Level crossing stupidity...

[corneliuslundie]

Can I ask a question of those who understand these things?

I have "travelled" in both directions on Google Street View from the level crossing and there are numerous houses in one direction and two in the other direction, though the lane then peters out and becomes a muddy track. Is it not odd that this is a user worked crossing, as it looks like a public road? Can it really be a private road, which would make a user worked crossing acceptable? If it is a public road surely it should have an AHB crossing at least?

And a thought. Would a person using a 4mph mobility scooter think of him/herself as a pedestrian or a road user? If the latter any instruction about slow moving vehicles might not be thought by the user to apply to them. Another example where technology has got ahead of our way of thinking.

Jonathan

[Dunsignalling]

25 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Can I ask a question of those who understand these things?

I have "travelled" in both directions on Google Street View from the level crossing and there are numerous houses in one direction and two in the other direction, though the lane then peters out and becomes a muddy track. Is it not odd that this is a user worked crossing, as it looks like a public road? Can it really be a private road, which would make a user worked crossing acceptable? If it is a public road surely it should have an AHB crossing at least?

And a thought. Would a person using a 4mph mobility scooter think of him/herself as a pedestrian or a road user? If the latter any instruction about slow moving vehicles might not be thought by the user to apply to them. Another example where technology has got ahead of our way of thinking.

Jonathan

Presumably the numerous houses don't require the crossing for access, then, so just the far two?

 

Good point about how the scooter user might see things, though. With my signalling hat on, I went instinctively  for "slow moving vehicle" but I can understand the other view.

 

I might have thought that way had I been considering such a scooter using a full or half barrier crossing....

 

John

 

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[corneliuslundie]

Yes, just the two. But I thought normally with a private crossing someone was responsible for its use. Here there would be bound to be delivery vehicles, rubbish collection, the postman, the meter reader etc. So there is no way the residents could take responsibility.

But I suppose that part of the road may not be adopted.

Jonathan

[SamThomas]

Thanks for the link Nick - interesting & informative reading which I did read from end to end.

 

I've learnt a lot from this part of the thread & I do feel that a lot of information would not have come out otherwise.

[eastglosmog]

17 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Can I ask a question of those who understand these things?

I have "travelled" in both directions on Google Street View from the level crossing and there are numerous houses in one direction and two in the other direction, though the lane then peters out and becomes a muddy track. Is it not odd that this is a user worked crossing, as it looks like a public road? Can it really be a private road, which would make a user worked crossing acceptable? If it is a public road surely it should have an AHB crossing at least?

And a thought. Would a person using a 4mph mobility scooter think of him/herself as a pedestrian or a road user? If the latter any instruction about slow moving vehicles might not be thought by the user to apply to them. Another example where technology has got ahead of our way of thinking.

Jonathan

There are also a whole lot of allotments on the south side beyond the Burgess Road level crossing, so much more traffic than would be generated by two houses.  The online version of the Cambridgeshire rights of way map https://my.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/myCambridgeshire.aspx?MapSource=CCC/AllMaps&Layers=row,row-TROs&tab=maps is not conclusive, as it does not show public roads, but as there is a public footpath joining just over the level crossing, my guess is that it is a public road and therefore someone in a buggy has every right to use it - there is no gate across the road or private road sign.   However,  reading the article, the buggy user did not use the crossing correctly, having failed to open the far gate before crossing and even at 8mph, a buggy is still a slow moving vehicle.  Whether it is reasonable to expect a disabled person using a buggy to cross the railway four times on foot is another matter.

[Hobby]

8 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

Whether it is reasonable to expect a disabled person using a buggy to cross the railway four times on foot is another matter.

 

I thought someone else had said there were telephones on each side which sort of answers your question. But then you have rely on the scooter user to use them...

[phil-b259]

23 hours ago, SamThomas said:

 

We (or at least I) don't know if ;

The gentleman with the mobility scooter used the phone.

The train driver sounded his horns.

The train driver made any attempt to brake or slow down.

Apologies if the information is on the thread & I missed it.

 

READ the RAIB report then!

 

All of the answers you seek are contained within

 

[SHMD]

Isn't there a stipulation (requirement?) that to qualify for a scooter, (through Motability), you must prove that you can not walk over a certain distance?

 

I suspect that the max walking distance allowed, (for Motability eligibility), is less than the distance of crossing a double track + 2x gate (swing) distances - all x4!

