Re: Derailment at Concort West - Reason

[McFergus@my-dejanews.com]

In article <897485922.652204@woody.hotkey.net.au>,
  "Michael Walker" <walker@hotkey.net.au> wrote:

> "I wrote:"
> ><snip>
> >Drivers should not be held accountable for being human. If we were that
> >serious about rail safety, we would look at implementing measures such as
> ATP
> >to ensure that a 'superhuman' was monitoring the efforts of the human
> driver.
> >
> Whilst I don't disagree with the principle of extra safety measures be they
> mechanical, computerised or whatever, the fact of the matter is that they
> don't exist in this scenario. If such safety measures don't exist then it
> should be assumed that extra care should be taken in potentially dangerous
> situations which may affect peoples lives including the crew. In this case
> 110km/h approaching a 25km/h turnout with a signal indication which may
> indicate that the train may be taking the turnout and if another poster is
> correct a WTT that is clearly marked that the train is to take the relief
> track. Sure train drivers are human and make mistakes. But are you saying we
> should pat the guy on the head and say 'There, there, we all make mistakes,
> this is just an extra big mistake. Don't worry, no-one is going to hold you
> accountable, we'll just put you back in charge of the next train when you
> feel ready'?
>     I guess we all learn from our mistakes. Indeed, after this stuff up, I
> bet the guy will be extremely careful from now on and will be much better at
> his job for the experience than many other drivers who haven't had this
> experience or will learn from it. Hence I think the guy should continue to
> drive trains and would encourage him to do so and have no problems
> travelling on one of his trains. However, I still think there should be some
> accountability - in his position lives are at stake. Whilst I take your
> point we all make mistakes, most employers will hold you accountable for
> those mistakes and rightly so.
>     In my job, if I cost my employer money then there may be some
> accountability for that. If I put peoples lives in danger, then I will be
> held accountable. Why should this driver be any different?
>

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I don't believe there should be *no*
accountability on the part of the driver, yet it is unfair that a driver's
mistake - which may be just as easy to make as another proffesional's mistake
- should make him completely liable for the results of the incident. This is
particularly important in rail safety, as if full accountability is placed
with the crew, little effort will be made to ensure a similar incident
doesn't occur again. The crew may have learned from the incident, but has the
railway?

As far as approaching a potentially dangerous situation without due care,
unless the signalling and safeworking systems are explicit enough in their
indications, the crew may easily be lead to believe that there is no danger.
For drivers this is particularly potent, as day after day, week after week,
they may get used to the same routes and routines. If something happens that
is unexpected but the crew's attention is not drawn to it, it is very easy
for them to assume that nothing is out of the ordinary, and continue as
normal.

As I and other posters have previously said, if society doesn't deem that
suitable technological aids to crew are warranted and or affordable, then they
need to accept incidents like this as a consequence.


Rob

Sydney (Australia)

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading