Just for the benefit of those not familiar with the detail. Mr. Hart and his Landrover + trailer with car went of the road and travelled something in the region of 100 metres across a field before plunging through a fence and down an embankment. He did not just fall off the motorway straight on to the railway line.
It was shown that he had covered some 65 miles in 70 minutes and not all of that on motorways. It would be interesting to know what speed he was doing when he departed the motorway and how long before he became awake enough to realise what was happening and attempted to brake.
His actions leading up to the accident were bad enough but to my mind he should have had the decency to admit his guilt and avoid putting the bereaved through a full trial. I have no doubt that will be taken into account during sentencing.
As far as driving when tired. Does not common sense and personal responsibility come into it? We are in grave danger of trying to make the world entirely safe. Unfortunately life carries an element of risk. We in the UK are well on the way to fully adopting the US condition of trying to eliminate all risk not least because of the risk of being sued.
Fatiguing rosters do need serious attention from the powers that be but if you have just returned from a long night duty it is surely your responsibility not to drive unless you feel adequately rested? To say it is the employer's responsibility is really leading us down the path of the nanny state and then being being compelled to take rest before driving home.
I presume the fact that we are often very tired would account for the increase in my car insurance premium when I became a commercial pilot
[ 17 December 2001: Message edited by: M.Mouse ]