Wellington Quay Bus Verdict

Red Alert

On RTE news today, in case anybody hadn't seen:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0220/bus.html

I hope the man can now get on with his life, whether or not he's able to return to work. It can't be easy for him or his family, especially given his exemplary service record which was rightly heard about in court.

My thoughts are also with the people who died that day. May they rest in peace.

What lessons if any should/could be learned from that day?

Wishbone Ash

It's a small mercy for him. What he must be going through doesn't bear thinking about.

Red Alert wrote:

My thoughts are also with the people who died that day. May they rest in peace.

Ditto.

KC61

I also hope that Mr. Henvey can now move on from this. The whole incident was tragic, and we can only hope that it does not happen again. Both he and the families of those killed deserve our heartfelt sympathies.

A greater lesson for all of this (in my view) is the complete lack of any proper thought into the positioning of bus stops and termini around the city, specifically the many locations where it is nigh on impossible for buses to pull in properly adjacent to the kerb. The gardai, the local authorities and the bus companies need to take a long hard look at this and re-examine the positioning of stops so that buses can have sufficient room to pull into and pull out of bus stops and not have passengers stepping onto the road to board their bus. Areas that spring to mind are D'Olier Street which has too many stops for the volume of buses serving it, Upper Rathmines Road where at least six stops have no bus stop markings on the road and where it is impossible for a bus to pull in adjacent to the kerb due there being insufficient space.

This location should never have been a bus terminus as it was totally unsuitable, and I can well remember that one of the Dublin Bus driver contributors here posted on elsewhere on the internet some three months before this tragedy happened that in his opinion it was an accident waiting to happen. Had the 66 bus been able to pull in properly at the kerb then perhaps this accident would not have been as severe as it was.

Unfortunately, this issue has still been largely ignored by the authorities, and I still see every day bus drivers having to cope with poorly located bus stops where passengers have to walk out onto the road to board the bus.

One wonders will the Dublin Bus inquiry make any reference to this when it is finally published?

Hagar

Aside from the obvious poor planning of teminii I think it's worrying that it has emerged that there is some sort of intermittant fault with the buses in general that could possibly lead to another incident. Has any resolution been found for the fault in the last 3 years? I'm amazed that it never came to public notice until it was highlighted by Mr. Henvey's defence as a contributing factor in the tragedy.

Wishbone Ash

KC61 wrote:

Areas that spring to mind are D'Olier Street which has too many stops for the volume of buses serving it, Upper Rathmines Road where at least six stops have no bus stop markings on the road and where it is impossible for a bus to pull in adjacent to the kerb due there being insufficient space....

... every day bus drivers having to cope with poorly located bus stops where passengers have to walk out onto the road to board the bus.

The DB stops on the arrivals road at Dublin Airport are another example. Every day dozens of buses are forced to reverse unaided in a very busy area or stop on pedestrian crossings while unloading. It's hopeed to be resolved when they move out to the rear of the multi-storey but I have my doubts.

Seth Brundle

Red Alert wrote:

My thoughts are also with the people who died that day. May they rest in peace.

Ditto!

A number of things should be addressed immediatley:
* identify all inappropriatley placed stops and termini and move them or alter them
* should barriers be erected at bus stops? If not why?
* how common (in reality) are power surges and what is being done to remove any driver/passenger risk?
* could this happen again?

KC61

Hagar wrote:

Aside from the obvious poor planning of teminii I think it's worrying that it has emerged that there is some sort of intermittant fault with the buses in general that could possibly lead to another incident. Has any resolution been found for the fault in the last 3 years? I'm amazed that it never came to public notice until it was highlighted by Mr. Henvey's defence as a contributing factor in the tragedy.

Hagar, I understand that the jury cleared the driver, but was there conclusive proof of a fault with this type of bus?

I know that two Bus Eireann drivers alleged that power surges took place in vehicles in Waterford, but this was a completely different model of vehicle, a fact, which while disturbing in itself, that did not seem to be highlighted. There was no evidence from any other Dublin Bus driver that such power surges had taken place on any Dublin Bus vehicles. We also had the unfortunate presentation of incorrect evidence from Volvo, but which was subsequently corrected. My understanding of the corrected evidence (based on newspaper reports) was that it seemed to suggest that no power surge had taken place?

