Level crossing stupidity...

[Coryton]

2 hours ago, royaloak said:

<Pedant mode on>Actually its 104mph, <pedant mode off>

 

104mph was chosen so the valve wouldnt be going from soft to loud if it was set at 100mph as the train speed varied by a couple of mph as the train cruised along, as we are allowed a 3mph allowance setting it at 104mph means it will only switch when the train is deliberately driven at more than 100mph.

 

But as some/most of the high tones dont work on the 802s at the moment its a bit of a touchy subject.

 

Interesting. The usual solution to preventing things repeatedly turning on and off like that is to have hysteresis, e.g. it would go loud when the speed exceeds, say, 103 mph, but only go back to 'quiet' when the speed drops below 97 mph.

[Gibbo675]

7 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

We could argue legal semantics for a long time and probably enjoy the discussion.  However in the mind of the general public crimes tend to be thought of as what the Home Office call recordable offences where we used to have to record a crime, that goes into the annual crime statistics.   These are broadly, any offences that carry imprisonment plus a few others that don't.   These then form the basis of a criminal record.   However none of the legal argument makes Level Crossings any safer.  The sentence at Kildwick was certainly quite high for a driving offence.   The other factor is the very strict sentencing guidelines that magistrates and judges operate under.  Many of these are specifically designed to keep people out of prison.

 

Jamie

Hi Jamie,

 

It is about time that the Police stopped running around issuing private debt notices by putting people under duress with threats of violence and upheld the law as the Police Oath requires them to do.

 

I once had cause to stand a Policeman upon his oath for my not committing of any crime at all, he then resorted to placing me under duress with threats of violence, however, I pursued the matter by way of the commercial process and gained remedy.

 

Here is, with no points on my license, the final proof from the unfortunately named Ministry of Justice:

 

The point being is that the document has the words "remittance, advice, invoice, claim, expense and notice" written upon it and is therefore, by the terms of the Bills of Exchange Act, a private commercial debt instrument which I may should I wish consent to contract with.

 

The form that I was put under duress, with threat of violence, to sign was also part of the very same private debt instrument.

 

Unfortunately, as any contracts signed under duress under the Bills of Exchange are considered null and void it ended one-nil to me.

 

It would seem that the policeman that used an unlawful threat of violence against me was no more the law than I or anyone else is. Also that, when he informed me that I was under caution and evidence would be used against me the same applied to himself, which in the end rather worked in my favour.

 

Lenin had a phrase for people that conduct themselves in such a manner, "Useful Idiots"

 

Ignorance is strength as George Orwell  might say,

 

Gibbo.

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There's been some discussion of the status of occupation crossings etc. In this context, Lt. Col. Mount's report into a level crossing accident in 1939 makes interesting reading - crossings that had been occupation crossings when the railway was built had become de facto public crossings through the actions of local (RD and County) councils, and through changes in land use, largely unbeknownst to the railway companies.

 

How much of the legislation cited is still applicable?

Technically a crossing is only a level crossing (within the proper definition of that term) if there is a Level Crossing Order inforce in respect of that crossing.  Level Crossing orders are not normally issued for occupation and accommodation crossings as they are not covered by legislation applicable to level crossings.  The confusion nowadays seems to exist mainly because NR have lumped everything under the description 'level crossing' irrespective of its legal status or indeed of its purose (hence even footpath crossings are described by NR as 'level crossings'.

[Coryton]

6 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Jamie,

 

It is about time that the Police stopped running around issuing private debt notices by putting people under duress with threats of violence and upheld the law as the Police Oath requires them to do.

 

 

Are we, perhaps, straying a little too far from the title of this thread now?

[JDW]

Yes, this is the lightbulb changing thread isn't it?

[96701]

32 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Technically a crossing is only a level crossing (within the proper definition of that term) if there is a Level Crossing Order inforce in respect of that crossing.  Level Crossing orders are not normally issued for occupation and accommodation crossings as they are not covered by legislation applicable to level crossings.  The confusion nowadays seems to exist mainly because NR have lumped everything under the description 'level crossing' irrespective of its legal status or indeed of its purose (hence even footpath crossings are described by NR as 'level crossings'.

