Level crossing stupidity...

[Guest]

Why do these numpties plead not guilty when there is solid evidence?

It may be the way it's worded, as she could have pleaded not guilty prior to the video being shown in court.

 

There was a case (don't know if it's still going on), where a Motorcyclist was assaulted both verbally and physically by two employees of a Pizza-Delivery company. In the first hearing they denied all knowledge, and swore blind they had nothing to do with it. After video evidence was shown in court, taken by the victim on a helmet mounted action-camera, they altered their plea. Both have now lost their jobs.

 

Regards,

Matt

[Mark Saunders]

There is something I am particularly curious about - it seems like an obvious question. Since in this case the video evidence seems to have been enough to convict her and these crossings are monitored by CCTV why can't recordings of all these type of incidents be forwarded to the BTP ?

Just because there is a camera it does not mean that it is being recorded as it is there to prove the Crossing is clear before the Signal is cleared!

[96701]

CCTV on crossings is not the same as an enforcement camera. They do not always show the red lights and the stop lines, which is what enforcement cameras have to show, as well as the vehicle position at the exact moment of the offence.

[rab]

Justice for one 

 

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/13340922.Caught_on_camera_and_fined__York_driver_who_ignored_red_lights_at_level_crossing/?ref=mr&lp=2

Well it's a woman driving a Range Rover - what do you expect

[PinzaC55]

CCTV on crossings is not the same as an enforcement camera. They do not always show the red lights and the stop lines, which is what enforcement cameras have to show, as well as the vehicle position at the exact moment of the offence.

 

CCTV on crossings is not the same as an enforcement camera. They do not always show the red lights and the stop lines, which is what enforcement cameras have to show, as well as the vehicle position at the exact moment of the offence.

 

Well maybe it is time they did ? If they did that and had a "Camera" sign at the crossings it may make these idiots think twice ?

[bodmin16]

Well maybe it is time they did ? If they did that and had a "Camera" sign at the crossings it may make these idiots think twice ?

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Camera-installed-at-misused-Furze-Platt-level-crossing-03062015.htm

[Richard E]

And the York incident was filmed by Network Rail staff on their mobile phone so no CCTV involved.

[Reorte]

Well maybe it is time they did ? If they did that and had a "Camera" sign at the crossings it may make these idiots think twice ?

Doubt it, but it may stop them doing it twice after they get caught the first time.

[Colin_McLeod]

First prosecution in Northern Ireland for a level crossing offence captured on cctv designed for monitoring road user behaviour was in the mid 1980s. I think it was at Umbra level crossing. Embarrassingly for NIR's sister company Ulsterbus, it was was two of their drivers were prosecuted for crossing the L/X (two buses travelling in convoy) with only seconds to spare before an 80 class reached the road.

two of their

[robday12]

... it may make these idiots think twice ?

Presuming they had actually thought about it once!

[PinzaC55]

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Camera-installed-at-misused-Furze-Platt-level-crossing-03062015.htm

 

Great stuff. If more of these were installed we might be able to end the demonisation of level crossings as being "dangerous".

[PinzaC55]

First prosecution in Northern Ireland for a level crossing offence captured on cctv designed for monitoring road user behaviour was in the mid 1980s. I think it was at Umbra level crossing. Embarrassingly for NIR's sister company Ulsterbus, it was was two of their drivers were prosecuted for crossing the L/X (two buses travelling in convoy) with only seconds to spare before an 80 class reached the road.

two of their

 

You might say the authorities took Umbrage ? "groan" I know 

[The Stationmaster]

Alas, not always. I live about half a mile from the long-gone Bickershaw and Abram station on the GCR Wigan Junction Line. Photos showed different gates at the east and west sids of the level crossing there, and it was by accident that I discovered the reason. The owner of the garage I worked for (mid-1980s, so about 30 years after the event) had one night been going along Bickershaw Lane in his Austin A30 and approached the crossing. He was on sidelights only and saw nothing ahead, until he just made out the target on the left-hand nearer gate swinging towards him. Realising that he had no chance of stopping he tried to accelerate (in an A30!). He got through the first gate but took the far one with him, stopping, fortunately, beyond the crossing. So BR had to provide a new gate, but fair enough, he had to get a new car!

