| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 40:57:45 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,720 |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait for the
RAIB report.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train
collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British
Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait for the
RAIB report.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to
blame. I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before
using the crossing.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >>collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait for the >>RAIB report.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to
blame. I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before
using the crossing.
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >>>collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait for the >>>RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to
blame. I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before
using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on >>Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >>>>collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait for the >>>>RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to
blame. I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller.
Indeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation.
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06 on
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >>>>> collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British
Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait for >>>>> the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to
blame.-a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before
using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller.
Indeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation.
Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
On 08/10/2025 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06
on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's
wrote:
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on >>>> Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >>>>>> collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>>> Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait >>>>>>for the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to
blame.a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>>> using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller.
Indeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation.
fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
There are many ways in which the driver might have been at fault. One
is failing to call the signaller, but it appears that he didn't make
that mistake. Whether the driver did something else wrong, or acted >correctly and was just unlucky, should become clear when the report
appears.
In message <10c5sjj$1kvb3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:15 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 08/10/2025 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06
on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's >>>fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
wrote:
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on >>>>> Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:Indeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >>>>>>> collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>>>> Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait >>>>>>>for the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to
blame.a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>>>> using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller. >>>>
There are many ways in which the driver might have been at fault. One
is failing to call the signaller, but it appears that he didn't make
that mistake. Whether the driver did something else wrong, or acted >>correctly and was just unlucky, should become clear when the report >>appears.
The police have already decided, before the report is published, that
the driver isn't worth prosecuting (which is a broad spectrum of
$reasons, from complete innocence to not worth the candle).
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:50:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <10c5sjj$1kvb3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:15 on Wed, 8 OctIf it was on a private road not available to the public then that more
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 08/10/2025 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06 >>>>on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's >>>>fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
wrote:
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on >>>>>> Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:Indeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train >>>>>>>> collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>>>>> Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait >>>>>>>>for the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to >>>>>>> blame.a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>>>>> using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller. >>>>>
There are many ways in which the driver might have been at fault. One
is failing to call the signaller, but it appears that he didn't make
that mistake. Whether the driver did something else wrong, or acted >>>correctly and was just unlucky, should become clear when the report >>>appears.
The police have already decided, before the report is published, that
the driver isn't worth prosecuting (which is a broad spectrum of
$reasons, from complete innocence to not worth the candle).
or less cuts out anything that would otherwise be easily prosecutable
under road traffic legislation but not so easy under H%S or railway >legislation.
In message <6v9dekhjujep2o69qmn1d96pr9d8dndq2n@4ax.com>, at 19:11:52 on
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:50:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <10c5sjj$1kvb3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:15 on Wed, 8 OctIf it was on a private road not available to the public then that more
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 08/10/2025 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06 >>>>> on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on >>>>>>> Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:Indeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train
collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>>>>>> Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait >>>>>>>>> for the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to >>>>>>>> blame.-a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>>>>>> using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller. >>>>>>
fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
There are many ways in which the driver might have been at fault. One >>>> is failing to call the signaller, but it appears that he didn't make
that mistake. Whether the driver did something else wrong, or acted
correctly and was just unlucky, should become clear when the report
appears.
The police have already decided, before the report is published, that
the driver isn't worth prosecuting (which is a broad spectrum of
$reasons, from complete innocence to not worth the candle).
or less cuts out anything that would otherwise be easily prosecutable
under road traffic legislation but not so easy under H%S or railway
legislation.
The original charge was something like "endangering the railways", which
one can do just as easily on a private road as a public one.
So once again your barrack room lawyering has been debunked.
In message <6v9dekhjujep2o69qmn1d96pr9d8dndq2n@4ax.com>, at 19:11:52 on
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:50:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <10c5sjj$1kvb3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:15 on Wed, 8 OctIf it was on a private road not available to the public then that more
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 08/10/2025 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06 >>>>> on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 on >>>>>>> Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:Indeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train
collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>>>>>> Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait >>>>>>>>> for the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to >>>>>>>> blame.-a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>>>>>> using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller. >>>>>>
fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
There are many ways in which the driver might have been at fault. One >>>> is failing to call the signaller, but it appears that he didn't make
that mistake. Whether the driver did something else wrong, or acted
correctly and was just unlucky, should become clear when the report
appears.
