Aquitted

travis.bickle

Luas Driver Acquitted of reckless driving....................justice for Luas Drivers

Drivers have been saying for years that the signals with glass type covers cause reflections and/or shadows, giving the illusion that you have a "go" signal, this drivers acquittal gives justice to Luas Drivers Safety concerns for the last number of years.

Greenmachine

Frankly I am baffled by the judgement. Either he had a stop signal or a go signal.
Never heard a judgement similar regarding a traffic signal. I could drive through a red signal tommorow and claim I thought it was green. I won't but what is to stop me.

Surely if he stopped past the signal he crossed the stop line. Which at least for ordinary road users is illegal.

BrianD

Without casting any judgement on who was right or wrong it is important to note that the acquittal was not for the reason the OP states. It was because the judge believed that there were "gaps in the evidence" and a trial would be unsafe.

It is pretty unbelievable that two odd years after this event, that consistent and complete evidence could not presented to a judge and jury for a verdict to be reached. It's kind of odd that there were conflicting reports presented by the Gardai and Veoila. Also what role had the Railway Accident Investigation Unit have in this?

Losty Dublin

RAIC have no role in the court case, Brian. They have held off making their own report until the outcome of the court case. Assuming that there is no attempt at a retrial or a civil case they they would then be free to publish their report.

BrianD

Well there's one quango that's a waste of money. I would have thought that this body would have a value of bringing the facts of the matter impartially into the court.

Losty Dublin

Their purpose is to investigate crashes etc on railways and trams independently of the operator and the Railway Safety Commission, adjudicate on blame and factors of any incidents and to make any recommendations of any changes to operations to prevent future occurrences. There isn't any remit for them to intervene in court cases or act as a go between or expert witness though it's a good point that they maybe should fulfill a role like this

starviewadams

Is the guy aquitted still driving for LUAS today?

travis.bickle

starviewadams wrote: »

Is the guy aquitted still driving for LUAS today?

No.......But he is still an employee.......would have been suspended pending outcome of trial.
I doubt he will ever drive a tram again.
He'll probably be paid off by Veolia and use the payoff to either leave this island or stay and use his funds as a self employed person.
My opinion :eek:

cml387

It's extremely difficult to prove recklessness in a court.
There are many cases of train drivers being acquitted of this charge, due mainly to the fact that a moment's inattention can cause a driver to pass a danger signal.Can we all say we are 100% focused on driving 100% of the time?
I believe the outcome today was the correct one.

travis.bickle

cml387 wrote: »

It's extremely difficult to prove recklessness in a court.
There are many cases of train drivers being acquitted of this charge, due mainly to the fact that a moment's inattention can cause a driver to pass a danger signal.Can we all say we are 100% focused on driving 100% of the time?
I believe the outcome today was the correct one.

I couldn't agree more!!
We would be very judgmental if we said cars never broke red lights (taxi drivers and buses are renowned for it), many of us have sped thru changing signals, sat in boxed junctions, blocked pedestrian crossings and made people walk around your vehicle.
The driver obviously had a lapse in concentration, was either distracted by a pedestrian, or believed he had a signal, he might also have been distracted by the speeding police car with lights flashing that added to the confusion.
We are talking about 3-4 feet in distance. the fact that the bus driver sped up to avoid the collision only made the incident worse. Had the bus driver slammed on or swerved the impact might have been a few whip-lashes and a pang to the bumper.
The evidence in court from the download of the tram states that the Luas driver emergency braked and slid two feet into the side of the bus which was accelerating and pulled the tram off its rails and 6 feet to the left derailing it.
Every accident report always has a chain of events and in this case there where several factors by different parties that led to so many injuries.
Its lessons learned from all sides and thankfully there where no fatalities.
Both drivers had several years experience driving public transport with spotless records.

travis.bickle

Greenmachine wrote: »

Frankly I am baffled by the judgement. Either he had a stop signal or a go signal.
Never heard a judgement similar regarding a traffic signal. I could drive through a red signal tommorow and claim I thought it was green. I won't but what is to stop me.

Surely if he stopped past the signal he crossed the stop line. Which at least for ordinary road users is illegal.

Including Cyclists and Squad Cars in your opinion?

BrianD

cml387 wrote: »

It's extremely difficult to prove recklessness in a court.
There are many cases of train drivers being acquitted of this charge, due mainly to the fact that a moment's inattention can cause a driver to pass a danger signal.Can we all say we are 100% focused on driving 100% of the time?
I believe the outcome today was the correct one.

I actually don't think today was a good outcome at all and it's nothing to do with the individual at the centre of it all. The outcome should have been guilty or not-guilty based on reliable evidence.

The public interest was not served as the court could not be presented with evidence that could be used safely. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs after 2 years.

Travis.bickle - were you in court and are the statements that you are making what was presented in court? Your view seems to be a somewhat at odds at what is being reported consistently elsewhere. You can not infer any blame in this incident to other road users on the day. Unless you are privy to evidence that state that the bus involved increased speed then you might want to revise your statement of events.

Here's what Veoila said happened ...

"Christopher Earls of Veolia told prosecuting counsel Garnet Orange that he downloaded the tachograph information from the Luas after the crash. This data shows the speed and movements of the tram.

He said the tram stopped at the junction for 47 seconds, moved forward two metres, stopped for another 20 seconds and then drove 22 metres until impact. He said it was going up to 19kmh as it moved towards the bus and that the emergency brake was applied two metres before impact." (source independent.ie)

It would appear to me that once moving across the street collision was inevitable.

hmmm

Yeah it's a deeply unsatisfactory outcome. A big accident and effectively no conclusion as to the cause means it could re-occur.

cml387

Blaming the driver is always an easy way out for the company (I don't work for Veolia or any transport company btw).

Time and again it has been shown that a court of law is not the correct means of properly discovering the true reasons for an accident like this.

travis.bickle

A DUBLIN Bus driver told of how he accelerated his vehicle when he saw a Luas coming towards the cab of his bus.

Driver Peter Bonney told Dublin Circuit Criminal Court he tried to get his bus, which had passengers on board, out of the way as the Luas moved towards his direction.

Mr Bonney told the court he had the green light at the Abbey Street junction and that if he didn't accelerate, he "wouldn't be here today".

source: http://www.herald.ie/news/bus-driver-drove-for-his-life-before-luas-collided-trial-hears-3091621.html

travis.bickle

BrianD wrote: »

I actually don't think today was a good outcome at all and it's nothing to do with the individual at the centre of it all. The outcome should have been guilty or not-guilty based on reliable evidence.



Here's what Veoila said happened ...

"Christopher Earls of Veolia told prosecuting counsel Garnet Orange that he downloaded the tachograph information from the Luas after the crash. This data shows the speed and movements of the tram.

He said the tram stopped at the junction for 47 seconds, moved forward two metres, stopped for another 20 seconds and then drove 22 metres until impact. He said it was going up to 19kmh as it moved towards the bus and that the emergency brake was applied two metres before impact." (source independent.ie)

It would appear to me that once moving across the street collision was inevitable.

As stated in this very thread.......Veolia will always blame the driver rather than question the lead up to the actual incident.
Who is to say that the tacograph download is an accurate account of the event.
Wasn't doubt cast by the defense to expert witness as to whether some trams had poor loop(transponder) detection, answer...YES........And these trams are put into service knowing there is a "fault" with the transponders in these trams......answer....Yes
This is a Veolia expert stating that their equipment isn't always accurate so why would we believe mr earls testimony.........there is definitely reasonable doubt.......which in my opinion is why the Judge made her decision.

BrianD

travis.bickle wrote: »

As stated in this very thread.......Veolia will always blame the driver rather than question the lead up to the actual incident.
Who is to say that the tacograph download is an accurate account of the event.
Wasn't doubt cast by the defense to expert witness David Rooney as to whether some trams had poor loop(transponder) detection, answer...YES........And these trams are put into service knowing there is a "fault" with the transponders in these trams......answer....Yes
This is a Veolia expert stating that their equipment isn't always accurate so why would we believe mr earls testimony.........there is definitely reasonable doubt.......which in my opinion is why the Judge made her decision.

Ok, you've also made some sweeping statements about the bus driver so now it's Veoila. There's fair comment/discussion and then there's idle speculation.

What's the relevance of the loop transponder here? Mr. Earl is referring to evidence from the tacho.

travis.bickle

What's the relevance of the loop transponder here? Mr. Earl is referring to evidence from the tacho.[/QUOTE]

The comment about the bus driver is his evidence in court and not a sweeping statement.

secondly both gave evidence and where called by the prosecution not the defence.
Both are employed by veolia. Both there for their expert opinion, so again not sweeping statement.

If doubt is cast over faulty transponders in trams which is how the download gets its record of movement then surely Mr. Earls testimony comes into question if his information is based on questionable evidence.

BrianD

travis.bickle wrote: »

What's the relevance of the loop transponder here? Mr. Earl is referring to evidence from the tacho.

The comment about the bus driver is his evidence in court and not a sweeping statement.

secondly both gave evidence and where called by the prosecution not the defence.
Both are employed by veolia. Both there for their expert opinion, so again not sweeping statement.

If doubt is cast over faulty transponders in trams which is how the download gets its record of movement then surely Mr. Earls testimony comes into question if his information is based on questionable evidence.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the Herald link but you've put a bit of a spin on the facts. If I saw an object coming in from the side I'd also accelerate too but the driver had the green so it's irrelevant. Collision was inevitable. So it's a bit disengenius of you to suggest that the bus was somehow part of this.

I'm not Also is the tacho not independent of the loop circuits in the track?

At the time I would have thought that it was pretty impossible for the tram to be at fault. However, the bus had a green and we're not going to be a full explaination as to the tram.

There more I think about it it is dreadful state of affairs that we have no verdict from yesterday and no formal closure.

dowlingm

BrianD wrote: »

Well there's one quango that's a waste of money. I would have thought that this body would have a value of bringing the facts of the matter impartially into the court.

To add to Losty's point, this is not some quirk of the Irish system. The RAIB in the UK, the TSB in Canada work on the same principle that the most important outcome is the prevention of future accidents by the collection of the most accurate data. You would do well to acquaint yourself with RAIU's reports, they are fairly accessible to the layman.

Pkiernan

The Judge instructed the jury to acquit.

Typical of our sub-standard judiciary. She should be sacked, along with the driver.

Ste.phen

Pkiernan wrote: »

The Judge instructed the jury to acquit.

Typical of our sub-standard judiciary. She should be sacked, along with the driver.

If i'm understanding correctly, the outcome was that the actions of the Luas driver caused the accident, but there was not sufficient (or verifiable) evidence to proceed with an attempt to convict them of acting recklessly, is that about right?

If so, why would anyone get sacked?

Pkiernan

1. The judge should be sacked for failing to allow the jury to decide the outcome.
2. The driver should be sacked for running the STOP signal and crashing the train he was driving.

Need anything else explained ????????????????

veritable

Ste.phen wrote: »

If i'm understanding correctly, the outcome was that the actions of the Luas driver caused the accident, but there was not sufficient (or verifiable) evidence to proceed with an attempt to convict them of acting recklessly, is that about right?

If so, why would anyone get sacked?

A train crashed into the side of a bus. The bus had the green light. What more evidence is needed? I'm baffled by this decision.

flazio

You are innocent until proven without questionable doubt that you are guilty. That's how the judicial system works here. Because the evidence of the prosecution didn't add up there was questionable doubt over the Luas drivers guilt.
But lets say for instance he was found guilty. What difference would that have made to the running of the Luas? Probably none.
The injured passengers are getting their compensation anyway.
The fact that the accident (and I think we should remember this word, the driver didn't set out to kill his passengers) happened would have triggered a review on operations to establish what went wrong and what changes, either in equipment or in driver behaviour are required. You don't need to ruin a man's life to drive home lessons learnt from this.

homerjay2005

veritable wrote: »

A train crashed into the side of a bus. The bus had the green light. What more evidence is needed? I'm baffled by this decision.

is there evidance to back up there was no signalling fault here?

the bus may have had a green light, but according to the above, the tram was stationary for over 40 seconds. did he just wait and decide to move or did something tell him to move? i dont get the accelaration piece also from the bus driver, surely breaking is a safer and more appropriate thing to do, i cant believe the role of the dublin bus driver isnt being questioned here.

markpb

homerjay2005 wrote: »

is there evidance to back up there was no signalling fault here?

RTE wrote:

When he was arrested he insisted he had a proceed signal when he drove into the junction and broke down crying when shown that CCTV footage showed a signal to stop.

(link)

and

RTE wrote:

The Chairman of CIE has claimed that investigations into the Luas and bus crash on O'Connell Street in Dublin will show that the Dublin Bus driver had a green light. [....] Dr Lynch said that he has reviewed CCTV footage of the incident.

(link)

CIE

This is why my preference is for underground trams when in busy city centres. Street tramways are safer in less-busy suburbs, where they exist that is (hard to find one that's "less busy" these days).

As for Veolia, who owns their transport division now? I'd say they are still rather wounded from the Glendale and Chatsworth crashes in Los Angeles, on the Metrolink commuter railway system.

Greenmachine

travis.bickle wrote: »

Including Cyclists and Squad Cars in your opinion?

Nothing at all against the driver Travis. Just confused by the judgement but then I am not a solicitor. Nor am I an enforcer of the rules of the road. Well aware of cyclist breaking such rules, but no awareness of a judgement going that way for a cyclist or any other road user.

monument

Pkiernan wrote: »

The Judge instructed the jury to acquit.

Typical of our sub-standard judiciary. She should be sacked, along with the driver.

Typical comment from somebody with a lack of understanding of the legal system.

Pkiernan wrote: »

1. The judge should be sacked for failing to allow the jury to decide the outcome.
2. The driver should be sacked for running the STOP signal and crashing the train he was driving.

Need anything else explained ????????????????

The judge should be sacked by who exactly? And for what?.. for doing her job and directing the jury where needed?!

veritable wrote: »

Ste.phen wrote: »

If i'm understanding correctly, the outcome was that the actions of the Luas driver caused the accident, but there was not sufficient (or verifiable) evidence to proceed with an attempt to convict them of acting recklessly, is that about right?

If so, why would anyone get sacked?

A train crashed into the side of a bus. The bus had the green light. What more evidence is needed? I'm baffled by this decision.

Do you want trial by your quick summary, rather than trial by verifiable evidence, wittiness statements, and experts' evidence?

AlekSmart

homerjay2005 wrote: »

is there evidance to back up there was no signalling fault here?

the bus may have had a green light, but according to the above, the tram was stationary for over 40 seconds. did he just wait and decide to move or did something tell him to move? I dont get the accelaration piece also from the bus driver, surely breaking is a safer and more appropriate thing to do, I cant believe the role of the dublin bus driver isnt being questioned here.

Just to assuage Homerjay's incredulity as to the role's of the relevant Drivers.

It appears Homerjay is suggesting that the Busdrivers actions were not investigated by the various teams involved.

It does need to be reiterated that THE ACTIONS OF BOTH DRIVERS WERE FULLY INVESTIGATED BY THE AUTHORITIES.

The result of these investigations was that No grounds existed for any charge under the Road Traffic Acts being laid against the Busdriver,whilst sufficient grounds were found to exist under the Railway Safety Act to charge the Tramdriver.

It may well be that Homerjay has greater investigative powers and/or information which renders the Official investigation null and void,but in the absence of that we'll just have to go with what we have.

I would agree that the directed aquittal appears an unsatisfactory conclusion,particularly as we now appear to have a substantial difference in safety terms as to the installation and operation of the ENTIRE Luas signalling system.

I suspect there will be further developments in this case,particularly as the Gardai carried out a VERY comprehensive investigation which stretched over many months and into several different areas other than technical ones.

The relevance of this judgement lies far more in the Tram Signalling and Junction Management areas,something which continues to provide on-going problems on the system.

It also results in Luas On-Street speeds being kept substantially lower than what otherwise might be expected .

schemingbohemia

The amount of idiotic statements on here!

The judge directed that he be acquited because the evidence from the Veolia rep on the tachograph did not tally with that of the Garda accident investigator, if you bothered to read any full reports that would be obvious. As stated above there were doubts cast on the accuracy of the tachograph in evidence.

The judge, rightly, decided that that sort of decision should not be put to the jury.

All this talk of sacking is childish.

I would have thought beforehand that it would be a fairly open and shut case and that the driver would be guilty. Do people think justice is served when such considerable doubts over the accuracy of evidence is presented?

dowlingm

CIE wrote: »

As for Veolia, who owns their transport division now? I'd say they are still rather wounded from the Glendale and Chatsworth crashes in Los Angeles, on the Metrolink commuter railway system.

Veolia Environmental appears to be in the process of divesting to a French government investment fund and a French private investment fund. It looks like a complicated deal with a lot of swapping of assets between companies. The question is whether after all the merging and divesting is done the resulting company will choose to rebid on the next contract or whether they will choose to concentrate on business in larger countries.

Metrolink is now operated by Amtrak, for the record, as of the expiry of the Veolia contract term.

Carawaystick

One issue in the whole tram thing is the two sets of laws involved. When trams are running on roads, they should obey the road traffic acts

Then there'd be a case for driving without due care and consideration at worst

On another point, I've regularily seen trams not yielding to pedestrians crossing at junctions, like at clonmel st or in the jervis/capel st area;
As far as I can make out, this is definitely covered by the rta's

markpb

Carawaystick wrote: »

On another point, I've regularily seen trams not yielding to pedestrians crossing at junctions, like at clonmel st or in the jervis/capel st area;
As far as I can make out, this is definitely covered by the rta's

Are you serious? Do you really think that trams should give way to pedestrians (other than at pedestrian crossings where the pedestrian has a green light)?

Carawaystick

Absolutely, it's the law
Either change the law or change the junctions