Level crossing stupidity...

[The Stationmaster]

One thing we need to appreciate with all of these comments about level crossing incidents and fatalities is that somewhere along the line (not a pun) somebody has committed a very hefty resiting of goal posts - several fields down the road.

 

In 1977 on BR there were a total of 8,940 level crossings but this total included 6,830 unmanned crossings, i.e. occupation and accommodation crossing for use by road vehicles.  There were 2,000 controlled crossings, including 1,123 with gates, and a grand total of 110 open crossings (by implication on public highways).

 

By 28 May 2013 the number of crossings with gates had reduced to 181 - i.e. not far short of 1,000 had undergone some sort of major appearance (to the road user) change in 36 years.  In fact in total by the 2013 date there were only 809 level crossings operated in some way or another by a human being compared with a total of 1,521 in 1977.  During the same period the number of automatic crossings increased from 279 to 714.

 

But overall what this also means is that the total number of fully protected level crossings dropped from 2,000 in 1977 to 1,523 by May 2013.  In the same time period the number of unmanned crossing with gates (now classified as 'user worked' (but without miniature red/green lights) dropped from 6,830 to 2,327.  In other words in overall total the potential exposure of road vehicles to a collision with rail vehicles at a crossing has been massively reduced - by c.25% at crossings with full road signals of some sort and by c.60% at accommodation and occupation crossings.  So in hard figures it is not surprising that casualty rates have come down.

 

And when you look at the overall railway picture the decline on the national network is even greater because the 2013 figures include 1,500 crossings on heritage, industrial and metro type railways.  But here we get into the big re-siting of goalposts because compared with the past when we all (in the industry at any rate) clearly understood what constituted a level crossing  that 'somebody' has now thrown into the total 2,547 footpath crossings.

 

Thus an extended period of considerable progress by the national network, in various phases of ownership, is being confused and clouded by throwing in footpaths -a feature where the person crossing the railway is entirely responsible for their own safety and one where the only railway involvement is to provide optimum sightlines, visible signage, and a safe & adequate walking surface.  The 'control' is 100% in the hands of the user with the only possible exception being the Driver of an approaching train failing to sound a warning at the relevant place(s).  Beyond the things i have mentioned 'the railway' has little or no control over these crossing - often its attempts to rid itself of them are met with opposition from locals (and not so locals) who want to use them at least once a year and in many cases the standard/competence of users is nigh impossible to monitor or is regarded as 'intrusive' if it is obviously monitored.  In my view all of these crossing should be closed unless they are on lines where speeds are low - it was done, along with occupation etc crossings, on all lines converted to high speed operation from the 1970s onwards and if the users can't get it right it's up to them - my sympathies are wholly with the Drivers of trains which hit them.

 

So please all these experts and apologists and makers of promises let's get some sense back into things and talk about level crossings, occupation etc crossings, and footpath crossings as the three very separate things which they are; it is impossible to apply the same standards and expectations to all of them and someone ought to admit that instead of dishing out platitudes.

[Gary H]

martin_wynne, on 07 Mar 2014 - 14:54, said:

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

I also read that report.

But surely, unless Im missing something here doesn't the whole thing boil down to just one fact.

The driver of the car made an assumption which was the wrong one!

I have a saying in my own life and one which I have also drummed into others around me and it goes like this-

Assumption is the mother of all **** ups!

[Kenton]

I'm afraid the world is getting madder every day - too much cotton wool being placed around every sensible action and too much between the ears of the transport committee.

 

Having see both the interviews Mr Carne apologising for everything that happens (really silly) and the attack on bonuses (interviewer seems to think bankers everywhere) and that MP on the transport committee justifying her existence.

 

Sure if any accident is the fault of procedures or equipment then an apology should be fast and forthcoming. Even compensation and a fine. But all this talk of the poor "victim's" families when it is suicidal stupidity, not from me - get over it - unless you see yourself to blame.

 

As for suggestion that the "victim" is incapable of rational thought to protect their own safety then such individuals should be under the care of someone is is capable. Lock me up when I reach such a state or I might just walk out into the road, step off the balcony, walk out to sea, or ignore the safety barriers at a level crossing.

