After seeing the news today the words of the investigating police officer really hit home.
How many of us have either started out early on a long journey or arrived home late?
I doubt there are many who can say they have *never* nodded off, even slightly, on the way home.
Employees driving on the company's behalf are also in the dock, so to speak. All my high mileage is work related and it is not uncommon for me to drive from Taunton to Sittingbourne and back in a day - a 5am start and home by 10pm. The A303 is an easy road to doze off on.
I, for one, will be re-considering how long I spend at the wheel.
Edited by Pugugly on 17/11/2009 at 18:53
|
Sleep deprivation is a interesting subject!
It has been shown that 24 hours of sleep deprivation dulls your reaction time to the equivalent of over the 80mg% alcohol limit (published in the BMJ 2 years ago).Also, the investigating police officer said he wanted to make driving while tired as antisocial as drink driving.
I have a vested interst in this subject. I work a standard "40 hour" week, on top of which I am contracted to work a 32 hour continuous shift 1 day in 4 (i.e. start at 9am 1 morning, finish at 2pm next afternoon, sleep if you're lucky). I am therefore deprived of sleep as part of my contract (I am a trainee in intensive care and anaesthetics). I wonder if I have an accident on my way home after one of these shifts will my employers hold up their hands and say "sorry guys, it was all my fault. How much do I owe you?"
I feel a little aggrieved that my employers demand these working hours off me (for the last 12 years), and then turn around and tell me that sleep deprivation isn't safe, in any arena outside of healthcare/saving lives, we won't tolerate it.
I know that tiredness won't be persued with such vehemence as drink driving, because there isn't a roadside test for tiredness
Sorry to have a rant, but it's often cathartic to get these things off one's chest
Roland
|
Pretty much stuffs all hospital doctors then. I understand they work hideously long hours.
I remember seeing a program showing an instrument in a car, which would only let a sober driver actually start and drive the car (through a breathalizer machine in the dash). Perhaps they can invent one which requires the driver to press a button within a certain amount of time of a light coming on, or to remember a randomly generated 10 digit number. This would obviously stop all those people who dared to drive when a little bit tired.
Incidentally, a police friend of mine once told me that they regularly stop and test drivers who have their windows wide open first thing in the morning during winter, usually because they think they might still be drunk. So better not drive with the window open to keep you awake.
Jonathan
|
|
I couldn't remember a 10 digit number anway, awake, asleep, sober or drunk - not very bright you see - better stop driving then?
|
|
|
|
My employer will launch disciplinary proceedings on any employee deemed to be "at fault" in an accident.
The question "Who deemed me to be at fault?" has been raised but no answer.
If that is their attitude then I can see more nights being spent by Mr Lacey at bland, drive-thru Marriotts, Hiltons et al rather than risking the drive home.
|
|
|
|
you dont get a chance to fall asleep when driving my car, what with all the different loud noises that it makes, and the handling that you have to wrestle with to keep the car under control.
|
|
what i was inventing was a device that was built into the headrest, as soon as the drivers head touches the headrest, a noise wakens the driver, but i didnt think it would work???
|
|
|
|
|
That a good point , but this guy was driving a Land rover - not none for their refinement. The tyre roar alone would keep me awake.
|
|
|
The last post refers to your first post i.e noisy Ladas , not beeping headrests.
Did i just type that ?? Surreal or what !
|
|
the thing that gets me, is that one of the land rovers tyres was bald, so wouldnt the bald tyre make the car pull to the left or right????
|
|
|
|
|
I've got to admit to feeling sorry for the driver of the Land Rover, who has been told to expect a long prison sentence. He made a terrible mistake which resulted in major loss of life, but it is something which many of us could have done at one time or another. There but for the grace of God....
|
|
only a madman would have driven after having NO sleep.
|
|
|
|
I'm not making any judgement on the chap who has been found guilty of causing the accident only to say that it could have been many motorists, even if his seems to have been an exceptional case.
LAC - please leave this thread alone. I'm trying to raise a sensible thread.
|
|
i was trying to give someone an idea, because my idea might be of use to car manufacturers.
|
|
|
|
You tell us Chris - you're the 'expert'....
Tom, I must admit I felt sorry for the driver too - it could well have been any one of us.
The emergency call he made (broadcast on TV tonight) was gut-wrenching.
Rgds
David
|
I like Tom and David feel very sorry for the driver. I do despair at our culture of having to find someone to blame for an accident. It was an awful accident, I'm sure the driver will be punishing himself for the rest of his life without any help from us.
Where do we draw the line, can we also be blamed for an accident if we were worried about something or stressed or upset of not 100% well in some way??
|
Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> I like Tom and David feel very sorry for the driver. I'm sure the driver
> will be punishing himself for the rest of his life without
> any help from us.
I agree. This prosecution is a waste of time.
That is one driver who will *never* fall asleep at the wheel again. Trying to demonize him is a disgrace.
I *do* think it's important to flag that driving while exhausted is wrong, but not with a lengthy prison sentence.
My brother pulled out in front of a car on moped as a kid. He was badly hurt and the police said that he had suffered enough and wouldn't be prosecuted.
