Level crossing stupidity...

[ForestPines]

Maybe my post tempted fate a little two much - two road users killed at the crossing I mentioned, yesterday.

[Coldgunner]

I heard on the wireless this morning, I'll be interested to see the circumstances once they become apparent.

[PGC]

Just seen an item on BBC news - this is the link from the BBC website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-22090686

 

In a later part of the item, Bob Crowe was saying the RMT are against level crossings and they should be replaced. How? Who pays? The Unions? I don't think so!

 

Also in the item was a statement about a level crossing that's been closed and replaced with a footbridge. I wonder how cars drive over that?

 

A "depressed at the inability of supposedly sensible people to grasp reality" PGC

[PaulRhB]

In response to Mr Crows statement, there's nothing lethal about crossings if people obey the lights! Not a helpful comment as far as most of my signalling and RMT colleagues are concerned from comments this morning.

Moreton on Lugg had a significant component of risk from no interlock that meant the incident was caused by a tragic mistake and you could argue it was a lethal trap but not this or the Athelney crash where quickly it has been established the lights were working!

[Adrian Wintle]

In a later part of the item, Bob Crowe was saying the RMT are against level crossings and they should be replaced. How? Who pays? The Unions? I don't think so!

 

It could be gently suggested to Mr Crowe that the most practical and cost effective solution would be to close the railway... 

 

Adrian

[lmsforever]

Perhaps the driving test should include using an ahb or similar crossing,and driving instructors include level crossing etiquete in their courses plus BTP could start advertising the way to use a crossing but it probably wont stop all these "busy" people dicing with death.

[beast66606]

Perhaps the driving test should include using an ahb or similar crossing,and driving instructors include level crossing etiquete in their courses plus BTP could start advertising the way to use a crossing but it probably wont stop all these "busy" people dicing with death.

 

My driving test questions were mostly (randomly, my mates were about parking restrictions and motorways) about level crossings, ungated and gated - but perhaps a mandatory Q&A would at least help ensure people were aware at the point of passing.

[mcowgill]

AKAIK there's not much (if any) questioning from the examiner about the Highway Code in the practical driving test. You're supposed to know all this earlier from passing your theory test which should cover it all, but how much is related to hazards like level crossings and how much is on other areas like first aid etc I don't know. There seems to be an awful lot in the theory test that's about being a more general user (both passenger and driver) in addition to all the driving / rule of the road things we all learned years ago.

 

Hopefully my eldest son understands how to use a level crossing properly as he's seen them from the footplate side on the Ffestiniog & Welsh Highland.

 

Martin (eldest son passed his license a couple of years back, another one currently learning)

Edited April 10, 2013 by mcowgill

[The Lurker]

Unfortunately impatience often overcomes common sense where driving is concerned - and not just re level crossings; overtaking on bends, and the crests of hills, parking across the pavement outside a cash machine rather than finding a legitimate parking space, the list goes on and on....

 

No idea about the circumstances of the latest tragedy - just a comment on road users generally

[The Stationmaster]

As I'm sure I've mentioned before the Highway Code questions from the Examiner in my Driving Test concentrated almost exclusively on automatic level crossings - despite the fact that back then (1965) the nearest one was several counties away!

 

And alas Bob Crowe has yet again done the railway industry and his own members a terrible disservice by spouting a load of utter rubbish in a tv interview.  I really think that it's about time the RMT did its image (and membership) a lot of good and found itself a General Secretary and front man who actually knows something about the industry he keeps pontificating about in such an ignorant manner.  I've known several railway trade union Executive members and a couple of General Secretaries in my time and had the pleasure of negotiating directly with one of the latter and compared to all of them Crowe just isn't in the same league, or indeed anywhere near it.

[EddieB]

Well, Mr Crow is a local, and as I understand his above-ground railway experience only extended to the surface sections of the Central Line where the many level crossings were replaced by subways, footbridges over/under bridges at electrification (i.e. well before Mr Crow had hatched).  That might explain his comments.  (I wonder if he ever takes the 275 bus past the fully gated level crossing at Highams Park?)

 

Maybe there's a level crossing in need of a flagman, or a village simply in need (erm), that we could arrange a transfer?

[Belsay Lad]

Much as I have my own views of Bob Crow and his ilk I fear this is starting to get a bit into the realms of 'politics'?

 

Surely the fact remains that (allowing for mechanical/electrical failure of the equipment, which seems to be very few and far between. And even when it does occur the system is set up to 'fail safe') the main problem is road users ignoring the flashing visual signs and the audio sounds...

