Longrider

Network Rail has been fined £4m for its predecessor’s part in the Ladbroke Grove collision. Naturally, there are those for whom this is not enough – indeed, for some there will never be enough:

Martin Di Lieto, 57, whose 24-year-old son, Sam, was among those who died, was one of many who believed justice had not been done.

“The corporation has been fined, but the people who were responsible have still not been punished. There is still a need for a corporate manslaughter law and that is lacking.”

Sigh…

While I feel empathy with Mr Di Lieto for his loss, he is talking nonsense. There was no single cause that resulted in this incident and no single person responsible. Much has been made of SN109 and its sighting yet railway signalling does not work as simply as the media would have us believe (and the Telegraph perpetuates this myth).

Michael Hodder was the ninth driver in six years to pass signal SN109 while it was red. Such incidents, known as Spads in the industry, should have triggered a meeting of an emergency group to discuss the issue - but this was not done. The inquiries which did take place were inadequate as were the recommendations which followed, the judge said.

Michael Hodder did not merely pass this signal at danger, he failed to respond properly to the two previous signals that told him this one was showing a red aspect. The sighting of SN109 was indeed most likely a contributory factor. However given the two previous aspects, his train should have been at a crawl on the approach to SN109. It wasn’t. The train’s speed of approach following the driver’s failure to respond to the previous signals, meant that no matter how well sighted SN109 was, it is likely that the train would still have passed it.

Then we have the wild speculation, which always helps to make a good story:

Unable to read the signal he accelerated to a speed of 50 mph, when he should have stopped. He then found himself in the path of the in-bound Cheltenham express.

The only person who could corroborate that version of events is dead. What was available from the data recorders from the rear unit confirms the acceleration, but to assume that this is because he did not see SN109 is guesswork. We simply do not know. What the Telegraph conveniently fails to mention is that train drivers are trained to stop when they are unable to determine the aspect of a signal, not accelerate. The Telegraph’s statement here is unforgivable not only because it is speculation, but it is also hyperbole. We know that he accelerated, we do not know why.

The question I have rarely seen asked is; “What about the previous two signals?” Was Hodder using the driver reminder appliance on the move and forgot to use it on approach to Ladbroke Grove? That too is speculation, but it does offer a possible explanation for his failure to respond appropriately to the double yellow and yellow aspects of the signals prior to SN109. It also offers an explanation for his decision to accelerate on the approach to SN109.

It is true that the recommendations and inquires following previous incidents were inadequate and that there were serious failings in Railtrack Great Western’s safety management systems; not least, a lack of effective planning for jobs to be carried on should the current incumbent move on. This was down to a lack of effective competence management. No one person was responsible for this failure.

If we are to look at signal sighting, then Railtrack Great Western knew that it had a competence problem – no one was providing effective training and there was no assessment regime. The process relied on “grandfather rights” and on-the-job training by peers. The only training course available was seriously out of date and the author had moved onto other things. And getting a signal sighting committee together was no mean feat either.

So too was Thames Trains competence management system seriously lacking. There were weaknesses in the training and assessment regime that Michael Hodder underwent prior to driving a train alone on the main line. Railtrack’s Safety and Standards Board (subsequently RSSB) knew about the problem but were slow to react. Again, that involves a number of people. So, just who does Mr Di Lieto think should be in the dock? The people involved were widespread and worked for different companies. Some were indeed culpable for their failures, but manslaughter? Such a grave charge would require a direct line of evidence from the failure of the individual to the catastrophe that followed – sufficient for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Given the number of people involved and all too often their lack of authority, you are left with very senior managers and directors. So, can one prove that causal link? I very much doubt it.

If you are going to hold people personally responsible for trying to do a difficult and thankless task; one for which they may only have partial control and authority or are inadequately supported when they pick up on problems, and send them to gaol should they fail, then the talent and expertise the industry needs will simply look for a safer profession; one that does not engage in witch hunts. Because a witch hunt is exactly what Mr Di Lieto and those who think like him are proposing.

The judgement here is just. The companies responsible have been found culpable for their failings. One hopes that the lessons have now been learned. Justice has been done. Now let it rest.

I see that another “ism” has been invented in “Rider” magazine this month under the title “Bikeism – living somewhere near you”:

At the time of the debacle about alleged racism on Celebrity Big Brother, Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights was one of the reviewers. One of his comments struck a chord. He referred to what is clearly racism involving verbal abuse but that it can be more insidious. The example he gave was on driving to the BBC in a big car he was asked who he had come to pick up. How many of us who travel by motorcycle on business have been assumed to be making a delivery?