I think this guy has suffered enough. He has to live life knowing that he's killed 10 people...
|
|
|
|
LAC - my job and the others of people on this site include working long hours and not just at school like yourself from 8:30 until 3pm.
I am on 24 hour call and have signed away any rights I have under the Working Time Directive. I can been called into a site at any time and for an unspecified number of hours. It has been known for me to work without sleep for 36-48 hours and some weeks up to 90 hours, although exceptional.
I am no mad-man. Just keen on persuing my career.
|
|
my college hours are - 9.30am to 5.00pm, and then i have to go to work from 7.30pm to 12.00 midnight.
|
|
whats wrong with telling people how many hours i study/work.
|
|
|
|
Occasionally (every two weeks or so) we work to a magazine deadline, which means we get out of the office at anywhere between 4 and 6 am. Close-to-24 hours awake, mostly concentrating hard.
Some of the people here (we are right in the centre of the city) will stay afterwards and sleep for a few hours in a convenient corner, rather than drive home tired, as they would have to go across/join into several busy routes.
I'm fortunate that my drive home is all against the traffic.
But on some days I'm so dead on my feet that I really shouldn't be driving.
A good blast of the aircon, and a stop for MORE caffeine in the form of Coca Cola, normally perks me up a bit (so does the nicitine habit, but lets' not go there!).
As mentioned in the thread, there is no real test for tiredness, and in the same way that people say (at least here!) "I'm ok to drive" after a few beers, there is that type of person who says "I'm not too tired to drive". It's a machismo thing!
We are facing our annual road carnage here, as everybody goes off on holiday today. A few years ago, there was a terrible accident as a minibus taxi went out of control at speed, killing most of the occupants. It transpired that the driver had driven from Cape Town to Umtata (about 800 miles), back to CT, back to Umtata, and was heading back to CT *ALL WITHOUT A BREAK* when he went off the road.
Interestingly, I read that the selby driver was up all night on an internet chatline... So anybody who posts in here between 2:00am and 6:00am should be grassed up to plod! (martyn, your job!)
|
|
|
|
|
With the employer/employee/self employed relationship it would be sensible in the ideal world that the working day and the driving hours within that period are monitored to ensure the driver is not put under any commercial driving pressures perhaps the employer or whoever contracted you would be found culpable if the the working regime was proved to be excessive. No doubt something like this introduced the monitoring of HGV drivers. Cost in policing would be the stopper.
|
|
|
Some interesting views in this thread.
I've almost dozed off at the wheel on several occasions - especially in the afternoon when travelling back from business (not even business lunches, I'm afraid).
I've taken to regularly pulling off the motorway and having forty winks, then getting out of the car and walking up and down for ten minutes. It works for me.
The problem is recognising the symptoms in time to do something effective about it. I find tiredness can hit me within about five minutes and there is sometimes an appalling lack of service areas.
One writer reckoned that the noise of a Landie would keep him awake - I don't think it would. I think that sort of lowish drone, even at high volume, is just the sort of noise to send me off. The best night's sleep I ever had was aboard a cable laying vessel in the north sea - my bunk was right over the forward thrusters which were working 24/7.
Ian
|
|
|
I also work long hours, but luckily I don't have far to drive home, and I've never felt at risk of falling asleep then. On longer (motorway) journeys, though, if I feel sleepy I tend to pull off for a rest and refuelling (car and self) at a service station. I have a horror of falling asleep and being responsible for causing an accident.
I recall driving up the M1 (or maybe the M6) a few years back, following a white Fiesta; speed about 65 or so. It was in the middle lane, veering gently into first the nearside, then the outside lane. I flashed my lights, blasted the horn - suddenly the car settled down into the middle lane again. A couple of minutes later, same series of events. A service station appeared, and Fiesta man just carried straight on. One more veering episode, and after waking him up again I just put my foot down and passed, giving a wide berth. I can understand people getting sleepy, but not pulling off after several episodes like that seems irresponsible to me.
Richard
|
SWMBO regularly visits the In-Laws in Beaufort West, about 500kms away.
On the way there, on the N1, there is a bad stretch of road notorious for accidents, and the police say they are mostly caused by falling asleep.
What they've done to counter this is put up rumble strips on the roads every so often. They give you a jolt (noisewise) but don't affect the handling at all. Soon afterwards, they have signs saying "TIRED? STOP AND REST!", and there is a laybye a kilometre further on, well signposted.
It seems to work quite well.
Another advantage is that the noise as you cross the strips gets quite high-pitched if you are flooring it - a good reminder to check the speedo, and slow down a touch.
|
|
|
|
I made a mistake in starting a second thread that distracted from this one as badly as the crass comments from LAS. Andy posted this thoughtful comment which was far more appropriate to this first thread. I have taken the liberty of shifting it here now so it appears in correct time/discussion order. David W
Author: Andy (---.nhs.uk)
Date: 14-12-01 09:31
If anyone saw the program on BBC1 at 22:35 last night...
I would be interested to know the legal perspective on the case, if DVD, Mark (Brazil) or anyone else can help.
I am sure that someone will have the correct figures, but if driver error is the cause of > 90% of all accidents, then is every culpable driver responsible for a fatal road crash going to be sent to prison for a considerable period of time, like Gary Hart?
