Level crossing stupidity...

[Glorious NSE]

Sorry, again, where is your evidence that in this specific case, he was aware of the train, he was under pressure, and deliberately drove in front of it.

 

There is none that I can see.

[RJS1977]

3) I am of the belief that the van driver was local to the area, and as such would have know that the railway was there.

 

As the trackway he was pulling out of was a dead end, he must have previously either crossed the crossing or approached it before turning into the track. Either way, he would then have known the crossing was there whether he was local or not...

[Neil]

I'd agree with that - although we're somewhat on a tangent. There doesn't seem to be the slightest bit of evidence that he was aware of the train and deliberately tried to beat it to save 30 seconds because of his schedule, which seems to be the inference of that line of thought?

 

Apologies for the tangent Martyn. I was making a general comment rather than specifically targeting this particular incident. However it strikes me that being under time pressure can have effects not only on deliberate decision making ( I see the train but I'm going to cross as I'm in a hurry) but also on the unconscious actions by occupying too much of the thought process (I'm late, I only have a few minutes to the next drop, whoa, where did that train come from)

[jjb1970]

I think this is the classic argument of immediate vs. underlying causes of an accident. The immediate cause is undoubtedly driver action, but I believe that in terms of underlying causes then there are indeed further contributory factors such as unrealistic schedules and pressure to get the job done. In terms of a traffic accident then legal responsibility is with the driver, in terms of an accident investigation report then the underlying factors would certainly be considered. As has been pointed out there are reasons that many people are frightened to pursue cases against their employers because even if they win the tribunal they often still end up as losers. And in recent years it has ot been so easy to just walk out of a job and hope you'll get something better, no matter how much we might all say that no job is worth risking your own life and the lives of others for (well, unless you're in the emergency services or armed forces). As individuals we all have a responsibility to obey the law regardless of pressures from employers etc but the unfortunate reality is that pressures do affect behaviours and whilst such pressures do not exonerate or excuse negligent or reckless driving I also believe that where such pressures exist then the legal liability should be spread more widely than just the driver.

[The Stationmaster]

HSE might be interested too, as it's done in the course of employment and presents a risk to the employee and others.  Why do we have such a double standard with driving compared to most other activities? 

Actually it's a breach of the H&S Regulations if the vehicle driver has been given a schedule of deliveries which he can't safely work to.  In compiling such a schedule the operator is required to carry out risk assessments and take into account factors which could affect safety or the viability of the schedule.  If in this particular case the driver had been rushing ti try to maintain his delivery scheduled times there could well be a case against the operator for a breach of H&S legislation and requirements.

 

Whether a court would consider that a mitigation in dealing with the driver is a separate issue which I presume would only be relevant at sentencing and not prosecution.  The complicating factor is of course that two separate prosecuting bodies would be involved in two different prosecutions.

 

As far as notices etc are concerned it is clearly apparent that at that particular crossing local circumstance prevent normal compliant signage however that in turn is mitigated by, I suspect, the presence of a speed limit, and other road features which ensure that vehicles approaching that side of the crossing have ample stopping time if the driver is alert to the operation of the crossing warning systems and red lights.

[Gary H]

Knowing CL, I can categorically guarantee that driver would have been under pressure!

CL treat their drivers like crap and the put massive workloads on them whilst being paid peanuts to do it. Same can be said for most of these delivery company's.

Most of these guys are out until 8 at night and will have done something like 50 to 70 drops during the day and maybe 30 odd collections aswel in some cases.

He was probably fatigued to the hilt making his decision making skills and general awareness of his surroundings non existent.

 

There's nothing quite like multi drop work to knock the **** out of you!

[Gary H]

Actually it's a breach of the H&S Regulations if the vehicle driver has been given a schedule of deliveries which he can't safely work to.  In compiling such a schedule the operator is required to carry out risk assessments and take into account factors which could affect safety or the viability of the schedule.  If in this particular case the driver had been rushing ti try to maintain his delivery scheduled times there could well be a case against the operator for a breach of H&S legislation and requirements.