Volvo Bus, in their statement last night, are still maintaining that there was no fault on the vehicle.

Wishbone Ash

kbannon wrote:

should barriers be erected at bus stops? If not why?

There would be several problems with barriers even to my uneducated eye.

1. The bus would have to be positioned exactly to line up the doors with a gap in the barrier. This may not be possible if a vehicle is illegally parked/roadworks etc. or if several buses are utilising the stop simultaneously.

2. If a bus is nicely alligned with the kerb but needs to pull out at a severe angle to avoid a stationery bus in front, there is a danger that the tailswing could collide with the barrier. The barrier could be placed further in to avoid this but then passengers will probably stand outside it. A bus would not be able to pull in at an angle also as the front could not hang over the kerb.

3. Not very asthetically pleasing especially in leafy suburbs.

4. At many stops, there is no footpath, a barrier could not be built out on the road.

Wishbone Ash

KC61 wrote:

this was a completely different model of vehicle, a fact, which while disturbing in itself, that did not seem to be highlighted.

Same Volvo engine/electrical system? (The coachwork probably wouldn't matter).

KC61 wrote:

Volvo Bus, in their statement last night, are still maintaining that there was no fault on the vehicle.

It would be in their interest to do so!

KC61

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Same Volvo engine/electrical system? (The coachwork probably wouldn't matter).

It would be in their interest to do so!

You're quite correct that the coachwork would not matter, but I don't think that they have the same engine models in the Dublin Bus fleet as in the Bus Eireann buses. You are quite correct that Volvo are the manufacturers of both.

Obviously it is in Volvo's interest to state that no fault was present, but I am still unsure (from press reports) that any conclusive evidence of a power surge / intermittant fault with this vehicle type was presented?

To be honest I feel that this trial has raised more questions than answered them, and I feel that the whole area of bus stop safety has been totally overlooked.

shltter

While I'm glad Mr Henvey has been cleared and I hope he can get on with his life

A couple of points

The prosecution of the case was dreadful

Why was Volvo let anywhere near the bus in question any information to be downloaded from the bus should have been done by an independent third party.

The Garda "expert" clearly had no idea what the information that Volvo produced meant if the defence could find an expert to understand the evidence and its implications why could no one on the prosecution side.

Given that automatic gearboxes are relatively uncommon in this country it is highly likely that the jury had little or no experience with them why was no "expert" brought in to explain the concept of pedal confusion.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4422040.stm

shltter

kbannon wrote:

Ditto!

A number of things should be addressed immediatley:
* identify all inappropriatley placed stops and termini and move them or alter them
* should barriers be erected at bus stops? If not why?
* how common (in reality) are power surges and what is being done to remove any driver/passenger risk?
* could this happen again?

A barrier would have little or no effect in stopping a Bus

Power surges happen I doubt that you could ever remove the possibility of one ever happening


Of course it could happen again

jman0

Why are so many feeling relieved the driver got off?
No fault was found on the bus.
Sounds to me as though his concentration slipped for a moment which resulted in his killing loads of people.
I wonder what the survivors get?
A kick in the teeth?

strassenwolf

Why was the case brought to court?

It seems to be clear that Mr Henvey was utterly apalled by what happened. It also seems to be clear that there was a lot of doubt surrounding these "power surges" that may happen on Volvo buses and may have happened on the day in question.

It's not clear to me how the DPP could have reasonably got the desired conviction with such questions about the bus itself still unanswered. It should be very important that these things are properly nailed down before a case like this comes to court, as it must surely be very difficult for the families of the deceased, just as it must have been for Mr Henvey and his relatives. This was not a murder trial - it was a case about a tragedy.

I can remember the day almost as if it was last week, as I was meeting my parents down on Merchant's Quay for a lift out of the city, shortly after the tragedy happened. They came down through Christchurch and there was, fairly obviously, almost no traffic along the south quays. There were at that stage fairly garbled reports along the river about what had actually occurred.

