Level crossing stupidity...

[jamie92208]

That's a good idea.

 

Have a boot on the end of a shaft and when some t*sser is too close to the train, swing it out and give him a good punt up the ass.

 

Keith

Unfortunately something similar to this has had fatal consequences in Colorado with UP 844. A pedestrian was struck and killed by 844 on one of the moves connected with Cheyenne Frontier days. Full details haven't emerged but it seems that the person was filming 844 whilst standing with one foot on the end of a sleeper and the other on the ballast. Not good for anyone concerned.

 

 

Jamie

[jim.snowdon]

It's stuff like this which makes my blood boil, the bizarre mix of ignorance and arrogance from a so called adult, and a parent at that. Thinking you know what the time the next train is 'due' is laughable, anything could have come along there at line speed, timetabled or otherwise. The 'I know best' attitude needs addressing somehow - and I only wish I knew how.

 

I know I've mentioned this several times before on RMWeb, but there seems to be a certain breed of supposedly educated, fully employed idiot who thinks it's perfectly fine to stand as close to the platform edge as possible when I'm passing through at 60mph with thousands of tons of heavy metal in tow - I've had occasions where I've given them several blast on the horn as I approach only to be given the one fingered salute in reply. Ludicrous isn't it?

There is no way I would condone what he did, but the whole situation is not helped by statements such as that made by Great Western, as quoted by the BBC -

 

A spokesman for Great Western Railway (GWR), which manages Trowbridge railway station, said: "Trains often pass through railway stations without stopping and without appearing on any timetable at very high speeds.

"Stay safe by keeping back from the platform edge and behind the yellow line at all times, and listen out for announcements."

 

The present day habit of TOCs announcing trains passing through platforms, and telling people to listen for announcements, is liable to foster a false sense of security amongst the public. People stop looking out for themselves when they start perceiving that someone else is doing the job for them. Sadly, we are also now living in a society where when people do daft things, and then suffer the consequences, they look to blame everyone else but themselves for their actions.

 

It doesn't help either, getting back to the original subject, that in their report on the car:train collision at Stainforth Road level crossing (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-082018-collision-at-stainforth-road-level-crossing) that it was unreasonable to expect a motorist to see a train standing across a level crossing in the dark even if the barriers had lifted. My understanding of the highway code is that the speed at which you drive is limited (a) by the speed limits for the road concerned, and (b) the ability to stop within the distance you can see ahead, which at night means the range of your headlamps. If your stopping distance is greater than your sighting distance, you slow down. Simple, but apparently beyond the capabilities of more than a few motorists I have seen.

 

Jim

[Glorious NSE]

My understanding of the highway code is that the speed at which you drive is limited (a) by the speed limits for the road concerned, and (b) the ability to stop within the distance you can see ahead, which at night means the range of your headlamps. If your stopping distance is greater than your sighting distance, you slow down. Simple, but apparently beyond the capabilities of more than a few motorists I have seen.

 

Then just about everybody doing 50+ on an unlit dual carriageway or motorway at night is going too fast....

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

Then just about everybody doing 50+ on an unlit dual carriageway or motorway at night is going too fast....

 

 

Especially as many people will insist on driving round on dipped beam all the time. Main Beam is provided for a reason (and its not so that you can dazzle oncoming drivers).

 

Then again, even on dipped beam many modern car headlights are dazzingly bright, largely because of the archaic nature of the standards, which haven't caught up with the much higher efficiency of LED and discharge type headlamps.

 

Jim

[Shadow]

The difference in this case is if you put a skip on the road there is a legal requirement for it to be lit, there is no such requirement for a train, a cow, a fallen tree.

 

Not a legal requitement, but Ponies on Dartmoor and cows on Hungerford common have been painted in reflective paint to enable them to be seen at night

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11906156/Dartmoor-ponies-to-be-painted-blue-and-given-reflective-beads.html

[scouser]

Then just about everybody doing 50+ on an unlit dual carriageway or motorway at night is going too fast....

 

If you can't see far enough to match your speed and ability to brake, YES!

