Level crossing stupidity...

[Colin_McLeod]

We refer to the "stupidity" of some level crossing users (see the title of this thread), but when dealing with the people bereaved by this stupidity, they don't really want to know that their nearest and dearest was stupid and caused their own death.  That has to be handled sensitively, but at the same time in a way that does not move the blame to the railway if it is not the railway's fault.    It appears now that there may be an onus on the railway to take account of people's stupidity when desiging level crossing arrangements. Traditionally the railway has relied on people being sensible, but according even to NR that does not seem to be sufficient now.  Expensive bridges are only necessary because the railway can't trust people to use level crossings properly.

 

I don't know where it is going to end.  In the future will travel companies be apologising for allowing people to travel to countries where there is less cossetting of stupid people.

[The Stationmaster]

I must say I'm rather worried about Mark Carne in relation to his views on deaths at crossings.  Firstly there is a clear need to separate fatalities at level crossings from those at occupation and accommodation crossings, let alone those at footpath crossings because of the different levels of protection involved and the need for completely different levels of user awareness. Comparative figures of incidents, injuries and fatalities at different sorts of crossings seem to be rather difficult to get at although at least the Parliamentary Committee Report identifies, in Table 1, the number of crossings in each category (derived from an RSSB report).

 

The Parliamentary report also makes it clear that railway staff are at fault in only a small percentage of the incidents at controlled crossing - in over 90% of such incidents it is the crossing users who are at fault.  It perhaps then regrettable that the Report's comments about education of crossing users has not been greater prominence by the media and perhaps just as well that its criticisms of ORR have not been aired in some reports (The DT might, I haven't read it yet).

 

For those who are more interested in fact than media created slush (and what, in my view, are well off the mark and over the top comments  Mark Carne which are really aimed only at the media and not the problems) the Parliamentary Report may be found here -

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/680/680.pdf

[DJM Dave]

Apparently 8 people died in level crossing accidents in the UK LAST YEAR! at least 8 people die on UK roads PER DAY!

puts things into perspective really.

[ZiderHead]

The Bombay Railways doc on BBC4 the other day put the casualties in the Mumbai area at several per day. One driver expected to be involved in 3 or 4 incidents per week while driving, another guessed that in his ?30yr career he had seen about 75 fatalities under his trains.

 

Now that really puts it in perspective …

Edited March 7, 2014 by ZiderHead

[martin_wynne]

The Bombay Railways doc on BBC4 the other day put the casualties in the Mumbai area at several per day. One driver expected to be involved in 3 or 4 incidents per week while driving, another guessed that in his ?30yr career he had seen about 75 fatalities under his trains.

 

Now that really puts it in perspective …

 

You beat me to post the same. 10 deaths every day. Here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007t30p/Bombay_Railway_Pressures/

 

The film is from 2007, so may be a little out of date.

 

Martin.

[SHMD]

There has been a shift in attitude in responsibility over the years.

I'm thinking something like this:-

 

 

Then:

I know if I do not keep my wits about me I will get hurt.

 

Now:

I can do something really cool (stupid) to impress my friends (idiots) because I know that they (businesses) have to make things really safe now or it wouldn't be allowed (by do gooders).

 

 

Kev.

[Dunsignalling]

The Bombay Railways doc on BBC4 the other day put the casualties in the Mumbai area at several per day. One driver expected to be involved in 3 or 4 incidents per week while driving, another guessed that in his ?30yr career he had seen about 75 fatalities under his trains.

 

Now that really puts it in perspective …

The root cause is the same factor that drives the level crossing problem in this country - impatience.

 

Mumbai stations all have footbridges but too many passengers want to save a minute or two by rushing headlong across the tracks. 

 

Inquests in this country used to record verdicts of "misadventure" (i.e. the deceased indulged in an action known to be risky and it didn't end well) which sums it up perfectly.

 

Is it still used these days? 

 

John

[ZiderHead]

Just read this....

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26478145

 

I'm interested by the quote - "Victims were erroneously described as 'trespassers' or accused of 'misuse' of the railway when, in fact, they tried to use level crossings appropriately." Are there many incidents where it's the level crossing that hasn't worked properly?