 

As for the removal of all level crossings he doesn't get my vote on that one either. Just concentrate on making them work 100% reliably and have a small but significant safety window for the the thoughtless.

 

Driving around barriers should be an instant disqualification offence. No mitigation.

[Adrian Wintle]

 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.

 

 

In Toronto, the areas that have separate signals for the streetcars have a sign on the signal indicating it is for the streetcar - "Transit Signal"

https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=43.638816,-79.386402&spn=0.000004,0.002588&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.638784,-79.386583&panoid=w4PjrIVfSAghKx5hTutaeg&cbp=12,86.63,,0,8.88

 

Adrian

[scouser]

What about a speed bump type lane seperator for several car lengths before the barrier, and some rising bollards as used in bus lanes. I've seen these trap one bonehead up in the air in Derby when he tried to follow a bus through!

[Eggesford box]

One thing that has struck me about some incidents at AHBs (I will not call them accidents as in one case the road user was committing suicide and another case it seems most likely that it was the road user intention to commit suicide) that no one has attempted to use the phones at the crossings to warn the controlling signalbox. I am not sure how long other people appeared on the scene with a stationery vehicle on the crossing before the approach of the train but in all cases they spent trying to move or get the motorist to move the vehicle. If they went straight to the phone once they where aware of the circumstances it might have prevented the collision (as I said I am not sure of the timings involved).

 

This is not meant as a criticism of the members of the public who arrived on the scene but it might point to the need for better education and signage regarding the provision and use of these phones. Likewise with Athelney, did the road user not realise there where phones or was it a case that he could not be asked to get out of the car and use them?

 

Like others I am not in favour of the 'It must be someone elses fault' culture with people not taking responsibility for their own actions but it is a thought to throw into the ring.

[leopardml2341]

What about a speed bump type lane seperator for several car lengths before the barrier, and some rising bollards as used in bus lanes. I've seen these trap one bonehead up in the air in Derby when he tried to follow a bus through!

Alternatively, get a clause added to the issue (and renewal) of driving licences that requires the driver to acknowledge specifically that they have read and understood rule 293 of the highway code.:-

 

From here:-

 

https://www.gov.uk/road-works-level-crossings-tramways-288-to-307/level-crossings-291-to-299

 

293

Controlled Crossings. Most crossings have traffic light signals with a steady amber light, twin flashing red stop lights (download ‘Light signals controlling traffic’ (PDF, 82KB) and ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB)) and an audible alarm for pedestrians. They may have full, half or no barriers.

• You MUST always obey the flashing red stop lights.
• You MUST stop behind the white line across the road.
• Keep going if you have already crossed the white line when the amber light comes on.
• Do not reverse onto or over a controlled crossing.
• You MUST wait if a train goes by and the red lights continue to flash. This means another train will be passing soon.
• Only cross when the lights go off and barriers open.
• Never zig-zag around half-barriers, they lower automatically because a train is approaching.
• At crossings where there are no barriers, a train is approaching when the lights show.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 40

 

 

In a maximum of 10 years the problem of liability goes away.................

 

Remind me, for how long has the AHB and ungated debate  been going on.

 

Last from me on the subject as it incenses me so much when the rules and application of (common) sense are so clear.

[edcayton]

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.

 

But there are millions(?) of miles of road in this country; I suspect that if you laid all of the level crossings end to end there would only be a couple of miles.

 

Ed

[edcayton]

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.

 

Can I remind you that these were YOUNG PEOPLE, and that they are DEAD. It was not altogether unreasonable to assume that the lights etc were for the train that they were trying to catch, if there was another train coming it should not have been possible to open the gates.

Hardly rocket science.

 

Ed

[Gary H]

Eggesford box, on 07 Mar 2014 - 17:09, said:

 Likewise with Athelney, did the road user not realise there where phones or was it a case that he could not be asked to get out of the car and use them?

 

Like others I am not in favour of the 'It must be someone elses fault' culture with people not taking responsibility for their own actions but it is a thought to throw into the ring.

I would put money on the latter.

The RAIB seemed to sugar coat it in favour of the car driver but lets turn it on its head for a moment.

The driver was apparently a local guy and he no doubt would have noticed the phones and signage at some time or other.