I hope he can now rebuild his life, and have as much success in doing so as the families of the bereaved.

cold_filter

honestly i believe it was just a tragic accident, you know you hear stories of people you pull into their driveway and press the accelerator instead of the brake, i think something similar, he has no motive to want to go postal

HelterSkelter

jman0 wrote:

Why are so many feeling relieved the driver got off?

Because it was a freak accedent, it could happen to anyone. I once pressed the accelerator pedal instead of the break, I was lucky in that I was able to stop the car before any damage was done.

jman0

They didn't prove the bus was faulty.
It was driver error insofar as i can tell.
Call it a "freak accident" or a "mistake" or whatever, but the fact is it's yer man's actions which resulted in 5 deaths.
There should be a price to pay.
He should be barred from operating buses for one, should be sacked and personally i'd like to see him doing time for 5 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

AlekSmart

Quote [Jmano]: " Why are so many feeling relieved the driver got off?
No fault was found on the bus.
Sounds to me as though his concentration slipped for a moment which resulted in his killing loads of people.
I wonder what the survivors get?
A kick in the teeth?"
.................................................................................................................................

I don`t think anybody is "Feeling Relieved" at this verdict.
Whilst "No Fault" was found on this bus,there was sufficient evidence produced to indicate that a Fault could have occurred and not been recorded by the Electronic Control Unit module.

Relatively early on in the Defence case the Garda technical expert admitted that in his fault replication tests of the ECU there were 2 replicated faults which were not recorded.
This evidence was before the Volvo debacle and I would suggest impacted greatly on the Jury.

For those with an interest in the broader question of corporate responsibility and in how a major manufacturer seeks to address issues such as "Unintended Accelleration" I would recommend www.vexedvolvo.org

Irrespective of the verdict in this case there needs to be a greater understanding of the role played by the COMBINATION of factors which to date have recieved little attention in Dublins infrastructure.

For example if one takes alook at O Connell St Today,in the immediate aftermath of a €56 million rebuild,one only sees total chaos for Public Transport users.
Nowhere in the rebuild was ANY thought given to the thousands of passengers per hour who use Buses transiting this street.

Even here on this board we have those who doubt the need for pedestrian barriers at Bus Stops.

If anybody here is a closet "Anorak" (Bus Spotter) then surf some of the many excellent Photographic websites such as http://londonbuspageinexile.wordpress.com/
Disregarding the pictures of lovely curvy Buses on many of the sites,take a good hard look at the BACKGROUNDS.
In most of the UK urban bus operation shots one will see Pedestrian Barriers or other physical means of controlling the waiting passengers or of directing passenger flow.

In my opinion this simple provision of even a 5 mtr length would prevent passengers who have just alighted from turning immediately right and crossing directly in front of the Bus they have just left....usually appearing suddenly in front of the Car/Truck/Motorcycle/Skateboarder that is overtaking the stationary Bus.

This sort of inherent carelessness used to be addressed by the likes of Eugene Lambert and Judge via safety films on RTE many decades ago but it appears our national genetic makeup is now of sufficient quality to make such commonsense redundant.

It may be hard to credit but the current O Connell St Bus Stop arrangements are supposed to be the result of some "Bus Stop Action Plan" devised in conjunction with The City Council and the Gardai.
If this is so then God help us all.

The immediate aftermath of the Wellington Quay accident saw the Authorities making all manner of committments to carry out "Safety Audits" and the likes,the results of which we await with bated breath.

The actual procedures which allow a major Bus Terminus to be sited on the narrowest choke-point of the South Quays,which in Pre Port Tunnel times carried a frightening volume of totally unsuitable HGV traffic all intent on getting out of the city centre as fast as possible,has never been revealed.

I was expecting some evidence to be given as to the history of the Wellington Quay Terminus as to the exact method by which it was allocated for use.
There were some short-lived rumours at the time that the Wellington Quay site was allocated by "executive decision" of the Gardai (whatever that implies) rather than by the time-honoured DCC/DB/Gardai committee system.