Actually, never. However, I do recognise the symptoms.

Ironically, shortly afterwards while checking in to give my oral evidence for the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport, the security staff asked me if I was making a delivery. More recently, on going to a meeting of the Road Users Alliance one of the reception staff told me to use another entrance before I had even reached the desk. He was unable to provide an answer when I asked why he assumed that someone travelling by motorcycle was there to make a delivery.

Yup, people make assumptions. Silly, ignorant assumptions based upon their narrow prejudices. How many times have I been turned away from a pub because I turned up on a bike? Enough to tell me that there is a deep rooted prejudice in this country that owes much to the mods and rockers of the sixties rather than current reality. Nothing new here, merely the manner in which the prejudice manifests itself. Personally, I take my helmet and waterproofs off and pack them in my panniers before going to any business meetings. The people on reception are unaware that I’ve turned up on a bike.

Other examples of bikeism are the ignorance shown by MEPs in spite of the information we gave them during the lobby on the 3rd EC Driving Licence Directive; a presumption by institutions and researchers that motorcycling is dangerous and should not be encouraged; and a general refusal to take motorcycling seriously as transport in spite of the existence of a national strategy.

This, however, is more worrying as I pointed out the other day. Parliaments have no right legislating from a position of ignorance. MPs and MEPs have a duty to educate themselves; to be fully armed with the facts, not prejudice and bigotry gained through too many viewings of “The Wild One”.

While being a motorcyclist is a choice (like religious faith) and that we can easily change our identity unlike skin colour, gender, sexual orientation and disability, there’s clearly an issue of discrimination.

Well, quite. However, I’ve never seen much point banging on about it. I ride a bike; it’s my choice and if others don’t like it, well, too bad; get used to it. All I ask – just as I have in any of my rants here on civil liberties – is leave me alone to live my life as I see fit. I’m not doing anyone else any harm, so it’s no one’s business but mine. It’s a simple enough concept.

Now that we have The Government’s Motorcycling Strategy, a sustained campaign to stamp out bikeism may be the next challenge to ensure that it’s not ignored.

Frankly, that may do more harm than good. Being part of a minority group jumping onto the “ism” bandwagon is not how I want to see myself. People will always be people and that includes an overwhelming deluge of stupidity, ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. Get used to it and move on.

It seems that Neil Harding is not alone in this world. Bob B commenting on Tim’s post about the TK Maxx hacking story reiterates the same tired, tedious and frankly nonsensical case for the government’s identity card plan:

But there is a chance ID Cards will make it much more difficult to set up multiple personal identities to obtain multiple passports and conduct benefits fraud and money laundering through bank accounts under different identities and ID Cards will make it more difficult for criminals to hide with multiple aliases. Hundreds of laws over centuries haven’t prevented murders, woundings, burglary, theft, arson and fraud but it doesn’t follow that we should therefore repeal all criminal law.

Yup, the usual fuckwitted comparison of apples with oranges used by the supporters of totalitarian measures; i.e. because we already have laws, another one is all okay then, because it “might just work”.

No one has suggested repealing all criminal law, merely that we should not have laws that place us at greater risk, nor give government draconian powers over us. Identity cards will be a honey pot for thieves and fraudsters while making ordinary citizens’ lives more difficult. As Tim points out in the original post:

That such details can be stolen makes ID cards less secure, not more, but don’t expect him [Blair] to admit that.

Quite. Never mind, Bob B and Neil want us to sacrifice our privacy and risk the theft of our identities on the “chance” that it will make things more difficult for the bad guys. On the matter of the database – the primary objection – Bob B excels himself:

In these times, I profoundly hope that will be so for every use of biometric passports.

Move over Neil, a new fuckwit is in town and he’s looking to steal your crown of totalitarian twit of the year.

Identity was clearly at issue in the case where a party claiming my name and telephone number sold computer memory on eBay. A major problem in that and similar cases is that the potential costs of investigating and tracing the identities of fraudsters are greater than the individual amounts lost in the fraudulent transactions. The investigations are therefore not always pursued for cost reasons and the fraudsters are left to continue their criminal business of ripping off a long succession of victims.

