Sandilands Tram Crash - An Accident

[bramling]

Yeah, I think having to live with the deaths of seven people on your conscience for the rest of your life is punishment enough for most reasonable human beings. Given that negligence or intent can't be proven, I think we just have to accept that imprisonment achieves nothing.

Exactly. I don’t see why there’s such a clamour to hang the driver. I hope he has been supported through this, a very stressful and worrying period of his life which will have extended for several years.

 

[Journeyman]

Exactly. I don’t see why there’s such a clamour to hang the driver. I hope he has been supported through this, a very stressful and worrying period of his life which will have extended for several years.

His identity is in the public domain as well, which must be a threat to his safety. He definitely doesn't need any more punishment.

 

[Taunton]

Is there anybody who can actually see any point in prosecuting the Driver?

Well-paid lawyers, seeking further well payment and milking the grief of the relatives involved.

 

[AlterEgo]

My views are mixed on this. I can’t see a prosecution of the driver being justified when there was clearly an unforeseen hole in the safety armour. It does seem that this potential risk was never envisaged.

Prosecuting the operator would be a can of worms, as firstly the decisions will have gone back many years, whilst secondly a number of peer systems in the UK were designed in exactly the same way, so Croydon was completely as per its peers.

This simply leaves some questions over fatigue management, which I do think seem to have been whitewashed over.

I can see how this would be upsetting for the relatives. At the end of the day this incident did happen on TfL’s watch, and there should have been some display of accountability, perhaps a symbolic resignation, this doesn’t seem to have happened.

The fatigue management from the tram company seems...suspect, at best.

Even so, if the driver fell asleep outwith some sort of medical episode, which seems the most likely of a number of explanations, the driver himself is responsible for that.

Is there anybody who can actually see any point in prosecuting the Driver? Entering the corner at that speed would seem clearly involuntary.

Is this an argument to never prosecute anyone for causing death by careless or dangerous driving on the roads? Surely not. The only reason according to the CPS he isn't being prosecuted for these offences is he wasn't in a "road or a public place" because he was fortunate enough for the crash to happen on a segregated right of way. 200 yards further on and he would have been. Lucky, lucky man.

It was dark, and raining heavily, and the hazard was almost immediately beyond the exit from a relatively well-lit tunnel, marked only by a small sign and with rails presumably visible beyond the junction carrying on straight ahead on the same alignment. I wouldn't call that ample warning of the hazard, nor did the RAIB.

The inquest and the RAIB found that it is most likely the driver fell asleep. You cannot mount a criminal defence against falling asleep while driving and killing several people by saying "well, the vehicle didn't know I was asleep and there should have been signs I might have seen even if I was asleep".

I am certain the tram driver did not do this deliberately and am sure he is a broken man. He still, however, should be in prison and is only at home because his crash happened on a part of the network which was not a public right of way. An accident of the law, which is an ass.

It's very disappointing the company isn't being held accountable for the failing you highlight, but I have a huge amount of sympathy for the families whose loved ones were simply deleted from existence by this crash. Nobody is being held accountable under the law. It is not a good outcome.

I'm always struck by the seemingly excessive procedures on the DLR when the auto driving fails and it's being operated manually from the front. Walking speed only, flashing lights operating, not moved an inch without longwinded radio messages back and forth, etc. Meanwhile a few miles down the road we have another TfL operation here with quite comparable vehicles operated at 50mph in the dark wholly on operator line of sight.

There's also the tens of thousands of bus journeys every day in the capital...

 

[Busaholic]

The fatigue management from the tram company seems...suspect, at best.

Even so, if the driver fell asleep outwith some sort of medical episode, which seems the most likely of a number of explanations, the driver himself is responsible for that.


Is this an argument to never prosecute anyone for causing death by careless or dangerous driving on the roads? Surely not. The only reason according to the CPS he isn't being prosecuted for these offences is he wasn't in a "road or a public place" because he was fortunate enough for the crash to happen on a segregated right of way. 200 yards further on and he would have been. Lucky, lucky man.


The inquest and the RAIB found that it is most likely the driver fell asleep. You cannot mount a criminal defence against falling asleep while driving and killing several people by saying "well, the vehicle didn't know I was asleep and there should have been signs I might have seen even if I was asleep".

I am certain the tram driver did not do this deliberately and am sure he is a broken man. He still, however, should be in prison and is only at home because his crash happened on a part of the network which was not a public right of way. An accident of the law, which is an ass.