 

That quote doesn't appear in the linked news page, presumably because it is incorrect. The girls did misuse the crossing and were on it when they shouldn't have been. They were therefore trespassing. The crossing in this incident was working properly - barriers down, red lights flashing and yodel sounding. That the girls either; were not aware of how to use the crossing or, chose not to use the crossing properly led to their deaths. Tragic and possibly preventable but not NR's fault, as confirmed by the coroner's accidental death finding.

[ZiderHead]

,,, It perhaps then regrettable that the Report's comments about education of crossing users has not been greater prominence by the media …

 

Indeed, I have read a bunch of articles by the BBC and local newspapers and seen more on TV about incidents at crossings and I can't remember seeing or hearing a section in those reports which gives clear and simple instructions on how to use crossings.

 

These are ideal opportunities to educate/remind the public on proper use (and therefore reduce incidents) but instead just reinforce the perception that its entirely the railway's responsibility.

 

 

Edit: I'll go further and suggest that Mr Carne's recent apology also reinforces that perception. It may be PR-friendly but will ultimately lead to more deaths.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ZiderHead

[Dunsignalling]

All that is needed next to all crossings is a poster with a big picture of a train with a caption that reads:

 

"This is a train. It is much bigger than you and is made of hard stuff. If you get in front of it when it is moving, it will kill you. The front is the bit with white lights on."

 

Of course, NR would then be accused of treating the public like idiots but, if the cap fits..........

 

John

[Pacific231G]

interesting read roy, ok, you say his driving wasn't dangerous, he's not senile etc but why was he allowed to sit next to his barrister and why are we paying his costs?

 

strikes me as he(or his legal team) knew how to play the system by getting it in to the crown court knowing he wouldn't (or couldn't) get the sentence that he should have had coming to him had it gone to magistates and it would be thrown out

 

the whole thing bloody well stinks to high heaven!!

 

you say that the RHDR should fit low level lights at the crossings, heres an idea get the ever upstanding Mr Alston, being a lifelong supporter to dip into his obviously very deep pockets and shell out for a few to be fitted, probably cheaper than the cost of a lawyer for his next court apperance!!

Actually Mr. Alston probably is upstanding as evidenced by his own reporting of the incident.

 

We're paying his costs because he was found not guilty- or do you think that people acquitted of a crime should still be financially penalised for daring to put up a defence "because they must have done something wrong to have been put on trial." this isn't the People's Republic of China or Putin's Russia.

If the CPS went for a more serious offence than the evidence supported then that was their decision. Had they charged him with due care and attention then I wonder if he would even have challenged it. The results of this incident could have been tragic but a momentary lapse of attention can be and who here has never done anything careless behind the wheel and just been lucky.

[pointstaken]

Unfortunately the ignorant and stupid, like the poor, will always be with us. Unless of course they land jobs in the media or qualify for the Darwin awards.

 

Dennis

[martin_wynne]

All that is needed next to all crossings is a poster with a big picture of a train

 

The sign which is missing at all level crossings is a simple one. It reads: The train cannot stop.

 

Time and again after level crossing incidents on the news, I have been asked "Why didn't the train stop when it saw the car? Trains stop when they see red signals." People are not stupid just because they don't understand something.

 

Martin.

[Talltim]

I would say that not understanding basic physics, 'big heavy fast things do not stop quickly' is pretty stupid

[martin_wynne]

I would say that not understanding basic physics, 'big heavy fast things do not stop quickly' is pretty stupid

 

But how quickly? Most people do not have to control 'big heavy fast things' in everyday life. They know how quickly they can stop their car. They know that railway lines do not have corners and the driver can see a long way. It takes all sorts in this world -- understanding basic physics is not compulsory. Can you grow a prize rose?

 

Martin.

[Pete 75C]

People are not stupid just because they don't understand something.

 

I agree to a point. There's lots of things I don't understand, but when it comes to playing chicken with trains, are you seriously suggesting there isn't a village missing an idiot somewhere? "I'll just dash across to catch up with my mates. If a train comes, it will stop" Are you serious??? Genuine accidents are tragic. Stupid accidents are just, well, stupid... Defend the dozy if you must.