Gate collisions were far from unusual with the old style of level crossing - in fact they formed the vast majority of incidents at such crossings.  I suspect lots of people didn't realise that with a gate wheel in a signalbox once you got the gates swinging their momentum takes over and they can really shift if they're well maintained.

[2mm Andy]

Nothing to do with the incident itself but that looks quite an unusual layout for the lights and what looks like a side road.

 

Not a side road as such - it's vehicle access to the old crossing keeper's cottage and some nearby allotments.

 

Andy (who lives about 1/2 mile away)

[SM42]

 

Whilst it would be nice to have some form of lower level camera recording the crossing lights and actions of road users at a CCTV controlled crossing, it would be quite expensive to install and maintain  and any fine revenue would return to the exchequer not the railway. The numbers of those who do this are a very small minority when compared to the total numbers of users.

 

Whilst the benefit of capturing those who flout the law can be seen, there is little safety benefit for the railway as the crossing is observed to be clear by the signaller using the CCTV before a train is allowed to approach.  If someone does jump the lights and take out a barrier in the process, (not a very common occurrence)  all the railway has is a broken barrier and some footage to perhaps give the chance to make an insurance claim.

 

Having said that it is not unknown for some to try and claim compensation for the lowering barrier damaging their vehicle

 

As an aside the stop lines should be visible to the signaller on the CCTV screen.

 

The bigger safety risk, to my mind,  comes from those crossings that are not monitored during operation such as AHB and these are areas where cameras would be of more benefit as a deterrent to jumping the lights as there is a very short time between the lights sequence starting and the passage of the train.

 

I do sometimes wonder how many drivers understand that the amber light means stop, (if it is safe to do so) not put your foot down. In a large metropolis not far from here its seems to mean three more  please. It also seems the meaning of a stop line combined with any form of traffic light has long been lost.

 

Andy

Edited June 20, 2015 by SM42

[TomMarkert]

There has been quite a bit of interesting discussion here about level crossings and issues related to them. The issue is enormous in terms of situations in which factors that make the crossing hazardous, in terms of motor vehicle operators, pedestrians and trains them selves. Crossing users ignore signals, become trapped in traffic on crossings, get stuck on tracks, drive onto tracks (thanks GPS), strike trains already occupying crossings...the possibilities seem endless.

 

In the U.S., we attempt to engineer the "perfect crossing" but never achieve that level. The introduction of four point protection, cameras, extensive warning lighting, pavement markings and a multitude of safety precautions simply end up with one result: something or some one still gets through and an accident happens. We can educate drivers, post signs, lower train speeds ect, but we will still have these accidents. It is, and always has been, a part of "doing business" in the railroad industry. Even if we could eliminate every crossing with a bridge or closing, pedestrian accidents would still occur. There is simply no getting away from it, just minimizing it.

 

In my 30 years as an Engineman, I have struck five motor vehicles, two pedestrians, and had too many close calls to keep track of. Three motor vehicle collisions were due to the drivers ignoring and intentionally circumventing the crossing protection. Two collisions were vehicles stopped on crossings, one stuck in traffic, and my last accident, a truck trying to make a too sharp a turn beyond the crossing, and not being able to clear the crossing in time as the driver continued a back and forth maneuver to make the turn, despite a school crossing guard warning the driver of my approaching train.

 

That particular incident put me in the hospital for a couple days and kept me out of work for another thirty days. It injured 20 people on my train, none seriously, thank God, destroyed the cab car, and did hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to neighboring structures and railway signaling equipment. The railroad police issued numerous summons to the driver of the truck as he violated at least five major traffic laws. In the end, the truck driver's one million dollar insurance coverage was exhausted by claims from passengers, the railroad, the municipality where the accident happened, utility companies and cleanup costs. His liability ended there. The traffic summonses issued by the police were "pleaded down" in traffic court and the driver paid only $388 in fines with no negetive record attached to his operator's license. He is back in business, with no online record as to the extensive damage he caused with his negligence.