It's very disappointing the company isn't being held accountable for the failing you highlight, but I have a huge amount of sympathy for the families whose loved ones were simply deleted from existence by this crash. Nobody is being held accountable under the law. It is not a good outcome.


There's also the tens of thousands of bus journeys every day in the capital...

As soon as I heard the British Transport Police were taking ownership of the 'investigation' my heart sank that any meaningful action, let alone justice for the injured and the families of the dead, would result, and this thought has proven right. They were totally out of their depth from the beginning and spent years before the driver was released from his bail commitments with a statement of non-prosecution. In the meantime the families were kept in the dark and treated as nuisances. The Metropolitan Police is hugely flawed but I have no doubt that, had they taken over from BTP when the latter realised it was incapable of achieving anything worthwhile (a matter of days, I suggest), then there'd have been a speedier conclusion, at the very least, with possibly a different result. As soon as it dawned on the BTP that they'd not be able to rely on all those in the railway industry with expertise on a lot of the matters arising because laws/regulations have not kept pace with modern tram/light rail systems in this country they should have had the humility to accept a secondary role, at best, but that's not the British way these days, is it? Mediocrity and incompetence rule!

 

[the sniper]

Is this an argument to never prosecute anyone for causing death by careless or dangerous driving on the roads? Surely not. The only reason according to the CPS he isn't being prosecuted for these offences is he wasn't in a "road or a public place" because he was fortunate enough for the crash to happen on a segregated right of way. 200 yards further on and he would have been. Lucky, lucky man.

Certainly not, as careless or dangerous driving covers a fairly broad spectrum of possible events/actions/intent. But yes, generally I don't see the point in instances like this in imprisoning people for acts that were clearly involuntary, lacking any intent whatsoever to do harm/wrong. What purpose does it serve? It won't deter anybody from doing it again, because nobody would ever knowingly do it. What purpose does sending him to prison achieve?

 

[bramling]

Certainly not, as careless or dangerous driving covers a fairly broad spectrum of possible events/actions/intent. But yes, generally I don't see the point in instances like this in imprisoning people for acts that were clearly involuntary, lacking any intent whatsoever to do harm/wrong. What purpose does it serve? It won't deter anybody from doing it again, because nobody would ever knowingly do it. What purpose does sending him to prison achieve?

I tend to agree, and the guy has already had several years punishment waiting for a conclusion to all this.

We presume there's no evidence that the tram driver did anything which would be regarded as reckless (for example up all night like the Great Heck car driver was), so I find it fair to record it as an accident, as that's what it was.

There's certainly lessons to be learned regarding the management and operation of the tram system, and to be honest I am surprised there hasn't been a little more in the way of recrimination on this side of things.

I can fully empathise with those caught up in this, however there comes a point where this constant clamour for action against the driver becomes unreasonable even in the circumstances. If looking for a pound of flesh, I'd be more interested in how the setup at Sandilands was designed and risk assessed - whilst thankfully not something which has ever occurred on a light rail system here until Sandilands, there's precedent for overspeeding on sudden curves causing serious accidents on the mainline (Morpeth, Sutton Coldfield, as well as closer to home at Eltham Well Hall). With a dose of hindsight it is surprising this risk doesn't seem to have been foreseen. I'd say the Sandilands tram driver was as much a victim as everyone else, being tasked with driving through a layout which we could probably reasonably regard as risky.

 

[Taunton]

I'd be more interested in how the setup at Sandilands was designed and risk assessed - whilst thankfully not something which has ever occurred on a light rail system here until Sandilands, there's precedent for overspeeding on sudden curves causing serious accidents on the mainline (Morpeth, Sutton Coldfield, as well as closer to home at Eltham Well Hall). With a dose of hindsight it is surprising this risk doesn't seem to have been foreseen. I'd say the Sandilands tram driver was as much a victim as everyone else, being tasked with driving through a layout which we could probably reasonably regard as risky.

There were a range of such accidents on traditional tramways long ago, but of course nobody on the Croydon team had any historical knowledge. Though I do agree it would have been obvious to me as a risk, especially coming at the end of a full speed straight. I'm a bit surprised that Croydon went for so long before having an accident there. You would never have such an arrangement on a road without considerable warnings. Onetime tramways developed to having electric points at road junctions, controlled by detecting the power draw in the overhead, and these incorporated specific protection against a tram intending to go straight through suddenly being diverted at speed into the side street - this was 100 years ago.