There are also some worrying indications in this Mornings Independent that Dublin Bus are retreating from the initial committment to make the contents of its internal report public.
With the trial of Kenneth Henvy now over there is very strong requirement to carry out a far broader analysis of the events surrounding the Wellington Quay disaster,but part of the problem lies in the need to push such an enquiry upwards rather than remaining mereley at the lowest level of the ladder.

Ardent

I don't understand the judicial system in this country. Apparently, reading the papers today, the judge insisted that the prosecution had to prove without reasonable doubt that there was not a power surge.

Volvo claimed there was no power suge, the defence consequently couldn't prove that there was one, yet the onus was still on the prosecution to prove that there wasn't one??

OTK

What if Mr Henvey's counsel were to see this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=185898

Could I ask that it be deleted?

This case shows up a weakness in the judicial system. With all effort focused on retribution and blame allocation, we have learnt nothing. For all we know there is a deficiency in bus engines, or driver education or bus stop design that still exists and will lead to more deaths. We are unlikely to find the truth in an atmosphere of courtroom conflict. The Dublin Bus investigation will be about as useful as an internal garda investigation. We all know what conclusion it will reach: hey guess what? It was someone else's fault!

strassenwolf

jman0 wrote:

They didn't prove the bus was faulty.

Nor did anyone prove that the driver was guilty.

It was driver error insofar as i can tell.
Call it a "freak accident" or a "mistake" or whatever, but the fact is it's yer man's actions which resulted in 5 deaths.

Can you prove that it was his actions that caused the tragedy? If so, why were you not called as an expert witness?

There should be a price to pay.
He should be barred from operating buses for one, should be sacked and personally i'd like to see him doing time for 5 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

I'd imagine a price is being paid by Mr Henvey, no matter what your views happen to be. But, whatever the failings of the case which the DPP actually brought.....if bringing 5 counts of involuntary manslaughter was the solution, wouldn't he have done that?

seamus

Ardent wrote:

Volvo claimed there was no power suge, the defence consequently couldn't prove that there was one, yet the onus was still on the prosecution to prove that there wasn't one??

Yes, because it's innocent until proven guilty. We must start from a position of "the driver did nothing wrong, there must have been a power surge", and then the onus is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. It's the foundation stone of our legal system, and thank God.

The technical case was completely screwed up from the day the investigation first started. The prosecution failed to convince a jury that there was no fault in the bus. Hence, he is innocent.

jman0, you are free to believe whatever you like, but that doesn't make you right.

Didn't the previous driver leave the bus in drive with the handbrake on? Sounds like a set of circumstances where such a thing could easily happen with little or no intervention from the driver.

Ham'nd'egger

Ardent wrote:

I don't understand the judicial system in this country. Apparently, reading the papers today, the judge insisted that the prosecution had to prove without reasonable doubt that there was not a power surge.

Volvo claimed there was no power suge, the defence consequently couldn't prove that there was one, yet the onus was still on the prosecution to prove that there wasn't one??

Ardent, the onus in the criminal system is for the prosecution to prove that an alleged crime actually happened and in certain instances how and why it came to.

Nobody doubted that the accident happened, they were out to prove that it happened due to driver error, and in this case they didn't beyond the doubt of the jury, simple as that. If they said a power surge didn't happen, they need to say 100% that it didn't and doesn't happen, which they didn't. The defence just had to allow for the fact that it MAY have happened.

jman0

strassenwolf wrote:

Can you prove that it was his actions that caused the tragedy? If so, why were you not called as an expert witness?

Fact is, he was at the wheel in command of the bus at the time.
Therefore, he's responsible for what happens. Period.
Note, in the court they didn't prove the bus was faulty, therefore the driver is responsible for the vehicle, what happens to teh vehicle and it's passengers.

strassenwolf wrote:

I'd imagine a price is being paid by Mr Henvey

Oh? But can you prove he's paying some sort of "price"?

seamus

jman0 wrote:

Note, in the court they didn't prove the bus was faulty, therefore the driver is responsible for the vehicle, what happens to teh vehicle and it's passengers.

Incorrect. As I point out above, the onus was to prove that the bus *wasn't* faulty. They failed to do this beyond a reasonable doubt.

strassenwolf

Ardent wrote:

I don't understand the judicial system in this country. Apparently, reading the papers today, the judge insisted that the prosecution had to prove without reasonable doubt that there was not a power surge.