Speed limits are the maximum speed allowed not the speed you must travel at, how difficult is this?

Is there any way to make people acknowledge that the driver of any vehicle is responsible for what happens to that vehicle when it is moving, unless some other stupid driver hits him or her?

It is no help if you can say you didn't see something if you are dead.

[polybear]

Anyone see "Guy Martin In Russia" the other night?  There was film of a Russian Level Crossing which had what I can only describe as mini versions (may 18" high) of Aircraft Carrier Blast Deflectors installed in the Tarmac just inside the barrier positions:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_blast_deflector

 

- jump the crossing and you'll drive into the blunt side of one of those jobbies.  You'll not do it twice......

[Guest]

Anyone see "Guy Martin In Russia" the other night?  There was film of a Russian Level Crossing which had what I can only describe as mini versions (may 18" high) of Aircraft Carrier Blast Deflectors installed in the Tarmac just inside the barrier positions:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_blast_deflector

 

- jump the crossing and you'll drive into the blunt side of one of those jobbies.  You'll not do it twice......

 

I think they're pretty common over there and have been mentioned several times in this thread, for example...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69585-level-crossing-stupidity/page-101&do=findComment&comment=3110296

[royaloak]

Anyone see "Guy Martin In Russia" the other night? There was film of a Russian Level Crossing which had what I can only describe as mini versions (may 18" high) of Aircraft Carrier Blast Deflectors installed in the Tarmac just inside the barrier positions:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_blast_deflector

 

- jump the crossing and you'll drive into the blunt side of one of those jobbies. You'll not do it twice......

Not with the same car anyway.

[soony]

deleted - duplicate

Edited July 26, 2018 by soony

[soony]

Take a look at this link   ( Bottom of the page):-

Quote :- 1979: School children sit along the edge of the platform at West Ealing station, London.

 

https://flashbak.com/going-loco-the-joy-of-trainspotting-37301/

 

Having said that the track looks disused, but still frightening

[beast66606]

Take a look at this link   ( Bottom of the page):-

Quote :- 1979: School children sit along the edge of the platform at West Ealing station, London.

 

https://flashbak.com/going-loco-the-joy-of-trainspotting-37301/

 

Having said that the track looks disused, but still frightening

 

Not frightening.

 

Looks like a disused (goods ?) platform to me. There's a gang of railway workers nearby who don't seem worried by the kids presence so presumably there's little to no chance of a train using that line. Different days.

[Rugd1022]

It's the old Milk dock chaps.

[Glorious NSE]

If you can't see far enough to match your speed and ability to brake, YES!

Speed limits are the maximum speed allowed not the speed you must travel at, how difficult is this?

Is there any way to make people acknowledge that the driver of any vehicle is responsible for what happens to that vehicle when it is moving, unless some other stupid driver hits him or her?

It is no help if you can say you didn't see something if you are dead.

It was an observation.

 

As a straw poll - how many of us would keep under 50 on an unlit motorway or fast dual carriageway?

 

My observations would suggest it's somewhere close to none of us.

 

 

 

 

 

[scouser]

It was an observation.

 

As a straw poll - how many of us would keep under 50 on an unlit motorway or fast dual carriageway?

 

My observations would suggest it's somewhere close to none of us.

 

I see, you are thinking about the type of idiot who passed me on the M54 , going like the clappers in thick fog. I agree there are a lot of very stupid people driving around.

That is why the death and injury toll is so high!

Not policing the roads does not help. I mean loads of drivers can't even figure out how the indicators work, or what they are for.

I am beginning to think that are some models they must be an optional extra!

I just saw a policewoman drive through a red light, no blue lights just couldn't be bothered following the law she is supposed to uphold.

I wonder if it is possible to but an Daimler Dingo and prep it for the road?

 

 

 

 

 

[Glorious NSE]

No, i'm talking about just about everyone out there.

Seriously, if you drive down an unlit motorway at night (not in fog) do you tend to drive slower than the trucks?