I'm rarely impressed by Risk Assessments catching poor design features. They are commonly back-calculated to fit what has already been designed and/or is affordable.

 

[bramling]

There were a range of such accidents on traditional tramways long ago, but of course nobody on the Croydon team had any historical knowledge. Though I do agree it would have been obvious to me as a risk, especially coming at the end of a full speed straight. I'm a bit surprised that Croydon went for so long before having an accident there. You would never have such an arrangement on a road without considerable warnings. Onetime tramways developed to having electric points at road junctions, controlled by detecting the power draw in the overhead, and these incorporated specific protection against a tram intending to go straight through suddenly being diverted at speed into the side street - this was 100 years ago.

I'm rarely impressed by Risk Assessments catching poor design features. They are commonly back-calculated to fit what has already been designed and/or is affordable.

Yes I worded my original wording very carefully to allude to the current crop of "second generation" systems. It's certainly interesting to hear this was an issue first time round, and I'd be interested to hear of any specific cases.

I'm always wary of having the big benefit of hindsight on matters, however nonetheless it does seem surprising this risk was never captured.

 

[edwin_m]

There were a range of such accidents on traditional tramways long ago, but of course nobody on the Croydon team had any historical knowledge.

Do you know this or just surmise? I was involved in the early days of the project and there were certainly several people there who knew their tramway history

I'm rarely impressed by Risk Assessments catching poor design features. They are commonly back-calculated to fit what has already been designed and/or is affordable.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the same issue was foreseen at Oldham Werneth some time before the Croydon accident and a chevron sign provided as mitigation. This was picked up in a hazard identification, essentially a glorified risk assessment bringing together the designers and the operator's experienced people.

 

[AlterEgo]

Certainly not, as careless or dangerous driving covers a fairly broad spectrum of possible events/actions/intent. But yes, generally I don't see the point in instances like this in imprisoning people for acts that were clearly involuntary, lacking any intent whatsoever to do harm/wrong. What purpose does it serve? It won't deter anybody from doing it again, because nobody would ever knowingly do it. What purpose does sending him to prison achieve?

It achieves justice. Falling asleep while on the job, killing people and being able to walk away from it without seeing the inside of a courtroom or prison isn’t justice.

I think if one of my relatives was so carelessly removed from this planet by such an action I’d want the justice system to ensure he was punished for it. Feeling terribly sorry about the whole thing, whether it’s genuine or not, isn’t enough.

 

[Ianno87]

There were a range of such accidents on traditional tramways long ago, but of course nobody on the Croydon team had any historical knowledge. Though I do agree it would have been obvious to me as a risk, especially coming at the end of a full speed straight. I'm a bit surprised that Croydon went for so long before having an accident there. You would never have such an arrangement on a road without considerable warnings. Onetime tramways developed to having electric points at road junctions, controlled by detecting the power draw in the overhead, and these incorporated specific protection against a tram intending to go straight through suddenly being diverted at speed into the side street - this was 100 years ago.

It did transpire that there had been several prior over-speeding incidents at Sandilands, but none significant enough to call a derailment.

I'd however suggest that the operation of traditional tramways is so radically different to modern light rail as to be almost irrelevant. If anything, starting with a blank sheet of paper is probably a better approach to risks, which are going to be quite radically changed, to avoid "tunnel vision" of the risks.

I'm rarely impressed by Risk Assessments catching poor design features. They are commonly back-calculated to fit what has already been designed and/or is affordable.

You've basically got to justify that where a risk exists, it is lowered as far as is reasonably practicable through appropriate mitigation, accepting that to truly eliminate the risk would make the project unviable.


To make a different example, running of trams on a street is inherently riskier than a fully segregated alignment, but that is clearly impractical through Central Croydon, so the mitigation is design of the road layout in line with the latest standards, signage for pedestrians, etc etc.

Do you know this or just surmise? I was involved in the early days of the project and there were certainly several people there who knew their tramway history

Well, for starters, there was a reason why the tram numbering sequence started at 2530...

 

[bramling]

It achieves justice. Falling asleep while on the job, killing people and being able to walk away from it without seeing the inside of a courtroom or prison isn’t justice.

I think if one of my relatives was so carelessly removed from this planet by such an action I’d want the justice system to ensure he was punished for it. Feeling terribly sorry about the whole thing, whether it’s genuine or not, isn’t enough.