[jon_1066]

I think there has to be a different standard of expected behaviour between a pedestrian crossing like at Elsenham and a road crossing in the middle of nowhere.  If you are driving a car on a road then by default you are deemed to be a responsible adult capable of following a certain number of rules.  If you are a school child trying to catch a train then a lower level of expectation should rightly apply to you.  It seems clear that pedestrians should be separated as much as possible from trains - much like they are from busy roads - especially in station environments where they may be hurrying to catch a train.

[martin_wynne]

Defend the dozy if you must.

 

I'm not defending the dozy. Just trying to put myself in their shoes -- which is the only way to understand what happened and try to do something about it. Just calling them stupid doesn't solve anything.

 

Martin.

[Ohmisterporter]

 

We're paying his costs because he was found not guilty- or do you think that people acquitted of a crime should still be financially penalised for daring to put up a defence "because they must have done something wrong to have been put on trial." this isn't the People's Republic of China or Putin's Russia.

 

I generally agree with what you write but it has to be applied in every case. Whether or not an innocent person has to pay their costs for the privilege of proving it seems to be at the whim of the judge. I can't help feeling that there is an element of, "We know you did it but can't prove it, so we will make you suffer financially". 

[avonside1563]

I would say that not understanding basic physics, 'big heavy fast things do not stop quickly' is pretty stupid

I have come across quite a few, very intelligent, people who simply do not understand that 'big heavy things' do not stop quickly. We have had many people come to Foxfield for our driver experience days and those who have never handle anything larger than a car just don't understand how to brake a much heavier vehicle where as those who have some understanding (i.e. HGV drivers) pick it up very quickly.

 

I've also noticed that Intelligence doesn't automatically mean a practical understanding of something. A simple sign along the lines mentioned already (i.e. Trains Cannot Swerve or Stop Quickly) may just help towards that fictitious ZERO fatalities figure.

[Pete 75C]

I'm glad we've established that people who don't understand why a fast heavy train can't stop quickly aren't stupid, they're only ignorant.

Still doesn't explain why they're on the wrong side of the big red flashing lights and lowered barriers though.

[scouser]

But how quickly? Most people do not have to control 'big heavy fast things' in everyday life. They know how quickly they can stop their car. They know that railway lines do not have corners and the driver can see a long way. It takes all sorts in this world -- understanding basic physics is not compulsory. Can you grow a prize rose?

 

If only people did know these obvious things, just watch idiots tailgateing at speed or driving in awful weather conditions as if it is a bright sunny day. The biggest problem I have with this announcement from NR is that it will be seen as absolving people from responsability for their own safety, a very bad idea.

[martin_wynne]

Still doesn't explain why they're on the wrong side of the big red flashing lights and lowered barriers though.

 

Read the Athelney accident report:

 

 http://www.raib.gov....14_Athelney.pdf

 

Not trying to make excuses -- just trying to understand and prevent. Here's a bit of that report:

 

 

It is therefore probable that the motorist had frequently driven over the crossing at

about 06:20 hrs on his way to work, and he may have been aware that a train

(1A73) was timetabled to pass Athelney at around that time. If so, he would also

have expected the train to arrive at the crossing within 30 seconds of the amber

light being illuminated. Given the proximity of his house to the crossing, it is also

probable that he would have been well acquainted with its operating sequence

and with the pattern of train movements.

51

The motorist must initially have observed the warnings provided by the road traffic

light signals and the lowered barriers because he stopped his car at the crossing

(paragraph 30). However, at some stage, he decided to wait no longer and to

drive around the barriers. The RAIB estimates that the maximum time he could

have spent waiting at the crossing before taking this decision would have been

90 seconds, if the road traffic light signals had started flashing just as he reached

the crossing, or 73 seconds if the barriers had already lowered before he arrived

there. These times are based on the probable maximum crossing operation

period of 103 seconds before the train arrived (paragraph 73).

52

It is not possible to know whether or not the motorist was expecting a train to be

approaching when he decided to proceed. Although extended closure times can

sometimes occur for a number of different reasons such as a slow-moving freight

train (refer to appendix F), they are the exception rather than the rule. It is likely

that the motorist would have experienced them rarely, if at all. He may have

concluded that the crossing had failed, or alternatively that the train was delayed

on its approach to the crossing.