Volvo claimed there was no power suge, the defence consequently couldn't prove that there was one, yet the onus was still on the prosecution to prove that there wasn't one??

In this country a person is innocent until proven guilty. It is therefore the job of the defence to maintain the status quo (i.e. that the accused is innocent) while the prosecution need to change this (i.e. prove that the accused is guilty).

And an accused person needs to be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt."

In this case, while the defence may not have been able to prove that there was a power surge, the onus remains with the prosecution to prove that there wasn't a power surge. In the absence of such proof from the prosecution, there remains the possibility that there could have been a power surge, and the jury cannot find the driver guilty "beyond reasonable doubt."

The accused is therefore innocent.

Hagar

I suppose since the precedent of an "un-traceable fault" in a bus has been set there is little point in trying to pursue any bus driver for any incident no matter how serious or trivial in the future. The now have carte blanche to throw their hands up in the air and say "It wasn't me your Honour, the bus has a life of its own". I wonder would that defence be acceptable for me if I run into the back of another vehicle some day?

strassenwolf

jman0 wrote:

Fact is, he was at the wheel in command of the bus at the time.
Therefore, he's responsible for what happens. Period.

Not necessarily correct. The driver is responsible for controlling the bus in the normal mode of operation that one would expect from a bus, just as you or I might do behind the wheel of a car. If there is a flaw in the bus, the driver may not be, and probably isn't, responsible for this. Any flaw which exists is most likely the fault of the designers, the manufacturers or the maintenance staff in Dublin Bus. We will, it seems, never know whether there actually was a flaw with the bus.

Note, in the court they didn't prove the bus was faulty, therefore the driver is responsible for the vehicle, what happens to teh vehicle and it's passengers

The prosecution did not prove that the bus wasn't faulty. See the comments from others above.

Oh? But can you prove he's paying some sort of "price"?

No I can't prove that Mr Henvey is paying a price. My opinions about the effect this case is having on Mr Henvey are entirely based on the comments made by his colleagues and others to the court.

Red Alert

As an elec engineer, I'm a bit confused as to what exactly they are calling a 'power surge' - whether they mean an electrical one, or that the bus just 'surged forward'. Either way it was never really explained simply what they were actually talking about.

I agree that a lot of people on the jury probably didn't know exactly what an automatic gearbox was, or how it worked. Some people for instance mightn't get the fact that you can (safely) leave the handbrake on when in drive and it won't go anywhere.

Volvo should have also taken more care I think in the way they presented their facts. We have an almost 100% volvo bus fleet (apart from the 10 Dennis Tridents) in dublin, so Dublin Bus and Volvo should have made sure that the facts are reported right and nothing is hidden, embellished or processed carelessly.

Some people have been very quick to call for the driver's head: This case has very slight overtones of a case in the 1980's in america which involved a radiation therapy machine called the Therac 25. None of the six radiographers who delivered fatal doses of radiation to very sick cancer patients were at any stage presumed guilty or made stand trial, even though essentially they had accidentally turned the machine into a lethal weapon - or in one case didn't have the audio/video com system working to observe the patient. In the end it turned out that the machine's hardware and software were seriously flawed, which the company did not accept for years. Whether this is the case with the AV/AX buses I don't know, and I hope that this type of thing doesn't recur again.

I'm a bit disturbed too that others such as a garda who ran over an old woman in clonskeagh at high speed in a car that was beyond doubt fully functional wasn't even made stand trial, and yet this man was.

lostexpectation

so he was working on his day off, how many days, hours had he worked the previous week up to then?

dub_commuter

Does anybody else feel this has set a dangerous precedent?

If I drive my car tommorow and run into the back of someone, I can just say I have a power surge? I would point to other cars, even if they are totally different have had the same thing and the same issue, therefore I could not be found guilty if we are going to apply the law the way it has been in this case?

So basically anyone who now knocks anyone down could in theory point to this case to their defence.

