Great heck (selby) train crash

[David Dunning]

Can't believe this was ten years ago . Seems like yesterday as they say.
Just thought it was worth marking the anniversary . A tragic combination of events which cost 10 lives .

 

[GB]

Very sad indeed!

 

[dk1]

Thoughts are with James & his family & all who lost loved ones.

 

[dstrat]

Indeed, very sad for all those involved.

So do we think the DVT absorbed some of the impact or would it have been better to have had the 91 leading?

Also does anybody know where to obtain One Life: Asleep At The Wheel http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3954733.stm online?

 

[westcoaster]

Thoughts to all those who lost loved ones, a very deranged man especially in the BBC interview he gave, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-12591249

He added: "As far as being asleep at the wheel, that's what I went to prison for. It's not what the truth is.

"No deaths occurred at the point of impact with my Land Rover.

"They all occurred 700 yards down the track which I feel other people should have been held accountable for, so in my own head I've dealt with it in that fashion."

so someone else is reponsibe for the mess he caused, o my.

 

[CosherB]

Great Heck was a road accident that impacted the railway - with tragic results.

 

[YorkshireRider]

A very sad event indeed and coming so soon after Hatfield as well.

There was a memorial service today at St Pauls church in Hensall, nr Selby at 13:30, i know many staff attended, mainly from Newcastle depot who were of cause hardest hit by the crash. Everybodys thoughts with the friends and family who lost there loved ones.

As for that idiot, he never seemed to show any remorse for what he caused.

 

[DarloRich]

The man is clearly deranged in some way.

 

[tinselworm]

The man is clearly deranged in some way.

Guilt does that.

 

[9K43]

When I was on my tappers course, I went out with the Knottingley Breakdown engineers, and the first thing I was shown was the crash site at Great Heck, as the KY men were first on the scene.
It amazed me how far 2 of the coaches had been thrown after the impact.
I also saw the rememberance garden on the banking near to where the collison happened.
Some while later we got the job of servicing Plasmore which is a building block makers.
The rail enterance is on the up line through a ground frame into the sidings, right opposite to where the coal train was located.
Standing 10 yards away from the GF the railway traffic is rodding past at 125mph, and it tends to scare me as they go past at such close quaters.
My feelings go out to the families of those who will never come back.
A major tradgedy for the rail industry.

 

[TDK]

The man is clearly deranged in some way.

What ever any one says or does it will not bring back the lives of those who dies and of all those that suffered, may the deceased rest in peace and the driver of the car rot in hell

 

[Flying Snail]

He said: "I believe in fate and I was meant to be there that morning."

If it had been someone I love that ignorant man had killed it would have been his fate to die very slowly and very painfully.

Everyone makes mistakes but the manner in which he has constantly denied any responsibility for the consequences of his actions says it all.

 

[Hydro]

"They all occurred 700 yards down the track which I feel other people should have been held accountable for, so in my own head I've dealt with it in that fashion."

That quote alone sums up the mentality of the man.

"Yes, I shot him, but he died 50 yards away from me and my gun, so it's not my fault"

 

[GB]

Im curious to know just who he thinks should be held accountable! Reading that latest BBC article has left me even more disgusted and angry at the man (and justice system), lord knows how the victims famalies feel!

 

[mindfeeder]

What a disgusting quote from Gary Hart.

Thoughts are with the families of those who were lost 10 years ago today.

 

[Zoe]

This is why we need driverless cars now. A computer would never get tired.

 

[Ploughman]

Is there still a gap in the Motorway fencing at this point?
There was a barrier in place for about 2 miles prior to the bridge alongside the motorway then a gap of about 200 yds. That is were Hart went through.

 

[Striker]

This is why we need driverless cars now. A computer would never get tired.

Oh please. There's already far too much automation in cars as it is resulting in "zombie" drivers on the roads, sat in the middle lane of motorways thinking that because they're 1mph below the speed limit they are safe drivers. Responsibility is constantly being taken away from drivers. This was a freak accident and we don't need knee-jerk reactions like driverless cars.

 

[TomBoyRacer]

I really hope that the BBC have quoted Mr Hart out of context or doctored his quote as journalists love to do - but if he really meant it then I have no sympathy for him.

As has already been established the bridge conformed to the regulations that where in place when it was built. I don't know how Hart can say that others are accountable. Basically it isn't possible to make the entire motorway crashproof. When you get behind the wheel of your car the Motorways and other roads are designed for safe driving- if you drive in an unsafe manner it won't work.

I like to think of it as upholding terms and conditions.

Hart breached those conditions by overestimating his own ability believing he was capable of driving across the country and back with only a couple of hours sleep. That to me just suggests a lack of common sense. Also, as anyone who has driven along the M180 ( the road he took before joining the M62 ) can attest it is very long and uneventful. At that time in the morning with only petrol tankers for company he would have had to make few decisions, few things to get his adrenaline going. When you drive that road you get the feeling that you barely turn the steering wheel. It was his failure to take things into account that caused the crash. Not anything that may have gone on further down the track.