Amen to that! Its about time it was clamped down on! The way some of these firms treat their staff, you'd be forgiven in thinking they were exempt from any form of rules or regulation.

[jjb1970]

A few years ago I was in a job where my employer was putting staff under heavy pressure to get the job done, considering objections based on being ordered to contravene the companies own procedures and safe system of work to be indolent and trouble making behaviour etc and where I considered it to be a catastrophe waiting to happen. I observed what happened to those who tried to pursue things through the correct channels and decided to leave as my conclusion was that I had three choices:

 

Stay where I was, do what I was told and retain my job at the risk being responsible for a disaster risking multiple lives based on my assessment of safety standards and management culture

 

Object on safety grounds or "whistle blow", based on what I observed the probability was I'd end up out of a job and with my future employability damaged to the point my career would be blighted for the long term

 

Just leave, smile and nod and tell the bosses it was no hard feelings blah blah blah and get out ASAP

 

I chose option 3, morally, ethically it was in no way commendable but I didn't want to end up killing anybody and I saw the personal consequences of "doing the right thing" so decided to get out with a clean record and move on. So I do have some sympathy for people who bend to option 1 but then again this sympathy is limited by the recognition that nobody actually has to do it. Unfortunately, and this is probably very unpolitically correct and not a good thing to tell younger people especially, but in life "doing the right thing" can often carry undesirable personal consequences which leads to people either just doing things and hoping for the best or doing what I did (the cowards option) of just clearing off without burning bridges.

[The Stationmaster]

You do of course also have the option of reporting things, in writing, to the appropriate regulating/inspection authority - although that might not necessarily produce action.

[roythebus]

I feel some empathy with JJB's comment above; I was in a similar situation with BR in the 1980s. They got rid of me. I became self-employed and earned more money running rail replacement buses for my former employers than I did driving trains for them.

 

A month or so after my departure saw the Clapham rail crash. I had nothing to do with it obviously, but it shows how lax things were in those days.

[Catkins]

You do of course also have the option of reporting things, in writing, to the appropriate regulating/inspection authority - although that might not necessarily produce action.

By reporting any concerns you have to a regulatory authority, as long as you record any and all correspondence, then there is a paper trail, that will provide some support if you are caught up when something goes wrong.

 

(I might do that at work :/ )

[scouser]

Recent history shows that whistleblowers are NOT supported by any of the bodies who spend all of their time telling people to speak up. Complain about the boss pressuring you to break the law and you are on your own. Complain about something politically sensative and you will quickly have your collar felt. I can only sympathise with drivers placed in this position but, on a positive note, a friend of mine works for a furniture delivery company who treat their drivers well. It is not all doom and gloom.

[EddieB]

I'm sorry, but this discussion seems to have gone off on a tangent when the correct answer is staring us in the face (like the delivery driver).  No matter how much pressure is being exerted by their management, no one of sound mind puts themselves in mortal danger for the sake of - at most - a couple of minutes.  There is never an extenuating circumstance that should allow a driver to jump a level crossing stop signal.  If it applies to emergency vehicles, then as sure as anything it applies to piddly little delivery vans.

[BlackRat]

That's an interesting observation; I wonder if the police or the courts ever take a look at the delivery schedule given to/imposed on the driver in such cases?

They certainly do........Google ...........,, use, cause and permitting under the Road Traffic Act.

[Mike Storey]

I feel some empathy with JJB's comment above; I was in a similar situation with BR in the 1980s. They got rid of me. I became self-employed and earned more money running rail replacement buses for my former employers than I did driving trains for them.

 

A month or so after my departure saw the Clapham rail crash. I had nothing to do with it obviously, but it shows how lax things were in those days.

 

Sorry, but I can't see any comparison at all. I don't know, and have no right to know, the particular circumstances under which you parted company with BR. However, what you certainly would have had was strong Trade Union support with associated H&S and legal support if necessary, to fight your corner. Not the case for van drivers I suspect in this era.

