Jump to content

Katier

Level crossing stupidity...

Recommended Posts

A sort of level crossing incident this morning at Camborne, a car decided to overtake a lorry and another car as they traversed the crossing and ploughed into one of the barrier mechanisms dislodging it and the associated barrier, long delays while the 'driver' was removed from the car and the scene was made safe.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, royaloak said:

A sort of level crossing incident this morning at Camborne, a car decided to overtake a lorry and another car as they traversed the crossing and ploughed into one of the barrier mechanisms dislodging it and the associated barrier, long delays while the 'driver' was removed from the car and the scene was made safe.

Gwinner road crossing was still closed to road traffic as I came home today due to the complete muppet of a driver. https://twitter.com/GwinearRoadStn?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1126807887412695040&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.piratefm.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flatest-news%2F2869398%2Fupdate-car-crashes-at-level-crossing-near-hayle%2F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, royaloak said:

A sort of level crossing incident this morning at Camborne, a car decided to overtake a lorry and another car as they traversed the crossing and ploughed into one of the barrier mechanisms dislodging it and the associated barrier, long delays while the 'driver' was removed from the car and the scene was made safe.

Gwinner road crossing was still closed to road traffic as I came home today due to the complete muppet of a driver. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Anyone care to explain how this happened? Presumably crossed as the gates were closing, but how did it get past the first gate?

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_05/stourport_xing_crash_1955.jpg.901404a1e9d6ef90fd7b39e12d32b707.jpg

 

A451 / SVR level crossing at Stourport-on-Severn. 5th July 1955.

 

"Rail and road traffic were held up for three-quarters of an hour". How long today?

 

Martin.

This was discussed on Facebook last year. IIRC the gate wasn't secured properly and swung into the path of the lorry.

 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 101 said:

 

Apparently, both police vehicles were responding to a call of an infant in distress. Not an excuse for what the first driver did, but perhaps would explain the sense of urgency. 

 

I believe Canadian police are allowed to disobey traffic laws, but remain liable for any result of them doing so. Possibly US officers are in the same position. 

 

And I like the title of the second video in that report. Really??

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 101 said:

A classic case of 'I've given way to one vehicle, therefore it is clear for me to go'!

 

Youtube is full of it under 'bad driving' - name your country/town.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 101 said:

 

This is why in the UK we use wig wags NOT TRAFFIC LIGHTS at level crossings (and swing bridges etc) and why some road tunnels employ traffic lights rather than wig wags.

 

In the UK official emergency services vehicles fitted with the required blue flashing lights + siren and responding to an emergency call are permitted by law to pass through red traffic lights if its safe to do so (i.e. the red light becomes a 'Give Way' sign).

 

By contrast there is ZERO wiggle room in law and it doesn't matter how many flashing blue lights the driver has on nor who they work for - if the red wig wags are showing then you will ALWAYS be committing a criminal offence if you pass them. Should the CPS chose to pursue a case against an emergency services vehicle then the driver will have no defence in law for passing them nor can the driver contest penalty points as a result of having been caught by a red light camera at wig-wags.

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

This is why in the UK we use wig wags NOT TRAFFIC LIGHTS at level crossings (and swing bridges etc) and why some road tunnels employ traffic lights rather than wig wags.

 

In the UK official emergency services vehicles fitted with the required blue flashing lights + siren and responding to an emergency call are permitted by law to pass through red traffic lights if its safe to do so (i.e. the red light becomes a 'Give Way' sign).

 

By contrast there is ZERO wiggle room in law and it doesn't matter how many flashing blue lights the driver has on nor who they work for - if the red wig wags are showing then you will ALWAYS be committing a criminal offence if you pass them. Should the CPS chose to pursue a case against an emergency services vehicle then the driver will have no defence in law for passing them nor can the driver contest penalty points as a result of having been caught by a red light camera at wig-wags.