The police have already decided, before the report is published, that
the driver isn't worth prosecuting (which is a broad spectrum of
$reasons, from complete innocence to not worth the candle).
or less cuts out anything that would otherwise be easily prosecutable
under road traffic legislation but not so easy under H%S or railway
legislation.
The original charge was something like "endangering the railways", which
one can do just as easily on a private road as a public one.
So once again your barrack room lawyering has been debunked.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6v9dekhjujep2o69qmn1d96pr9d8dndq2n@4ax.com>, at 19:11:52 on
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:50:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <10c5sjj$1kvb3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:15 on Wed, 8 OctIf it was on a private road not available to the public then that more
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 08/10/2025 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06 >>>>>> on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 onIndeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation. >>>>>> Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a >>>>>>>>>>passenger train
collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>>>>>>> Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait >>>>>>>>>> for the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to >>>>>>>>> blame.-a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>>>>>>> using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller. >>>>>>>
There are many ways in which the driver might have been at fault. One >>>>> is failing to call the signaller, but it appears that he didn't make >>>>> that mistake. Whether the driver did something else wrong, or acted >>>>> correctly and was just unlucky, should become clear when the report
appears.
The police have already decided, before the report is published, that
the driver isn't worth prosecuting (which is a broad spectrum of
$reasons, from complete innocence to not worth the candle).
or less cuts out anything that would otherwise be easily prosecutable
under road traffic legislation but not so easy under H%S or railway
legislation.
The original charge was something like "endangering the railways", which
one can do just as easily on a private road as a public one.
So once again your barrack room lawyering has been debunked.
In your eagerness to be a rude bad tempered git did you miss the bit
rCLbut not so easy under H%S or railway legislation.rCY
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6v9dekhjujep2o69qmn1d96pr9d8dndq2n@4ax.com>, at 19:11:52 on
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:50:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <10c5sjj$1kvb3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:15 on Wed, 8 OctIf it was on a private road not available to the public then that more
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 08/10/2025 15:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <34lcekpvv4u0el76rm8n9iod29aecnlovo@4ax.com>, at 13:10:06 >>>>>> on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:22:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
fault simply because he'd phoned the signaller.
In message <6o9cekp6gvvjqmjs8qcohat05v15rcqi4l@4ax.com>, at 09:58:36 onIndeed, and all the more reason to prefer facts over speculation. >>>>>> Whereas the journalist is speculating that it wasn't the driver's
Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 01:32:55 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77d007x26xo
"No further action will be taken against a man after a >>>>>>>>>>passenger train
collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British >>>>>>>>>> Transport Police has said."
So if he wasn't responsible, who was? I can guess but I'll wait >>>>>>>>>> for the
RAIB report.
Should be published by May 2026.
Mechanical failure?
Just because something happens does not always mean someone is to >>>>>>>>> blame.a I note that the tractor driver had phoned a signaller before >>>>>>>>> using the crossing.
It's also necessary to follow the instructions given by the signaller. >>>>>>>
There are many ways in which the driver might have been at fault. One >>>>> is failing to call the signaller, but it appears that he didn't make >>>>> that mistake. Whether the driver did something else wrong, or acted >>>>> correctly and was just unlucky, should become clear when the report
appears.
The police have already decided, before the report is published, that
the driver isn't worth prosecuting (which is a broad spectrum of
$reasons, from complete innocence to not worth the candle).
or less cuts out anything that would otherwise be easily prosecutable
under road traffic legislation but not so easy under H%S or railway
legislation.
The original charge was something like "endangering the railways", which
one can do just as easily on a private road as a public one.
So once again your barrack room lawyering has been debunked.
Er, he specifically stated that railway legislation was still available.