Level crossing stupidity...

[w124bob]

One issue that has arisen over the last few years are cities banning the use of train horns, I seem to recall seeing the recent post featuring that near miss was flagged up as a no horn zone. That's the real stupidity at city hall.

[Ken.W]

8 hours ago, StuAllen said:

Why would you want to lay on a level crossing for a photo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-55764693

 

Given the number of reported incidents at that crossing NR should close it on safety grounds and then leave it to the locals to argue over, and pay for*, a footbridge if they want one

 

* presumably from their council tax

Edited January 22, 2021 by Ken.W

[Hobby]

What we should be reading about is reports of the BTP prosecuting these people, I suspect the fact that they'd get a criminal record and it would hit their wallet would have a far better chance of stopping people try such stunts. Unfortunately all it does by showing pictures like that is make other similar idiots decide they want to do the same thing. 

[jcredfer]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

What we should be reading about is reports of the BTP prosecuting these people, I suspect the fact that they'd get a criminal record and it would hit their wallet would have a far better chance of stopping people try such stunts. Unfortunately all it does by showing pictures like that is make other similar idiots decide they want to do the same thing. 

.....Ummmm...   think Darwin.....  think Tesco.....   every little counts.

 

 

[melmerby]

More fun & games at Ashland VA (where else?)

 

 

[phil_sutters]

3 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

Given the number of reported incidents at that crossing NR should close it on safety grounds and then leave it to the locals to argue over, and pay for*, a footbridge if they want one

 

* presumably from their council tax

It is used for purely leisure activities - walking dogs, going to the beach and studying the ever decreasing wildlife in the area. There are other routes to that section of the coast - one via a new footbridge east of Newhaven Harbour station and the other from the road that passes below Bishopstone station and then follows Seaford's promenade. I would question the cost benefit of building a ramped bridge. At the beach end the path along the beach is a rough, patchy mix of shingle and stretches of old concrete; not a surface I would recommend to someone with mobility issues, on foot or in a wheelchair. One of the better sections - http://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/26391791  The more rugged mobility scooters would probably cope. There is no level access at the Newhaven end.

[96701]

4 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

Given the number of reported incidents at that crossing NR should close it on safety grounds and then leave it to the locals to argue over, and pay for*, a footbridge if they want one

 

* presumably from their council tax

NR do try to close all crossings, after all why pay for all the risk mitigation for the life of the crossing? Unfortunately, NR didn't cross all the ts nor dot all the is when they closed a crossing, so a judicial review ensued, supported by the local MP. What chance do NR stand against such pressure? I am also aware of a crossing to a house where the house is up for sale due to a bereavement, and NR are considering buying the house just to mitigate the risk of a future homeowner making greater demands than the previous (now deceased) owners was likely to make.Legal agreements made when the railway was built are very important,

 

[corneliuslundie]

Is part of the cause of the Ashland incidents the closed road alongside the line between the two level crossings? Drivers get to the far crossing and realise the road is closed so decide to use the railway six foot instead - and then can't get off on to the road at the other end.

Even  so . . .

Jonathan

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

It is used for purely leisure activities - walking dogs, going to the beach and studying the ever decreasing wildlife in the area. There are other routes to that section of the coast - one via a new footbridge east of Newhaven Harbour station and the other from the road that passes below Bishopstone station and then follows Seaford's promenade. I would question the cost benefit of building a ramped bridge. At the beach end the path along the beach is a rough, patchy mix of shingle and stretches of old concrete; not a surface I would recommend to someone with mobility issues, on foot or in a wheelchair. One of the better sections - http://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/26391791  The more rugged mobility scooters would probably cope. There is no level access at the Newhaven end.

The clue is the assistance of the wide crossing surface.

 

IIRC it is actually a bridleway or some such thing and as such ramped access must be provided* even if the beach the crossing leads to is not suitable for wheelchairs or pushchairs.

