Dot Worker Faces Manslaughter Prosecution

[yehyehyeh]

Apparently, the (government comtrolled) www.iomtt.com forum website is being very closely monitored at the moment. Any negative/knowledgeable posts are being blocked.

 

Welcome to the (real) Isle of Man.

 

 

 

hang on didnt some guy just move over here to leave big brother behind?

 

unlucky...............

 

 

 

and surely since no specific information has been released about said case (i could be wrong but i havnt seen any sources with much information about it), everything said here in anyway relating to the case in a generalised term is just hearsay/gossip?

[manxy]

I thought it was the driver's responsibility to drive within the limits of visibility and their stopping distance, you could come across an accident, a broken-down car, bus, sheep or the proverbial elephant around the corner. I thought the rule was that if you ran into the back of something it was your fault.

Anything could have just stopped 10 seconds before something comes screaming around a blind corner and it all goes wrong.

 

Just what are roadworks warning signs there to do ? - warn oncoming traffic or to protect workers in the road ? I don't think they are there to protect approaching traffic.

 

It just seems so wrong to do this. A 61 year old person is being used as a scapegoat, for what appears to be like someone trying to capitalize on the incident....Just so wrong, but although I don't know the foggiest about the case, it still feels wrong

 

As some of you have suggested it's the timing that's strange. Also the current situation with liability insurance if your land / property is designated as a "prohibited area" being possibly / probably or (is it now) definitely invalid. Surely that would have always been the case so why is it only being mentioned this year?

Soon the only way to see the TT will be on a Duke Marketing DVD. If those in authority want to stop the Races then they should be up front about it rather than what appears to be death by a thousand cuts of red tape!

Better stop now - am getting mad.

One other thing - much impressed by IOM Constabulary. Wow were they quick at catching the sign stealers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's been a few odd timings recently and although one could suggest foul play to put a stopper on the TT for the future, I'm unaware of any underhand tactics.....YET!

'

With reference insurance, why can't the insurance companies offer some type of 'SPECTATOR INSURANCE' over the next couple of weeks? Just having as they say 'my two pennyworth'

[3549877]

I thought it was the driver's responsibility to drive within the limits of visibility and their stopping distance, you could come across an accident, a broken-down car, bus, sheep or the proverbial elephant around the corner. I thought the rule was that if you ran into the back of something it was your fault.

Anything could have just stopped 10 seconds before something comes screaming around a blind corner and it all goes wrong.

 

Just what are roadworks warning signs there to do ? - warn oncoming traffic or to protect workers in the road ? I don't think they are there to protect approaching traffic.

 

It just seems so wrong to do this. A 61 year old person is being used as a scapegoat, for what appears to be like someone trying to capitalize on the incident....Just so wrong, but although I don't know the foggiest about the case, it still feels wrong

 

As some of you have suggested it's the timing that's strange. Also the current situation with liability insurance if your land / property is designated as a "prohibited area" being possibly / probably or (is it now) definitely invalid. Surely that would have always been the case so why is it only being mentioned this year?

Soon the only way to see the TT will be on a Duke Marketing DVD. If those in authority want to stop the Races then they should be up front about it rather than what appears to be death by a thousand cuts of red tape!

Better stop now - am getting mad.

One other thing - much impressed by IOM Constabulary. Wow were they quick at catching the sign stealers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's been a few odd timings recently and although one could suggest foul play to put a stopper on the TT for the future, I'm unaware of any underhand tactics.....YET!

'

With reference insurance, why can't the insurance companies offer some type of 'SPECTATOR INSURANCE' over the next couple of weeks? Just having as they say 'my two pennyworth'

 

Now that (the insurance) would be a really interesting idea. It would create the nearest thing to an accurate assessment of the real risk taken while watching the TT than the hysteria screamed out by the H&S/Nanny State/Ban The Barbaric TT/Keyboarder crew!

[manxy]

I thought it was the driver's responsibility to drive within the limits of visibility and their stopping distance, you could come across an accident, a broken-down car, bus, sheep or the proverbial elephant around the corner. I thought the rule was that if you ran into the back of something it was your fault.

Anything could have just stopped 10 seconds before something comes screaming around a blind corner and it all goes wrong.

 

Just what are roadworks warning signs there to do ? - warn oncoming traffic or to protect workers in the road ? I don't think they are there to protect approaching traffic.

 

It just seems so wrong to do this. A 61 year old person is being used as a scapegoat, for what appears to be like someone trying to capitalize on the incident....Just so wrong, but although I don't know the foggiest about the case, it still feels wrong

 

As some of you have suggested it's the timing that's strange. Also the current situation with liability insurance if your land / property is designated as a "prohibited area" being possibly / probably or (is it now) definitely invalid. Surely that would have always been the case so why is it only being mentioned this year?

