Level crossing stupidity...

[Richard E]

I know it is sort of off topic. Funny that there should be mention of clearance of vegetation as SWMBO was telling me about some folk complaining that NR had cut down some trees on a cutting that had been there for "hundreds of years"!

Edited April 23, 2013 by Richard E

[PaulRhB]

, and about an hour and a half later the motorist comes back to ask how he claims off the railway for the windscreen he broke as he took the boom off!

 

Amazing isn't it that he alledges a failure an hour and a half later when there are phones at the crossing! The Police would smell a rat immediately. He had time to think and I'd have reported him as its these idiots are the ones who are really dangerous as they waste your time investigating and claim insurance. As the lights come on as soon as the boom leaves vertical it would require a double failure to cause the alledged incident. Even hunting of the booms sets off the lights and the boom doesn't move more than six inches.

[PhilJ W]

Just 300 yards beyond the level crossing at Pitsea is the local council tip. The only access to the tip is across the level crossing. Last Sunday lunch time I was returning from a trip when I decided to call in to the nearby Tesco's only to find that the queue for the tip extended over the crossing and onto the slip road from the A 13, about half a mile. The biggest surprise is that there has not been an obstruction of the crossing or an accident.

[uax6]

But do the general public know that there are phones on every AHB? I doubt it. There was an incedent at Croxton that derailed a train about 8 years ago. A rubber panel had come out of the crossing, and was making cars jump in the air. These drivers were phoning the police to report it, not using the crossing phones. If one of them had called the bobby, the derailment wouldn't of occured.

 

I did suggest that the latest round of adverts mentioned the barrier emergency phones, but got po-poohed because not all types of lever crossings have them.

 

I even suggested that the whole sequence of operation of an AHBC should be filmed and shown in real time (maybe split screen, one at the crossing and one in the cab) so that people know that there is only 27 secs from the lights coming on to the train passing. This idea was aledgedly liked, but I've not seen the result.

 

Andy G

[ForestPines]

I am sure I can remember, when learning my road signs, the signs telling "drivers of large or slow vehicles" to stop and phone were listed. So the driving general public should have no excuse.

 

On the subject of horns, the Wensleydale Railway had trouble a few years back when a resident complained about "frivolous tooting". He turned out to be a notorious local complainer, so much so that the district council had stopped replying to his letters.

 

Incidentally, house buyers should also have no excuse for not knowing about railways in the area: that's one of the things your solicitor/conveyancer finds out for you and tells you about. If you don't read the book they send you, it should be your own fault.

[lmsforever]

Some years ago a couple tried to stop Thruxton motor circuit from staging meetings as they did not know that they existed and made a buzzing noise they didnt like, the claim was thrown out  and the couple moved away.Round were I live we only have on crossing and I notice that people speed up as they near it ,normal service is a two car 165 but class 66,s use it on rubbish trains to Calvert so you hit one of them and your in trouble.

[Edwin_m]

No problem with speeding up, within reason, as long as people can and do stop at the lights if they start flashing (and obviously also take account of any other road-related hazards).  In fact in some ways slowing down is more dangerous as you pass over the crossing more slowly and are at greater risk of stalling on it. 

Edited April 24, 2013 by Edwin_m

[Danemouth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22480502

 

I found the figures for the number of crossings closed something of a surprise - hadn't expected that many!

 

Dave

[Coldgunner]

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/news/footbridge-for-werrington-crossing-where-child-died-1-5044418

I have every sympathy for the boy and his parents, but I do feel a footbridge to be unnecessary. I know this area very well (lived here for 21 years) I don't think its a particularly dangerous crossing, this requires no more effort than that of crossing a road, but are we going to end up with footbridges on every intersection?

[The Stationmaster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22480502

 

I found the figures for the number of crossings closed something of a surprise - hadn't expected that many!

 

Dave

I would take a lot of convincing that there are 1,165 public road level crossings in Wales, even including the n.g. lines, and I suspect that figure includes occupation and accomodation crossings - hence the number of closures makes a lot more sense.

[Richard E]

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/news/footbridge-for-werrington-crossing-where-child-died-1-5044418

I have every sympathy for the boy and his parents, but I do feel a footbridge to be unnecessary. I know this area very well (lived here for 21 years) I don't think its a particularly dangerous crossing, this requires no more effort than that of crossing a road, but are we going to end up with footbridges on every intersection?

I don't know if you are still in the area or not. My grandson goes to a school not far from where the accident occurred (not the one involved). The crossing is on a route from the local school to the housing estate that is now its major catchment area. As this is now going to be used as a freight route to take traffic off the ECML as far as Doncaster the risk assessment suggests that a footbridge is required due to the increased frequency of trains. Sadly modern kids are too distracted by their phones and/or ipods to pay proper attention (I would hasten to add that was NOT a factor in the rather sad incident that has finally precipitated the change).