The fact that the driver has been freed, must mean that the bus was at fault, according to the jury. In that case, AV32 must be withdrawn and never used in public service again. Harsh? Yes, but if it wasn't the driver it must be the bus....

And again, if this one is faulty, some would argue the whole load of AV's must also be pulled out. Now I am not suggesting they do this, but this is the questions that the verdict now raises.

shltter

dub_commuter wrote:

Does anybody else feel this has set a dangerous precedent?

If I drive my car tommorow and run into the back of someone, I can just say I have a power surge? I would point to other cars, even if they are totally different have had the same thing and the same issue, therefore I could not be found guilty if we are going to apply the law the way it has been in this case?

So basically anyone who now knocks anyone down could in theory point to this case to their defence.

If you can find an expert witness that can back up your claim as possible and you can show that these surges do happen then you may well get off if you can get the jury to believe that there is a reasonable doubt.

dub_commuter wrote:

The fact that the driver has been freed, must mean that the bus was at fault, according to the jury. In that case, AV32 must be withdrawn and never used in public service again. Harsh? Yes, but if it wasn't the driver it must be the bus....

And again, if this one is faulty, some would argue the whole load of AV's must also be pulled out. Now I am not suggesting they do this, but this is the questions that the verdict now raises.

No the jury did not find that the bus was at fault the bus was not on trial.

The jury merely found that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a power surge could not have happened that does not mean that the jury have found that a power surge did happen
They are 2 completely separate things.

shltter

Red Alert wrote:

I agree that a lot of people on the jury probably didn't know exactly what an automatic gearbox was, or how it worked. Some people for instance mightn't get the fact that you can (safely) leave the handbrake on when in drive and it won't go anywhere.

Not safely and the bus will not move as long as the handbrake does not fail.

Red Alert wrote:

Volvo should have also taken more care I think in the way they presented their facts. We have an almost 100% volvo bus fleet (apart from the 10 Dennis Tridents) in dublin, so Dublin Bus and Volvo should have made sure that the facts are reported right and nothing is hidden, embellished or processed carelessly.
.

Volvo should not have been allowed near the bus they clearly would have a vested interest in hiding any possible fault. After the evidence for the trial and investigation had been gathered then they can have access to the bus but to allow an interested party to gather "evidence" on behalf of the prosecution was madness.

Pansy Potter

I don't accept the power surge theory at all. I think its a fudge created by the driver's defense to create reasonable doubt, and it worked. And that's what they're paid for. I know that Mr Henvey's life will never be the same again, but at least he still has one. Are the families of the people who went into town that day and never came home now expected to accept those deaths as a faultless act of God, or as some kind of death by natural causes. The judge instructed the jury that if they felt that the accident might have been caused by a malfunction that caused the bus to go out of control then Mr Henvey should be found not guilty. I still believe that if Mr Henvey wasn't on duty that day that those people would still be alive.

A bit like the Stardust all over again. Sweep it under the carpet.

KC61

Whilst I understand that people are focussing on whether the bus or driver was at fault, I am somewhat surprised that the fundamental issue of the bus terminus location and that of other stops in Dublin has been ignored by many posters.

If the number 66 bus had been able to pull into the stop correctly on that day, i.e. against the kerb and not out on the road, then I firmly believe that the effect of the sudden acceleration of the other bus would have been completely different, as it would in all probability have knocked into the back of the 66, rather than ploughing into all those people.

Why could the 66 not pull in? Because of a total lack of interest from all the public bodies in reviewing bus stop locations from both a safety and a customer service perspective, resulting in a bus terminus at a location completely unsuited to it. This has now been changed, but even now we have multiple examples of potential accidents waiting to happen. Another example would be that whilst we have articulated buses in operation in Dublin, not a single bus stop had the reserved road space lengthened to take account of this!

These are the sort of detailed issues that appear to be ignored by those in authority, even after the unnecessary deaths of five innocent victims.

shltter

Pansy Potter wrote:

A bit like the Stardust all over again. Sweep it under the carpet.

It's nothing like the stardust Mr Henvey has stood trial and been judged innocent by a jury of his peers.

Butterley nor anyone else ever stood trial in fact Butterly received compensation for the damage to his property. Despite the fact that the exits were chained.