 

Of course, although early indications are that the crossing was working correctly, we do not yet know the full circumstances of the most recent tragedy.

[The Stationmaster]

Much as I have my own views of Bob Crow and his ilk I fear this is starting to get a bit into the realms of 'politics'?

 

Surely the fact remains that (allowing for mechanical/electrical failure of the equipment, which seems to be very few and far between. And even when it does occur the system is set up to 'fail safe') the main problem is road users ignoring the flashing visual signs and the audio sounds...

 

Of course, although early indications are that the crossing was working correctly, we do not yet know the full circumstances of the most recent tragedy.

Not necessarily when he spouted the nonsense that the number of incidents is increasing (statistically the opposite is true according to the BBC in figures given in the same item after the interview with him and secondly his assertions about replacing level crossings with bridges and the statement that level crossings are dangerous when patently the problem is not so much the crossings but misuse of them by motorists.  If someone who is seen to represent a portion or view of the industry from the inside can't get his facts right what hope is there for educating the less knowledgeable wider public?

 

We don't obviously know the cause of this latest incident but let's not overlook the title of this thread - the 'stupidity' element almost invariably lies with road users and it is that which anyone involved in the industry should be making clear.  Jump road traffic lights and you might, at worst, have a damaged vehicle and possibly a stay in hospital - if you ignore the lights and/or barriers at a level crossing only the very lucky (who we needn't emphasise) will avoid a sideways trip along the railway with their vehicle disintegrating around them and their chances of needing hospital attention instead of a hearse diminishing considerably with every extra 10 mph of the train speed at the moment of impact.

[Belsay Lad]

Not necessarily when he spouted the nonsense that the number of incidents is increasing (statistically the opposite is true according to the BBC in figures given in the same item after the interview with him and secondly his assertions about replacing level crossings with bridges and the statement that level crossings are dangerous when patently the problem is not so much the crossings but misuse of them by motorists.  If someone who is seen to represent a portion or view of the industry from the inside can't get his facts right what hope is there for educating the less knowledgeable wider public?

 

We don't obviously know the cause of this latest incident but let's not overlook the title of this thread - the 'stupidity' element almost invariably lies with road users and it is that which anyone involved in the industry should be making clear.  Jump road traffic lights and you might, at worst, have a damaged vehicle and possibly a stay in hospital - if you ignore the lights and/or barriers at a level crossing only the very lucky (who we needn't emphasise) will avoid a sideways trip along the railway with their vehicle disintegrating around them and their chances of needing hospital attention instead of a hearse diminishing considerably with every extra 10 mph of the train speed at the moment of impact.

 

 

I totally agree with you 'Stationmaster' and tried to get that across (sorry if I have failed) . The most likely cause of road users jumping traffic lights, especially at level crossing, is fatalities. When are they going to recognize that?

 

Your views of one Robert Crow might well exactly mirror mine, but I don't want to post here further as to what might be taken as a 'political' comment, so I won't.

[Gary H]

Perhaps the driving test should include using an ahb or similar crossing,and driving instructors include level crossing etiquete in their courses plus BTP could start advertising the way to use a crossing but it probably wont stop all these "busy" people dicing with death.

Why?? The lights are flashing red= stop! Its not rocket science!

What is there to learn? My boy has yet to pass his driving test but im fairly sure if i asked him what he should do at a red light his answer would not be to ignore it and drive through it, take a chance etc.

The red stop lights should be treated the same way as any other red light. Wether theres a railway beyond or a busy road intersection, a peddestrian crossing, i cant see the differance.

I drive an HGV LGV (call it what you want) for NR all day and I see people on a daily basis that are so full of their self importance, in a rush, selfish and dam right ignorant of alot of highway laws it is simply staggering! How dare you impede their important journey for any more than 10 seconds or well betide you!!

It not a question of edjucating people on the use of crossings, they know dam well that red means stop! The problem is the fact that our society is becoming even more selfish and darn right ignorant

and even less people have any time for anything or anyone else and that includes waiting for a train and having their journey impeded by 30 seconds.

[edcayton]

Sorry to go against the flow, but considering the number of fatalities, maybe the "stupidity" is continuing to allow half barrier crossings.  We are forced to wear seat belts and crash helmets to protect us from ourselves, why not apply the same to level crossings?