Bob, old bean, the cost of me sacrificing my identity in order that yours may have an illusion of being safer is too great for me to accept. Your identity is your problem, and my identity is mine; it is fuck all to do with the government and I intend to do all in my power to keep it that way. To presume that this perfidious bill would have prevented the eBay fraud is at best speculation and I’m not prepared to sacrifice my privacy and my identity on the basis of your speculation.

The application of satellite tracking of vehicles for road pricing and vehicle security will also trace and record vehicle movements. Biometric passports are becoming obligatory and properly so IMO. How else will it be possible to track illegal migrants, slave traders and other international criminals in these times?

And it hasn’t occurred to you that these people will have thought of that? That forged identity documents will become lucrative currency? The higher the value of the document the more worthwhile becomes the effort in reproducing it. The wonderful biometric passports you are salivating over have already been cracked.

The argument that we already have to provide proof of identity for a number of small transactions is because government has made life more difficult for banks and businesses by insisting that they ask for it to “prevent money laundering”. This is simply a self fulfilling need. Having created the need, they now intend to produce the cure. Ain’t that sweet?

Over my dead body.

Everyone here seems to be dodging the issue of tracing illegal migrants.

Sigh… the clue is in the word “illegal”. Jesus!

The populist campaign against ID cards is simply dodging the real criminal issues of identity theft and fraud.

Bollocks. Identity fraud has been exaggerated out of proportion to make the case for the “cure”.

MPs have urged the government to carry out a study into the possibility of fitting speed limiters to motorbikes.

BBC NEWS | UK | Call for motorbike speed limiters.

Ah, yes, the empty of head, knowing fuck all about fuck all want to legislate on something about which they know fuck all.

It is true that motorcycles account for a disproportionately high quantity of killed and seriously injured figures on British roads. This is in part due to the nature of the vehicle. A motorcyclist involved in an accident has no safety cage to provide protection. Therefore if involved in an accident, the motorcyclist stands a high chance of serious injury or death. The trick, therefore, is not to get involved with other drivers’ accidents. Indeed, given that motorcycle accidents are falling, that message seems to be one my fellow riders have taken to heart.

The vast majority of accidents occur where another vehicle is involved. Deciphering statistic speak, this means cars pulling out of junctions into the path of a motorcycle. The cause therefore is a combination of poor observation on the part of the driver and poor hazard awareness on the part of the rider. Speed may be a factor. However, a speed limiter designed to stop bikes exceeding speed limits will have no effect on such a situation in an urban environment where most of these incidents take place.

So, what are we left with? A bunch of brainless MPs (part of the job requirement, it seems) decide that big bikes = powerful = fast = dangerous = legislation needed. Yet a Dutch study concluded that there is no link between power output and accidents.

The report said: “We recommend that the government commission…research on the viability of introducing speed limiters on motorcycles in order to stimulate a sensible debate of the options.”

I’m not sure I’d use the expression “sensible debate” in the same sentence as “MP”; the two are irreconcilable.

Cutting pollution was another argument for reducing the maximum power and speed of bikes, the MPs said.

Given their ability to keep moving when other traffic is at a standstill, even the biggest bikes are more fuel efficient than cars, so this is just pure prejudice. If we can use the green argument, anything goes.

There have been at least seven deaths involving mini motos since mid-2004, five of which were children under the age of 15.

And putting a speed limiter on my 1100cc motorcycle will affect this how, exactly?

Of course, it would never occur to these retards that speed can be useful in incident management on a bike. Take for example a situation I experienced on the M4 travelling to Swindon not so long ago. Travelling in the middle lane at 70mph, I was passing a stream of traffic on my left. One driver decided to move out without checking and without signalling into my road space. I could not lose speed as the vehicle behind was travelling too close, I could not move out into the right hand lane because there was a vehicle approaching rapidly with the aim of passing me. There was one option left to me; open the throttle and accelerate hard out of trouble. Ask any motorcyclist if they have had to do something like this to avoid the stupidity of other road users and the answer will be in the affirmative. Never mind the reality though, a bunch of fuckwit MPs want to remove one of our lifelines and make our lives more dangerous.

Stupid, stupid, stupid…

Finally, after all that banging on the door, a glimmer of reality strikes – or is it all a simple error and normal service will be resumed before too long?

Maybe you just choose to misunderstand the issues but it was the Nazis who gave technology a bad name not the technology that made the Nazis bad.