Personally, I do not agree with his "thousand mile an hour life style" but, as many people testify, long working hours followed by long journeys are part of the modern working life. I think that this basically comes down to employers needing to appreciate that travel time is part of any working day and not an automatic add-on to the normal working day.
In the aftermarth of September 11, it was widely reported that Americans use airplanes as hop on, hop off internal transport. Thus, the security was relatively lax to speed up the whole check in and flight process. Never having visited America, I may not be the one to comment, but I wonder if we, in Britain, subconsciously, rely on the car in the way Americans relied on airplanes. Maybe, if our country was bigger, the high number of miles travelled by certain people would be deemed not possible and alternatives would be found. But, the Mondeo and Vectra culture is well and truly with us and, I suspect, even the example of Gary Hart will not live long enough in the memory to make any real change...
Yours
Andy
|
> I would be interested to know the legal perspective on the case, if DVD, Mark (Brazil) or anyone else can help.
Not really my area, but I can give you some thoughts.
There are many examples where the result governs the crime and the punishment. For example, if you fire a shotgun into a tree in an area you have no right to do so, the punishment and crime is one thing, but if some cyclist happens to go between you and the tree at the critical moment, it would be homicide and could be argued as murder.
Ditto car accidents. There are many more simple examples; lose it on a corner and hit a tree - at worse careless driving; child standing in front of tree, quite a different matter.
It depends on proving how close the link(s) and how inevitable the progress between the original act and the final result.
You'd have to say, not that I am familiar with this case, that falling asleep, driving off a road and causing a train to crash is pretty well-linked.
Would you have felt the same if he had been speeding ? If he had driven at 100mph, lost control, swerved off the road, etc. etc. etc. the public and the media and perhaps a large proportion of the backroom would be baying for the guy's blood. Is driving whilst tired more forgivable, more understandable, less irresponsible and less of a crime than speeding at, for example, 95 ??
How about if it had been a 19yr old in a beaten up escort with a baseball cap on his way home from a party, although not drunk, with a bald tyre which he knew was bald, which blew and he left the road........
The general public continually add confusion. How many times do you hear the public, or the Sun screaming for death penalty, castration, whatever, when the actual action was minor, it was only the result which was catastrophic.
I dare to suggest that one of the clouding issues is that we can all envisage ourselves in that situation. Well, I apologise for my opinion, but we would all have been equally wrong. We would all have been irresponsible, perhaps criminally so, and we should have had the responsibility to stop.
And just as a point, my last two years in the UK I put 96,000 business miles on my car. I did get too tired and I did end up with my head down sleeping in a layby or services or whatever.
And always helped by the police in this respect. There is many the time when I have stopped driving through tiredness and a police car has pulled up, listened to the explanation and assuming I was parked somewhere safe, promised to keep an eye out for me as he patrols around.
Equally, I have had the "floppy head" bit and driven when I was too tired. Its wrong, its criminal and it has potentially disastrous results.
If Mr. Whatevr receives a huge penalty and it stops one person driving whilst over-tired and therefore prevents the death of another person - was it worth it ? If it prevents the deaths of 1000 people, was it worth it ? Where's the line ?
We need to separate between guilt (i.e. He *did* fall asleep and have an accident and cause death) and punishment. It is, surely, impossible to argue that he was not guilty. However, it is possible to argue about what should be the punishment.
However, we will not sort this out until we decide what the penalty is for (especially imprisonment);
1) Revenge
2) Removal
3) Deterrent
4) Rehabilitation
Sadly, it is all too often number 1 which, which whilst understandable, is most inappropriate.
> I am sure that someone will have the correct figures, but if driver error is the cause of 90% of all accidents, then is every culpable driver responsible for
>a fatal road crash going to be sent to prison for a considerable period of time,
I suspect it depends on the results of his negligence and the attention from the press/other media.
However, don't forget, just because an accident involved, or was even caused by, driver error, does not neccessarily make that driver negligent or liable.
> Personally, I do not agree with his "thousand mile an hour life style" but, as many people testify, long working hours followed by long journeys are part of
> the modern working life. I think that this basically comes down to employers
needing to appreciate that travel time is part of any working day and not an
>automatic add-on to the normal working day.
And that would take you down the route of the US approach to personal responsibility - i.e. they are not expected to have any. This is not a good thing.
Employers should be prevented from dismissing or harming the career of someone who refuses to drive under such circumstances, but you can't expect an employer to decide when the driver should or should not drive.
Standing back, awaiting the bullets and flaming arrows................
|
|
|
|
How can you feel sorry for this guy.
1 Did he sadly cause the death of 10 people. YES.
2 Is driving whilst asleep patently dangerous. YES
3 Are you likely to be tired if you haven't gone to bed for 24 hours. YES
The reason for not going to bed is irrelevant it could be looking after some poorly child or chatting up a lady on the phone and internet. The reason is largely irrelevant. It's just plain stupid to do this.
The law says this is wreckless and he can expect to pay the price.
Large heavy fast moving bits of metal are inherently dangerous and need the full respect which this guy failed to give.
|
James S wrote:
>
> How can you feel sorry for this guy.
> 1 Did he sadly cause the death of 10 people. YES.
