RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted July 9, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) Even when I am logged on to Facebook I get a message saying content not found. I think your link is incomplete. Edited July 9, 2018 by Colin_McLeod Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Even when I am logged on to Facebook I get a message saying content not found. I think your link is incomplete. I get the group home page, but I think you have to actually join the group to see any content Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Found this one on Google News France; taking stupidity crossing the tracks to a new level, this driver didn't bother with looking for a crossing:- https://actu.fr/pays-de-la-loire/sable-sur-sarthe_72264/spectaculaire-collision-entre-train-poids-lourd-sable-sur-sarthe_17678701.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted July 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2018 Found this one on Google News France; taking stupidity crossing the tracks to a new level, this driver didn't bother with looking for a crossing:- https://actu.fr/pays-de-la-loire/sable-sur-sarthe_72264/spectaculaire-collision-entre-train-poids-lourd-sable-sur-sarthe_17678701.html Looks like a chiltern 67! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Looks like a chiltern 67! Must be a Saltley driver.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) It says there is no crossing, then it says there were no barriers ('non protege'?). I gather there was a diversion - so was there a road crossing or something, or not? If he'd just set off across the running lines, surely they'd have made more of it? Edited July 10, 2018 by jwealleans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted July 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2018 I get the group home page, but I think you have to actually join the group to see any content What is the name of the group please so that I can join and have a look? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 What is the name of the group please so that I can join and have a look? Try this link, Colin. It works for me https://www.facebook.com/groups/hobbyeisenbahner/permalink/1735125196523954/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted July 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2018 "Content not found" again. What is the name of the group and I can search Facebook for it? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted July 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2018 "Content not found" again. What is the name of the group and I can search Facebook for it? Thanks. Eisenbahn Freunde 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted July 11, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 11, 2018 Got it thanks. Application pending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Found this one on Google News France; taking stupidity crossing the tracks to a new level, this driver didn't bother with looking for a crossing:- https://actu.fr/pays-de-la-loire/sable-sur-sarthe_72264/spectaculaire-collision-entre-train-poids-lourd-sable-sur-sarthe_17678701.htm It says there is no crossing, then it says there were no barriers ('non protege'?). I gather there was a diversion - so was there a road crossing or something, or not? If he'd just set off across the running lines, surely they'd have made more of it? Looks like a chiltern 67! It's an ungated crossing on a minor road (presumably being used as a diversionary route). Although both train and truck are reported as travelling at low speed, the truck driver cannot have checked the crossing was clear - blaming the sighting on the road approaching the crossing. As can be seen, visibility along the line is limited in both directions and there is no facility for drivers of slow vehicles to telephone/alert the signaller. The truck was pushed into a house between the road and railway line. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@47.8518718,-0.397632,3a,75y,5.77h,61.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTVRpjCxaHARg7dFFVkkK2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 The loco is an SNCF class 75 diesel (other operators are available). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted July 12, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just snipped this plonker at Flagstaff AZ causing a BNSF freight to do an emergency stop. (Credit to Youtube) 09:43 MST (about 45 mins ago) Look at the crossing at the left. He stood there until the last couple of seconds despite plenty of horn. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 19, 2018 Here we go again: "Simon French, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said: No motorist wants to encounter an obstruction on an unlit road after dark. Large animals or fallen trees are to some extent a normal part of rural life. But to find part of a freight train, stationary and with no visible lights, looming out of the darkness on a level crossing in the early hours of the morning, must have been a truly terrifying experience. There was no warning. The level crossing barriers had risen, and the road lights had stopped flashing, over a minute before the car approached the crossing. The driver of the car that hit this train was lucky to escape with her life." RAIB report today: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-082018-collision-at-stainforth-road-level-crossing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Not Captain Kernow Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2018 That statement from Simon French is pure sensationalism and will play straight into the hands of the media. What about the fact that the driver was approaching the crossing at 40 - 50 mph (and if that is what they claim, it was probably faster) and did not see the wagon, which had however been seen by the car coming in the opposite direction. If this had been 200 yards back, and the driver had hit a parked unlit vehicle, or a cow or similar, it would not even have been investigated! I don't think I would approach a level crossing at 40mph. No doubt the issues about the crossing need sorting, but as a driver you are responsible for driving in a manner which allows you to stop short of any obstruction. If you cannot spot something as big as the biomass wagon in your headlights you are clearly driving too fast! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) That statement from Simon French is pure sensationalism and will play straight into the hands of the media. It's surprisingly emotive language. Edited to add: I'm finding it hard to believe this is in a RAIB report and not a newspaper. Given the statement: "RAIB does not establish blame, liability or carry out prosecutions." I would expect some degree of impartiality but it does not come across that way to me. It seems to take the usual view in newspapers that the less common an event is, and therefore the more newsworthy, the more important it is that something is done to stop it happening again. And then there's the common journalistic theme of "Look how dangerous the railways are - a mere 8 years ago something similar happened" In any case there is a huge difference between barriers up and train approaching as at Moreton on Lugg and barriers up with a stationary obstacle on the line as in this case. Edited July 19, 2018 by Coryton 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2018 That statement from Simon French is pure sensationalism and will play straight into the hands of the media. What about the fact that the driver was approaching the crossing at 40 - 50 mph (and if that is what they claim, it was probably faster) and did not see the wagon, which had however been seen by the car coming in the opposite direction. If this had been 200 yards back, and the driver had hit a parked unlit vehicle, or a cow or similar, it would not even have been investigated! I don't think I would approach a level crossing at 40mph. No doubt the issues about the crossing need sorting, but as a driver you are responsible for driving in a manner which allows you to stop short of any obstruction. If you cannot spot something as big as the biomass wagon in your headlights you are clearly driving too fast! If you drive into the back of the car in front but it didn't have any lights on, who (legally) is to blame? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 If you drive into the back of the car in front but it didn't have any lights on, who (legally) is to blame? In the day or the night? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2018 In the day or the night? Either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) Wonder if she was driving on dipped headlights, I am pretty sure on full beam you would see it in time to avoid an accident @ 40-50mph... Edited July 19, 2018 by Titan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigherb Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 If you drive into the back of the car in front but it didn't have any lights on, who (legally) is to blame? Road vehicles have refelectors on the rear, hence there are laws about parking facing oncoming traffic on unlite roads in darkness and and parking anyway without lights on any unlite roads with a speed limit above 30mph. An effing great railwagon blocking the road without warning or markings is not acceptable in my book and glad that lady Herb was not driving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Not Captain Kernow Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2018 Lots of things have no lights on them - livestock for example, a fallen tree etc. Most people don't crash into them at 40mph just because they have no lights! Different if they fall in front of you or suddenly appear, but stationary in the road you should be able to see in your lights. If you cannot, you are driving too fast! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Put a large, unlit obstruction in the road at night and see how far "they were going too fast" absolves you of liability in the eyes of the court.if someone hits it. I can think of several cases where those responsible for, eg unlit skips have been found liable when someone has clouted them. The railway is not always the innocent party. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Not Captain Kernow Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2018 If you can find where I claim the railway was innocent please show me? It is the emotive language of the RAIB statement I have a problem with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted July 19, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 19, 2018 There was a time when it was reasonable, statistically, to guess that a level crossing accident was the motorist's fault. A number of recent incidents mean such a guess is no longer reasonable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now