Truck driver 70 charged over train death

 

News article: Truck driver 70 charged over train death

A truck driver has been charged over a collision with a train that claimed the life of a rail passenger last year.

  oldghan Station Master

A truck driver has been charged over a collision with a train that claimed the life of a rail passenger last year. A 43-year-old man from Cranbourne West died after the collision. Thirty passengers were on the train – 12 of whom were taken to hospital. The incident all but destroyed half of a six-carriage train.
Truck driver 70 charged over train death


View the full story

A terrible event. Truck drivers whom act irresponsibly (i understand he has not been found guilty) need to be held accountable for their actions.  It is not sufficient to claim the train should not have been there or I did not see the train.  The Kerang disaster was an example of a truck driver not being held accountable for his actions.

Let us all hope the same situation does not prevail in this case.

Sponsored advertisement

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Let's not forget the serious fatal accident in the Burnley Tunnel some years ago when a truck killed a motorist.

I also remember the truck driver who hit the Vlocity Vline service on the Ballarat to Ararat line.   Let's not forget the incident where a truck hit a steam locomotive trip near benalla killing people attending a wedding??  I do recall one of the crew may have been killed and the locomotive a K Class derailed.

Regards
Brian
  Bullucked Assistant Commissioner

View the full story

A terrible event. Truck drivers whom act irresponsibly (i understand he has not been found guilty) need to be held accountable for their actions.  It is not sufficient to claim the train should not have been there or I did not see the train.  The Kerang disaster was an example of a truck driver not being held accountable for his actions.

Let us all hope the same situation does not prevail in this case.
oldghan
You're preaching to the choir on here. The bottom feeders will no doubt do their utmost to ensure the best for their client. Screw road rules, they're only there for the rest of us...
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
It's extremely hard to prove culpability and very rare for a truck driver to be successfully charged.  In the case of Kerang I believe the truck driver argued that the lights didn't appear to be working and nobody could prove otherwise.  The Trawalla accident I can fully understand how that happened because the truck was slow, had an extremely heavy load (ten tonne block of blue-stone); it was a remote, unprotected crossing and on a corner where it was impossible to see any distance down the track; in that instance he claimed that when he stopped he couldn't see anything coming but by the time he got halfway over the track the train was on top of him and there was nothing he could do.

Benella was B-double on an unprotected crossing; as I recall there were actually three crew fatalities.  There was a report at the time that indicated the B-double cab didn't allow enough side visibility of the approaching train and the crossing was on an unusual angle.  There was also something in the court case about the train being 'not expected' because it was out of grain haulage season.  Again, the driver got off on that basis.  

It's highly unlikely that the driver will be convicted in the Cranbourne crash on the basis of the above; all you have to do is say there was some kind of extenuating circumstance ("the sun was in my eyes") and you'll get off.  Sad but true, unless you're drug or alcohol affected you'll almost always get off.  Even then you can be on heavy impairment prescription drugs like codeine, benzodiazpam or oxycodone and as long as your doctor gave it to you then you're in the clear.

This also extends to all other motorists.  There was a coroner's inquest into a very elderly gentleman killing a cyclist in rural Victoria some years ago where the motorist had lost sight in one of his eyes due to a stroke and was also partially blind in the other one; he also had a mild dementia (as I recall).  Apparently he got off criminal charges because his doctor didn't tell him he shouldn't have been driving - despite the fact that you would think it's self-evident that you shouldn't be driving in that condition.  We don't have any mandatory reporting or compulsory reviews here in Victoria so unless your doctor informs Vicroads or the police pick you up for doing something stupid its likely that you could keep driving forever with almost any medical impairment.
  fabricator Chief Commissioner

Location: Gawler
It's extremely hard to prove culpability and very rare for a truck driver to be successfully charged.  In the case of Kerang I believe the truck driver argued that the lights didn't appear to be working and nobody could prove otherwise.
don_dunstan


Not going to wash this time, there is video footage of the truck approaching the crossing, not to mention eyewitnesses that saw the truck go through the area at speed.


...snip...
It's highly unlikely that the driver will be convicted in the Cranbourne crash on the basis of the above; all you have to do is say there was some kind of extenuating circumstance ("the sun was in my eyes") and you'll get off.
don_dunstan


Oh the driver will get off, but not in the way you think. Unlikely he'll get jail time due to this age, but escaping without conviction isn't going to happen.


As far as I'm concerned, if you're on the track when a train comes though, you're guilty as sin. Should be automatically charged, and have to plea bargain/confess/prove otherwise. If someone drives through a stop sign and kills one person in a car they get charged, I don't understand why adding a cross buck and a set of rails makes the stop sign invalid.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, Bullucked

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.