Great heck (selby) train crash

[ralphchadkirk]

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).

Ah yes, remoteness of damage. But that would depend on the reasonable person being able to forsee, or not to forsee the consequences.

 

[MikeWh]

My recollections of the detail are somewhat hazy, but would I be right in thinking that the subsequent crash with the frieght train only occured because the trains were passing at that moment. Had the derailed train come to rest with the freight (or any other) train on the other line any distance away, wouldn't the signals have prevented the subsequent crash? Even if the wreckage hadn't set the track circuit to look like a train had appeared, surely the signaller would have become aware of the original incident and set all signals to red in the area?

So while it would be reasonable to forsee the original derailment as a result of the van driver's actions, the subsequent crash was a tragic coincidence that it would not be reasonable to forsee?

 

[Jonny]

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?

If he could have stopped instead, the answer would likely be yes. I don't like what GH did that day; I don't think the prosecution really proved their case which is the bit I don't like. Let's stop hating (hateing) on GH, he's done his time now and besides hating doesn't work and it doesn't change anything (I speak from experience in other areas).

 

[jon0844]

If a train derails, there is a clear and obvious danger - as proven by what happened - so I'd still be inclined to put this down to the actions of the driver.

I cannot believe he has managed to convince himself that he didn't really have much of a role to play in this. If quoted accurately, he really expects anyone else to believe that what happened a distance away was unrelated and 'fate'?

Okay, people deal with grief in different ways - but I can only hope that he says this to be able to live day by day, but knows deep down he was 100% guilty.

 

[Jonny]

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.

I would dare to say that GH's trial was a bad day for rule of law; the prosecution used a vague case and pushed an unsubstantiated reconstruction as absolute fact against a scapegoat. They also put a reconstructed vehicle together from little bits and argued that it was in good condition - this might miss a mechanical failure that was part of GH's defence. This was also at a time when Railtrack was running the railway and not exactly doing a brilliant job of it in terms of safety. Besides, I've hear that the Plasmor points were a major actor; apparently they straddled both lines at the time.

 

[GB]

This was also at a time when Railtrack was running the railway and not exactly doing a brilliant job of it in terms of safety.

I fail to see the relevence between this incident and Railtracks record.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My recollections of the detail are somewhat hazy, but would I be right in thinking that the subsequent crash with the frieght train only occured because the trains were passing at that moment. Had the derailed train come to rest with the freight (or any other) train on the other line any distance away, wouldn't the signals have prevented the subsequent crash? Even if the wreckage hadn't set the track circuit to look like a train had appeared, surely the signaller would have become aware of the original incident and set all signals to red in the area?

So while it would be reasonable to forsee the original derailment as a result of the van driver's actions, the subsequent crash was a tragic coincidence that it would not be reasonable to forsee?

While the presence of the freight train was bad luck in the grand scheme of things just as the presence of the GNER train was at the time the car was on the track and the track layout further along, given that the route is a busy corridor I dont think its unreasonable forsee the eventual outcome.

 

[Jonny]

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

This can often be used to "bend the law" to fit the facts of the prosecution's case. The upshot is a series of cases where someone has been judged to be guilty on the back of something they hadn't seen coming and where a third party error was involved. Besides, add "someone did something" and person X died - when person X also bore a large degree of responsibility - to a jury case and the prosecution can get a bang-to-rights result (I'm thinking of other road traffic cases). If you're going down the "butterfly effect" route as I think some posters are, you just have too many other things coming at you and they make you miss something more important instead.

 

[yorksrob]

Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, the driver has done his time and that should be an end to it, although his subsequent arguments are obviously highly flawed.

What I can't agree with is the argument that the second collision was somehow removed from the events that took place.

It seems to me that if a driver who drives onto a double track railway should have been able to anticipate a train crashing into his vehicle from one direction, I don't logically see how anyone could argue that he couldn't have anticipated a train driving in to the wreckage on the other line from the other direction. The fact that the first train came to a halt some distance down the line seems totally irrelevant as it is clearly part of the same incident.

 

[mumrar]

My thoughts are with the families and friends of all 10 people who lost their lives, and with the many badly injured in the accident also.

The anniversary brings back recollections of George (Steve) at work, and as I'm a father (of two boys) now, the weight of Gary Hart's negligence weighs heavy on my heart for his family.

The discussion above is interesting regarding all the "what ifs" of the accident. But for me the key "what ifs" are what if Gary Hart slept properly the night before, what if he stuck to the speed limit for the formation of vehicles he was driving, what if he hadn't been towing too heavy a load for an unbraked trailer. There are just too many what ifs that directly placed his car on the railway line, and they are all breaches of road traffic laws regarding the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

If that insensitive quote above really is an accurate one, then I cannot feel anything but revulsion for him.

 

[yorksrob]

My thoughts are with the families and friends of all 10 people who lost their lives, and with the many badly injured in the accident also.

I agree entirely.

 

[ReverendFozz]

Gary Hart is a Class A Penis, plain and simple, he has constantly denied responsibility for his actions on thatt fateful day, and to my knowledge did not show remorse.

I feel sorry for him in the sense that he is deluded and won't accept the true version of events. I also believe Gary Hart should have been sentenced for each death seperately and given 10 Sentences to run consecutively.

I also believe, and this may come across as nasty and shocking, but I believe it would have been a better fate for him if he had infact been in his motor during the initial smash!!!!!

 

[Eng274]

Gary Hart is a Class A Penis, plain and simple, he has constantly denied responsibility for his actions on thatt fateful day, and to my knowledge did not show remorse.

I feel sorry for him in the sense that he is deluded and won't accept the true version of events. I also believe Gary Hart should have been sentenced for each death seperately and given 10 Sentences to run consecutively.

I also believe, and this may come across as nasty and shocking, but I believe it would have been a better fate for him if he had infact been in his motor during the initial smash!!!!!

If that had happened, then he would be just another tragic victim, and the awful bared-faced arrogance would never have come to light. He would of course have been deemed responsible for the accident either way, but he would never have suffered the consequences of his actions.

 

[GB]

If that had happened, then he would be just another tragic victim, and the awful bared-faced arrogance would never have come to light. He would of course have been deemed responsible for the accident either way, but he would never have suffered the consequences of his actions.

Funnily enough I was about to write the exact same thing. However now, if he want's to slope off and die under the rock he came from I wont lose any sleep.

 

[ReverendFozz]

thinking about things, why was the not a strong enough barrier, to stop enchroachment onto the Line, what was the Highways Agency up to, and Railtrack, the least said about them, the better, why did they not push for a barrier,

Yes, Gary Hart caused it, but with other circumstanes others have questions to answer on this.

I suggested Gary Hart would be better dead, with that on his conscience, he would at least be able to rest in some of peace and we would not be having a lengthy discussion about it now

 

[GB]

I don't think crash barrier strength was the problem. The problem was the crash barrier didn't extend back far enough and as such offered no protection at all.

 

[66526]

If you go to the site where the land rover left the road you will be amazed at how far it travelled 'cross country' before ending up on the track. Believe me, from being involved so closely with the crash over the years, you realise just how much of a c**t Gary Hart really is. I echo the sentiments that it's a pity he got out of the land rover in time. Why is it that ten innocent people die yet he walks away with cuts and bruises?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My thoughts are with the families and friends of all 10 people who lost their lives, and with the many badly injured in the accident also.

The anniversary brings back recollections of George (Steve) at work, and as I'm a father (of two boys) now, the weight of Gary Hart's negligence weighs heavy on my heart for his family.

The discussion above is interesting regarding all the "what ifs" of the accident. But for me the key "what ifs" are what if Gary Hart slept properly the night before, what if he stuck to the speed limit for the formation of vehicles he was driving, what if he hadn't been towing too heavy a load for an unbraked trailer. There are just too many what ifs that directly placed his car on the railway line, and they are all breaches of road traffic laws regarding the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

If that insensitive quote above really is an accurate one, then I cannot feel anything but revulsion for him.

So I take it you worked with Dad at New St?

'Little George'

 

[ReverendFozz]

here here james, bad things happen to good people we would give anything to turn the clock back and see our dead loved ones again, and people like Hart are free to get on with. i cant belive it is 10 years since Great Heck time has flown over

 

[bluenoxid]

thinking about things, why was the not a strong enough barrier, to stop enchroachment onto the Line, what was the Highways Agency up to, and Railtrack, the least said about them, the better, why did they not push for a barrier,

How foreseeable and likely was this event to happen? How much are you prepared to pay for rail tickets as it is this that would incur the costs, not the Highways Agency because you are protecting the railway line.