 

[theblackwatch]

There is a piece about this on Inside Out (Yorkshire version) on BBC1 at 19.30.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

The guy needs some serious mental attention, he is clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic...damn

 

[MidnightFlyer]

When my father first told me of this incident I was shocked, and quite shaken. My thoughts are with all of those who died, and with the family and friends of those lost.

The quote from the driver of the car which caused this accident sickened me. If I was to step out into the path of an oncoming car, which swerved to avoid me but promptly crashed into another car, killing the drivers and passengers onboard, would that make me totally innocent?

What a sickening man the car driver is.

 

[GB]

He needs stringing up imo

 

[bluenoxid]

The guy needs some serious mental attention, he is clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic...damn

I think you will probably find that he is as a result of preventing him from doing something really stupid.

 

[dstrat]

There is a piece about this on Inside Out (Yorkshire version) on BBC1 at 19.30.

Cheers. iplayer - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00z16yv/Inside_Out_Yorkshire_and_Lincolnshire_28_02_2011/

 

[dk1]

The guy needs some serious mental attention, he is clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic...damn

Remember the sick paintings he did in prison??

Saw him at the trial in Leeds & saw no sign of a man with a conscience.

Just crawl into the nearest gutter Hart, you will feel at home there.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Maybe my view is in a minority on here - probably even a minority of one!

I make no excuse at all for the driver, who, I agree, was reckless beyond any mitigation.
I also agree that he should be held accountable for the consequences (and the fact that the consequences were not intended doesn't relive him of responsibility).

But what did concern me in the legal proceedings that followed, was where a line would be drawn around his responsibility for the subsequent and consequential losses.
Usually, there is an truly endless sequence of outcomes from any event that can be traced back to someone's action, but the person is only held responsible for the consequences of their immediate actions and any consequences they could reasonably have anticipated. That prevents someone (even the most reckless fool) from becoming responsible for consequences which are several steps away from their actions.

In the Great Heck trial, I was surprised that the driver was held responsible for the consequences of the impact of the second train, and I still consider that the Great Heck incident pushed the sphere of personal liability further away from the individual's actions than we had seen in any previous personal or corporate liability.

It raised a serious question about how far we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions or our negligence.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It raised a serious question about how far we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions or our negligence.

Surely if factual and legal causation can be proved properly then there is no limits to the responsibility of our actions?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Surely if factual and legal causation can be proved properly then there is no limits to the responsibility of our actions?

Fortunately for all of us (in my opinion), there is not unlimited liability for chains of consequences arising from our actions and negligence.

You know the popular stories about people who slip and fall on the snow outside someone's house are unable to sue the householder for their injuries, but where the householder has made some half hearted attempt to clear some of the snow then they can be liable for somone's injuries. Do we want that householder (who had made some effort to clear a path) to become responsible for the injured person's inability to continue their duties (such as collecting a child from school before some injury occurred to them or failing to buy their weekly lottery ticket with their usual number and which would have won that week)?
No. We limit responsibility even where it is provable and causal. We limit it to what a reasonable person should have been able to anticipate (unless there are additional corporate responsibilities).

I understood that the Great Heck decision extended personal liability.
[But to repeat myself, I make no excuses nor feel sympathy for the driver]

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe my view is in a minority on here - probably even a minority of one!

I make no excuse at all for the driver, who, I agree, was reckless beyond any mitigation.
I also agree that he should be held accountable for the consequences (and the fact that the consequences were not intended doesn't relive him of responsibility).

But what did concern me in the legal proceedings that followed, was where a line would be drawn around his responsibility for the subsequent and consequential losses.
Usually, there is an truly endless sequence of outcomes from any event that can be traced back to someone's action, but the person is only held responsible for the consequences of their immediate actions and any consequences they could reasonably have anticipated. That prevents someone (even the most reckless fool) from becoming responsible for consequences which are several steps away from their actions.

In the Great Heck trial, I was surprised that the driver was held responsible for the consequences of the impact of the second train, and I still consider that the Great Heck incident pushed the sphere of personal liability further away from the individual's actions than we had seen in any previous personal or corporate liability.

It raised a serious question about how far we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions or our negligence.

It's a point worth considering. For example, if an ambulance attending the scene had crashed on the way back causing loss of life, the loss of life there would be a direct consequence of the actions of the driver who had caused the initial crash - afterall, the ambulance wouldn't have been there had it not been for the initial crash.

That said, even though the later incident would have been a consequence of the driver causing the first crash, it would seem totally unreasonable to hold him responsible because the ambulance would have had the same chance of crashing into something as any other fast moving emergency vehicle responding to an incident. In other words, he would have been the cause of the ambulance being there in the first place, but he wouldn't have been the cause of anything untoward in the circumstances surrounding the second incident.

I don't think you can make the same argument concerning the second train at Great Heck because if you have a major derailment on a double track railway there will inevitably be a very high chance that the other track will be fouled. Infact, the bogie of the driving trailer wouldn't have been fouling the other line at all had it not been for the initial crash, so the driver who caused the initial accident is directly responsible for the unusual circumstance of the bogie fouling the other line.

This is just my view.