Now, let’s just amend that slightly:

Maybe you just choose to misunderstand the issues but it was the Nazis New Labour who gave technology a bad name not the technology that made the Nazis New Labour bad.

Which is what we have all been saying all along; at no time have I ever complained about technology, merely human behaviour.

Of course, I could have just stepped into a parallel universe where nothing makes any sense… Still, even a New Labour goon has to get it right once in a while. Even if it is inadvertently.

Neil’s been at it again. He really, really doesn’t get it. Sometimes, trying to communicate with someone who uses reverse logic gives me a headache.

It is fair to say I came in for a little criticism (here, here, here and here) for writing this post and in particular these comments.

Well, quite. Why is that? Because you have been talking utter bollocks is why.

The rest is mostly insults accusing me of being dim, lazy, a fascist etc. etc.

That’s because you are lazy, you do ignore history, you do not use logic. And if you really do believe the codswallop you write, you are dim.

I’m afraid this comment is for me the final straw:

You are voluntarily agreeing to being tracked, so therefore how can you argue against tracking? If it is ok for you to ‘volunteer’ to be tracked (along with most of the population) then there can’t be anything wrong in principle with being tracked. To say otherwise is hypocritical, whether it is compulsory or not is irrelevant to this point.

For fuck’s sake! I’ve lost count of the times people have pointed out to you just why the difference is significant. If I was alone making an argument this utterly stupid and people banged on and on about why I was wrong, I might just start to doubt myself. But, then, when my opinion is confronted by facts, I reassess my opinion, it’s what any reasonable person would do. People who think as you do are part of my decision to cut my ties with the Labour party.

Rather than stay within the only decent(ish) party that has a chance of being elected and try and improve it. It doesn’t sound very decent to me, it sounds like a cop out.

The Labour party is not a decent(ish) party. While it continues to indulge in the most arrant control freakery and while it treats the rule of law with contempt it is without doubt a contemptible party. When faced with this, leaving was the honourable thing to do. It is not a cop out. A cop out is remaining while being sickened by what the party now represents. I refuse to belong to such a party. I refuse absolutely to be associated with something that so horrifies my sense of ethics. Leaving was the honest thing to do. Do not accuse me of copping out; you lack the intellectual honesty to qualify to make such a comment.

Yes, I’m angry. So, yes, I’ve followed Tom Paine’s advice. I feel marginally better for it.

Update:

Having recovered from my cluster headache, I took another look sans irritability. Neil’s latest proclamation for those of us who value our privacy:

A minor inconvenience to those who value their privacy could bring huge reductions in crime and huge increases in detection rates. So yes you are potentially injuring my health and wellbeing.

What a pile of fucking ignorant horseshit. And that, frankly, is being generous. If you are thinking of voting Labour at the next election, this is the kind of illiberal fuckwittery you will be voting for. This is the thinking which concluded that the Gestapo was doing a damn fine job of cleaning up the streets of Berlin and Warsaw, this is the mentality that queued up for jobs guarding the local labour camp. This is the very same mindset that gave us the Stazi and spied on friends, colleagues, family and neighbours because their privacy was potentially injurious to the wellbeing of the good little soldiers of the state. Ignorant, stupid and fucking dangerous.

Read it and weep.

All children could face compulsory checks to discover if they are at risk of turning into criminals, according to new plans announced by the Prime Minister.

The controversial proposal would mean checks at important stages in a child’s life, such as the move from primary to secondary school, Tony Blair said.

He also announced plans to further expand the DNA database to include ‘all suspected offenders who come into contact with the police’.

Children to ‘face criminal checks’ | Metro.co.uk.

Anyone who thinks that this government is benign hasn’t been paying attention.

Chris Dillow picks up on the slavery discussion. His assessment of my position as being Rawlsian is spot on.

Put it this way. Crudely speaking, there are two conceptions of society.
1. We’re just a collection of atomized individuals. Though associated with libertarianism, this is also the Rawlsian view.
2. Society is an organism with a history. It’s a “partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” The quote is Edmund Burke’s, but this position seems also that of Gordon Brown, who speaks of a “golden thread” running through history.

However, my objection to an apology is not as simple as my worldview of us being autonomous individuals; it goes to the heart of what apology means. To be sincere and meaningful an apology can only work if the perpetrator of the wrong apologises to the victim and means to repair the harm done. As both parties are long dead, this is impossible. Also, the idea put forward by Dan in Chris’ comments that we, whoever “we” actually are; benefit form the ill-gotten gains of the slave trade is utterly absurd.