 

The laxity you express was largely from individuals, not from the organisation in general. I well remember asking two off-duty train drivers to use the public exit from one of my stations in that period, and not the unofficial walking route across two running lines to a side gate shortcut home. I had recently helped scrape the remains of one of my staff from a barrow crossing not a month earlier. I got the usual mouthful, in that it was people like me who were turning the job to sh1t, and they made a complaint to LDC B. Sanely, the ASLEF H&S rep refused to support their complaint, and they ended up in front of the Train Crew Manager instead.

 

Given that, I accept that Clapham was caused partly by organisational pressure to get the job done, hence the new signalling wiring was not double-checked by the supervising senior tech officer. So, I do not deny there was the same sort of pressure in those days, but there was definitely much greater defence against it.

[Gary H]

I'm sorry, but this discussion seems to have gone off on a tangent when the correct answer is staring us in the face (like the delivery driver).  No matter how much pressure is being exerted by their management, no one of sound mind puts themselves in mortal danger for the sake of - at most - a couple of minutes. 

That's just it though Eddie.

Due to being on "delivery driver auto pilot", (aka fatigue)  he probably didn't have the first clue that he was  in danger!

I don't believe for a minute he saw the train and thought **** it, sod the train, im going for it!

[kevinlms]

Absolutely agree Phil, no defence for missing lights etc & not looking carefully.  I have however had experience of trying to get work for people who have "won" an employment tribunal. 

 

Many employers unfortunately don't look beyond the termination of employment & the word "tribunal" when recruiting.  They see tribunal & think troublemaker, see a tribunal financial settlement & see £ signs attached to employing that person, even if the previous employer broke the law.  If the person manages to get to the interview stage life is often easier.

Sometimes, things go disastrously wrong.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/cootes-trucks-ordered-off-road-after-significant-failures-found-20140215-32sa2.html

[Gary H]

2 dead and 2 critical in this one apparently.

Enthusiast in the first video was very lucky. If the car was a split second latter, he could have been wearing it!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=616_1426435652

[Kenton]

If that doesn't go to show how long it takes for a train to come to a standstill I don't know what does. Sobering.

[Colin_McLeod]

Frightening videos

[Fat Controller]

We almost ended up involved in one last week in Sicily. We took the train from Syracuse to Ragusa (Inspector Montelbano pilgrimage), on a single-track line with many level crossings; at one of these, we passed a car stopped between the barrier and the track where the road crossed the railway at an oblique angle. It was a few minutes afterwards when I realised we'd had a near escape, as the car driver must have tried running the lights and then saw the train..

[Spitfire2865]

Seriously, what the hell was that driver thinking? Maybe we should make level crossing safety the next big thing after texting and driving.

[trisonic]

If that doesn't go to show how long it takes for a train to come to a standstill I don't know what does. Sobering.

I can’t imagine that the Car stayed upright all that time either - btw that freight train could easily have weighed over 10,000 tons (which is an average for a typical transcon)...

 

Best, Pete.

[Ozexpatriate]

Seriously, what the hell was that driver thinking?

Evidently he or she wasn't.

 

Maybe we should make level crossing safety the next big thing after texting and driving.

Operation Lifesaver has been trying to create awareness for years.

 

They have data available from 1981 to 2014 for the United States.

 

The only 'good news' is that the trend is down. I put the Operation Lifesaver data in a graph:

 

 

267 unnecessary deaths (2014) is still too many.

 

In contrast, UK data is starkly different. See p25 RSSB Annual Safety Performance Report 2013/14. 

 

According to that report, in 2013/14 the total number of road vehicle occupant fatalities on a level crossing in the UK was 2, with a total of 8 if you include pedestrians.

 

Even accounting for the fact that the USA has about 5x the population of the UK, it's a pretty dramatic difference.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[trisonic]

It may be the more rural nature of most of the USA rather than population difference - I wonder what the Grade Crossing/Level Crossing comparison is USA vs UK per 1k  people? Where I live there are about ten Grade Crossings in a five mile radius.

 

“ Countryfolk” (I always wanted to use that word) over here tend to have a more laissez faire attitude to authority too.

 

Best, Pete.

Edited March 19, 2015 by trisonic