 

*Extinguishing such a right of way is a legal nightmare and you can be sure that professional complainers will be only too ready to make a case of it in the courts. There was a case at Witham on the GEML a decade or so ago where NRs proposal for a stepped footbridge was chucked out by the courts even though said Bridleway had not seen any use by horse riders for years (mainly because it would need said riders to also cross the busy A12 dual Carriageway as well.

[melmerby]

29 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Is part of the cause of the Ashland incidents the closed road alongside the line between the two level crossings?

 

Jonathan

Ashland has had problems for years, the current road closures were only instigated in the seconf half of last year.

I reckon if they put a short ramp into the ballast from the crossings, a lot of these incidents would be less dramatic.

Often the problem is, once on the railway the vehicles can't get back up because of the height difference.

(That is also the situation at a number of other crossings)

 

[newbryford]

7 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Is part of the cause of the Ashland incidents the closed road alongside the line between the two level crossings?

 

No - they're just idiots......

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

 

No - they're just idiots......

Spot on.  It's a pity that the trains aren't frequent enough for a significant application of the Darwin principles.

 

I'm not actually being very controversial there.  There is a simple correlation between the number of time people get away with something criminal / stupid / uninformed and whether they are willing to take a risk.  More people get caught, the less likely they are to give it a go.  It isn't the fear of the punishment that prevents people committing crime, it is the likelihood of getting caught.

 

 

[phil_sutters]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The clue is the assistance of the wide crossing surface.

 

IIRC it is actually a bridleway or some such thing and as such ramped access must be provided* even if the beach the crossing leads to is not suitable for wheelchairs or pushchairs.

 

*Extinguishing such a right of way is a legal nightmare and you can be sure that professional complainers will be only too ready to make a case of it in the courts. There was a case at Witham on the GEML a decade or so ago where NRs proposal for a stepped footbridge was chucked out by the courts even though said Bridleway had not seen any use by horse riders for years (mainly because it would need said riders to also cross the busy A12 dual Carriageway as well.

It is marked as public footpath on the OS map. The vehicle gates are locked and the pedestrian ones are the wide wicket gate style - as below and visible in the cctv clip. Although there is a stud farm nearby, it is on the other side of the A259, a fast stretch of road with bends all the way from Newhaven to Seaford, it is unlikely that that would be a route they would use. There's plenty of Downs to the landward. An ancient right of way may be the issue. Given that there used to be a hamlet with the Tidemills Flour Mill (which had its own siding) on the seaward side of the then Bishopstone station, I suppose that is quite likely.

[melmerby]

Public footpaths are for Foot traffic only. (Permissive footpaths are open by agreement with the land owner and may also be permissive for cyclists)*

Bridleways are for Foot traffic and Horse traffic. (Again may be permissive)

Bye Ways (BOAT) are routes open to All traffic, but may be no more than a wide path.

This has been contentious in some places with 4x4 drivers using them (legally) but completely ruining them for other users.

 

*e.g. Keswick Railway Footpath is permissive & also part of the NCN but horses are not allowed.

 

[talisman56]

 

On 23/01/2021 at 09:18, corneliuslundie said:

Is part of the cause of the Ashland incidents the closed road alongside the line between the two level crossings? Drivers get to the far crossing and realise the road is closed so decide to use the railway six foot instead - and then can't get off on to the road at the other end.

Even  so . . .

Jonathan

 

I would think the ones at night would also have a contribution from alcohol consumption...

[Dunsignalling]

On 23/01/2021 at 00:22, phil_sutters said:

It is used for purely leisure activities - walking dogs, going to the beach and studying the ever decreasing wildlife in the area. There are other routes to that section of the coast - one via a new footbridge east of Newhaven Harbour station and the other from the road that passes below Bishopstone station and then follows Seaford's promenade. I would question the cost benefit of building a ramped bridge. At the beach end the path along the beach is a rough, patchy mix of shingle and stretches of old concrete; not a surface I would recommend to someone with mobility issues, on foot or in a wheelchair. One of the better sections - http://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/26391791  The more rugged mobility scooters would probably cope. There is no level access at the Newhaven end.

