Level crossing stupidity...

[duncan]

They can do if you accidentally engage 4th gear when moving slowly.

 

As you say, it's a tragic incident and emotional subject and we'll possibly not get the full answer

 

Mick

 

Mick, I would suggest that as with any potential hazard (ie that you have advanced warning of) you change gear before the hazard, not in the middle of it (such as crossings, bends, hills, fords).  To do otherwise is poor driving as the very least. 

 

Duncan

[newbryford]

Mick, I would suggest that as with any potential hazard (ie that you have advanced warning of) you change gear before the hazard, not in the middle of it (such as crossings, bends, hills, fords).  To do otherwise is poor driving as the very least. 

 

Duncan

 

Hi Duncan, 

Yes, it is poor driving and something I try very hard to teach my customers not to do...........   Especially when they've got L plates on my car.  

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited February 19, 2014 by newbryford

[Ohmisterporter]

this has just wound me up while reading it........

 

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone_express/news/retired-diplomat-cleared-after-driving-12898/

 

its not what you know.........

 

If the judge tells the jury to return a not guilty verdict can the jury say sod that and return a guilty verdict anyway? What is the point of having a jury if they can be overruled by the judge?

[Eggesford box]

A senile driver and a senile judge

[meil]

If the judge tells the jury to return a not guilty verdict can the jury say sod that and return a guilty verdict anyway? What is the point of having a jury if they can be overruled by the judge?

Yes they can but it is normally to acquit (Clive Ponting case of recent times). There is a risk that the whole jury could be held in contempt of court however.

Edited February 20, 2014 by meil

[Pete 75C]

this has just wound me up while reading it........

 

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone_express/news/retired-diplomat-cleared-after-driving-12898/

 

its not what you know.........

 

Interesting that if you read the comments attached to the article, everyone's saying what we're all thinking...

[Oldddudders]

In many ways the Judiciary is the last bastion of the Ruling Class, with airs and graces that the rest of society has long forgotten. Masonic influence is considerable too. While we may resent this, thoughts as to how courts and judges operate in many other countries probably make it look lily-white.....

[Dunsignalling]

this has just wound me up while reading it........

 

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone_express/news/retired-diplomat-cleared-after-driving-12898/

 

its not what you know.........

At least it upholds the principle of judgement by one's peers.

 

One clueless, over-privileged moron being protected by another!

 

John

Edited February 20, 2014 by Dunsignalling

[jamie92208]

Absolutely appalling - definitely smells of secret hand shakes.

 

Another example of a quality judgement

 

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_express/news/speeding-driver-9490

 

Note the connection ...

Even though I've been retired for nearly 12 years, from my experience of courts whilst in the police I would say that this reflects modern sentencing policy.  There is huge pressure in the system, not to send people to prison.  there are usualy a list of factors that ahve to be taken into account.  In this case, no one was injured, there was no one else in the car and he didn't ,for instance go througha  level crossing with it's lights flashing.   Thiough back door deals did, and almost certianly still can, get done they are quite rare.  Most apparently dft decisions are usually the result of coack up rather than conspiracy.   I once had two burglars who caused a lot of damamge to a roof by breaking stuff the night that snow fell and there was a lot of water ingress before the ice melted and the repairs could be done safely.  This facts aout the water ingress diodn't get put in court an the two burglars got a light sentence with no compensation order.   The other thing to remember is that sentencing policy is set by politicians which judges then have to interpret.

 

Jamie

[ZiderHead]

The judge looks to me to have done the right thing in both cases. The CPS should have prosecuted the first as a due care, not dangerous driving and they would have secured a conviction so the judge could have imposed the harshest sentence under the guidelines. The second sentence was according to the guidelines (set in law by parliament remember, not by individual judges.)

[beast66606]

The judge looks to me to have done the right thing in both cases. The CPS should have prosecuted the first as a due care, not dangerous driving and they would have secured a conviction so the judge could have imposed the harshest sentence under the guidelines. The second sentence was according to the guidelines (set in law by parliament remember, not by individual judges.)

 

I would consider anyone who knowlingly (he admitted this) drives over a crossing in front of a train to be dangerous, not careless. Careless would be a momentary lapse of concentration not a "Sod it" attitude.

[meil]

I would consider anyone who knowlingly (he admitted this) drives over a crossing in front of a train to be dangerous, not careless. Careless would be a momentary lapse of concentration not a "Sod it" attitude.

Unfortunatly what you regard as dengerous does not count it is what the law says amounts to dangerous. In this case if the facts, as deduced from the evidence, simply could not, as a matter of law, amount to dangerous then the Judge is required to direct the jury to acquit.

 

What appears to be wrong here is that if careless driving could be established from the facts then this could be put to the Jury to decide.

 

I'm afraid that the CPS leave a lot to be desired in this and many other cases.

[beast66606]

 

By "dangerous" we mean within the meaning of section 2A of the RTA 1988 i.e. the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

 

Source : http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/

 

Addendum from the wiki

 

 

it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.^[3] In this context, "dangerous" refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused

 

 

 

How much more dangerous can it get ?

 

It smells of using weasle words to get the case thrown out.

