Level crossing stupidity...

[Hobby]

2 hours ago, SamThomas said:

I'm pretty certain the OP meant the word "go" as in "proceed", but in true RMW style "picked up" on it.

 

I was quoting the Highway Code wording!

 

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear."

[Dunsignalling]

I drive quite a bit in Exeter, where most of the traffic lights have very little "overlap" between yours going red and the other guy's going green.  

 

Running a red, either by cyclists or drivers, could easily result in the offender getting T-boned by a prompt starter off a green light, so is a rare sight. I guess those with any tendency to do it take the hint after a few near misses....

 

John

Edited October 21, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, Titan said:

 

I am totally in agreement with this.  Many of the local cycle lanes are far too narrow and encourage motorists to pass way closer than they might have done otherwise because the white line implies that is all the space the bike requires, leading to incidents like this:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3271479/sainsburys-lorry-cyclist-near-miss-video/

 

At first the lorry drivers actions were defended on the grounds that he did not intrude on the designated cycle lane...

 

However I think this perhaps is more suitable (and may have already appeared in) the driving standards thread.

Poor road layout more than poor driving. The driver had to pull to the left or take out a few traffic islands.

[RJS1977]

10 hours ago, Titan said:

 

I am really not quite sure how the word "stopping" could be less ambiguous, it is digital, you either stop or you don't, there are no in-between graduations.

 

Which (going even more off-topic) was a controversy in this year's London e-Prix. During a full-course yellow, a driver (not sure which one) realised that if he went down the pit lane (where the yellow didn't apply), he would overtake a number of other cars. However under FE rules, if you enter the pit lane, you MUST stop in your pit box. It was adjudged that although the driver in question had briefly slowed to a crawl, he had not actually stopped and was consequently penalised for gaining places unfairly.

[Titan]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

Poor road layout more than poor driving. The driver had to pull to the left or take out a few traffic islands.

 

No he didn't,  all he had to do was lift his foot off the accelerator, which would have slowed him down enough to follow the cyclist until the road was wider, where he could have passed safely, especially as the bike was going only slightly slower than the lorry anyway.  Nevertheless, it was still a very poor road layout.

[Michael Hodgson]

7 hours ago, auldreekie said:

The "inadequate cycle lane" syndrome is all too common on this side of the North Sea.  It is but a small instance of the British unwillingness to make proper investment in a desirable outcome,  to fudge the issue,  pretend that the job has been done,  and thereby ensure that it will receive no further attention for the foreseeable future.

 

I am a very occasional cyclist,  and a frequent motorist and pedestrian.  I don't think that merely painting a line on a narrow road or signposting a footpath as provision for cyclists and pedestrians even begins to be an adequate provision,  despite claims by local authorities and by national government for the enormous mileage of cycleway which they have public-spiritedly and environmentally-consciously provided.   

 

The line  on the road merely creates a false sense of security and thereby a hazard for the cyclist:  I have no desire to injure or kill the user of such a cycleway,  but many such lanes merely increase the probability that such events will happen.  The mixed-use pavement has the same effect for pedestrians:  too many arrogant cyclists treat it as a dedicated lane for their own speedy use.  Indeed too many cyclists already do just that on pavements from which they are expressly prohibited.

 

 

auldreekie

Is there a minimum width for these half-hearted cycle lanes? 

 

There's a few near me, on roads which are wide enough to take a lane of cars and a lane of bikes in each direction.  However in places the white line is so close to the kerb that a cyclist with his wheels inside the lane will overhang the line into the motorists lane, and also risks catching his pedal on the kerb, which would be an effective way to end up under the bus.

[Nick C]

17 hours ago, auldreekie said:

The "inadequate cycle lane" syndrome is all too common on this side of the North Sea.  It is but a small instance of the British unwillingness to make proper investment in a desirable outcome,  to fudge the issue,  pretend that the job has been done,  and thereby ensure that it will receive no further attention for the foreseeable future.

 

I am a very occasional cyclist,  and a frequent motorist and pedestrian.  I don't think that merely painting a line on a narrow road or signposting a footpath as provision for cyclists and pedestrians even begins to be an adequate provision,  despite claims by local authorities and by national government for the enormous mileage of cycleway which they have public-spiritedly and environmentally-consciously provided.   

 

The line  on the road merely creates a false sense of security and thereby a hazard for the cyclist:  I have no desire to injure or kill the user of such a cycleway,  but many such lanes merely increase the probability that such events will happen.  The mixed-use pavement has the same effect for pedestrians:  too many arrogant cyclists treat it as a dedicated lane for their own speedy use.  Indeed too many cyclists already do just that on pavements from which they are expressly prohibited.

 

 

auldreekie

This is the main reason I very rarely cycle - the so-called cycle lanes around here are worse than useless, and there is no safe cycle route to either my office or the town centre. 

 

There was a plan a year or two back to demolish the local football stadium and build houses on it - as usual, they alllocated far too little space for parking, using the justification that people would cycle to the town and the station - along a narrow, busy main road with no cycle provision.  Said analysis seemed to be done entirely on the distances involved, with no thought for the practicality or lack thereof.

[corneliuslundie]

Not around here but in London, I noticed many examples of cycle "lanes" only a few dozen yards long, often ending at junctions with no lane the other side. Presumably by adding up all the bits the local authority can claim to have achieved its minimum requirement.

Anyway, I don't mind drift on this thread as it means no accidents have been reported. Ditto the bridge bash thread.

That website article on accidents to women over the years is sobering.

Jonathan

[auldreekie]

17 hours ago, newbryford said:

Classic level crossing thread drift................

Trust me to participate in (if not initiate) it.

 

auldreekie

[SM42]

18 minutes ago, auldreekie said:

Trust me to participate in (if not initiate) it.