 

 

 

Martin

Edited March 7, 2014 by martin_wynne

[ZiderHead]

The biggest problem I have with this announcement from NR is that it will be seen as absolving people from responsability for their own safety, a very bad idea.

 

Agreed.

[wombatofludham]

Anybody read the Hixon public enquiry report? Makes interesting reading. Paraphrasing slightly, the report identifies that people had become accustomed to heavy gated crossings which psychologically completely closed off their passage and reinforced the message you shouldn't be on the railway, but in changing to half barrier crossings, there had been a move to putting more trust on the road user to look after their own and the railway passenger's safety. In other words, the report admitted that with gates people were almost assumed to be too stupid to live and the big fence which had swung across their path was a physical barrier, but on AHB crossings the road user was assumed to understand they shouldn't be on the crossing. It was backed up by research from France and the Netherlands to illustrate their experiences of level crossing incursions, and the report accepted there was an increased risk of train-vehicle and train-pedestrian accidents, but that with improved driver education and re-enforcement of the requirement to stop at level crossings not fully barriered the risk should be kept as low as possible and enable the railway to make significant cost savings. However, what it does show is that back in 1968 the risk of people not understanding how to use a level crossing, either as a motorist or as a pedestrian was understood, seen as a risk and at that time felt to be an acceptable risk.

 

Move forward to Lockington where a driver ignored flashing lights and drove onto an open level crossing causing a dmu to derail, killing 49 people. That report went into some detail about driver understanding of how open level crossings work, and whilst it concluded they are safe if properly used, it also concluded that user abuse was regular and that occasional right side failures caused by maintenance or equipment failure had encouraged a culture of "oh the level crossing has failed again" to creep in with some local users. It also identified another issue which has relevance - that some drivers rarely encounter level crossings and so might be confused by them. This is a valid point. Large parts of the country don't have any form of railway post Beeching and it is perfectly possible for some drivers never to encounter a level crossing in their everyday lives. OK, they will have read the Highway Code when taking their test (assuming they took one - some older drivers have never taken one) but I guarantee most of you won't have a current copy of the Highway Code or have read one since you passed your test. Of course if one of these drivers abuses a level crossing through ignorance it is their fault for not being up to date, but is it that simple? For example, and a bit off topic, a relative of mine who had been driving 50 years came across the tram junction in Bilston Road, Wolverhampton, where the tram merges with the A41 and which has a supplementary tram aspect to the side of the main traffic signal. He was confused by it, not enough to cause a problem but he asked me about it later. I, somewhat patronisingly, came out with the "official" argument of "Well, was it a red, green or amber traffic light? If not then it clearly isn't a traffic light for motorists is it?" which to an extent is the traditional "official" attitude. But it had confused him. I explained to him that the five off-white light tram signal had been specifically designed not to look like a traditional traffic light so it wouldn't be seen as a traffic light by motorists which could lead to accidents. Except that junction went on to have a number of tram-car collisions, presumably because the tram signal wasn't as differentiated as us officials who came up with the design thought it was.

 

I think the point is that you should never underestimate the way in which the public can put themselves at risk, either deliberately (in which case they deserve no sympathy) or by being one of life's airheads, berks, idiots, the Captain Chaoses, easily distracted, goldfish brained, uninformed, members of society who might put themselves and others at risk through their character, lack of awareness or inexperience. In a way the Victorians, by accident, dodged the issue of road users being too stupid to live by insisting on crossing gates to legally comply with the requirement to fence in the railway. However, they did by chance create a psychological barrier which re-enforced to even the most vacant headed fairydust pre-Raphaelite that Thou Shalt Not Cross The Line When A Train Is Coming. There was usually a man or signalbox there as well to further add deterrence. This point was recognised back in the 1960s when the half barrier crossings were installed, but the authorities took a view that people will want to look after their own safety enough to reduce that risk and are intellectually equipped to do so. Sadly it seems experience shows this isn't the case, so if the culture is now swinging back to "assume the world is stupid and need protecting from themselves", it's probably based on fifty years of gruesome experience and in a curious way is going back to a situation which to an extent did exist from Victorian times, albeit a happy accident of legislation which required the continuous fencing of most railway tracks.