Therefore, unless there is a safe space for a scooter to park inside (both) gates (between the closed gate and the loading gauge of the line) then those scooters ARE incompatible with these type of crossings.

 

Thus, to make these types of crossings safe for scooters, the crossings will have to be modified first OR scooters users will have to be banned from them unless accompanied by an able bodied person.

 

 

Kev.

[phil-b259]

12 minutes ago, SHMD said:

Isn't there a stipulation (requirement?) that to qualify for a scooter, (through Motability), you must prove that you can not walk over a certain distance?

 

 

If you want one provided by the state - yes.

 

Otherwise no, anyone with enough cash can by one themselves if they wish

[phil-b259]

14 minutes ago, SHMD said:

Thus, to make these types of crossings safe for scooters, the crossings will have to be modified first OR scooters users will have to be banned from them unless accompanied by an able bodied person.

 

 

And if the crossing leads to a field, a muddy wood or has steps / a style further on all of which make it unsuitable for mobility scooters?

 

The design and equipment provided at any given crossing CANNOT be standardised in law - it needs to be a result of a realistic risk assessment factoring usage, sightliness and the wider environment in which the crossing sits. Naturally these may change over time - and yes as society as a whole is becoming more inclusive / aware of the needs of people with a disability then sites may need upgrading over time - but the point about the level of equipment provided at each crossing needing to be individually assessed remains true.

 

[PhilJ W]

There might not be sufficient room for a safe space inside the gates. Though I have seen a safe space that is parallel to the tracks that involves the users making two ninety degree turns to cross the track. As we have an ageing population more people will be using such mobility aids as electric buggies and wheelchairs there should be a risk assessment of such crossings and have them graded accordingly. Rating them from suitable for an unaccompanied wheelchair user to not suitable under any circumstances. The crossing in question would probably be classed as useable with a companion.

[Richard E]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

READ the RAIB report then!

 

All of the answers you seek are contained within

 

I can't find it on the RAIB website nor a link on here, only the one to the Alice Holt report from 2016. By searching with Google for RAIB and Burgess Drove I have found it but not within the RAIB site.

 

So, to provide the information the link is below.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/collision-at-burgess-drove-user-worked-level-crossing

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

READ the RAIB report then!

 

All of the answers you seek are contained within

 

The RAIB have not issued a formal report on the Burgess Drove incident. 

The description on their site is labelled "News report"

 

Following their preliminary investigation they have decided not to carry out any further investigation.

They have instead written to Network Rail and the ORR recommending extending the scope intended in the review recommended as a result of their inquiry into the similar but fatal 2016 accident at Alice Holt footpath crossing to cover this type of user-worked crossing also.

[SamThomas]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

READ the RAIB report then!

 

All of the answers you seek are contained within

 

Well, I read the RAIB report on the Alice Holt incident that another member kindly provided.

 

I would be only too pleased to read the RAIB report that you refer to if someone would be so kind enough to point me in the right direction or provide a link.

 

edit.

Following Richard E's & Michaels posts it appears that there is no report, just a preliminary investigate that I have read so my questions remain unasnswered.

However, it appears that the crossing is provided with warnings, visual & audible which would not give the user in question time to cross safely.

So, maybe the only thing that could be done to assist mobility scooter users would be to increase the warning time. But, that probably raises other issues to do with statutory timings.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by SamThomas

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The RAIB have not issued a formal report on the Burgess Drove incident. 

 

 

I was under the impression Sam was talking about the Bentley/ Alice Holt incident.

 

If the RAIB have not decided to issue a formal report into Burgess Drove then one can only presume that there was nothing significantly wrong with the crossing.

 

This contrasts with the Alice Holt incident where it was felt there were significant lessons to be learned.

Edited January 1, 2022 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

Well, I read the RAIB report on the Alice Holt incident that another member kindly provided.

 

I would be only too pleased to read the RAIB report that you refer to if someone would be so kind enough to point me in the right direction or provide a link.

 

 

 

I was under the impression your comments related to the Bentley / Alice Holt incident, not Burgess Drove.

 

As regards Burgess Drove - if the RAIB have decided the incident does not warrant a investigation by them then I would say that there is nothing inherently wrong / dangerous about said crossing. If there was the RAIB would have investigated...

Edited January 1, 2022 by phil-b259

[JDW]

Going back a few posts to the discussion of how a user of a mobility scooter sees themselves, I'd suggest that most would be more likely to see themselves as a "pedestrian" using it as an 'aid' rather than as driving a "vehicle", and use the crossing accordingly. It might not be the right way, but I think there's a valid argument there. 

[boxbrownie]

10 hours ago, JDW said:

Going back a few posts to the discussion of how a user of a mobility scooter sees themselves, I'd suggest that most would be more likely to see themselves as a "pedestrian" using it as an 'aid' rather than as driving a "vehicle", and use the crossing accordingly. It might not be the right way, but I think there's a valid argument there. 

They are called “medical aids” and classed as such in the US (and many other countries) it is only the big off road type which fail that category in the U.K.

[peach james]

David, it depends...

The larger ones here are in a no-mans land between vehicle and medical aid, the same as motorized wheelchairs.  I know, there's one sitting in one of my sea cans right now...fortunately currently surplus to requirements.

I think generally, there hasn't been a huge movement to do anything about them because it is more convenient as it is.  Certainly, there are drivers (using that term deliberately !) of the larger ones who shouldn't be let loose on them, but its the last vestige of their freedom.  The slower ones (the "4 mph" ones, per se) are generally not seen except in shopping areas around here, whereas there was a fatal accident between one of the bigger ones and a dump truck not that long ago in Langford.  (4 ? years ago).  Reading the RAIB report on the Alice Halt incident makes it clear to me that RAIB views the current standards as being acceptable, and that it doesn't seem to warrant a huge change, but that incremental changes (not having a 90% corner to traverse that then blinds the operator...) are justifiable.  

Practically, I think that the RAIB has it about balanced right when you look at what they are saying- look at the usage of the footpath crossing to determine what is required to make it safe.  

James

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, JDW said:

Going back a few posts to the discussion of how a user of a mobility scooter sees themselves, I'd suggest that most would be more likely to see themselves as a "pedestrian" using it as an 'aid' rather than as driving a "vehicle", and use the crossing accordingly. It might not be the right way, but I think there's a valid argument there. 

Trouble is, somebody in even a small mobility scooter takes up significantly more room than a "conventional" pedestrian, around whom most infrastructure (and not just railway infrastructure) has been designed and built over centuries.

 

The numbers will only continue to grow, and accommodating them will have to be considered much more than it has so far, in all areas of life. 

 

As things currently stand, it is probably safer to regard them as users of small vehicles.

 

John

[boxbrownie]

15 minutes ago, peach james said:

David, it depends...

The larger ones here are in a no-mans land between vehicle and medical aid, the same as motorized wheelchairs.  I know, there's one sitting in one of my sea cans right now...fortunately currently surplus to requirements.

Problem is as with anything as development of more and better technology and designs become available the component gets bigger and better with more “bits and pieces” on it to aid those using it, and the never ending story begins.

Legislation is never as fast as profit margins.

[Hobby]

An issue which I suspect the RAIB and the rest will have to take into account is wheel size of the scooters. The 8mph have quite large wheels and will have no difficulty traversing a rail crossing but I suspect that for an awful lot of 4mph ones (especially those folding types seen on TV adverts) the wheel size is small enough to cause a major problem when crossing a railway with the gap between the rail and the road surface. The user is likely to suffer a severe jolt at best and if approached at even a slight angle is liable to capsize the thing!

Edited January 2, 2022 by Hobby
spelling

[PhilJ W]

49 minutes ago, Hobby said:

An issue which I suspect the RAIB and the rest will have to take into account is wheel size of the scooters. The 8mph have quite large wheels and will have no difficulty traversing a rail crossing but I suspect that for an awful lot of 4mph ones (especially those folding types seen on TV adverts) the wheel size is small enough to cause a major problem when crossing a railway with the gap between the rail and the road surface. The user is likely to suffer a severe jolt at best and if approached at even a slight angle is liable to capsize the thing!

I now have to use a rollalong. A few months ago I visited the Chappel and Wakes Colne railway. To reach many parts of the site I had to cross the tracks. My rollalong has wheels of about six inches diameter and even those got caught in the flangeway. The problem wasn't the diameter of the wheels but the width (only about half an inch). The castoring ones on the front readily dropped into the gap if care wasn't taken.

[Hobby]

I hadn't thought of those "castor" type ones when i posted (I was thinking about the smaller four wheel folders which can have only 4" wheels) but that's a good point!

[martin_wynne]

Is a man pushing a wheelbarrow a pedestrian or a slow-moving vehicle?