I don’t want to be benefiting from illegitimate advantage (even indirectly), and this is the basis for my supporting reparations for slavery. It’s also the basis of my supporting some form of socialist redistribution. I would imagine that many left wing people would feel the same way. It’s not inconsistent.

As an aside, Dan, you redistribute your own money, I plan to keep what I’ve earned, thank you very much. Anyway, back on topic; ignoring for a moment that this country was virtually bankrupt by the cessation of WWII and that much or our current economy is courtesy of the USA and any “benefit” will be so watered down as to be untraceable, as urko points out in my comments on the subject, our ancestors had no say and likely as not, minimal knowledge of the world outside their limited existence.

Partly as result of my jumping on the genealogy bandwagon I know my ancestors (both sides) were illiterate workers scraping an existence around the time of slavery and the potato famine - no TV - no newspapers (they couldn’t read) no votes and not much to eat - how were they responsible?

Indeed. At least one of mine was busy fighting Napoleon’s Grand Armée. Others were, likely as not, fighting in it (my surname is of French descent). To hold them and their descendants accountable for something over which they had no say, no control and no accountability is frankly immoral. Those who choose to walk in chains in a symbolic act of apology and regret are merely indulging in histrionics; self-indulgent exhibitionism and self-flagellation for no good purpose. Such behaviour solves nothing and means nothing. Will it, for example, have any effect on slavery that is going on now? Never mind, at least their conscience is salved and they can go home happy that they have cleansed their souls. That they have achieved nothing other than make an exhibition of themselves; done nothing that is meaningful is beside the point. This is gesture politics at its most repugnant. One of Chris’ commenters, Andrew Zalotocky puts into words my own feelings about the apology lobby

The people who are most enthusiastic about apologising are the usual leftist suspects, for whom it’s just another chance to portray Britain as uniquely evil.

I mentioned before the inherent hypocrisy. Here, I acknowledge Burke’s view of history mentioned at the very beginning of Chris’ post. Slavery is a thread that is woven throughout the very fabric of mankind’s history. All cultures at some point indulged in and suffered from this foul practice. To single out Britain as a perpetrator is illogical as it ignores the other players in the slave trade triangle of the time, just as it ignores the the record of slavery both before and since. It ignores – conveniently – Africa’s role. Predictably the argument raises its head that if one is proud of one’s nation for its achievements then one should also be ashamed of its bad behaviour:

If you’re proud of being British, of our long tradition of liberty (think Magna Carta, charter of Henry 1, Declaration of Arbroath), and of our unforced (by outsiders) abolition of the slave trade and of slavery itself, then you’ve also got to be ashamed of the (truly) bad things in our past. And I think our participation in the slave trade, knowing its moral turpitude, was the worst. So we should apologize. Because it was wrong and we knew it was wrong then.

I have always been an advocate of looking back at history of learning from it, making sure that we do not make the same mistakes. I can look at the history of our forebears with admiration for their achievements, just as I can look back with reproach at those things that were appalling. I feel neither pride nor shame because none of these actions were mine. This argument therefore falls on stony ground.

Another commenter simply refers to the two dimensional political tribalism as a means of polarising the debate:

But we see Tories, apparently sincerely, explaining that slavery wasn’t such a bad thing, or that the UK in 2006 is not liable for its past vilenesses, or that the UK is to be commended for its abolition of the trade.

This falls down because I am not, nor ever have been, a Tory. If you must label me, then I am a liberal in the classical sense. This means that I abhor any form of enforced servitude as I firmly believe that no man has dominion over another’s body. That is why when modern politicians extol the virtues of national service or enforced community service for immigrants I am vigorously opposed – they are suggesting that these people be subject to slavery and slavery is morally reprehensible. So too, is punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers, and that is why I remain implacably opposed to either apology or reparations.

Update:

This gentleman needs to grow the fuck up and get over himself:

The Archbishop had just delivered his main address and the service had moved on to “confession and absolution”. But the reading was stopped in its tracks by Mr Agbetu’s outburst: “You should be ashamed. We should not be here. This is an insult to us. I want all the Christians who are Africans to walk out of here with me!”

Fine. Piss off back to Africa, then.