> 2 Is driving whilst asleep patently dangerous. YES
> 3 Are you likely to be tired if you haven't gone to bed for
> 24 hours. YES
All true! Problem is all of us have to drive when tired/ill/distracted.
So picking on the unlucky guy who has a one in a million misfortune to cause untold suffering because of it seems harsh.
|
|
|
While what you say is strictly correct in terms of the facts, I find it difficult to judge this purely in terms of the outcome of this driver's acts. Had he left home a few seconds later or his Land-Rover left the road a couple of yards later or earlier, would any of us be aware of the existence of Gary Hart? His behaviour would be the same but the outcome perhaps only a hole in a fence and a difficult recovery job from a farmer's field. The punishment? Maybe a ticking off from the traffic police or a careless driving prosecution with a £150 fine and points.
We don't yet know what the sentence will be but are assured it will be somewhat more severe. In the past magistrates and judges have come in for criticism where they have imposed 'normal' fines and points in motoring cases where fatalities have occurred. Presumably, they made their decisions on those punishments on the basis that the offender did not set out with deliberate intention to kill or commit an offence and the outcome was the result of circumstance. It is clearly painful when the outcome is as severe as the Selby train crash but I can't agree that the punishment should be any different to that imposed had the Land-Rover left the road anywhere else on its journey.
About 18 months ago, I was driving down a dual carriageway in Syria when a light truck drifted on to the central reservation from the opposite direction, tipped over in the gully and unloaded its contents about 30m in front of me. The driver crawled out and admitted he had fallen asleep. I drove off through a carpet of uncooked chicken pieces which was all I mentioned to the guys at work as a somewhat surreal experience. A few metres after the truck left the carriageway was a flat crossover point in the reservation. A couple of seconds of difference might have turned that 'amusing' accident into a fatal crash.
Preventing drivers from driving when they shouldn't is difficult. I agree it would be beneficial for employers to look harder at their responsibilities in creating the conditions in which some people are obliged to be on the roads when they are not functioning at 100% of capacity. We can help by reminding ourselves that our first duties in matters or health and safety are to ourselves, and by extension to our families and other people in proximity to us, not to a corporate entity.
The stick approach might mean extra legislation. UK law doesn't seem very strong on corporate liability whereas in some other countries the principle is well established and the managers of companies are regularly prosecuted and jailed. In Syria, the driver of any public transport bus is immediately jailed for one week in the event of any injury accident, without waiting for the investigation of what may have happened. Any motorist involved in a fatal collision there is also advised to go straight into protective custody and then negotiate release. Syrian law recognises that all parties in an accident may be at fault and apportions blame in many instances ie the person who stops suddenly without good reason may be held 30% to blame for the driver who rear-ends him. Both get fined.
Perhaps we should consider something along the lines of immediate driving licence suspension during the preliminary investigation of certain offences where public safety is seriously put at risk by avoidable carelessness. It would not prevent the habitual drunk or drug user from driving when they shouldn't but might help concentrate the minds of others who take too many risks they shouldn't.
David
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the compulsory retro-fit of 'tachograph' style equipment to company cars would be a good idea, similar to those found in lorries etc, but a more compact version.
Any business mileage would need to be recorded on this in order to recieve expenses reimbursement. I agree this would not work for personal driving however and is not an ideal solution. I would not want to be 'tachographed' for my own personal driving, since it reinforces the 'big-brother' feeling we all hate.
I find it a good idea to crank up the stereo and put on some sing-a-long music. This only ever occurs when I am on my own however!
LAC - (sorry to keep him going chaps) I saw a device on the TV a while ago that was designed to fit around your ear (like a hearing aid) and when you head tilted past a certain angle it would alert you that your nodding off with a loud buzzing noise.
It was a good idea, but often it is too late buy this time and the driver has already lost control, although it may save a few lives and accidents.
Mark.
|
|
|
I always get a warning sign if I am getting tired in that I start to get double vision, so I can recognise it.
However, finding somewhere to pull off on main roads can be difficult as lay-bys seem to have gone out of fashion, and pulling onto the hard shoulder on a motorways earns a ticket.
With regard to the Selby incident, was the charge correct? true. Starting out when tired is reckless, but the consequences could not be foreseen. He might not have an accident at all, might have killed or injured himself only, might have killed a hundred people.
There were actually three accidents that day. The first was when he ran off the road. No injuries resulted. The second was when the passenger train hit the car. Only minor injuries resulted. The third was when the passenger train hit the coal train. Ten deaths resulted.
He was actually only responsible for the first accident. The other two were unexpected consequences. Yet he was convicted on the results of the third accident.
|
It is the undoubted truth of Brian's last paragraph which leaves me concerned about the outcome of this trial and how we view such events in the future.
David
|
Incidently, in a car it's wise to always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
Is this not the case in trains?
What are the rules? Does the driver look out of the window at all?
I'm not suggesting the train drivers are at fault - maybe it's acceptable in a train to assume you have clear track in a way that it isn't in a car.
|
|
|
|
A judgement like this should hammer home the responsibilities of driving and the consequences of your actions when behind the wheel.
But I doubt it will have any effect on those it should....