Being able to move on from unfortunate events is something we all need to do at times. I don't think it should automatically follow that killing someone should automatically equal prison.

I can see that some kind of trial might be seen as achieving closure, so that at least the whole thing could be aired out in an accountable way. But there's only a point to this is someone feels there is a case to answer.

I can't really agree that some kind of automatic punishment for causing an accident is really a civilised solution. Obviously if there's clear negligence involved then that's a different matter entirely. If all he did was fall asleep then I'm not sure that meets the bar for negligence, unless there's evidence he did something to contribute to that situation arising.

The other difficulty with concentrating the focus of justice onto the driver, is what would happen had he been included as one of the fatalities, as could quite easily have happened?

I mentioned in an earlier post that the same issue was foreseen at Oldham Werneth some time before the Croydon accident and a chevron sign provided as mitigation. This was picked up in a hazard identification, essentially a glorified risk assessment bringing together the designers and the operator's experienced people.

Installing a chevron does seem more of a "box-ticking exercise" than anything else. It isn't really going to achieve much if the driver disregards it.

 

[Taunton]

Do you know this or just surmise? I was involved in the early days of the project and there were certainly several people there who knew their tramway history

I mentioned in an earlier post that the same issue was foreseen at Oldham Werneth some time before the Croydon accident and a chevron sign provided as mitigation. This was picked up in a hazard identification, essentially a glorified risk assessment bringing together the designers and the operator's experienced people.

There were a range. It took me two minutes to find about a fatal one in Croydon itself in 1907,

Croydon and Surrounding Areas History Group | Facebook

you can see the right-angle bend of the tracks at a junction on an old map here

 

[AlterEgo]

Being able to move on from unfortunate events is something we all need to do at times. I don't think it should automatically follow that killing someone should automatically equal prison.

I can see that some kind of trial might be seen as achieving closure, so that at least the whole thing could be aired out in an accountable way. But there's only a point to this is someone feels there is a case to answer.

The families clearly feel that, and I think they are entitled to especially as the driver managed to avoid giving any evidence to the inquest, which would have been the very limit of his moral duty. Instead, we are invited to feel sorry for the driver by people with no skin in the game, as if this is the principal aim of the justice system in a developed country.

I can't really agree that some kind of automatic punishment for causing an accident is really a civilised solution.

I tend to think that if you are a professional driver in control of a passenger vehicle at speed and kill seven people because you fall asleep, this is a level of wrongdoing which deserves to be punished with something the justice system metes out. I think, personally, that would be the civilised thing to do.

I certainly hope not to find you have ever advocated for prosecutions for extremely minor things under railway-specific legislation, while at the same time defending a professional driver's gross error which left seven families burying their dead while not even giving any evidence at their inquests.

 

[the sniper]

It achieves justice. Falling asleep while on the job, killing people and being able to walk away from it without seeing the inside of a courtroom or prison isn’t justice.

I think if one of my relatives was so carelessly removed from this planet by such an action I’d want the justice system to ensure he was punished for it. Feeling terribly sorry about the whole thing, whether it’s genuine or not, isn’t enough.

But what justice is being served? Being thrown in prison for doing something that they didn't know was happening, where they were injured and could have been killed themselves and have had their life turned upside down regardless. What does sitting in a cell for a while with someone who's likely done something intentionally to harm others actually achieve?

If anything, wanting to ensure "punishment" would seem to involve far more malice, conspiracy and intent than the original act.

 

[AlterEgo]

But what justice is being served? Being thrown in prison for doing something that they didn't know was happening, where they were injured and could have been killed themselves and have had their life turned upside down regardless. What does sitting in a cell for a while with someone who's likely done something intentionally to harm others actually achieve?

If anything, wanting to ensure "punishment" would seem to involve far more malice, conspiracy and intent than the original act.

I do find it really quite depressing to discover people who think if you fall asleep and kill seven people under your professional care that the criminal justice system should just say "okay".

 

[bramling]

The families clearly feel that, and I think they are entitled to especially as the driver managed to avoid giving any evidence to the inquest, which would have been the very limit of his moral duty. Instead, we are invited to feel sorry for the driver by people with no skin in the game, as if this is the principal aim of the justice system in a developed country.

I tend to think that if you are a professional driver in control of a passenger vehicle at speed and kill seven people because you fall asleep, this is a level of wrongdoing which deserves to be punished with something the justice system metes out. I think, personally, that would be the civilised thing to do.