 

 

 

Perhaps they should fit "red-light" cameras at every crossing and prosecute every offender that passes a light at red.  After all, it is the fear of being caught which prevents the crime and not fear of the punishment.  If they can do it 24 hours a day, for every Bus Route throughout Bath, they can do the same for crossings, where lives are at stake.  It rather shows where the priorities are.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

This is why in the UK we use wig wags NOT TRAFFIC LIGHTS at level crossings (and swing bridges etc)

And Fire/Ambulance Stations etc.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

Perhaps they should fit "red-light" cameras at every crossing and prosecute every offender that passes a light at red.  After all, it is the fear of being caught which prevents the crime and not fear of the punishment.  If they can do it 24 hours a day, for every Bus Route throughout Bath, they can do the same for crossings, where lives are at stake.  It rather shows where the priorities are.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

It's clearly not practical to put up cameras everywhere, there are simply just too many locations. Also cameras have an inherent weakness. They can provide evidence of guilt, but only at a later time/date, which could be far too late.

 

I've heard of ideas of putting alcohol interlocks on all new vehicles, to eliminate drink driving. No, the vast majority of people will NOT DD, so why should they be expected to pay for their vehicles to be modified?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

This is why in the UK we use wig wags NOT TRAFFIC LIGHTS at level crossings (and swing bridges etc) and why some road tunnels employ traffic lights rather than wig wags.

 

In the UK official emergency services vehicles fitted with the required blue flashing lights + siren and responding to an emergency call are permitted by law to pass through red traffic lights if its safe to do so (i.e. the red light becomes a 'Give Way' sign).

 

By contrast there is ZERO wiggle room in law and it doesn't matter how many flashing blue lights the driver has on nor who they work for - if the red wig wags are showing then you will ALWAYS be committing a criminal offence if you pass them. Should the CPS chose to pursue a case against an emergency services vehicle then the driver will have no defence in law for passing them nor can the driver contest penalty points as a result of having been caught by a red light camera at wig-wags.

 

 

However, tramway crossings on reserved track sections are treated as normal highway junctions, with traffic lights for the road traffic and standard tram signals for the trams.

 

Jim

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

It's clearly not practical to put up cameras everywhere, there are simply just too many locations. Also cameras have an inherent weakness. They can provide evidence of guilt, but only at a later time/date, which could be far too late.

 

I've heard of ideas of putting alcohol interlocks on all new vehicles, to eliminate drink driving. No, the vast majority of people will NOT DD, so why should they be expected to pay for their vehicles to be modified?

 

I agree about the DD locks on vehicles, for two reasons and the one you mentioned, I object to paying for Tech which" inspects" me as the subject of suspicion, for something I don't do.  Firstly any alcohol will trigger the device, [after-shave, perfume, antiseptic wipes... triple Gin 10 minutes after waking! Yes I have seen people who do that!! ].  Secondly there is also the modern police tactic to Breathalise every driver when an accident occurs [that fear of being caught factors in again].

 

I'm not sure that red light cameras at level crossings would be at too many locations to afford, given the relatively small number, compared to the thousands around the country and cheap cost these days.  As I mentioned, Bath and many other authorities place them in droves, where a bit of revenue may be gleaned.  I was proposing that the red light cameras would be used to fine any person passing any crossing light at red, even one second late.  A driver not stopping within the warning period and going past any red, big fine.  Do that for a few months and there wouldn't be anything like the number, let alone leaving it even later - too late.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

 

Firstly any alcohol will trigger the device, [after-shave, perfume, antiseptic wipes... triple Gin 10 minutes after waking!

 

... as far as I'm aware, there's no law against passengers being over the limit.

  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

... as far as I'm aware, there's no law against passengers being over the limit.

 

Oh, Ye of little faith!!!   How could you even think of such an ill-informed comment about our amazing legislators!!

 

Our current batch of MPs will have already have a perfect solution to account for the alcohol types and levels for every occupant  of the vehicle, {come on now...  catch up} that's because they are each the ultimate fount of knowledge and must surely have each got their own perfect solution for that insurmountable passenger problem and will have combined, their brilliant solutions, to agree a system, which they will all willingly agree to......   

 

Silly you [and me!!], for not realising the fantastic, knowledge, negotiating and collaborating skills, demonstrated over the past 3 years, for these same Leather Polishers' amazing ability to arrive at a perfect agreement which would be to achieve the original aim, with the best compromise for all those involved............      

 

:laugh_mini: 

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... ah yes, I'd forgotten that legislation can mandate the use of as-yet-uninvented technological solutions.

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

... ah yes, I'd forgotten that legislation can mandate the use of as-yet-uninvented technological solutions.