So one would also have thought that should he have questioned the proper operation of the crossing, maybe it would have been a good idea to stop and use the crossings telephone to help shed some light on his predicament. (That's what I would have done personally)

If he'd have done so, the train would have by now passed un hindered whilst he got out of his car and everyone could have got on with their day!

Instead though "he couldn't be arsed" to stop and chose instead to drive around the barriers.

[meil]

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.

Yes strictly they were on the crossing when they shouldn't have been but the circumstance was they had waited for a train and when it came they then crossed to get to where they were going unaware of a second train. There was nothing to stop them as no lock had been put on the pedestrian gate and therefore the only indication were signals provided for the control of cars, not pedestrians. This risk was known about by NR who chose to ignore it. It was for that that NR were criticised.

[melmerby]

Alternatively, get a clause added to the issue (and renewal) of driving licences that requires the driver to acknowledge specifically that they have read and understood rule 293 of the highway code.:-

 

Getting everybody to read any of the highway code would improve what happens on British roads

From what I've seen most people haven't a clue what that should or should not do!

 

Keith

Edited March 7, 2014 by melmerby

[newbryford]

Getting everybody to read any of the highway code would improve what happens on British roads

 

 

And re-read it periodically.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Gary H]

edcayton, on 07 Mar 2014 - 17:40, said:

Can I remind you that these were YOUNG PEOPLE, and that they are DEAD. It was not altogether unreasonable to assume  that the lights etc were for the train that they were trying to catch, if there was another train coming it should not have been possible to open the gates.

Hardly rocket science.

 

Ed

There's that dam word again!

I do respect though that trying to teach some adults not to do it is a challenge in itself, letalone  teenagers still at school!

Edited March 7, 2014 by Gary H

[wombatofludham]

Remind me, for how long has the AHB and ungated debate  been going on.

 

Last from me on the subject as it incenses me so much when the rules and application of (common) sense are so clear.

Probably in earnest since at least Hixon. And don't get me wrong, the majority of level crossing accidents are no such thing, they are the result of wilful disobedience, or inexcusable lack of attention, both of which are offences, and should be seen as such and publicised and punished accordingly. However, I do have some sympathy for an alternative viewpoint. The problem of wilful disobedience or culpable ignorance has been officially recognised since the 1960s. It's why the time between lights being triggered and train arriving was set at initially 23 seconds, now with the amber 27 seconds, for the fastest trains on the line precisely because it was felt a longer time sequence would encourage motorists to disobey the warnings and drive round the barriers. I personally wish the police, judiciary, press and society saw these criminals for what they were - potential murderers - and treated them accordingly. But they don't. At best the response is mixed, at worst it's seen as a minor issue similar to speeding or a parking offence. Unfortunately, that ain't going to change anytime soon. In the meantime innocent rail passengers and workers are put in daily risk of meeting one of these individuals. Consequently, and unfairly, the railway has to try and minimise the risk to it's users - which is why I agree with the campaign to close crossings. I disagree it should be necessary or be the railway's expense, but human nature isn't going to change overnight without a serious change in attitude from the legal system, which again has too many agendas of it's own to do anything about the issue uniformly across the country. However, we are where we are - so surely the closure campaign has to be a prudent response to protect innocent rail users?

 

Of course local authorities have traditionally hampered such exercises fuelled by local residents but fortunately it appears they now play ball a bit more. On footpath crossings I agree with the previous posting these are a menace, and should be eradicated asap. In Barmouth, there was uproar when NR closed a foot crossing which was poorly sited on a bend following a number of near misses. Despite there being an alternative safe route to the Harbour underbridge, which added no more than 5 minutes to the journey, people moaned. Fortunately NR stuck to their guns and it remained closed. I bet no-one misses it in truth.

[MarkC]

Assume - it makes an ASS of U and ME...

[Dunsignalling]

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.

No. But I would know how to avoid impaling myself on its thorns!

[Dunsignalling]

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.

I am reminded of the long serving Technical College (remember them) tutor who used to explain to his students that an academic was somebody who learned more and more about less and less until he knew absolutely everything about next to nothing.  

 

We generalists who quickly grasp the useful bits about most of the things we encounter often cannot fathom that not all brains work like ours!

 

In my late teens, I worked with a man a couple of years older who was sufficiently bright and ambitious to work his way up to a very high position in the industry but whose practical aptitude was such that he managed to write his car off changing a wheel.