Soon the only way to see the TT will be on a Duke Marketing DVD. If those in authority want to stop the Races then they should be up front about it rather than what appears to be death by a thousand cuts of red tape!

Better stop now - am getting mad.

One other thing - much impressed by IOM Constabulary. Wow were they quick at catching the sign stealers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's been a few odd timings recently and although one could suggest foul play to put a stopper on the TT for the future, I'm unaware of any underhand tactics.....YET!

'

With reference insurance, why can't the insurance companies offer some type of 'SPECTATOR INSURANCE' over the next couple of weeks? Just having as they say 'my two pennyworth'

 

Now that (the insurance) would be a really interesting idea. It would create the nearest thing to an accurate assessment of the real risk taken while watching the TT than the hysteria screamed out by the H&S/Nanny State/Ban The Barbaric TT/Keyboarder crew!

 

I pay Homestay £8 for insurance covering £1million and find it interesting that no one has come up with something for the spectators.

The money could be added to the cost of flights and sailings to the Isle of Man and would only pay out if they were harmed/injured in an incident involving any of the race bikes. For instance, if people had a road accident involving, lets say, there own vehicles and not related to the practices or races, then their own insurance should cover that cost. The Spectator insurance would therefore cover anyone involved in an incident involving bikes or events occurring in on or near the circuit. If they don't have it, then they are party to the risks involved.

I'm sure insurance agencies could work out the technical difficulties to this and it would probably assist the Government by reducing the pressure off them as well.

It would also mean more money for insurance agencies or such like.

 

With regards the case, I still feel that this is against the public interest.

[Gladys]

First you have to sort out the rather ambiguous liability, and then if appropriate and possible, you insure.

 

I really, really, really would like to see a general acceptance of people having the right to be responible for their own actions/fate.

 

Perhaps the IOM could be in the vanguard of this; you know, I would like to do X and understand that the risks may be Y. But I truly, truly still want to do X (and please do not interfere with my right to do that).

 

But if you want to take away my rights to self determine my own behaviour, then please understand I will look to you as being responsible for every negative that I have to endure.

 

Hmmm.

[Pale Rider]

First you have to sort out the rather ambiguous liability, and then if appropriate and possible, you insure.

 

I really, really, really would like to see a general acceptance of people having the right to be responible for their own actions/fate.

 

Perhaps the IOM could be in the vanguard of this; you know, I would like to do X and understand that the risks may be Y. But I truly, truly still want to do X (and please do not interfere with my right to do that).

 

But if you want to take away my rights to self determine my own behaviour, then please understand I will look to you as being responsible for every negative that I have to endure.

 

Hmmm.

 

Agreed. Any motorsport event can be dangerous, and is usually pointed out on the signs saying that motorsport is dangerous and you are there at your own risk. Anyone going along to spectate generally knows this too. That's part of the reason people go to watch racing. It's unpredictable and fast.

 

All the organisers can do is to make any racetrack as safe as they can and warn people of possible dangers.

[Chinahand]

I know no details of this case and am replying purely generally, but if a person puts an obstacle in the road where there is a reasonable risk of it causing an accident and an accident then occurs with somebody dying then I am not surprised that a manslaughter charge is a possibility.

 

Another general example - you can't just pull over anywhere on the road to answer your mobile phone - if you stop in a stupid place and an accident results you are responsible.

 

I agree with Gladys - ensuring people are responsible for their actions is important. How this relates to this case we will have to await the court case.

[pongo]

1. Not commenting on any case specifically: But isn't all the standard health and safety stuff based on UK best practice - ie relating to roads where there are speed limits ?

 

2. One of the main problems with the TT festival in general, as opposed to the races specifically, is that our roads are without question less safe during the festival than at other times of the year. One can argue that people choose their own level of risk - however local people have very little option during the TT - we have to continue using the roads to get to work etc despite the increased risks. We also face considerable disruption during the build up to the races every year.

 

Neither of those comments are intended to be either pro or anti the races.

 

ETA: if (1) is correct then this would possibly explain why the Mountain Road now seems to be closed more often for works - that would seem to be a good argument in favour of the introduction of speed limits.

[WilDDog]

ETA: if (1) is correct then this would possibly explain why the Mountain Road now seems to be closed more often for works - that would seem to be a good argument in favour of the introduction of speed limits.

Why would it be a good argument for speed limits?