 

:rolleyes:  ......  Likewise, I had to remind myself about how they condemned standard tungsten light bulbs, as being bad for the environment, for high levels of electrical energy use.  The alternative, which was approved, was the neon lamp / bulb which they neglected to mention took more energy to manufacture than the entire lifetime consumption of the banned tungsten bulb.  At the same time they approved double enclosed tungsten lights to be used in "Existing Dimmer systems", which used even more energy to manufacture.......

 

LEDs had been around for quite some time, back then, while they were expounding their superior knowledge and wisdom!!

 

Every day, I look to the bright blue sky with a will to thank those "Etherial" for the magnificent specimens that represent the Will of those they purport  to "SERVE" .........  and have yet to find reason to find justification for those morning expectations.

 

Yours disappointed

 

J

 

  • Funny 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

However, tramway crossings on reserved track sections are treated as normal highway junctions, with traffic lights for the road traffic and standard tram signals for the trams.

 

Jim

 

This is true - but as far as the law is concerned tramways are basically roads!

 

Yes a tram is technically to be treated the same as a bus for legal purposes - which is what allows it to be used on the public highway (even if it does run on rails or have dedicated routes where other traffic / pedestrians are excluded.

 

It therefore makes perfect sense to use ordinary road traffic signals at tramway 'level crossings' (which is technically just a simple crossroads in law)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In broad principle yes, and I was just including them for completeness.

 

At a detail level, it gets interesting. Although they run in the highway, trams remain rail vehicles and fall under their own regulations, not the Construction & Use Regulations that apply to road vehicles. Nonetheless, the requirements for trams follow the C&U Regs where practicable, largely for reasons of common sense.

 

Tramway "level crossings" are indeed treated as highway crossings, and the process of converting the three level crossings on Tramlink's Wimbledon route caused some interesting legal questions, as it meant cancelling the existing Level Crossing Orders yet retaining them as railway (tramway) crossings of the highway, a process that, I believe, had not occurred with the preceding UK tramways.

 

Jim

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Also cameras have an inherent weakness. They can provide evidence of guilt, but only at a later time/date, which could be far too late.

 

They are supposed to be a deterrent, preventing an action by the threat of prosecution, at least that was what their original use was before the motoring press started a rumour that they were cash cows put there for Police/Council profit-making. Only a cash cow, that is, if you were stupid enough to break the speed limit... As for cost, that's simple, you target the ones that have most people running the gates, once the word gets out you'll see a reduction... And a load of people moaning in the local press about the cash cow! Tough luck to them, if it means that my driver has less chance of a near miss then all power to the camera's flash!

  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

 

At a detail level, it gets interesting. Although they run in the highway, trams remain rail vehicles and fall under their own regulations, not the Construction & Use Regulations that apply to road vehicles. Nonetheless, the requirements for trams follow the C&U Regs where practicable, largely for reasons of common sense.

 

 

I think you will find the bit of the highway along which trams run is not strictly highway but part of the tramway which other vehicles can traverse.

Trams don't have registration numbers or pay road tax as they are not using the highway, unlike trolley buses.

Unless the law has changed for the new generation of tramways. (that's how it used to be and the tramway is responsible for the maintenance of their strip of the road.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I think you will find the bit of the highway along which trams run is not strictly highway but part of the tramway which other vehicles can traverse.

Trams don't have registration numbers or pay road tax as they are not using the highway, unlike trolley buses.

Unless the law has changed for the new generation of tramways. (that's how it used to be and the tramway is responsible for the maintenance of their strip of the road.)

I think that the same applies in this case as with supermarket access roads and car parks. Though not part of the public highway the rules still apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

... as far as I'm aware, there's no law against passengers being over the limit.

 

There is if they are the passed driver supervising a learner.

  • Agree 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PhilJ W said:

I think that the same applies in this case as with supermarket access roads and car parks. Though not part of the public highway the rules still apply.

It's a bit of a legal minefield, generally if it is used by the public, even if it's private, it counts as a public road, however if there are restricted hours for public access or for specific events it can be private outside those periods

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note the AHB crossing between Appledore and Rye on an un-named road across the Romney Marsh has been fitted with CCTV and infra-red lighting and sensors. The 2 main crossings of the same line on the main A259 have been camera fitted for a while.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.