You may not agree with the outcome but the fact is that power surges do happen and the jury felt that based on the evidence presented to them that they could not convict Mr Henvey of any crime.

purple'n'gold

Red Alert wrote:

On RTE news today, in case anybody hadn't seen:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0220/bus.html

I hope the man can now get on with his life, whether or not he's able to return to work. It can't be easy for him or his family, especially given his exemplary service record which was rightly heard about in court.

My thoughts are also with the people who died that day. May they rest in peace.

What lessons if any should/could be learned from that day?

Lessons, it’s all down to what the jury decides. IMO they realised that the guy made a terrible mistake, he put his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake. But they, the jury decided that there was no point in convicting him i.e., they didn’t think he had actually committed a crime. Just made an awful mistake, of course it helped his cause that the waters were muddied by all that power surge business.
So the lesson is, if the jury has pity on you, your half way there.

Hagar

It would be interesting to know how many of these surges were officially put on record by drivers prior to the accident, specifically are there any on record from those who testified in court in the driver's defence? Are there any records of drivers who experienced these surges refusing to take the bus out, again prior to the incident ?

purple'n'gold

Hagar wrote:

It would be interesting to know how many of these surges were officially put on record by drivers prior to the accident, specifically are there any on record from those who testified in court in the driver's defence? Are there any records of drivers who experienced these surges refusing to take the bus out, again prior to the incident ?

Do drivers have to fill in a log? Do they have to report anything out of the ordinary with the engine etc? I would think so.

lostexpectation

purplengold wrote:

Do drivers have to fill in a log? Do they have to report anything out of the ordinary with the engine etc? I would think so.

did you tv3 news last night it had several bus drivers talking about surges and copies of reports from cie with drivers experiences surges bringing the bus in repair and then the bus been giving to someother driver 5 mins later and then he had to bring it back because it was faulty too, and other bus drivers who called in the health safety on the buses.


so tiredness wasn't a factor?

Wishbone Ash

jman0 wrote:

Why are so many feeling relieved the driver got off?

That's a disgraceful statement. He was aquitted of the offence he was charged with. You seem to be implying that the driver somehow got away with something. He has not been proved guilty of any offence. He was innocent and remains innocent. It's the cornerstone of our legal system.

Red Alert wrote:

Some people for instance mightn't get the fact that you can (safely) leave the handbrake on when in drive and it won't go anywhere

Yes, probably 99.9% of the time it will remain stationery but it's considered to be very bad practice.

Calina

Alright.

I have not yet handed out any bans but I see quite a few posts suggesting that posters here have opinions which are more valid than that of a jury in the court system.

If you are questioning the outcome of this case, please do make sure that you do not also attribute guilt where none has been found by a jury.

jman0 and PanseyPotter, please take note.

dowlingm

there may be a civil case and the burden of proof on the plaintiffs will be lower.

Wishbone Ash

dowlingm wrote:

there may be a civil case and the burden of proof on the plaintiffs will be lower.

Presumably against Dublin Bus as opposed to the driver??

dowlingm

wishbone

or both - depends on insurance law, however the rule of thumb is sue everybody.

I thought there was a corp manslaughter charge on the books but obviously DPP didn't think he could make it stick?

Victor

jman0 wrote:

Why are so many feeling relieved the driver got off?
No fault was found on the bus. Sounds to me as though his concentration slipped for a moment which resulted in his killing loads of people.

He was found to be not guilty.

Victor

AlekSmart wrote:

If anybody here is a closet "Anorak" (Bus Spotter) then surf some of the many excellent Photographic websites such as http://londonbuspageinexile.wordpress.com/ Disregarding the pictures of lovely curvy Buses on many of the sites,take a good hard look at the BACKGROUNDS. In most of the UK urban bus operation shots one will see Pedestrian Barriers or other physical means of controlling the waiting passengers or of directing passenger flow.

Where?

This sort of inherent carelessness used to be addressed by the likes of Eugene Lambert and Judge via safety films on RTE many decades ago but it appears our national genetic makeup is now of sufficient quality to make such commonsense redundant.

Judge may be making a comeback.