Someone could then suggest that all roadworks are dangerous for the employees that undertake them, so infact all roads should be closed when any roadworks are being carried out. When I say all, that includes roads with speed limits.

[pongo]

ETA: if (1) is correct then this would possibly explain why the Mountain Road now seems to be closed more often for works - that would seem to be a good argument in favour of the introduction of speed limits.

Why would it be a good argument for speed limits?

Someone could then suggest that all roadworks are dangerous for the employees that undertake them, so infact all roads should be closed when any roadworks are being carried out. When I say all, that includes roads with speed limits.

 

I see what you are saying and you definitely make a good point. But if (IF) local best practice re H&S is based on places where speed limits apply then the introduction of a speed limit seems an inevitable measure - or certainly one which would be hard to resist.

 

The way I'm looking at this: if best practice is good enough (deemed adequately cautious and sensible) for the UK govt/ Unions / Insurance companies - then it will probably be good enough for us. And I think most people would prefer speeds limits rather than closed roads.

[immortalpuppet]

In my limited knowledge of health and saftey i was under the impression that before works could be carried out, the company carrying out the work had to run a risk assesment and highlight any dangers. Once the dangers had been highlighted and any points that can be corrected carried out, the rest would either be enough to put a halt to the plans or it would be accepted risk but still acknowleged as a possible saftey issue.

 

As long as the person who carried out the work was covered by the proper paperwork that stated the risk assesment had been carried out then the worker would be covered by the liability insurance.

 

I am not making judgments or comments about the case in question but i am basing this on my brief spell with health and saftey when i was delivering oil to a new property that was deamed a dangerous site, i didnt want to or was not allowed to deliver to that site until the correct paperwork was passed through and i was covered.

[manxy]

First you have to sort out the rather ambiguous liability, and then if appropriate and possible, you insure.

 

I really, really, really would like to see a general acceptance of people having the right to be responsible for their own actions/fate.

 

Perhaps the IOM could be in the vanguard of this; you know, I would like to do X and understand that the risks may be Y. But I truly, truly still want to do X (and please do not interfere with my right to do that).

 

But if you want to take away my rights to self determine my own behaviour, then please understand I will look to you as being responsible for every negative that I have to endure.

 

Hmmm.

 

 

In my limited knowledge of health and safety i was under the impression that before works could be carried out, the company carrying out the work had to run a risk assessment and highlight any dangers. Once the dangers had been highlighted and any points that can be corrected carried out, the rest would either be enough to put a halt to the plans or it would be accepted risk but still acknowledged as a possible safety issue.

 

As long as the person who carried out the work was covered by the proper paperwork that stated the risk assessment had been carried out then the worker would be covered by the liability insurance.

 

I am not making judgments or comments about the case in question but i am basing this on my brief spell with health and safety when i was delivering oil to a new property that was deamed a dangerous site, i didn't want to or was not allowed to deliver to that site until the correct paperwork was passed through and i was covered.

Both are valid and good points. I congratulate Gladys on what really is a simple equation and I'd imagine something that should be taken into consideration during Mr Tomlinson's case.

For goodness sake, get this to court quick and dropped as soon as possible, as it does nothing but cause huge problems for everyone concerned.

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/DoT-respond...arge.4117073.jp

(ps, I don't know the chap, have any connections to the DOT, but still think this is the wrong way to go)

[Sebrof]

For goodness sake, get this to court quick and dropped as soon as possible, as it does nothing but cause huge problems for everyone concerned.

(ps, I don't know the chap, have any connections to the DOT, but still think this is the wrong way to go)

 

You know nothing about it, but you want the case dropped.

 

I'm glad you are not in charge of anything important.

[manxy]

For goodness sake, get this to court quick and dropped as soon as possible, as it does nothing but cause huge problems for everyone concerned.

(ps, I don't know the chap, have any connections to the DOT, but still think this is the wrong way to go)

 

You know nothing about it, but you want the case dropped.

 

I'm glad you are not in charge of anything important.

Likewise

[Sebrof]

For goodness sake, get this to court quick and dropped as soon as possible, as it does nothing but cause huge problems for everyone concerned.

(ps, I don't know the chap, have any connections to the DOT, but still think this is the wrong way to go)

 

You know nothing about it, but you want the case dropped.

 

I'm glad you are not in charge of anything important.

Likewise

 

So we're both glad that you are not in charge of anything important? Good.

 

But seriously, you are entitled to wish that they could have delayed the case until after the TT, but if you don't know the basis for the charge, it's difficult to see how you can suggest the case should be dropped. Somebody died, this is a serious matter; it can't just be wished away.