 

[PatB]

And yet the law recognises that large, unlit objects on roads are dangerously hard to see at night, hence the longstanding legal requirement to light at least some of them, regardless of whether road users are driving within the limit of their headlamps or not. Sorry folks, but it's not just hooligans like me who think it's unreasonable to lay this one on the motorist.

[scouser]

And yet the law recognises that large, unlit objects on roads are dangerously hard to see at night, hence the longstanding legal requirement to light at least some of them, regardless of whether road users are driving within the limit of their headlamps or not. Sorry folks, but it's not just hooligans like me who think it's unreasonable to lay this one on the motorist.[/quote

I don't recall any unmoving dark objects attacking vehicles!

Except for those bloody lamp posts that keep sticking a foot out, or is that just walking home from the pub?

[scouser]

I will agree with you the next time an unmoving objects leaps at a vehicle.

[Coryton]

And yet the law recognises that large, unlit objects on roads are dangerously hard to see at night, hence the longstanding legal requirement to light at least some of them, regardless of whether road users are driving within the limit of their headlamps or not. Sorry folks, but it's not just hooligans like me who think it's unreasonable to lay this one on the motorist.

 

If something at a similar level of risk happened on a road without involving railways, it would almost certainly be accepted as just one of those things.

 

But as soon as the railway is involved Something Must Be Done.

 

I remember the reaction of colleagues to the Great Heck accident. Critical at first at another train crash, then when it became clear that it was caused by a car it was fine - after all you can't expect cars not to go flying off the road onto railway lines occasionally.

[eastglosmog]

If something at a similar level of risk happened on a road without involving railways, it would almost certainly be accepted as just one of those things.

 

But as soon as the railway is involved Something Must Be Done.

 

I remember the reaction of colleagues to the Great Heck accident. Critical at first at another train crash, then when it became clear that it was caused by a car it was fine - after all you can't expect cars not to go flying off the road onto railway lines occasionally.

The courts did not take that view.  The car driver was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years.  Quit a bit was done on the roads as well as a consequence - crash barriers in all sorts of likely and unlikely places to stop a repetition.

[PatB]

I'm not saying that "Something must be done" exactly. I am saying that those arguing that the motorist brought it on themself by driving too fast and, by implication, that the railway is being unfairly blamed and put upon seem to be wilfully ignoring many decades of legal precedent that indicate, fairly clearly, that obstructing roads with big, unlit things is something one shouldn't do.

[Coryton]

The courts did not take that view.  The car driver was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years.  Quit a bit was done on the roads as well as a consequence - crash barriers in all sorts of likely and unlikely places to stop a repetition.

 

Yes - I think it's the only knee-jerk reaction I've ever seen regarding road safety - temporary barriers went up in some places very quickly.

 

I was thinking of the media and popular opinion though which was rather different to the few days after a "conventional" rail accident.

 

I don't recall the media demanding roads to be redesigned, or getting someone to work out how much it would have cost to put a crash barrier just in that one location and then saying that all those lives could have been saved if a mere £10k had been spent.

 

I do remember suggestions that the entire railway network be covered by CCTV cameras so that trains could be stopped the next time someone drives onto the tracks. 

[Coryton]

I'm not saying that "Something must be done" exactly. I am saying that those arguing that the motorist brought it on themself by driving too fast and, by implication, that the railway is being unfairly blamed and put upon seem to be wilfully ignoring many decades of legal precedent that indicate, fairly clearly, that obstructing roads with big, unlit things is something one shouldn't do.

 

I wouldn't argue with that.

 

I do not think that justifies the level of emotive language in the report though.

[big jim]

Someone mentioned the Cambrian a few posts back regards the woman who crossed and was hit by an in timetabled class 97

 

Last year we got asked about 2nd men on the Cambrian and whether they were required, emails flew back and forth between us drivers and management which got quite heated, I received a phone call from a manager over the tone of the emails that were being banded about and one of his comments was “the thing that made me laugh was what such and such a driver put about the locals taping timetables to the windscreen of the car” to which I replied “well if you think it’s funny have a word with our driver who killed the old woman and had to go to court to give evedence and see what he has to say about it”

 

He was genuinely shocked when he realised that we were tellign the truth