I certainly hope not to find you have ever advocated for prosecutions for extremely minor things under railway-specific legislation, while at the same time defending a professional driver's gross error which left seven families burying their dead while not even giving any evidence at their inquests.

The inquest issue is a separate one. I agree it's unfortunate this didn't happen, however we don't know what the score is with the driver concerned. For all we know he may well genuinely be in a bad way over the whole thing, as most people would be. The possibility of people being there to sniff blood isn't exactly encouragement for him to attend. I seem to remember the Southall driver breaking down in front of cameras at one point, I'm not sure degrading someone in this way in a public setting is helpful to anyone.

I can't agree that falling asleep is the high bar you believe it is. For me it's a biological human event, which we mitigate as far as we can. We don't know this driver didn't do that. If we choose to board a public transport vehicle operated by a human, we all take the risk that there's a small chance something may happen, it's one of those facts of life. If there was anything to suggest this particular driver had been reckless then I think we'd know about it by now. I seem to remember there was stuff in the media at the time suggesting he may have been texting, which all quietly faded away, so we assume was untrue.

 

[Mothball]

Its important to consider the purpose of prisons in cases like this.
Rehabilitation, Public Protection and Punishment.
The only one that reasonably applies on this case is the punishment aspect. With the following quote from the Justice Secretary outlining the purpose of punishment.

"Prison deprives offenders of their liberty and certain freedoms enjoyed by the rest of society and acts as a deterrent."

Its believed the driver did not feel as if he was tired, so can you punish someone for falling asleep when they didn't feel tired? Punish them more than having multiple deaths on there conscious and having your name and face easily accessible on national news

 

[bramling]

Punish them more than having multiple deaths on there conscious and having your name and face easily accessible on national news

This is my thinking exactly. I'm not sure some people appreciate just how much effect this incident will have already had on the guy's life, in particular several years of what will almost certainly have been extreme stress and worry, not to mention guilt. He could also just as easily have been one of the fatalities on the day.

Thankfully being a contributory factor in a major disaster is something most of us aren't involved in, nor have to live with, and I think it's good grace to spare a thought for those who do find themselves in that position. I think one thing we can be fully sure of is when he left home that morning he never intended anything bad to happen.

Transport is a hazardous business, big heavy pieces of machinery moving around at high speeds on the limits of physics. We've spent coming up to 200 years developing rail safety learning lessons from things which have happened and engineering out risks from human error wherever possible. Can any of us honestly say that, even with the benefit of hindsight, the engineered setup at Sandilands that morning really was the best and safest which could have been provided?

 

[edwin_m]

There were a range. It took me two minutes to find about a fatal one in Croydon itself in 1907,

Croydon and Surrounding Areas History Group | Facebook

you can see the right-angle bend of the tracks at a junction on an old map here

I wasn't querying the historic fact of tram accidents - I visited the site of the Bournemouth one a couple of weeks ago, though that was brake failure and mishandling on a descending gradient, not driver inattention.

I was querying your apparently baseless assertion that the people at Tramlink had no knowledge of tramway history. Jim Snowdon, who testified at the inquest as mentioned above, certainly seemed to, and assuming he's the same person who posts on RMWeb he still does.

 

[Meerkat]

What purpose does it serve? It won't deter anybody from doing it again, because nobody would ever knowingly do it. What purpose does sending him to prison achieve?

Deterrence. More likely that drivers in similar situations will demand signs etc to help them, and not take risks with fatigue.
”I‘m not risking going to prison like X”

If all he did was fall asleep then I'm not sure that meets the bar for negligence, unless there's evidence he did something to contribute to that situation arising.

Falling asleep is negligence, particularly for a professional driver. Unless you have a medical condition you don’t just go from ’not tired’ to dozing off - you feel it coming and you do something about it.

 

[Ianno87]

Falling asleep is negligence, particularly for a professional driver. Unless you have a medical condition you don’t just go from ’not tired’ to dozing off - you feel it coming and you do something about it.

Not always.

 

[the sniper]

Deterrence. More likely that drivers in similar situations will demand signs etc to help them, and not take risks with fatigue.
”I‘m not risking going to prison like X”

Seems like you're prosecuting the wrong person if the roundabout intention is to get more signs...

The risk of death and taking a bunch of people with you are probably more of a deterrent then a few months in a cell with a drug dealer. Though as said, this isn't a scenario which you're knowingly going to enter into.

