-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Two people rescued from River Clyde by train
- Thread starter matchmaker
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Ex-controller
Member
Driver of the 1340 Edinburgh to Helensburgh Central service spotted the men in the water and stopped to assist. Services disrupted between Dumbarton Central and Helensburgh Central for a period whilst emergency services attended.
Anonymous10
Established Member
according to rtt its due to a trespass
RTT only shows reasons for cancellations, not delays, and the reasons are from the industry-standard list rather than entered as free text. The handful of cancelled services were coded XA (trespass, including non-intentional) as weirdly there's no code for mariners in distress
Falcon1200
Established Member
RTT only shows reasons for cancellations, not delays, and the reasons are from the industry-standard list rather than entered as free text. The handful of cancelled services were coded XA (trespass, including non-intentional) as weirdly there's no code for mariners in distress
Which means Network Rail pick up the bill, although the incident was nothing whatsoever to do with them ! However the alternative would be to attribute the delays and cancellations to the the TOC, ie the Driver, which would of course be even more unfair.
I don't think that's unfair, to be honest. It was after all a TOC employee who chose to stop their train and offer assistance, as honourable as that was. They would obviously have been aware that in doing so, rather than just calling the signaller for example, they would be causing significant disruption. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't have stopped, and indeed the TOC are clearly happy to take the credit for their colleagues' actions, but it very definitely wasn't NR's delay! I imagine they'll be disputing that one!
Gloster
Established Member
The way that there are grumbles and even, potentially, an argument as a result of resolving a life or death situation shows just how bonkers the whole system is. Why not close it all down and leave bean-counters and lawyers to argue over imaginary situations?
Falcon1200
Established Member
The issue here is that there are situations where neither the TOC nor NR is to blame, eg passengers ill on trains for the former and bridge strikes for the latter, yet every delay must be attributed to one or the other, and therefore forms part of their performance statistics; By which they are judged, or more usually, criticised. I have long believed that there should be a third category of delay figures for those beyond the industry's control, to give a truer picture of how and why performance has suffered.
70014IronDuke
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 3,699
I was thinking of posting exactly the same thing. It may not be a force majeure in legal terms, but it is in moral terms. It should simply be categorised as such, if it needs to be so.
Yup. In fact, are you by law required to act in some way when you see a life threatening situation in the UK?
I think in Germany it would constitute a criminal offence for the driver not to act in this situation, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the railway itself.
The "Good Samaritan" law I believe it's known as. I've only ever heard of it with regard to motorists, but it would make sense for it to apply universally!
Gloster
Established Member
I think a Good Samaritan law is one where a person who goes to the assistance of another is protected from legal action if they make a mistake. That is the law in the UK. However there is in some countries a Duty to Rescue law which means that a person can be prosecuted if they fail to go to the assistance of a person in need. That exists in much of Europe, although the details vary.
I don't think anyone will really mind about the delay in this case, it's just book keeping. I once delayed my train to go and rescue another TOC's staff member who was being attacked, being joined subsequently by my driver - it generated some significant delay on paper but in practice no one was bothered about it because it couldn't be helped, it'll drop into the system.
Don't ScotRail on NR and vice versa delays just go into an improvements pot now anyway?
Top work from this driver anyway.
Don't ScotRail on NR and vice versa delays just go into an improvements pot now anyway?
Top work from this driver anyway.
It would indeed, although proving they had actually seen the incident would be difficult in these circumstances. I believe it is also clear who would be receiving the bill for the rescue etc (or rather probably whose insurance company!).
O L Leigh
Established Member
Given that the boat capsized after being struck by what the witness said looked like a railway sleeper, I think it’s right to go against Nitwit Rail in this instance. 
Incidentally, are delay minutes for things outside the control of the railway no longer split so as not to disadvantage either party? Or was that a myth?
Incidentally, are delay minutes for things outside the control of the railway no longer split so as not to disadvantage either party? Or was that a myth?
The problem with that is the knock-on nature of delays. It isn't just the one or two individual trains directly concerned, it can cause a huge ripple effect adding up to an awful lot of money. Plus you then have the Delay Repay etc bill that has to come out of somebody's pocket. I don't think any delay is ever 'written off', it has to end up somewhere!
No. There’s no “duty of rescue” in U.K. law.
Gloster
Established Member
Quite correct. There is no ‘Duty of Rescue’ law in the UK, only a ‘Good Samaritan’ law. See #15.
D6130
Established Member
While I don't doubt for one moment the legal accuracy of the above statements, I would like to point out that this incident took place in Scotland....which has separate - and often different - laws from the rest of the UK.
Gloster
Established Member
While I don't doubt for one moment the legal accuracy of the above statements, I would like to point out that this incident took place in Scotland....which has separate - and often different - laws from the rest of the UK.
Indeed, I am aware of the the law in Scotland is not the same as that in England and Wales (do I hear mutterings of ‘1707’ in some corners), but the situation is basically the same in both. There may be some difference in detail, but Wikipedia doesn’t go that far.