 

auldreekie

 

By us they have removed the footpath completely and it is now a dedicated cycle lane.

Cycle or drive but can't walk into town unless you walk on the road.

 

Cycle provision is generally useless, but where it is nice and wide, in good condition  and separated from the 70mph dual carriageway  why do cyclists insist on  using the road?

 

As a country we have a long way to go. 

The changes to the Highway Code seem to me to be a licence to abdicate all responsibility for your own safety.

Not got behaviour to encourage, however encouraging people to take more care for others us a good thing.

 

Level crossing misuse?

Shows no signs of getting better. Most of it just doesn't end in disaster or goes unreported as there is eithr no-one to report it or if there is, they just can't be bothered reporting every case and only report the worst cases

 

Andy

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by SM42

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, SM42 said:

..... Level crossing misuse?

Shows no signs of getting better. Most of it just doesn't end in disaster or goes unreported as there is either no-one to report it or if there is, they just can't be bothered reporting every case and only report the worst cases ....

.... leading to complacency - leading to one that DOES end in disaster.

[talisman56]

Five Darwin Award candidates (and a dog) at Revelstoke. The normal wait for crew change is approx. 5 minutes but these id people don't consider that the relief crew might be a bit snappier than others...

 

[jcredfer]

Five persons and a dog, 25 seconds, not bad going, really, container trains not known for sprint starts.   

 

 

[lmsforever]

A cycle lane was placed on a fairly busy town road marked by posts it goes over a rail bridge (Aylesbury to Risboro)    the outcry was bordering on hystirical .But surprise surprise its all evaporated and the idiot drivers actualy drive slower and take more care.Near Oxford the crossing over Oxford Banbury thats on a road from Kidlington is going to be close sometime.A good idea as I have some very bad examples of driving here with the gates being damaged many times .Further up the line near Banbury there is a road that passes a factory and then crosses the line and then the canal.The problem place is the canal with the bridge left in the wrong place and being narrow is no deterwnt idiots race to be first over and sometimes collide. .

[jamie92208]

2 hours ago, jcredfer said:

Five persons and a dog, 25 seconds, not bad going, really, container trains not known for sprint starts.   

 

 

Depending on thevpower they can motor.  I watched a couple of UP Z trains, their speediest category, head west outbof Rawlins Wyoming after stoppi g for fuel. They set off together and were up to track speed ofb70 when the tail end passed. The crews know them as god trains.

 

Jamie

[pH]

On 20/10/2021 at 15:41, peach james said:

They may not have been- the horn is usually set to play the whistle tone (long, long, short, long till on crossing) by a single press, for liability reasons- that way, the railway can "verify" that the horn was sounded correctly to limit legal liablity.

 

Is that just on US railroads? CP here in BC definitely do not have a ‘pre-set’ crossing signal. Each engineer seems to have his own interpretation.

[melmerby]

Another darwin award:

 

[phil-b259]

In a team brief at work toady I learned NR are considering making the AHB barriers physically longer so impatient motorists are less likely to zig-zag round them (as their cars won't fit through the much narrower gap)

 

As laudable as this initiative might be how long before some legal parasite mounts a successful change that a motortsist has become 'trapped' on a crossing (the very reason barriers are not legally permitted to extend beyond the centre line of the road at AHBs

[Hobby]

I recon the argument back would be that they are also flimsy enough for a vehicle to push them to one side, albeit (hopefully) with some damage... Though I doubt they'd get very far with their argument because the highway code is VERY clear (291):

 

"Never drive onto a crossing until the road is clear on the other side and do not get too close to the car in front. Never stop or park on, or near, a crossing."

 

So unless they break down (that's covered in 299 and advice is to get out and leave the vehicle where it is) there is no time when that should happen if the vehicle is being driven legally.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Hobby

[Fat Controller]

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

In a team brief at work toady I learned NR are considering making the AHB barriers physically longer so impatient motorists are less likely to zig-zag round them (as their cars won't fit through the much narrower gap)

 

As laudable as this initiative might be how long before some legal parasite mounts a successful change that a motortsist has become 'trapped' on a crossing (the very reason barriers are not legally permitted to extend beyond the centre line of the road at AHBs

Perhaps they might do as SNCF/RFF have been doing in recent years, fitting a concrete barrier between the left and right-hand lanes of the road.

[corneliuslundie]

Re that last video, plenty of time, at least three seconds.

And referring back to recent discussion, what chance that that pavement/sidewalk was a cycle lane?

At least he did a little bit of a curve away from the loco as he passed it! Or was that just a wobble?

Jonathan

 

[Adam88]

https://www.up.com/aboutup/community/inside_track/20211028-close-call-leads-to-safety-campaign.htm

 

Some PR here from our cousins across the pond.

[Wickham Green too]

All sounds very positive until you get to the bit where the train crews are being allowed the chance to slow down ...... hmmmmmmm.

 

( How many miles does it take to stop a supertanker slow down an American freight train ? )

[phil-b259]

On 26/10/2021 at 12:31, Fat Controller said:

Perhaps they might do as SNCF/RFF have been doing in recent years, fitting a concrete barrier between the left and right-hand lanes of the road.

 

Its a good idea but, in many cases would cost significant amounts of money to widen the crossing footprint (not to mention some of the rural roads as they approach the crossing) and thus maintain lane widths.

 

The beauty of a longer boom is is just needs the balance weights adjusting and as such is a cheap win.

[talisman56]

On 25/10/2021 at 19:44, jcredfer said:

Five persons and a dog, 25 seconds, not bad going, really, container trains not known for sprint starts.   

 

 

Sometimes the starts are less-than-smooth. Even a small jolt can put one off balance, with possible serious results...