Piers
|
|
|
|
|
is stopping for a rest to save a potential disaster not a good enough reason to stop on the hard shoulder?
|
No it isn't because those who do just the same as this fellow, but get away with it, usually drift onto the hard shoulder for a few yards before they wake up.
Hence the advice to leave a broken down car on the hard shoulder and sit at the top of the embankment.
David
|
|
|
|
David Millar
An excellent post. Just thinking back to last night's programme, Gary Hart was filmed climibing into the driver's side of another car, since the accident. So I presume, and I may be wrong, that he was not banned from driving, despite the fact that he is shortly to go to prison because of reckless driving. I guess that he had not, at that stage, been found guilty. Imagine though, if he, or someone else who was a more clear cut "reckless driver", caused another fatal accident before he was sentenced.
As I said in my earlier post, this verdict does not sit comfortably with me, although I still have not made up my mind on what I think the correct punishment should be. I have a feeling that this case may set a bad precedent, because the police and judiciary want to clamp down on falling asleep at the wheel and feel that this case will serve as a strong reminder.
Dave
I think I heard last night that one of the trains, I cannot remember which, would have taken one quarter of a mile to come to a complete stop under braking. The benefit of trains is that they should have a scheduled clear track to run on, and thus can travel at higher speeds.
Interesting line of thought though. Children are told not to play on railway lines, what about on roads...
Yours
Andy
|
Andy wrote:
> I think I heard last night that one of the trains, I cannot
> remember which, would have taken one quarter of a mile to
> come to a complete stop under braking. The benefit of trains
> is that they should have a scheduled clear track to run on,
> and thus can travel at higher speeds.
>
> Interesting line of thought though. Children are told not to
> play on railway lines, what about on roads...
Interesting. So someone could argue that trains should slow right down so they can always stop in the distance they can see.
In that light it strikes me that what made the deaths inevitable was the train drivers' inability to see a safe distance (1/4 mile) in front of them...
Put's a whole different perspective on the crash.
|
|
|
|
Dave
Like I said in my first post this morning, I would be intrigued to hear the lines of legal argument. Again, on the BBC One programme last night, a driver who fell asleep, crossed onto the other side of the road, causing a fatality was acquitted. Doubts remain in my mind.
Yours
Andy
|
Andy wrote:
>
> Dave
>
> Like I said in my first post this morning, I would be
> intrigued to hear the lines of legal argument. Again, on the
> BBC One programme last night, a driver who fell asleep,
> crossed onto the other side of the road, causing a fatality
> was acquitted. Doubts remain in my mind.
Yeah! It's easy to say treatment of Hart is too harsh! Harder to think of an appropriate punishment for what he did....
Need the judgement of Soloman!
|
|
I posted the same comment about sight lines/stopping distances on the second thread before I read this one.
I think that it takes a LOT longer than a quarter of a mile to stop a train going at nearly 120 mph. Probably nearer a mile.
However, is it acceptable to run a public transport system on the assumption that your controls are 100% foolproof?
|
Brian wrote:
>
> I posted the same comment about sight lines/stopping
> distances on the second thread before I read this one.
> I think that it takes a LOT longer than a quarter of a mile
> to stop a train going at nearly 120 mph. Probably nearer a
> mile.
So moving train is completely out of control? It can't move left or right and can't speed up / slow down.
|
|
|
The fact is that high profile cases that attract media attention, with relatives whipped into court and suchlike, and pages of reporting every day, do get the accused clobbered more. And juries do hear things they are not SUPPOSED to attend to, in practice.
Whether you approve depends on whether you want justice or revenge.
|
Tomo wrote:
>
> The fact is that high profile cases that attract media
> attention, with relatives whipped into court and suchlike,
> and pages of reporting every day, do get the accused
> clobbered more. And juries do hear things they are not
> SUPPOSED to attend to, in practice.
>
> Whether you approve depends on whether you want justice or
> revenge.
And much as agreeing with Tomo comes as a shock to me, in this case I think he is totally right on all of the points he made here.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave
Must go to a meeting at 13:00 so will keep this brief.
He had had no sleep, so being at the wheel was probably reckless. But what if he had had 4 hours sleep? 5? Where do you draw the line? Everyone is very different and I think that it is fair to say that falling asleep at the wheel is a phenomenon that is not as well understood as, say, drink driving.
Few people set out on the road with the intention to cause fatalities. So do you create a blanket prison sentence, akin to Gary Hart's, for all those who do? Because they had a cold? Because they had not had a break for 3 hours? Like I say, it is difficult to draw the line.
And, by the way, where is my post did it say that the judgement of Hart was too harsh? I would just like to have heard the responses to some of the queries that have been raised in the above posts, if they had come from a defence counsel.
For me, doubts remain, but I am sure we will hear more in the news over the next few days...
Sorry, this is rushed. Now, that meeting...
Yours
Andy
|
|
|
"The prosecution maintained that Hart had fallen asleep at the wheel after spending five hours through the night talking on the phone to Kristeen Panter, a woman he had contacted through an Internet dating agency, but never met"
If true, would tend to put a different light on why the "poor man" was tired.