[The Stationmaster]

I don't know if you are still in the area or not. My grandson goes to a school not far from where the accident occurred (not the one involved). The crossing is on a route from the local school to the housing estate that is now its major catchment area. As this is now going to be used as a freight route to take traffic off the ECML as far as Doncaster the risk assessment suggests that a footbridge is required due to the increased frequency of trains. Sadly modern kids are too distracted by their phones and/or ipods to pay proper attention (I would hasten to add that was NOT a factor in the rather sad incident that has finally precipitated the change).

Then surely in circumstances such as this it is not incumbent upon the rail industry to pay for a bridge but the housing developers or whoever set the school catchment?  The question that ought to be asked is not who did the level crossing risk assessment but who did the school catchment and housing estate assessments.

[Bon Accord]

It was probably included in the brown envelope that landed on the desk of the planning committee....

[Oldddudders]

It was probably included in the brown envelope that landed on the desk of the planning committee....

I think it far more likely that such issues are never considered. Railway operations have never come under the responsibility of Local Authorities, and so their people are simply not trained to take them into consideration - the railway is just "there" as a physical feature, but not in the Council's budget, plans or other forms of awareness. "Nothing to do with me, mate!"

[Edwin_m]

Oddly enough I had a query yesterday from a colleague (with no particular rail background) who was doing a traffic assessment for a new housing development that would be accessed via an existing level crossing.  He wanted to know what the rules are on whether this would require a crossing upgrade.  So it does get considered. some of the time at least. 

[lmsforever]

All of these incidents and subsequent campaigns show how people are completely paid up to the nanny state,sorry we cant take resonsibility for our actions the state will sort everything out.

[96701]

All of these incidents and subsequent campaigns show how people are completely paid up to the nanny state,sorry we cant take resonsibility for our actions the state will sort everything out.

Are you trying to say that despite us knowing that level crossings are dangerous, we should do nothing about it? Where does 'nanny state' come into the equation of dealing with the obvious. 

[Dunsignalling]

Are you trying to say that despite us knowing that level crossings are dangerous, we should do nothing about it? Where does 'nanny state' come into the equation of dealing with the obvious. 

A couple of still pictures shown in a NR Safety Brief summed it up for me. 1. Most of a Vauxhall Corsa next to barriers.

 

2. Bonnet, engine/transmission and front wings/wheels 200 yards further down the line! 

 

I think the driver survived but I'd reckon it lucky if he/she still has the standard number of legs.

 

John

[kevinlms]

Put your foot down, they soon chicken out.....

Not a good look though if you hit them and there are witnesses. Deliberate act BY YOU could well be the verdict.

[kevinlms]

"Dumb ways to die, so many Dumb ways to die..."

 

Dress up like a moose during hunting season

Disturb a nest of wasps for no good reason

Stand on the edge of a train station platform

Drive around the boom gates at a level crossing

Run across the tracks between the platforms

They may not rhyme but they’re quite possibly

 

 

 

 

(the youtube sensation)

 

James

Click on links version too. It has won awards for best ad for 2012.

[Guest]

Clearly, stupidity is not confined to level crossings.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22735308

 

[DavidH]

Not a good look though if you hit them and there are witnesses. Deliberate act BY YOU could well be the verdict.

 There is a fairly prominent case from 2007 where a cyclist got fined for doing something like that, which resulted in the death of a young woman. I had a feeling that the law had been changed to match what applies to cars/motorbikes but I can't find anything about it on the net.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/apr/01/cyclists-law

 

Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison, causing death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of five years. This is not the case with cyclists. There is no charge of causing death by dangerous cycling. There is only the charge of dangerous cycling which carries a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine and the out-of-date Offences Against The Person Act 1861 which does carry a maximum penalty of two years in prison

 

All worth bearing in mind next time one is sorely tempted to ram someone off the road, run down jaywalkers or similar, or suggest other people do it (even in jest - someone may take it seriously) ... 

Edited June 1, 2013 by DavidH

[EddieB]

Clearly, stupidity is not confined to level crossings.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22735308

So why are the BTP looking for this suspect?  Surely the driver should allow the idiot to board then radio the BTP for a reception party at the next station.

[Pete 75C]

So why are the BTP looking for this suspect?  Surely the driver should allow the idiot to board then radio the BTP for a reception party at the next station.

 

Fair point, but as an ex-driver, I would have been so pi**ed off at his stupidity, I would have taken some small satisfaction from not letting him board the train he was so desperate to catch! I can be pretty sure the driver in the video reacts the same way.

Pete.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Pete_S

[Rugd1022]

"...and another one..."

 

Sad to report another level crossing incident today... I was working 6M79 down the branch from Knighton Junction towards Bardon Hill when passing over Desford Crossing at about 30mph on the single line section, I noticed the barrier on the south side was in several pieces, the red lights were flashing and a red hatchback was stood (seemingly) paitently at the barrier. I was on the GSM-R to the signaller as quick as a flash of course but as there was no barrier debri in the four foot it looks very much like said red hatchback had (possibly etc, etc...) hit the barrier, stopped, then reversed and parked up waiting for my train to pass.

 

I shall find out more tomorrow no doubt when I traverse the branch again...