 

Here are some photos of the scene, to give you an idea of the destruction...and keep up the discussion. It is very interesting.

[duncan]

I wonder how much his insurance premiums increased through costing his insurers 1m ?  I would have thought they would have pursued the lorry driver for their loss.

[TomMarkert]

His rates may have gone up, but he and many other truck driver/owners buy the absolute minimum of liability insurance. Since his business was a Limited Liability Corporation, his personal assets could not be taken through the courts. Only the insurance payoff could be taken through suits and claims...

[kevinlms]

There has been quite a bit of interesting discussion here about level crossings and issues related to them. The issue is enormous in terms of situations in which factors that make the crossing hazardous, in terms of motor vehicle operators, pedestrians and trains them selves. Crossing users ignore signals, become trapped in traffic on crossings, get stuck on tracks, drive onto tracks (thanks GPS), strike trains already occupying crossings...the possibilities seem endless.

 

 

Then you get absolute lunatics like this family.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/batman-family?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpfp#.gtqvyYBGQ

 

Check out the 'ratings' of the photos, with most votes for 'love' & 'cute'!!!!!!

 

Elsewhere its been reported that the mother, has received death threats for potentially putting her son at risk.

 

OK sorry, off topic as nothing to do with crossings!

[Jonboy]

Then you get absolute lunatics like this family.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/batman-family?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpfp#.gtqvyYBGQ

 

Check out the 'ratings' of the photos, with most votes for 'love' & 'cute'!!!!!!

 

Elsewhere its been reported that the mother, has received death threats for potentially putting her son at risk.

 

OK sorry, off topic as nothing to do with crossings!

 

Where is the "Why TF are these people allowed to breed" button when you need it....

[TomMarkert]

People seem to see the railroad tracks as a relatively harmless place to venture upon. They certainly would have the sense to not do a similar stunt on a busy motorway or on somebody's private front lawn. What possesses people to think that being on a active rail line which is NOT public property is acceptable, is beyond me.

 

The people in the photo are trespassing. The owner of the tracks could press charges and take them to court. Unfortunately, it isn't worth the time and effort in the eyes of the carrier. Only when an accident happens, does the railroad take action, usually in the form of offering a monetary "out of court" settlement to end the issue as soon as possible. It doesn't matter that the trespasser is at fault. It is a item which is actually budgeted into the operating costs of the railway. Cost of doing business.

 

Trespassing on the railway is like smoking cigarettes. Keep doing it and eventually it may kill you. It is a perceived risk.

 

Finally, thanks to those who have shown support and interest in my post. The incident happened almost two years ago and a day doesn't go by where I don't think about it. Sometimes it helps to share the experience and for the opportunity to do so, I thank you too.

Edited June 21, 2015 by TomMarkert

[kevinlms]

 

Trespassing on the railway is like smoking cigarettes. Keep doing it and eventually it may kill you. It is a perceived risk.

 

 

Therein lays the problem. People think that its down to personal choice & wearing the consequences for their actions.

 

Many Australians go to Bali, get outrageously drunk, then ride their hired motorcycles without a helmet, because there is no law that says otherwise. So expressing their personal right to chose & enjoy the freedom from 'The Nanny State'. Of course, on average twice a week someone dies, or worse is severely injured & takes many months, if ever, to recover.

[BoD]

Except that in the case of the motorcycles and level crossings the lives of others can be blighted too - so its not all about personal risk. It is putting others at risk too.

[TomMarkert]

Except that in the case of the motorcycles and level crossings the lives of others can be blighted too - so its not all about personal risk. It is putting others at risk too.

Certainly. The crossing accident which occurred on Metro North, in the U.S., a few months ago illustrates that. Five fatalities on board the train in addition to the driver of the vehicle the train struck...all with families. Not to mention the personal trauma the Enginemen experience....

[roythebus]

Level crossing accidents are rarely that, accidents. They are usually deliberate acts by road users. Very seldom is it an accident, caused by failings of the railway equipment or personnel.