Also, if I understand correctly, he was working for himself (his own construction company, so was not being pushed by an employer to drive such hours.
|
|
|
It would take that train over a mile and a quarter to stop according to BBC documentary last night. Can't see how your idea would work. Trains are very heavy and therefore have a lot of kinetic energy.
That's the whole point of the track i.e a clear open route for the train so it doesn't need to stop and therefore partly why this incident was so bad.
|
|
|
I've had a few occasions where I've nearly fallen asleep at the wheel, trying to catch the ferry from Oban, when coming down the A65 in a Fiesta with a cracked exhaust and when driving from Gatwick to Yorkshire after a long weekend in New York. In each case I should have stopped for a rest, but didn't when catching the ferry seemed of overriding importance. In the Fiesta, I wasn't aware that exhaust gas was getting into the cabin and was brought back to reality by a hedge scraping the nearside of the car. This scared me enough to keep me awake for the rest of the journey after I'd checked for damage to the car. On the way back from Gatwick, I did pull in to a motorway services and had some sleep.
In all cases, I would have been absolutely to blame if I had had an accident. In fact it wouldn't have been an accident, it would have been *caused* by my lack of judgement by continuing to drive when I knew I shouldn't have. Many posts above express sympathy for Gary Hart but I think this view is coloured by having been in the same position ourselves. Would we have been as sympathetic if we had lost someone close in the train crash?
How do the authorities signal to the rest of us that driving while impaired is dangerous? If Mr Hart had got off lightly, eg with a conviction for careless driving, what would the reaction have been then? I don't think you can divorce the consequences of a mistake from the action itself. One could argue that most of existing regulations to do with eg guns or motor vehicles started off trying to protect the public from the consquences of someone careless, dangerous or incompetent at the controls. Shooting at clay pigeons is OK, shooting at people is not. Driving and avoiding causing accidents is OK, driving while impaired and causing accidents is not.
Trying to separate the rail crash into 3 separate events is misleading. The driver could have fallen asleep and rammed a bus shelter, the death toll could have the same. And, I can't agree that running a public transport system on the basis of stopping in the distance you can see ahead is logical. In that case flying or sailing at night or in the fog wouldn't happen, and train journeys would take forever. The whole point of running a transport system on rails with signals is that you can make the system work even if driving blind.
Mr Hart repeatedly told the court he had not fallen asleep, but can't explain why his roadworthy Land Rover and trailer left the road. I think we have to be very careful about excusing his mistake and the consequences because it could have happened to other backroomers.
|
Darcy Kitchin wrote:
>
> And, I
> can't agree that running a public transport system on the
> basis of stopping in the distance you can see ahead is
> logical.
Although the assumption that the track is always clear does seem to be flawed.
|
|
|
|
You've just sparked up a memory of mine with the comment about Oban. I have visited there once when I was about 15. With my father driving we left our house in kent and just as we got to the top of the road the exhaust blew a hole. Due to the need to catch the ferry to Mull we had no time to stop and had to drive all the way to Scotland with the car sounding like a spitfire. There is no where on the island that you can get an exhaust for a Toyota Carina (later to become my car and see me through university) so we had to drive around for a week like this until we returned to the mainland.
|
|
|
|
Also saw on last night's program that he had driven 70 miles in 65 minutes on mostly winding roads and in very poor weather. The police said they couldn't manage it even with an escort, albeit probably at a different time of day. Isn't it surely the case that this guy simply exercised poor judgement which could have just as easily ended with only himself being harmed.
Isn't the real issue here one of the general suitability of human beings to be able to drive just because they've passed some test that assesses their technical competency and ability to drive a vehicle rather than a measure of any social responsibility that is required when they get behind the wheel. It comes back to the point made earlier about changing attitudes with regard to drink driving. Cars are great and give us a degree of freedom I for one would not want to give up but I do think we need to look at the whole issue of driving in a wider context. More regular testing for example.
Rod
|
|
|
This train thing is a red herring. Trains are allocated a piece of track; if the one in front breaks down the signals behind will be set to red. Rail tracksa are also "dead zones"; there is very rarely an obstruction, and even more rarely one that can cause a crash. Not so on the roads. And think how good the passive safety of trains is. Several hundred people in a head-on collision with a closing speed of perhaps 180mph, and only ten dead. Imagine a motorway pileup where that many were involved in actual high-speed collisions. How many dead? More than ten, I suspect.
Chris
|
|
|
Mark
This case appears to me to be similar to that of Tony Martin. On the facts, both, in my opinion, are guilty. However, a small change in the facts and who knows...
Tony Martin shot the burglar in the back, indicating he was running away. Self defence is, therefore, difficult to accept. But there is part of me that considers him an unlucky victim. He lived peacefully, did not wish to be robbed, and is being punished for an error of judgement in the heat of the moment.
Gary Hart was speeding excessively and was, almost certainly, too tired to be on the road. But speeding can, for me, be discounted as he arrived at the spot where he fell asleep safely. By the same token, if anyone is in a crash, God forbid, can you castigate them as a "speeder" who deserved all that was coming to them. On these facts, no.
