|
The reason Gary Hart is going to prison is that, in the eyes of the Establishment, he is a nobody who will not be missed. Several train disasters which cost many more than 10 lives in recent years have been blamed directly on the negligence of those responsible for running the railways. No one has been jailed for their pre-meditated negligence in any of those cases. Gary Hart made a mistake which any of us could and probably have made in our driving carreers, fortunately without consequence. Putting him in jail will not do anyone any good whatsoever.
|
>>Gary Hart made a mistake which any of us could
Gary Hart has been found guilty. Therefore I assume that he deliberately drove while unfit to do so. It was not a mistake, it was an intentional act based on bad judgement.
Indeed any of us could do the same. We could also go and murder people with knives, but we don't. The fact that we could do this, does not mean that those who actually do so deserve leniency or sympathy.
Through recklessness he caused lives to be ruined and people to be maimed and killed.
There is no excuse.
There is no reason for leniency.
|
I have to disagree on this, Mark. Jails are to keep criminals out of society. The consequences of Gary Hart's mistake were terrible, but it was caused by an error of judgement as to whether he was fit to drive. I know from experience that falling asleep at the wheel is something that can happen without you even realising it. I was fortunate enough to have a passenger who was alert enough to grab the wheel and stick her elbow in my ribs. I shudder to think what might have happened otherwise.
Perhaps my experience is why I feel for him. I'll admit, however, if I were a relative of one of the victims my views might be different. A Liberal is only a Conservative who has never been mugged.
|
I'm with Tom on this one.
Mr Hart was up late trying to make a relationship. The fact that he was cheating on his wife is neither here nor there, he could have been single. He could also have been kept awake by a newborn child, by a neighbours party, dog or whatever.
He then had to get to work, don't we all recognise that "had to", it means getting the next contract, it means maitaining your professional profile.
He fell asleep.
If he had been just a few yards differently placed on the road, if the barrier had been longer, if the ground he ran down had been softer or harder, if there had been a wall, if the GNER train had (or indeed had not for we do not know) been delayed by a passenger boarding late, if the coal train was early/late, if the points that fatally derailled the GNER train had not been there.
That is my worry, there are too many if's. Was the thousand to one outcome really linked to the "choice" to drive fatigued.
To me death by dangerous driving is what happens when you hack round blind bends at 60 and meet a pedestrian or cyclist. The link is apparent to the slack witted.
Here it was the conjunction of if to the power of x
|
> Mr Hart was up late trying to make a relationship.
Poor Mr. Hayes. Poor little Mr. Hayes. And the people on the train ? What did they do wrong and how should they understand that poor Mr. Hayes hurt, injured, maimed and killed them because he was trying to make a relationship ?
> The fact that he was cheating on his wife is neither here nor there,
> he could have been single. He could also have been kept awake
> by a newborn child, by a neighbours party, dog or whatever.
On this we agree. I don't care what he was doing. He was unfit to drive and probably knew it. He drove, recklessly, whilst unfit to do so. He was quite happy to take the risk. A risk is exactly that, it is a bet that something wopn't happen - in this case, it did.
> He then had to get to work, don't we all recognise that "had
> to", it means getting the next contract, it means maitaining
> your professional profile.
Oh I recognise it. I've even done it. That makes me just as stupid, reckless, negligent and pathetic as Mr Hayes, just slightly luckier.
> To me death by dangerous driving is what happens when you
> hack round blind bends at 60 and meet a pedestrian or
> cyclist.
You mean to do something reckless and stupid even knowing there could be horrible results ? I agree. And the different between that and driving whilst unfit would be what exactly ?
He was an idiot who recklessly endangered the lives of others and subsequently killed them. And none of you will ever convince me otherwise than that he should be punished to the hilt.
>The link is apparent to the slack witted.
And the link between falling asleep and accidents is somewhat more obtuse ?
Everybody should take personal responsibility for what they do. If you screw up, especially recklessly, then suffer, and please, suffer a lot.
I used to have a nephew.
Mark.
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
> I used to have a nephew.
Mark,
I am sorry if my post in any way intruded on your personal experience, either with this asleep at the wheel incident or another.
Much of what you say I agree with, the man was probably stupid to set out and more stupid to continue.
I am just left thinking that if he had killed a workman on the hard shoulder, or a cyclist on the non motorway section of the journey, he would not now face jail. Yet that is a consequence far more easily forseen than what actually happened.
|
I am given to understand that there is a £50m Insurance tab to be picked up from the Selby train crash. The Insurance company concerned picks up the first portion and then, I understand, the rest of the cost is met from "spread" insurance (in Germany). It may be of some re-assurance to some voices in this thread that this Court case is but the start, Civil cases will plod on for years and the barrier design will probably be brought into question at some stage. What can be certain our premiums will be impacted as money is clawed back from the punters. I won't comment on the case as I only know what I have read in the papers and heard on the radio - but what I will suggest (note: suggest) is that the Crown's case revolved around the sleep issue and that this was probably their basis for the reckless element (i.e. the driver was reckless in not resting before the accident ).
I tend to agree with the views of the anti-prison brigade here. Don't know the current per week cost of keeping a guy (or gal) in a cell but guess somewhere in the region of 2k plus. Would it not be better in harnessing this guy's skills for the sake of the community ? I agree with Mark (B) here, what are Prisons for ? - we lock up more kids than any other Western Country and believe me that is an upward trend !
|
|
|
|
|
Get vindictive, some of us.
|
|
|
|
Tom Shaw wrote:
>
Tom, I appreciate your opinion, but whilst I think we'll never agree, I can't avoid a final couple of points.
> I have to disagree on this, Mark. Jails are to keep criminals
> out of society.
If you refer to the other thread, one of my points was that socienty doesn't actually know what jails are for.
1) Removal
2) Restribution
3) Punishment
4) Rehabilitation
5) Deterrent
As a society, everything would be easier if we all understood those differences, even if we didn't agree on the answer. However, society, the people within it, and the law have no real coherent clue what we are trying to do with jail terms.
> but it was caused by an error of judgement as to
> whether he was fit to drive.
I disagree, which is dangerous since i am not him and am trying to satte what I think he thought - if you follow me.
If the situation was - I have really thought about my condition and the ramifications and implications, and I believe I am safe to drive, then maybe you have a point. However, that would make him a special man and I doubt it.
More likely was a thought process which terminated with something along the lines of "oh, I'll be alright", "It´ll never happen to me" or "I'll pay attention" then he was reckless.
Even more likely is the fact that he didn't think about it at all.
At least in the event of the more likely second two, you or I might think about it and that might just prevent something nasty.
M.
|
|
|
|
dont agree with you
it is outrageous that the people employed by or for the establishment never take their share of the blame
for instance people responsible for the barriers here should be in court no question...
also this verdict doesnt seem at all fair when i know of several old dears who have killed motorcyclists by pulling out of a side road into them, on the whole
i) they are not locked up
ii) they are not banned
in my view the system is wrong here
several people have been killed by police drivers this year, none of those coppers have been locked up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, HJ - I hesitate to say 'b*ll*x' - I can't accept that speed is to be advised as a means to keep non-alert drivers alert. I concede that it might work for a few, but I would be happier to err on the side of safety.
|
|
|
|
