Comment

Prosecution is required for dangerous bus and HGV drivers

Stefanie Foster says action is needed to prevent bridge strikes.

“The odds on a catastrophe are shortening every day… I believe we are on borrowed time for a disaster.”

Five people were taken to hospital in Leicester on November 16, after a double-decker bus crashed into a railway bridge. This terrifying moment was caught by a nearby dashboard camera, and you can watch as the bus heads directly towards the bright yellow and black hazard markings and a triangular height warning, before slamming into the bridge ( http://bit.ly/Leicesterbuscrash). The potential consequences don’t bear thinking about. It’s only a matter of time before someone is killed.

In RAIL 865’s Comment, I wrote about the unforgivable frequency of high vehicles striking railway bridges (around five a day) and the galling costs to the taxpayer - £ 23 million a year. Just the day before that issue went on sale digitally, a double-decker bus collided with a bridge near Bristol Parkway. The impact sheered off the entire top deck, raining glass and debris onto the road… and passing cars. An in-car camera caught the excruciating moment on video: http://bit.ly/Bristolbuscrash.

That no one was travelling on the upper deck - especially in those very popular front seats - is a matter of pure luck. It could so easily have been carnage. Bridge strikes are now a clear threat to public safety. And it’s a problem that seems to be getting worse.

Bridge strikes cause around 2% of all train delays. And, of those £ 23m costs, £15.6m of it lands directly on Network Rail (the remainder includes the costs to the road industry and emergency services). The railway - not the vehicle driver who is responsible - foots the bill for train delays and cancellations, examination of the bridge, and repairs.

Since my last Comment, several readers have asked why NR only manages to reclaim £ 7m (less than half) from insurers. The truth is that for the remaining £ 8.6m, there is sadly insufficient (or no) evidence to support any claim.

The second frequently asked question is whether drivers can be prosecuted under dangerous driving legislation - it seems obvious to most that they should. The answer is yes… but it tends not to happen.

Legally, it could be argued that a driver has been driving without due care and attention or has been driving dangerously when their vehicle strikes a bridge. This assumes nobody is hurt - the moment anyone is injured, other potential offences come into play.

But how is a bridge strike driver deemed to have committed either offence?

To be driving without due care and attention, your driving has to fall below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. In essence, what weren’t you aware of at the time - but absolutely should have been?

It becomes ‘dangerous’ driving only if you fall far below what would be expected - and that it would be obvious to any competent driver that your behaviour was dangerous. In other words, was there a real risk of you causing injury or serious damage to property?

While individual circumstances will vary wildly, most reasonable folk (perhaps a jury?) would agree that driving a vehicle into a low bridge is not something you would expect of a ‘competent and careful’ driver - especially given the copious and highly visible warning signs on bridges!

The fact that this problem goes effectively unaddressed is staggering, given the very real danger of major damage and serious injury from the five daily strikes. The odds on a catastrophe are shortening every day… I believe we are on borrowed time for a disaster.

To me it is simple - drivers who hit low bridges should be prosecuted for driving dangerously. But for the most part, this isn’t happening. Why? Well, getting a clear answer is very difficult. My conclusion is that the prosecution criteria are just too subjective. It’s too easy not to take action. So no one does.

One complication is it might be concluded that the fault lies with the employer - if, say, a haulage company provides incorrect information or insufficient equipment that leads to the strike. That would entail safety offences and, generally speaking, the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) is not keen on prosecuting road transport cases because they are resourceheavy. Translation: too bothersome, although the HSE would be on the ropes selling that argument to a rabid press after a fatal disaster.

A lawyer told me privately that the Crown Prosecution Service is probably less interested in bridge strikes because in most cases nobody is hurt. But, as we have now seen on November 16, bridge strikes ARE sending people to hospital. Do we really have to wait until someone is killed before the CPS wakes up? Along with the HSE, it will find itself firmly in the dock of the court of public opinion for failing to act - and rest assured that RAIL will be there, leading the cross examination.

HM Chief Inspector of Railways Ian Prosser CBE tweeted following RAIL 865’s Comment, saying that it’s time to crack this problem once and for all and that he will be taking it up with DfT and NR colleagues to work out how we can make this happen. He must do so with firmness and unflinching determination. The last thing RAIL wants to find itself saying is: “We told you this would happen.”

I recently interviewed Prosser for RAIL (see pages 42-45). He explained that, as a regulator, it’s important to use ALL the tools you have at your disposal to move the industry forward - a combination of education, technology and enforcement. The problem here is, we aren’t.

With bridge strikes, NR and others are already making great progress on the education front - working with hauliers and bus companies to get the message across to drivers about the importance of planning for low bridges. There are swathes of free resources and training material available, and campaigns under way to raise awareness.

I mentioned a new technological solution last time that would only cost around £100,000 to develop, but could sharply cut bridge strikes. The app would provide free mapping to hauliers (including vital low bridge data), along with vibration sensors on bridges to alert NR of a strike. No sooner had RAIL 865 been published than NR dropped me a line, wanting to be put in touch with its creators. They have since met to discuss this potential solution, so fingers crossed we can put a tick in the technology box, too.

Which just leaves us with enforcement... which frankly isn’t happening. We’ve established that drivers CAN be prosecuted for driving dangerously, but this is not happening to anything like the full force of the law.

These dangerous driving offences are overlooked - because nobody dies. This is as unacceptable as it is appalling.

So, let me remind you: on November 16, five people were taken to hospital after a doubledecker bus they were travelling on crashed into a railway bridge in Leicester.

Let me ask the CPS specifically: are you really going to wait until someone dies?

Nigel Harris is away.