Same reason the replacement footbridge at Honiton was built with clearance for 25kv overhead - it's the laid-down standard for new construction. The only reason ours lacks ramps is that there is alternative access between platforms via the roadway.

 

The fact that both footbridges will be life-expired by the time that the unnecessary compliance likely to become necessary is neither here nor there.

 

John

[phil_sutters]

Maybe as it was a replacement, this new bridge, a mile west, only has steps.

Edited January 25, 2021 by phil_sutters

[melmerby]

On 23/01/2021 at 18:38, jcredfer said:

 More people get caught, the less likely they are to give it a go.  It isn't the fear of the punishment that prevents people committing crime, it is the likelihood of getting caught.

 

 

 

The US states that don't have capital punishment have no more murders than those that do.

 

[Reorte]

On 23/01/2021 at 01:09, 96701 said:

NR do try to close all crossings, after all why pay for all the risk mitigation for the life of the crossing? Unfortunately, NR didn't cross all the ts nor dot all the is when they closed a crossing, so a judicial review ensued, supported by the local MP. What chance do NR stand against such pressure? I am also aware of a crossing to a house where the house is up for sale due to a bereavement, and NR are considering buying the house just to mitigate the risk of a future homeowner making greater demands than the previous (now deceased) owners was likely to make.Legal agreements made when the railway was built are very important,

 

That feels a bit too much of a similar thing from the other direction to me. Just in the same way as people shouldn't make things difficult for the railway through their stupidity or laziness neither should the railway expect to be able to shape the rest of the world of which it's a part for its own convenience.

 

Do wish they'd throw the book at some of the idiots on crossings though.

[melmerby]

I think one of the problems in the US is that road crossings aren't taken very seriously and as a result many are badly designed.

e.g. the cliff edge to the road surface, which means that once you are off the roadway you are stuck.

The hump that many crossings have, causing even the shortest of "semis" to ground.

 

A while back the one in view of the camera at Folkston GA was resurfaced.

They actually dug well into the foundations and I assumed they were reducing the hump.

No such luck, the refurbished crossing is much the same as before.

Obviously the humps that cause a lot of accidents aren't a priority.

Edited January 25, 2021 by melmerby

[Michael Hodgson]

On 23/01/2021 at 23:33, melmerby said:

*e.g. Keswick Railway Footpath is permissive & also part of the NCN but horses are not allowed.

 

 

All the horses I have ever backed were pedestrians - they walked all the way!

Anywhere how do you summons a horse when you see it breaking the law?

[Michael Hodgson]

28 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I think one of the problems in the US is that road crossings aren't taken very seriously and as a result many are badly designed.

e.g. the cliff edge to the road surface, which means that once you are off the roadway you are stuck.

The hump that many crossings have, causing even the shortest of "semis" to ground.

 

A while back the one in view of the camera at Folkston GA was resurfaced.

They actually dug well into the foundations and I assumed they were reducing the hump.

No such luck, the refurbished crossing is much the same as before.

Obviously the humps that cause a lot of accidents aren't a priority.

 

Why would one expect safety at level crossings be taken seriously in a country that doesn't take firearms safety seriously?

[jcredfer]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

The US states that don't have capital punishment have no more murders than those that do.

 

Indeed very much one of the examples of the point I made and the reasons for not fearing the possibility of being caught well tied up in the various motives for murders.  At a lower level, I remember a time when police cars were parked on the side of roads at traffic trouble spots and it reduced the transgressions for some time.  Sadly, people caught on to the fact that the occupants of the cars were tailors dummies and the rates of transgression rose again - no fear of being caught, was restored.

 

Remember local Bobbies, who knew everyone, so running away was simply pointless, they knew where you lived anyway.  Maybe there's something in the idiots who do stupid things at railway crossings being tainted with the "Who's going to catch me brush."

 

[Hobby]

Hence I suggested large fines. Money talks much more than anything else for these sorts of people. 

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Hence I suggested large fines. Money talks much more than anything else for these sorts of people. 

Maybe read again...  carefully ...