John Luxton
Established Member
There is a duty to to rescue at sea this is from the Red Cross web site:
The duty to rescue at sea, in peacetime and in war: A general overview
The duty to rescue persons in distress at sea is a fundamental rule of international law. It has been incorporated in international treaties and forms the content of a norm of customary international law. It applies both during peacetime and during wartime, albeit with the necessary adjustments...
Now I am not familiar with the location mentioned, however, using Google Earth it is clear that Cardross is in the wide tidal part of the River Clyde, thus we are not talking a small river - more an inlet of the sea.
The rules are probably more aimed at seafarers as passenger ships have been known to wander off route to look for people in distress and no one queries their deviation from the timetables. It is accepted practice.
I would say the driver met the requirement to the letter, it might be unusual that land transport was involved and delayed as a result - but just one of those things and top marks to the driver.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gloster
Established Member
There is a duty to to rescue at sea this is from the Red Cross web site:
The duty to rescue at sea, in peacetime and in war: A general overview
The duty to rescue persons in distress at sea is a fundamental rule of international law. It has been incorporated in international treaties and forms the content of a norm of customary international law. It applies both during peacetime and during wartime, albeit with the necessary adjustments...international-review.icrc.org
"The duty to rescue persons in distress at sea is a fundamental rule of international law. It has been incorporated in international treaties and forms the content of a norm of customary international law. It applies both during peacetime and during wartime, albeit with the necessary adjustments to take into account the different circumstances."
Now I am not familiar with the location mentioned, however, using Google Earth it is clear that Cardross is in the wide tidal part of the River Clyde, thus we are not talking a small river - more an inlet of the sea.
The rules are probably more aimed at seafarers as passenger ships have been known to wander off route to look for people in distress and no one queries their deviation from the timetables. It is accepted practice.
I would say the driver met the requirement to the letter, it might be unusual that land transport was involved and delayed as a result - but just one of those things and top marks to the driver.
I do not know, having never studied law (my father threatened to cut me out of his will if I did and I think he was only half joking), but I expect that this only legally applies to the Open Sea. The Clyde would probably not count as it is enclosed by headlands.
But in a emergency you should do your best without thinking, not contact a barrister for an opinion as to whether you have a legal obligation to do something. Although nowadays people would probably be too busy taking photos on their phones and putting it on the net.
contrex
Member
Four American states impose a duty to rescue. Vermont, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. All treat the offence as a petty misdemeanour with a fine as the maximum penalty, except the last named state which also allows 6 months in prison the last time I checked. The potential penalties are worse in France, where 'failing to rescue a person in danger can lead to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to €75,000. One key feature of the offence, to be shown by the prosecution, is that the accused could have intervened without risk. However I read of one, before smart phones, where a woman drowned in a river not far from a camp site. A number of people used camcorders to film her struggles. The police confiscated as many camcorders as they could see, and examined the footage on each. If they found the drowning, the user was prosecuted. Fairly hefty fines were imposed, around £400 I think in 1990s money, and the equipment confiscated. The prosecutions were widely supported locally.
I shall preface this post by saying that I am an English and Scots qualified solicitor who frequently deals with international law issues as part of my practice.
International law is also not generally binding within the territory of the UK so it would not directly create any legal obligations in this location.
The answer is: “it depends”.
I agree as to the overall definition of such a law proffered, but it is not the general law of the United Kingdom.
While I don't doubt for one moment the legal accuracy of the above statements, I would like to point out that this incident took place in Scotland....which has separate - and often different - laws from the rest of the UK.
There is no material difference in the law across the various UK jurisdictions on these issues.
This part of the Clyde constitutes inland waters, not open sea.
International law is also not generally binding within the territory of the UK so it would not directly create any legal obligations in this location.
Signal_Box
Member
Scotrail driver caused the delay, Scotrail should pick up the delays. In an ideal world this would be a no delay charge incident, but passengers will want their delay repay so who pays that ?
I’m at the other end of the UK and had no involvement in the incident whatsoever but from what I have read from internal rail industry systems the driver of the train had been cautioned anyway because of the ongoing incident in the river next to the railway and was forced to stop by people on the line who were already assisting the stranded sailors. It doesn’t take away from the driver’s actions in an unusual incident but it doesn’t seem to have happened the way the press story suggests.
Last edited:
Unless things have changed significantly since I studied law (admittedly a few years ago now) my understanding is that, absent any specific duty owed by one individual to another, there is indeed no general obligation to assist, under either tort or criminal law. The gruesome example I remember being trotted out was that you could observe a baby drowning in a puddle and, quite, legally, walk on by. That the default UK position and contrasts with the law in many European countries, for example.
Things get more complicated if you have a specific duty of care, for example to a child in your care, or have assumed one, for example stepping in to assist someone who has been injured. This is where the concern for “good Samaritans” comes in.
- Status