Things have moved on since the tragedy that was Elsenham (latest update here https://www.dunmowbroadcast.co.uk/news/mother-of-girl-killed-at-elsenham-level-crossing-appalled-as-it-emerges-safety-gate-has-been-broken-for-five-months-1-5686580 . I have sat and listened to Tina Hughes in a large room with many people and most of us were in tears at Tina's description of her heartrending loss and Network Rail's callous disregard for her. All places where people cross the railway on the level are level crossings nowadays. Some are subject to level crossing orders, most are not. Some are public footpath, some are public bridleway, some are used by the public on rare but frequent occasions (caravan sites and the like). 

 

All crossings have their unique challenges - some are difficult to assess usage, most are difficult to assess usage by vulnerable people, so please move on from "only level crossings with orders are level crossings - it is no longer the case.

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, 96701 said:

Things have moved on since the tragedy that was Elsenham (latest update here https://www.dunmowbroadcast.co.uk/news/mother-of-girl-killed-at-elsenham-level-crossing-appalled-as-it-emerges-safety-gate-has-been-broken-for-five-months-1-5686580 . I have sat and listened to Tina Hughes in a large room with many people and most of us were in tears at Tina's description of her heartrending loss and Network Rail's callous disregard for her. All places where people cross the railway on the level are level crossings nowadays. Some are subject to level crossing orders, most are not. Some are public footpath, some are public bridleway, some are used by the public on rare but frequent occasions (caravan sites and the like). 

 

All crossings have their unique challenges - some are difficult to assess usage, most are difficult to assess usage by vulnerable people, so please move on from "only level crossings with orders are level crossings - it is no longer the case.

Alas I remain firmly of the view that confusing the issue by referring to them all in the same way is missing out on the particular problems of those which are not statutory level crossings.

 

I don't disagree for one minute that all crossings on the level need proper assessment and consideration but we are still looking at a situation where usage is very different and protection methods need to be considered in a completely different way which addresses those differences.  Statutory level crossings covered by Level Crossing Orders are one thing, occupation and accommodation crossings, and particularly their users (as I well know from the experience of having to deal with them. on various parts of the former WR) present completely different problems and it remains essential in my view that those are recognised.

 

The same can be said of footpath crossings.  For example there are two near a station on our local branch and both are categorised as 'high risk' although the NR site used to show them with the Line Speed and not the achievable speed (which is considerably less).  One of these crossings not only has near impossible sighting from one side in one direction solely because of lineside tree/shrub growth but I noticed recently that a fence is now being erected at right angles to the railway which will reduced the sighting from that side of the line in the opposite direction (where the approach speed of trains is higher and they are moving more quietly).  This particular crossing might, according to some editions of OS maps, have proper status as a footpath but the other one very definitely hasn't and in fact parallels a long existing footpath nearby which crosses under the railway beneath a bridge.  Different problems entirely from a Level Crossing where, with warning lights and barriers, sight lines largely become irrelevant and it doesn't matter (within reason) who puts a fence where.

 

Different categories, different usage, different problems and risks - so why give them all the same title and encourage people to think they're all the same sort of thing.  Alas when looking at safety in its wider context words can and do create impressions in the minds of readers.  Particularly when you consider that vast majority of Level Crossings have things such as lights or barriers which warn when a train is approaching while on the other hand most accommodation and occupation crossings, and footpath crossings do not.

[96701]

7 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Alas I remain firmly of the view that confusing the issue by referring to them all in the same way is missing out on the particular problems of those which are not statutory level crossings.

 

I don't disagree for one minute that all crossings on the level need proper assessment and consideration but we are still looking at a situation where usage is very different and protection methods need to be considered in a completely different way which addresses those differences.  Statutory level crossings covered by Level Crossing Orders are one thing, occupation and accommodation crossings, and particularly their users (as I well know from the experience of having to deal with them. on various parts of the former WR) present completely different problems and it remains essential in my view that those are recognised.