There were some short-lived rumours at the time that the Wellington Quay site was allocated by "executive decision" of the Gardai (whatever that implies) rather than by the time-honoured DCC/DB/Gardai committee system.

Ultimately the location of bus stops is for the Garda.

Red Alert wrote:

As an elec engineer, I'm a bit confused as to what exactly they are calling a 'power surge' - whether they mean an electrical one, or that the bus just 'surged forward'. Either way it was never really explained simply what they were actually talking about.

As I understand it, at certain voltages, the throttle would open too much.

I'm a bit disturbed too that others such as a garda who ran over an old woman in clonskeagh at high speed in a car that was beyond doubt fully functional wasn't even made stand trial, and yet this man was.

Weren't the tyres threads below the manufaturer's requirements but above the legal requirement?

Pansy Potter wrote:

I still believe that if Mr Henvey wasn't on duty that day that those people would still be alive.

You are wishing something for the past, which is impossible.

KC61 wrote:

Whilst I understand that people are focussing on whether the bus or driver was at fault, I am somewhat surprised that the fundamental issue of the bus terminus location and that of other stops in Dublin has been ignored by many posters. If the number 66 bus had been able to pull into the stop correctly on that day, i.e. against the kerb and not out on the road, then I firmly believe that the effect of the sudden acceleration of the other bus would have been completely different, as it would in all probability have knocked into the back of the 66, rather than ploughing into all those people.

I wonder if there will be prosecutions by the Health & Safety Authority.

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Presumably against Dublin Bus as opposed to the driver??

From day 1, Dublin Bus said they would look after the victims. I'm not sure what this has meant in practical terms.

AlekSmart

Sorry bout the pics Vic,but my point is that when browsing the Pic sites the background tends to show far more evidence of Pedestrian management in Urban Bus Stop areas then we seem to be prepared to consider.

The Wellington Quay tradgedy was largely responded to VERY comprehensively by CIE.
My memory tells me that Dr John Lynch very early on had the Board of CIE accept financial responsibility for the entire thing.

That was in Civil terms,in the meantime the company covered ALL funeral expenses and made ex-gratia payments to alleviate immediate hardship.

I would imagine that there will be Civil cases before the courts to allow the disbursement of funds to minors for example or to siblings or non related companions.
However these will be purely legal in nature and will not have any requirement for Legal actions to establish blame etc.

The situation prevailing between Volvo and CIE however may well be quite different and I shoud imagine quite some legal midnite oil is currently being spent poring over reams of court related paperwork and not all generated in No Ceithre Cuirtenna either.... :cool:

Time Magazine

dub_commuter wrote:

Does anybody else feel this has set a dangerous precedent?

If I drive my car tommorow and run into the back of someone, I can just say I have a power surge? I would point to other cars, even if they are totally different have had the same thing and the same issue, therefore I could not be found guilty if we are going to apply the law the way it has been in this case?

Generally speaking jury decisions carry no precedent.

I could be up in court with a murder victim's blood on my clothes, the knife in my dishwasher and my DNA at the incident and the jury can find me innocent. Says nothing about the validity of DNA in identifying someone though. Conversely, I can be convicted by a jury with no evidence at all against me.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Frog Ward case does not change Irish law one bit, nor does this. It was an isolated jury decision.

Wishbone Ash

AlekSmart wrote:

Sorry bout the pics Vic,but my point is that when browsing the Pic sites the background tends to show far more evidence of Pedestrian management in Urban Bus Stop

I'm open to correction but, from looking through those pictures I can only see one barrier. That barrier appears to be one of those London busy street corner barriers at the entrance/exit of a Tube station and not at a bus stop.

Pansy Potter wrote:

I still believe that if Mr Henvey wasn't on duty that day that those people would still be alive.

.....and if he was rostered on a different route......if there only had been roadworks at the stop......if Mr Henvey had only chosen a different career...........if JFK's limmo hadn't made that irregular right and then left turn into Dealy Plaza.......:rolleyes:

You can't change history so "what if's" are totally pointless.

SickCert

Another bus going forwards.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149235&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149218&contentPK=16167489&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch