Re: Glenbrook Driver cleared (newspaper article)

["T & J Jones" <jonest@senet.com.au>]

> >Why would train drivers be different?
<snip>>
> But train drivers aren't different.
<snip>
Does this mean you agree that like ships captains, airline pilots, etc the
train driver is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the train.
Albeit that the driver (like the other examples) is dependent upon others to
assist in the safe operation of the train??

> Sever Rail accidents are usually, without fail, a series of
> minor infractions by one or more persons leading up to the
> accident. The idea is for the inquiry to locate and pinpoint
> each point of failure in the system, and work out how these may
> be overcome.

Agreed
>
> This is why signalling systems change, people are people & will
> continue to bypass "fool proof" systems until the end of this
> planet.
>
Agreed

> Short answer to the big question - why did this accidnet happen?
>
> Reason: The driver a received a remark from his nominal superior
> to mean that an equipment failure was the cause of his delay. He
> was given no indication that a train was present.

> Therefore he drove to the next signal as best as he could.

But that wasn't good enough because he passed a red signal and then couldn't
stop in time to avoid a collision
>
> People wishing to hang the driver for the speed of the accident
> are barking up the wrong tree.

I agree that the drivers actions probably were not the "only" failure that
contributed to the collision.  Neither could I agree that he wasn't in any
way to blame for the collision.