 

Ed

[Neil]

Also in the news today is a report on this crossing accident, the result of a tragic lapse in concentration by a signalman. While it's tempting to label all crossing accidents caused by motorists as 'stupidity' perhaps we should also extend the same understanding of human frailty and allow that some may equally be lapses of concentration. Obviously there will still be some where impatience, arrogance and sheer witlessness play their part too. As Ed above has just mentioned perhaps we do need to look at ways to protect us from out own fallibility.

 

A friend of mine is involved in highway planning, many road improvements are driven by the need to improve safety. Road traffic fatalities have a cost (a frighteningly high one) and when it looks like these costs may well outweigh that of the improvement to make the highway safer, the work is done. It seems a bit brutal to reduce safety and human life down to a monetary figure, but it does mean that it becomes hard to argue against spending the money to make things safer.

[Gary H]

Sorry to go against the flow, but considering the number of fatalities, maybe the "stupidity" is continuing to allow half barrier crossings.  We are forced to wear seat belts and crash helmets to protect us from ourselves, why not apply the same to level crossings?

 

Ed

I agree with that to a certain exstent but then you run the risk of trapping vehicles and /or people inside the crossing. Full barriers are only safe AFAIC where localy controlled and monitored.

[Gruffalo]

Sorry to go against the flow, but considering the number of fatalities, maybe the "stupidity" is continuing to allow half barrier crossings.  We are forced to wear seat belts and crash helmets to protect us from ourselves, why not apply the same to level crossings?

 

Ed

Yes, there could be some merit in this argument but that does not excuse those who try and cross at the last moment. With full barriers, they certainly would be trapped and then destroyed along the track. Is it not, therefore, a more sensible thing to have half-barriers? Darwinian theory rules remember, even if it can seriously affect the innocent who get caught up in th eevent.

[Belsay Lad]

Sorry to go against the flow, but considering the number of fatalities, maybe the "stupidity" is continuing to allow half barrier crossings.  We are forced to wear seat belts and crash helmets to protect us from ourselves, why not apply the same to level crossings?

 

Ed

 

 

OK,maybe you seriously maybe need to read (re-read) the Highway Code...

 

'RED LIGHTS EQUAL STOP'  Even at a level crossing.

[Oldddudders]

Mention of the driving test in this respect implies it is young blades, intent on impressing their mates or the doris, who are involved in passing the red lights. Not my inference from recent sad events, where they seem to have been mature drivers.

[Edwin_m]

Yes, there could be some merit in this argument but that does not excuse those who try and cross at the last moment. With full barriers, they certainly would be trapped and then destroyed along the track. Is it not, therefore, a more sensible thing to have half-barriers? Darwinian theory rules remember, even if it can seriously affect the innocent who get caught up in th eevent.

As hinted by Gary above, full barrier crossings are always monitored and an operator (or in more recent installations a radar-type detector) confirms that the crossing is clear before the signals are cleared for a train.  Therefore there would have to be a failure on the part of the railway before someone trapped between full barriers can be struck by a train.  However someone jumping over or crashing through the barriers after the signals have been cleared would not be protected in this way. 

 

This has the side-effect that the crossing stays closed to the road a lot longer than a half barrier, because it needs to be closed in time for the train to get a clear run through on green signals.

[96701]

Whilst the "train hits car" is big news, there are many more User Worked Crossings and Footpath Crossings that need managing. CCTV crossings are still dependent on the human eye and brain. All the interlocking in the world won't stop a signaller being distracted and missing something on the crossing whilst lowering the barriers and clearing signals. The simple fact is that level crossings are the biggest risk in Network Rail's infrastructure. In terms of death and destruction, the only safe level crossing is a non-existent one, hence Network Rail's drive to close as many crossings as possible.

 

Facts and figures regarding misuse are available here: -

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4817.aspx

[Edwin_m]

True, but the statistics do show that full barrier crossings are much safer than the various automatic types and indeed half barriers are much safer than lights with no barriers.  I agree there is potentially a big issue with user-worked crossings simply because there are so many of them. 

[jamie92208]

As hinted by Gary above, full barrier crossings are always monitored and an operator (or in more recent installations a radar-type detector) confirms that the crossing is clear before the signals are cleared for a train.  Therefore there would have to be a failure on the part of the railway before someone trapped between full barriers can be struck by a train.  However someone jumping over or crashing through the barriers after the signals have been cleared would not be protected in this way. 

 

This has the side-effect that the crossing stays closed to the road a lot longer than a half barrier, because it needs to be closed in time for the train to get a clear run through on green signals.

I thought that full barrier crossings always closed one side of the road to approaching traffic in each direction then after a delay close the other two barriers, thus allowing potentially trapped cars to escape.

 

Jamie