Falling asleep is negligence, particularly for a professional driver. Unless you have a medical condition you don’t just go from ’not tired’ to dozing off - you feel it coming and you do something about it.

In the RAIB report it's described as a temporary loss of situational awareness, which possible caused a microsleep. The driving was on point up until this happened. It doesn't seem to be a situation where they slowly dozed off.

Less than two weeks before the incident another Driver/Tram had gone into the curve too fast at 28mph, the driver having mistook his place in the tunnel (where the braking point was). I think most people looking at this location and Tramlink's safety systems from a modern mainline railway perspective would have just considered it a matter of time before something went off there. If this were the railway, the Driver almost certainly would have just been stopped by TPWS. Nobody would be discussing prison, seven people wouldn't have died...

 

[bramling]

Deterrence. More likely that drivers in similar situations will demand signs etc to help them, and not take risks with fatigue.
”I‘m not risking going to prison like X”

Falling asleep is negligence, particularly for a professional driver. Unless you have a medical condition you don’t just go from ’not tired’ to dozing off - you feel it coming and you do something about it.

So professional drivers have a professional human body which is capable of overriding basic human functions like sudden tiredness?

I’m afraid it’s absurd to suggest that it’s down to drivers to be demanding safety measures. They’re not the duty holder, and it certainly isn’t their specialist area to be assessing and managing risk, as well as designing and implementing mitigations.

As I’ve alluded to elsewhere, with hindsight this was a complete and utter accident waiting to happen. The only surprise is it took so long to happen, to be honest. I really find it disingenuous to castigate the driver in that situation, unless anyone is aware of anything which aggravates his involvement - if there was anything then I think we’d know about it.

There are a lot of parallels with Moorgate at Sandilands - a high severity accident with a simple immediate cause, and one which with hindsight should probably have been anticipated. We don’t hear much said about the driver in the Moorgate example, instead LT simply got on with designing and implementing mitigation measures which made a recurrence virtually impossible. Would there have been a witch hunt against the Moorgate driver had he survived, and what purpose would this have served?

 

[Meerkat]

Would there have been a witch hunt against the Moorgate driver had he survived

Almost certainly

So professional drivers have a professional human body which is capable of overriding basic human functions like sudden tiredness?

I don’t believe in ‘sudden’ tiredness, of the level of falling asleep. A professional driver should be more aware of his fatigue level, have more coping strategies, and feel more responsibility.

I’m afraid it’s absurd to suggest that it’s down to drivers to be demanding safety measures. They’re not the duty holder, and it certainly isn’t their specialist area to be assessing and managing risk, as well as designing and implementing mitigations.

If it’s an accident waiting to happen then the people most likely to notice that are the drivers. If it’s them at risk of going to prison they are more likely to refuse to accept that accident waiting to happen.
Making people responsible makes them think a bit more, even at the level of making people sign for something, let alone go to prison for it.

 

[seagull]

Certainly anyone who drives professionally on a shift working basis will, as with many incidents caused by fatigue, be thinking "there but for the grace of God go I".

It is a fact that the demands of constantly varying shift times, encompassing earlies, lates and nights, and changing by day and by week, result in a majority of drivers being in an almost permanent state of semi-fatigue, relieved only by several consecutive days off.

There is generally no sudden point where an individual realises that they have become too tired to go to work that day. Instead, it can be something that hits quite suddenly and out of the blue: and micro sleeps are quite commonplace. Fortunately mostly so brief that there is no consequence, other than the awful knowledge by the individual that it happened.

I don't know the details of the tram company's shift patterns so this may not be relevant, but certainly on the mainline railway, there's a huge gap between ORR " best practice "guidelines for shift pattern rostering, and what actually takes place.

 

[the sniper]

If it’s an accident waiting to happen then the people most likely to notice that are the drivers. If it’s them at risk of going to prison they are more likely to refuse to accept that accident waiting to happen.
Making people responsible makes them think a bit more, even at the level of making people sign for something, let alone go to prison for it.

This on the forum where every dispute related to safety is brushed off with "it's done elsewhere, why's it a problem here"...

 

[Meerkat]

This on the forum where every dispute related to safety is brushed off with "it's done elsewhere, why's it a problem here"...

Which disputes are these - are any of them really about safety?

 

[the sniper]

Which disputes are these - are any of them really about safety?

Who's deciding? Does somebody need to be sent to jail first before they're really about safety...?