As a young driver, I never drink and drive. Unlike much of the older generation, who have a couple of pints, I have absolutely nothing, when I am driving. Gary Hart's car was safe. He had, perhaps, taken the trouble to have it routinely serviced, unlike the youngster with the bald tyres, and made every effort to be safe on the roads. Now, if he had not been on the internet and telephone, but had had insomnia, caused by an argument with his wife, or losing his job at work, and had lain in bed for 8 hours and had his eyes wide open, the police would not have been able to prove he had had no sleep, even though, his lack of condition for driving would have been pretty much the same, ignoring the effect of computer screens on eyes.
I, personally, certainly disagree with the learned Mark when he says, "You'd have to say, ... that falling asleep, driving off a road and causing a train to crash is pretty well-linked." No. If he had arrived two minutes later, if the trains had not been running on that same schedule, if the barriers had been stronger... I, personally, think that he was damned unlucky.
As a young driver, I have always taken all of the steps to try to ensure I am safe on the road. I guess that I feel sorry for him because he was found guilty, and deservedly so, on an intangible like tiredness, which is very difficult to plan for, unlike alcohol consumption and car servicing. The next time someone's girlfriend dumps them and they do not sleep very well, should they call into work and say I am not fit to drive in? Even if they did, the mount up of work would lead to increased stress, lack of concentration on driving because of worrying about other things...
To conclude, I think that the jury came to the correct verdict in both cases.
But, unless society as a whole, takes account of the real dangers of driving whilst in an unift state due to tiredness, which can be the culmination of a long week, not just one night, then I fear that we will have learnt nothing from the case of Gary Hart. And all those relatives of victims who routinely, and correctly, say I hope this never happens again, will not be appeased.
Yours
Andy
|
> The next time someone's girlfriend dumps them and they do not
> sleep very well, should they call into work and say I am not fit to drive in?
If they are not fit to drive in, of course they should. One should *never* drive when one is not fit to drive.
> I, personally, certainly disagree with the learned Mark when he says, "You'd have to say, ... that falling asleep, driving off a road and causing a train to
>crash is pretty well-linked." No. If he had arrived two minutes later, if the trains had not been running on that same schedule, if the
> barriers had been stronger... I, personally, think that he was damned unlucky.
He was not unlucky. He was reckless and showed bad judgement. The fact that I, or somebody else, may do the same thing is not justification.
It wasn't two minutes later, the trains were on that schedule and his actions were a *direct* cause. If he had not been reckless, then he would not have caused the deaths of those people.
Its like saying "what if the gun I fired at you had misfired ?'. It didn't, I shot you, I am guilty of murder. It did, I didn't shoot you, I am guilty of attempted murder. The difference would be a misfire over which I had no control.
The difference between what you intended to do, what you did recklessly, what you didn't intend to do and what happened.
If you will drive while unfit, you are accepting the potential implications. If you don't like that, don't do it.
> Tony Martin shot the burglar in the back, indicating he was
> running away.
Oh don't go there. It is not your right to take a life unless it was to defend against loss of your own (I know that's not complete).
>and is being punished for an error of judgement in the heat of
> the moment.
And if the burglar had shot him "in the heat of the moment" ?
>and made every effort to be safe on the roads.
Absolute stuff and nonsense (and you know those are not the words Iwould have preferred). He *intentionally* and *knowingly* drove whilst *unfit* to do so.
>I guess that I feel sorry for him because he was found guilty, and deservedly so, ......which is very difficult to plan for, unlike alcohol consumption
Really ? So you can't tell when you're doing something likely to make you tired ? You can't look at a task/journey and think it might be too much ? And even if you guessed wrong, you couldn't think that now you were tired and you should revise your decision and stop ?
In the end - he *was* reckless, he *did* directly cause the death of 10 people. (look up "proximate cause").
|
Mark (and Darcy),
I'm really struggling with where the responsibility for a persons actions stops, or doesn't it at any point.
I'm not being flippant but what if a goods train had been carrying experimental biological agents including the foot and mouth virus. Then an accident was the cause of that agent being released thus eventually causing the destruction of half the UK cattle plus losses of millions for farms and related businesses...still down to the one guy?
David
|
Personal opinion - Yes.
Legal opinion, difficult, but assuming no other contributing factors or linkage break, then yes, but probably not for consequential loss. It is the inevitability of the chain of events that must be considered.
It can get more complex. Imagine if the first train had missed the Land Rover, but the driver of the train looked around to see what happened to the Land Rover, missed a track light or something and ploughed into the oncoming train.
Prob. not the fault of the Landrover, since the chain of events was not so direct. In that case, prob. the fault of the train driver.
However, in the incident we are talking of there was no break.
What about the idiot, playing around with his friends in the car, swerving all over the place, speeding and narrowly misses (by inches) killing your daughter.
Careless driving ? Maybe Dangerous Driving ?
Same idiot, two inches to the left, doesn't miss.
And now ? But he did the same thing, so why would the punishment/penalty be different ?
Because - ramifications, implications of a reckless act. You do something reckless, you should be responsible for *all* events driven by your stupidity.
Wossisface that we are discussing here was not unlucky. Anyone else who drives whilst unfit without an accident is lucky. Quite different.
As for employers forcing you into it - unless the guy had a gun, he can't force you into it. Intimidate, perhaps, but not force.