 

[66526]

Only one single factor caused Great Heck and his name is Gary Hart.

 

[scotsman]

If you act irresponsibly, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Gary Hunt lost control of his vehicle, which in turn caused a train to strike it. While he cannot be 'blamed' for the subsequent Freightliner collision - he can be blamed for the crash occurring in the first place since he was the sole mitigating factor. He is a ****, and his attitude is as bewildering as it is disturbing and arrogant.

 

[Darandio]

If you act irresponsibly, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Gary Hunt lost control of his vehicle, which in turn caused a train to strike it. While he cannot be 'blamed' for the subsequent Freightliner collision - he can be blamed for the crash occurring in the first place since he was the sole mitigating factor. He is a ****, and his attitude is as bewildering as it is disturbing and arrogant.

Gary Hart. But obviously if you put a C in front of the name you quoted, it rings true.

I don't agree that he cannot be blamed for the subsequent collision. This may be slightly out of order, I don't see it that way but what if this was a case of intention and it was a pair of youths placing a sleeper on the track at the same location. Maybe they intended to cause no damage, maybe they only intended to derail one train but if that said train ploughed into another one, does that mean they cannot be held liable for it because it wasn't intended? I think not.

 

[scotsman]

Gary Hart. But obviously if you put a C in front of the name you quoted, it rings true.

I don't agree that he cannot be blamed for the subsequent collision. This may be slightly out of order, I don't see it that way but what if this was a case of intention and it was a pair of youths placing a sleeper on the track at the same location. Maybe they intended to cause no damage, maybe they only intended to derail one train but if that said train ploughed into another one, does that mean they cannot be held liable for it because it wasn't intended? I think not.

Ok then, but strictly speaking the cause of the FL derailment was the GNER derailment, which in turn was caused by Mr Hart.

 

[jon0844]

In law perhaps, but nobody will ever see anyone else as being responsible.

I'm not a religious person, but if I am ever proved wrong, he's not going to have a very nice time come judgement day.

 

[66526]

If you act irresponsibly, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Gary Hunt lost control of his vehicle, which in turn caused a train to strike it. While he cannot be 'blamed' for the subsequent Freightliner collision - he can be blamed for the crash occurring in the first place since he was the sole mitigating factor. He is a ****, and his attitude is as bewildering as it is disturbing and arrogant.

This is how I put it to people. At 0613 that morning a GNER train is trundling along at its permitted speed of 125mph. Coming the other way, my Dads train (running 20 minutes early) is trundling along at its permitted speed of 60mph. There is a set of trailing points leading into some sidings on the 'up' line, the GNER passes these with no problems then a few seconds later passes my Dads train. The two trains carry on to their destinations without incident.
The difference between that scenario and the Great Heck train crash is Gary Harts land rover, it really is as simple as that. The thing that really gets me, if he had been 3 times over the legal drink drive limit the publics opinion would be completely different. He chose to drive tired that day, he could have stopped for a break but he didn't, it is his fault that the two trains collided head on and ten men lost their lives.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If you act irresponsibly, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Gary Hunt lost control of his vehicle, which in turn caused a train to strike it. While he cannot be 'blamed' for the subsequent Freightliner collision - he can be blamed for the crash occurring in the first place since he was the sole mitigating factor. He is a ****, and his attitude is as bewildering as it is disturbing and arrogant.

Whether or not he can be blamed is a matter for the courts. And they have decided that the can be blamed for the second collision, so in law, he was responsible and can be blamed for the FL collision.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

thinking about things, why was the not a strong enough barrier, to stop enchroachment onto the Line, what was the Highways Agency up to, and Railtrack, the least said about them, the better, why did they not push for a barrier,...

The barrier was as long as law requires, Gary Hart's vehicle left the road before the barrier started. In reality, the chances of this all happening 'by accident' were quite slim.

If you act irresponsibly, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Gary Hunt lost control of his vehicle, which in turn caused a train to strike it....

The Police investigation says there was no evidence that he lost control of his vehicle, that there was nothing wrong with it or that he attempted to stop it after leaving the road. Furthermore, they re-ran his journey from where his vehicle was spotted on CCTV, near Louth, and the crash site, a 65 mile journey that took Hart 70 minutes (when he was timed calling 999). Keeping to the speed limit, the Police failed to match his journey time. They did the journey a second time, using the inside lane whenever possible (which is illegal with a trailer) and going like a 'bat out of hell' with a police escort and managed the journey with two minutes to spare.