 

The same can be said of footpath crossings.  For example there are two near a station on our local branch and both are categorised as 'high risk' although the NR site used to show them with the Line Speed and not the achievable speed (which is considerably less).  One of these crossings not only has near impossible sighting from one side in one direction solely because of lineside tree/shrub growth but I noticed recently that a fence is now being erected at right angles to the railway which will reduced the sighting from that side of the line in the opposite direction (where the approach speed of trains is higher and they are moving more quietly).  This particular crossing might, according to some editions of OS maps, have proper status as a footpath but the other one very definitely hasn't and in fact parallels a long existing footpath nearby which crosses under the railway beneath a bridge.  Different problems entirely from a Level Crossing where, with warning lights and barriers, sight lines largely become irrelevant and it doesn't matter (within reason) who puts a fence where.

 

Different categories, different usage, different problems and risks - so why give them all the same title and encourage people to think they're all the same sort of thing.  Alas when looking at safety in its wider context words can and do create impressions in the minds of readers.  Particularly when you consider that vast majority of Level Crossings have things such as lights or barriers which warn when a train is approaching while on the other hand most accommodation and occupation crossings, and footpath crossings do not.

So what should we call level crossings that are crossing level with the railway but aren't subject to orders? It could make a huge difference to the titles of some of our Standards if we had to include all crossing types in them, for example https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1689019/nr-l2-sig-19608-issue-7

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, 96701 said:

So what should we call level crossings that are crossing level with the railway but aren't subject to orders? It could make a huge difference to the titles of some of our Standards if we had to include all crossing types in them, for example https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1689019/nr-l2-sig-19608-issue-7

It wouldn't be the first (and probably won't be the last) time the title of a document is changed.  NR have changed the names of more than enough other things over the years so it won't come as a novelty.

 

In reality of course the title of any document is not the really relevant part, its the application which counts and the manner in which the process set out in a document or procedure addresses the particular characteristics of what is being examined or assessed.

[corneliuslundie]

Just came across this story:

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/transport/2019/02/15/shocking1080-people-risk-their-lives-misusing-shropshire-level-crossing/

I apologise if it has already been discussed.

Jonathan

[big jim]

The crossing at wem is a notoriously bad one, even more so now it’s an obstacle detector one rather than controlled by a local box

 

coming from the shrewsbury direction you see the protecting signals as far back as yorton as you come off the straight after the station, which is a fair few miles back, a  green at the 2nd signal in view means the barriers are down and it can take a good 5 minutes to reach the crossing from first observing it with a slow moving freight!

 

 

[melmerby]

I've had a look on Google maps and the main thing that drivers complain about is trying to make a right turn immediately after the crossing in either direction.

Maybe an extra set of road traffic signals that could be synchronised so that traffic on the B5063 is stopped short of the junctions before the crossing sequence starts allowing those turning right to do so before the barriers start to drop.

The alternative is a complete ban on right turns and road layout changed to suit.

A bridge at this location looks impossible.

[PhilJ W]

Bump. 

[Bucoops]

7 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Bump. 

 

Have you informed your insurance company?

[PhilJ W]

14 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Have you informed your insurance company?

Just so that this thread appears in my activity stream. Still fumbling about in the 'new' RMweb.

[martin_wynne]

This seems especially tragic. A pedestrian waits correctly for a train to pass, and then because it is foggy he doesn't realise a second one is approaching in the opposite direction. Would the sound of the second one be drowned by the sound of the first?

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fatal-accident-at-tibberton-footpath-crossing

 

Published today.

 

Martin.

[Hobby]

As you say, it's tragic. The signs tend to say after the train has passed to stop look and listen again before crossing but as this proves many people don't.

[Wickham Green]

Foggy = cold ......... maybe earmuffs on - or the near-obligatory headphones ...............