 

Transport has never been risk free since the first cave man climbed on to a horse and things only got worse with the invention of the wheel. For anybody who has ever seen any of the level crossing misuse videos to pretend that Network Rail can somehow eradicate fatalities in the face of such behaviour is frankly ludicrous.

 

John

[Talltim]

Yes strictly they were on the crossing when they shouldn't have been but the circumstance was they had waited for a train and when it came they then crossed to get to where they were going unaware of a second train. There was nothing to stop them as no lock had been put on the pedestrian gate and therefore the only indication were signals provided for the control of cars, not pedestrians. This risk was known about by NR who chose to ignore it. It was for that that NR were criticised.

Do you look both ways when crossing the road, or do you assume that if there is a stopped vehicle on your side there can't be anything going the other way ?

[ZiderHead]

Can I remind you that these were YOUNG PEOPLE, and that they are DEAD. It was not altogether unreasonable to assume that the lights etc were for the train that they were trying to catch, if there was another train coming it should not have been possible to open the gates.

Hardly rocket science.

 

Ed

 

No need to remind me, as I said it was a tragic incident. It is completely unreasonable to assume that the barriers, lights and two-tone were for the train they were trying to catch, because they do not mean that a single train is coming, they mean that it is not safe to cross the railway - exactly as the signs posted near the crossing state very clearly.

 

As for auto-locking gates, its rather telling that in the months after the incident the gates were locked and pedestrians regularly climbed over the locked gates to cross the tracks while the barriers, lights and yodel were active, having walked past a large pile of wreaths …

[ForestPines]

(closure of footpath crossings) was done, along with occupation etc crossings, on all lines converted to high speed operation from the 1970s onwards

I don't think you're correct to say "was done on all lines" in that context, although it might be correct in your own regions. There are still footpath crossings on high speed stretches of the ECML - an example I'm familiar with is Castle Hills Jn, Northallerton, which has a linespeed of at least 100mph, and I recall deaths occurring in the early 1990s on a 125mph footpath crossing just south of Doncaster.

[Edwin_m]

I don't think you're correct to say "was done on all lines" in that context, although it might be correct in your own regions. There are still footpath crossings on high speed stretches of the ECML - an example I'm familiar with is Castle Hills Jn, Northallerton, which has a linespeed of at least 100mph, and I recall deaths occurring in the early 1990s on a 125mph footpath crossing just south of Doncaster.

Correct, although it was actually a bridleway (Carr Lane).  Since replaced by a massive ramped footbridge - but when I visited for work purposes a few years back there was still a foot crossing a mile or so down the line at Rossington. 

[PhilJ W]

Do you look both ways when crossing the road, or do you assume that if there is a stopped vehicle on your side there can't be anything going the other way ?

Whilst driving on a couple of occasions recently I have had to brake sharply due to other drivers pulling out of side turnings without checking, usually getting a view of the back of the drivers head.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think you're correct to say "was done on all lines" in that context, although it might be correct in your own regions. There are still footpath crossings on high speed stretches of the ECML - an example I'm familiar with is Castle Hills Jn, Northallerton, which has a linespeed of at least 100mph, and I recall deaths occurring in the early 1990s on a 125mph footpath crossing just south of Doncaster.

You're right - linespeed at Castle Hills is 125 mph and in fact I was on an HSt which hit someone on a footpath crossing ear Arlesey although that was a suicide.  Interesting than that the Eastern didn't close footpath  crossings whereas the Western did - although there were very few to start with on Western high speed sections.  Occupation and accommodation crossings were required to be closed by the Railway Inspectorate and numerous ones went on the Western although most of them hadn't been used for years in any case.

[kevinlms]

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.

My thoughts are that any vehicle driver, when confronted with large RED flashing lights ought be vary concerned as to what they might be if never encountered before. An attitude of 'I don't know what they're for, so I'll just go around them', seems to be a most unbelievable excuse.

 

The idea of half barriers that aren't really part of the fence, is really another excuse. I would put it to you, that those who 'zig zag' around a half barrier crossing, know exactly what they're doing - namely attempting to 'save time' and in doing so putting themselves and every one else at risk.