And by the way, if he tried anything else then look at wrongful and constructive dismissal law. (which is *certainly* not my area)
As someone said, maybe its time for tachos for all commercially driven vehicles since we are no longer able to presume that people will take responsibility for their own actions. Impractical though. And this would still be trying to alleviate people of personal responsibility inappropriately.
Mark.
|
|
|
|
You see it isn't really that easy is it.
I think it is fair to say Guy, Roland, Tom Shaw, David Lacey, Ian(Cape Town), Ian Cook, Mark(Brazil), Dave and Darcy all admit they have been close or at this sleep deprivation position while driving.
Hardly a list of uncaring idiots!
Please add me to the list. A few weeks ago I had cause to mail a contact about my previous employment and here is a very appropriate bit pasted in....
.....on top of that we had to cover emergency callout on a rota and a busy week at that would add 60hrs to the normal 40hrs+. This callout was over a wide geographical area and we had a max response time of one hour from being woken by the call to being on site. Being woken at 2am during the winter and having to do 45 miles in freezing fog all within the hour was very very dangerous. We knew we had to drive at 80mph+ on all types of roads to make these response times and after a while I got fed up of company induced risk. On a busy week the tiredness would build up and many nights I would be going back home bouncing off the kerbs as I repeatedly fell asleep at the wheel.
Of course the income was the reward and for the early years of youth that was enough, risk - what risk? If we'd had baseball caps then I would have swivelled it round and not worried......
That description referred to my previous career before I "downshifted" to a more independent and relaxed pace of life. Possibly the most important phrase in the paragraph was "company induced risk", for that is just what it was. If the issue was raised as a safety one there was always a flurry of hot air from management and then things just went back to normal........and *we* took the chances.
Back in August Alvin started a thread about speeding/traffic density related matters and part of my reply to that sits well here.
......."don't curse the police/system for enforcing the law, curse the employer that expects a level of performance that means you have to push it all the time to make the daily rounds". I think the whole social issue of travel for work/workplace location will have to be addressed or there will be no end to this.......
Guy is right that an employer can no longer include the driving workload as something that you personally absorb to the nth degree, not if that extra call to shift another case of bananas ends up with a rap for 10 deaths at your door.
David
|
> You see it isn't really that easy is it.
Sorry, David, but for me it is. Personal Responsibility. If you do something reckless and/or dangerous, then one would hope you had built the potential ramifications into your decision.
There are 10 people dead. If he had been more responsible and/or sensible, they would not be. (or at least not from that incident).
The man ruined some lives and ended others.
> Hardly a list of uncaring idiots!
No, but irresponsible, misguided and reckless who would all have rightly been blamed had something untoward happened.
|
|
|
David
I am squarely with Mark on this one.
Just because I don't believe I am an uncaring idiot *now* doesn't mean that I have *never* been one. I , like many of us I guess, have done some monumentally stupid and dangerous things in life that I am neither proud of nor need to list here. In order that some good might come out of my errors of judgement, I hope that I have learned enough not to foul up a second time in the same way.
Had I been caught and brought to book, I would have had to take the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
David W, good point. Or it might have been something which wipes out half the UK human population. How long do you get for causing 25 million deaths?
OK, how far up the line do you take culpability?
Should the bird he was chatting up (pardon the expression) have said "Put the phone down and go to bed. You have to be up early to do a long journey. You might fall asleep. Your car might run off the road. You might land up on a railway line. There might be a train coming. The train might hit you. It might be derailed. There might be a set of points before it stops which throws it onto the opposite track. There might be a train coming the other way. They might collide. People might be killed."
So is she responsible for keeping him up and not warning him of the dangers?
|
>>So is she responsible for keeping him up and not warning him of the dangers?
Of course not. But he is.
I don't understand this. Through his recklessness, he killed people. He is responsible for that, and any other direct results of his actions. Whre is the doubt ?
Of course it could happen to anybody - with a bit of luck after this, its just a little less likely.
|
I'm with you on this one, Mark. You make choices, you take the consequences. If you want personal transport, you take personal responsibility for it. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
imagine if you can the death toll if both trains had been passenger trains, its almost unthinkable.
|
It would be possible to assume from some of the above discussion that I was trying to make a strong case for this particular guy. Not so.
Despite living very much by the personal responsibility/buck stops here way of thinking I still have trouble with the *absolute* linking of events to the nth degree.
Also I don't think we can sit back and say "well he was an utter idiot" and then walk away from equating the potential for an incident to our own circumstances. The assertion that we are all perfect and this guy was in a different class is just too convenient.
Possibly the only really safe driver is a well trained woman with no personal/family/work pressures in a newish well serviced BMW on perfect Michelin tyres. Of course conditions must also be clear, dry and mild. Additionally she mustn't be taking any strong pain killers or anti-depressants. Start to take any of these factors the wrong way and you gradually, bit by bit, increase the risk of an incident.
I look after cars for some very respectable people but could tell a tale or two about some potential disasters just waiting to unfold for very nice ordinary folks. I won't though.
Still not sure I've managed to put this well at all but it's been a busy long day (mostly on a typical P.306D load of problems) so I'll post as is.
David
|
|
