remit is to establish cause but not blame.

I don't get how you conclude that authorising the train to depart was not a causal factor. What else can "The guard sent the driver the ‘ready to start’ code, and no subsequent ‘stop’ code, while the young person was leaning against the train" mean (67 a, 'Causal factors')?

I have not concluded that merely quoted from RAIB report that guards action were a causal factor in the incident. Young girl could just have fallen backwards on to platform but fate had it that she fell under the train instead.
What RAIB an authoritive body had concluded in its report was primary cause was the train had not departed station with a passenger in an unsafe position on the platform which was prosecutions QC case for the conviction of the guard.
As for sending stop code instead of shouting & gesturing for person to stand clear RAIB concluded in time frame of incident it would have made no difference to the out come.
So are we now in this country to convict a person without first looking in to all evidence available?