 

[bluenoxid]

The Police investigation says there was no evidence that he lost control of his vehicle, that there was nothing wrong with it or that he attempted to stop it after leaving the road. Furthermore, they re-ran his journey from where his vehicle was spotted on CCTV, near Louth, and the crash site, a 65 mile journey that took Hart 70 minutes (when he was timed calling 999). Keeping to the speed limit, the Police failed to match his journey time. They did the journey a second time, using the inside lane whenever possible (which is illegal with a trailer) and going like a 'bat out of hell' with a police escort and managed the journey with two minutes to spare.

Don't see many 45 tonne trucks in the outside lane

65 miles in 70 minutes. Looking at the route, the first third is mainly A Road, becoming bypasses then Motorway for the latter half. Although he was speeding, it is by no means completely reckless driving particularly at 5am in the morning. It also depends when the police did it and if they know the route. I can tell you all of the acceleration and braking points of one of my local roads but everyone else does it at 40 throughout, despite 85% of it being possible at or near 60. Everytime I have a passenger, they tell me they didn't realise that the road was possible like that.

He was not found guilty of intent to cause death. Death by Dangerous Driving is not an intent based crime. The unfortunate thing for Gary Hart is that anywhere else leaving the motorway would have resulted in a wall or a dead sheep. Unfortunately for him, his negligence led to a chain of events, some might call disproportionate. It is what happens and some people are left standing in the dust after unintentionally but negligently causing the deaths of several people. If I was to say anything, I would say Gary Hart is a victim of fate and I think that is how he has been built up again since the accident.

 

[boing_uk]

I do hope that on the anniversaries of, ooh lets say the Cowden 1994 crash which killed five people, or the 1972 crash at Eltham Well Hall, or 1988 Clapham Junction crash that similar pious and self-righteous posturing on the characters and personalities of the railway staff that caused those collisions will be shown?

Or perhaps not. As they are railwaymen.

Gary Hart made a mistake. An error in judgement. That he was speeding, I have no doubt; he was a fast driver at the best of times particularly in that Land Rover which I had the exhilirating pleasure of riding in a number of times.

Was lack of sleep a factor? Possibly. But Gary was a 4hrs a night sleeper, such is the way when you own and run your own Civils and Groubdworks business, so I dont personally place too much weight on that.

Was the vehicle/trailer combination at fault? I deeply suspect so, going off what I can remember in the few days after the crash.

Either way, the court ruled he was at fault for a variety of reasons and he was convicted. Did he set out that day to cause an event that would end up killing people? Not at all. Not may people do.

I am sure the signaller at Honington who bypassed the interlocking didnt intend to kill innocent passengers that day either, but his reckless actions nevertheless caused a crash that resulted in deaths. He only got two years imprisonment. I am sure the signaller at Moreton-on-Lugg didnt inted to get distracted and cause that accident either. But he did and his mistake caused death.

So lets take a little time to consider whether you are in fact being somewhat biased in some of your opinions. People are fallible and sometimes that fallibility results in death. You never know, you too may make an ill-advised decision tomorrow that results in death. So may I.

 

[66526]

Actually, I think you'll find Gary Hart 'started it' by yet again ****ting over the memories of our loved ones. I love it when people read the headlines then make ill informed comments like you just have. It's not the crash he caused that he is hated for, it's how he acted afterwards. And WTF do you mean 'was sleep a factor? Possibly'. Proof that you know sweet FA about this incident yet still feel qualified to spout this crap.

 

[Greenback]

I am sure the signaller at Honington who bypassed the interlocking didnt intend to kill innocent passengers that day either, but his reckless actions nevertheless caused a crash that resulted in deaths. He only got two years imprisonment. I am sure the signaller at Moreton-on-Lugg didnt inted to get distracted and cause that accident either. But he did and his mistake caused death.

So lets take a little time to consider whether you are in fact being somewhat biased in some of your opinions. People are fallible and sometimes that fallibility results in death. You never know, you too may make an ill-advised decision tomorrow that results in death. So may I.

You are quite right. I am certain that none of the people you mention, including Gary Hart, intended to kill anyone. Yet most people whose actions unintentionally cause injury and or death to others are deeply affected by it, and are seen to be full of remorse of their actions after accepting their responsibility.

Sadly, this does not seem to apply to Mr Hart.