[Coryton]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

This seems especially tragic. A pedestrian waits correctly for a train to pass, and then because it is foggy he doesn't realise a second one is approaching in the opposite direction. Would the sound of the second one be drowned by the sound of the first?

 

 

Tragic indeed. And it might be quite easy to think that a horn sounded by a second train was from the first one after it had passed the crossing.

 

I'd like to think it wouldn't happen to me but I don't know. I do tend to keep looking both ways as I cross (even on single track) rather than assuming that once a train has passed all is well, but that approach might not be much help in fog.

 

I'm not sure what can be practically done about this though apart from closing footpath crossings.

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Was on a Toulouse tram yesterday when a motorist quite deliberately passed the large red flashing lights that protect the road crossing. Trams can of course stop rather quicker than trains but you do wonder about the thought process of someone who deliberately drives 1 tonne of car right in front of 60 tonnes of moving tram. His passenger looked rather worried.

[Poggy1165]

Problem is, perhaps, the great majority of the population don't know enough about trains to realise how (potentially) dangerous they are. Modern trains are (generally) much faster and quieter than the old ones were and you really do not want to be in the path of one.

 

My generation spent our boyhoods crawling around engine sheds, and you jolly well learned to have a healthy respect for the machines. To this day, I can't even cross over a rusted siding without looking both ways. But we live in a world where youths grab hold of 25,000 volt cables and are surprised when they get burned.

 

Anyone who visits Manchester can have an amusing ride on the front seat of a tram, and watch as pedestrians saunter in front of the moving vehicles, which they do on a regular basis. Funnily enough, very few people would be so hardy as to step out in front of a moving bus, but trams somehow, seem to be fair game. It's as if people think they are made of foam or something. Very odd. 

[melmerby]

17 minutes ago, Poggy1165 said:

Anyone who visits Manchester can have an amusing ride on the front seat of a tram, and watch as pedestrians saunter in front of the moving vehicles, which they do on a regular basis. Funnily enough, very few people would be so hardy as to step out in front of a moving bus, but trams somehow, seem to be fair game. It's as if people think they are made of foam or something. Very odd. 

Plenty of that in the You Tube videos of trams (mainly in Russia).

[RFS]

26 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Plenty of that in the You Tube videos of trams (mainly in Russia).

 

And especially in this video of San Francisco in 1905 taken from a tram before the earthquake the following year. I wonder what the pedestrian accident rate was?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5VXIp8Ux8c

[kevinlms]

On 20/02/2019 at 03:51, Poggy1165 said:

Problem is, perhaps, the great majority of the population don't know enough about trains to realise how (potentially) dangerous they are. Modern trains are (generally) much faster and quieter than the old ones were and you really do not want to be in the path of one.

 

My generation spent our boyhoods crawling around engine sheds, and you jolly well learned to have a healthy respect for the machines. To this day, I can't even cross over a rusted siding without looking both ways. But we live in a world where youths grab hold of 25,000 volt cables and are surprised when they get burned.

 

Anyone who visits Manchester can have an amusing ride on the front seat of a tram, and watch as pedestrians saunter in front of the moving vehicles, which they do on a regular basis. Funnily enough, very few people would be so hardy as to step out in front of a moving bus, but trams somehow, seem to be fair game. It's as if people think they are made of foam or something. Very odd. 

Modern trains? What does that mean, if you're talking about diesel/electrics, then your talking of more than 50 years ago! 

No it's because people are more selfish and important and think nothing should get their way. 

 

Remember most people don't get a 2nd chance of walking in front of any rail vehicle and then they don't boast about it!

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Modern trains? What does that mean, if you're talking about diesel/electrics, then your talking of more than 50 years ago! 

No it's because people are more selfish and important and think nothing should get their way. 

 

Remember most people don't get a 2nd chance of walking in front of any rail vehicle and then they don't boast about it!

I'm tempted to agree but people have been getting hit by trains since trains were invented. Whether or not they're more likely to now... (particularly allowing for there being a lot more people)?