[The Stationmaster]

Even though I've been retired for nearly 12 years, from my experience of courts whilst in the police I would say that this reflects modern sentencing policy.  There is huge pressure in the system, not to send people to prison.  there are usualy a list of factors that ahve to be taken into account.  In this case, no one was injured, there was no one else in the car and he didn't ,for instance go througha  level crossing with it's lights flashing.   Thiough back door deals did, and almost certianly still can, get done they are quite rare.  Most apparently dft decisions are usually the result of coack up rather than conspiracy.   I once had two burglars who caused a lot of damamge to a roof by breaking stuff the night that snow fell and there was a lot of water ingress before the ice melted and the repairs could be done safely.  This facts aout the water ingress diodn't get put in court an the two burglars got a light sentence with no compensation order.   The other thing to remember is that sentencing policy is set by politicians which judges then have to interpret.

 

Jamie

I'm sorry Jamie but the history of what has happened at RH&DR level crossings suggest to me something far from just in this case.  In a previous incident of a motorist ignoring the red lights at an RH&DR crossing somebody (the woman driving the train) died an agonising and horrible death simply because some clot of a motorist didn't think the red lights mattered.  Now we see a Judge also saying, in effect, that the red lights on an RH&DR level crossing don't matter - the facts are simple, the motorist involved admitted he ignored a stop signal on a railway level crossing, end of story.

 

I realise my punishment for such an offence would be regarded as extreme and that we no longer hang people in Britain but the judge's decision in this case smells of something more than 'a view of justice' and I think he should be called t account, I hope the case is appealed by the Crown should that be feasible.  The very act of passing the red lights is an offence in itself so on his own admission the miscreant was guilty of breaking the law.

[Pete 75C]

what you regard as dengerous does not count it is what the law says amounts to dangerous.

 

I think the point that most of us are trying to make is in fact just an opinion. That is that the law, in this case, is an ass.

[jamie92208]

I'm sorry Jamie but the history of what has happened at RH&DR level crossings suggest to me something far from just in this case.  In a previous incident of a motorist ignoring the red lights at an RH&DR crossing somebody (the woman driving the train) died an agonising and horrible death simply because some clot of a motorist didn't think the red lights mattered.  Now we see a Judge also saying, in effect, that the red lights on an RH&DR level crossing don't matter - the facts are simple, the motorist involved admitted he ignored a stop signal on a railway level crossing, end of story.

 

I realise my punishment for such an offence would be regarded as extreme and that we no longer hang people in Britain but the judge's decision in this case smells of something more than 'a view of justice' and I think he should be called t account, I hope the case is appealed by the Crown should that be feasible.  The very act of passing the red lights is an offence in itself so on his own admission the miscreant was guilty of breaking the law.

Mike

 

I share your concern and had only read the report about the man on the motorway and in Ashford which made no mention of level crossings.  I would agree with you about punishments for jumping crossing lights.   Yes at times sentencing policy seems absurd but the system that we live under produces it with pressures from many sources.  I fear that though Dangerous Driving can be proved there is  no automatic prison sentence in cases involving crossings.  As a lifelong supporter of 15 inch gauge railways I remember the awful RH&DR incident well.

 

Jamie

Edited February 20, 2014 by jamie92208

[298]

On my lottery winners list of things to do is provide full barriers, cctv, tank traps, and stinger missiles on all of the RH&DR crossings- there is obviously a history of abuse (by locals) and I think the CPS were right to go for more serious levels of prosecution considering the reaction to sentences dished out after previous incidents.

 

We stayed next to Dungeness Rd LC a couple of years ago, and although we didn't witness any specific abuse by road vehicles, was talking to a diesel driver who had turned up to phot a pair of visiting engines on an evening extra, who mentioned he had an impending court case where a car had gone in front of him at Romney Sands (which makes the defense of knowing the timetable to be laughable...). He still looked visibly upset when talking about the relatively recent fatalities.

[big jim]

Mike

 

I share your concern and had only read the report about the man on the motorway and in Ashford which made no mention of level crossings.

i take it you have now also read the newspaper report on the level crossing incident?

 

if you have i'm sure you will see why it annoyed me so much when i read it!

[martin_wynne]

Athelney crossing accident report just published:

 

 http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/140224_R042014_Athelney.pdf

[The Stationmaster]

Athelney crossing accident report just published:

 

 http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/140224_R042014_Athelney.pdf

Reads as if whoever wrote it has never heard of reverse direction controls on an automatic level crossing!

[jwealleans]

Can you elaborate, Mike? I haven't either.

[Edwin_m]

Reads as if whoever wrote it has never heard of reverse direction controls on an automatic level crossing!

 

For Jonathan's benefit, reverse direction controls allow the crossing sequence to operate correctly if a train approaches in the wrong direction, though only at a much reduced speed which is indicated on the wrong-direction approach by a horizontal rectangular white sign with a black speed number and an "X".  No such sign is visible at Athelney on Bing maps, but unfortunately Streetview doesn't include the shot down the line which would confirm absolutely that there isn't one. 

 

Para 65 states:

 

"The strike-in treadles ... were of a simple design that was unable to differentiate between operation by a train travelling in the normal direction and one travelling in the opposite direction". 

 

Para 87 states that treadles on crossings such as Athelney are being replaced by versions that discriminate by direction, which would apparently prevent a wrong-direction move causing the "out of synchronisation" condition that led to the barriers to be down for so long.  Reverse direction controls would be a more expensive way of solving the same problem but would also allow the crossing to work automatically during single line working. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by Edwin_m

[Ramblin Rich]

i take it you have now also read the newspaper report on the level crossing incident?

 

if you have i'm sure you will see why it annoyed me so much when i read it!

The last line is particularly galling - why should the taxpayer fund the defendant's costs, when he had already committed to pay them? 

[LNERGE]

Good god.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26351140

[jamie92208]

Good god.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26351140

And she'll be allowed to vote!!!!

 

Jamie