RMweb Premium Reorte Posted June 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 23, 2015 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.Deliberate acts of stupidity resulting in an accident. It's only not an accident if the intention was to be hit by a train (which has tragically happened IIRC). The word "accident" doesn't mean that no-one is at fault, just that the outcome wasn't as intended (no matter how obvious it might've been). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted June 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 23, 2015 Current police/legal thinking seems to follow the line that 'accidents' are actually quite rare and that most 'incidents' have a cause, which may include mechanical (in the broad sense) failure, and even that may be attributable to a failure by a responsible person. Hence the term 'Road Traffic Accident (RTA) has been replaced by 'Road Traffic Collision' (RTC). Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted June 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Current police/legal thinking seems to follow the line that 'accidents' are actually quite rare and that most 'incidents' have a cause, which may include mechanical (in the broad sense) failure, and even that may be attributable to a failure by a responsible person. Hence the term 'Road Traffic Accident (RTA) has been replaced by 'Road Traffic Collision' (RTC). Accidents can have a cause, the word simply means not deliberate. Sometimes collisions are very deliberate though (fortunately rarely) and "incident" and "collision" are broader terms that cover both the accidental and deliberate, so I'm not sure that it is an attempt to narrow the meaning of the word. It may sound like squabbling over semantics but to reserve the word "accident" for only the totally unpredictable (if there even is such a thing) is indicative of a way of viewing the world I don't agree with. If they want a word that only means the totally unpredictable and hence unavoidable it's best not to appropriate an existing one. Edited June 23, 2015 by Reorte 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neil Posted June 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 23, 2015 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. I'm not sure whether you meant to infer that level crossing incidents should be viewed less charitably if caused by the road user rather than railway side of operations, but that's how the juxtaposition of 'deliberate acts' vs 'accident' reads to me. I'm not picking on you Roy, it's just a neat illustration of the differing sympathies toward road and rail that are pretty commonplace within this thread. Whilst some motorists may seem to be reckless chancers, others appear to have made genuine mistakes and some been lured into danger by circumstances beyond their control. In a few instances railway staff have caused the accident or near miss and in some cases poor design of the crossing has played its part too. I'm not sure that it's at all helpful to carry any bias, pro rail or pro motorist, when looking at these accidents and incidents; it won't help work out the underlying cases and it certainly won't improve safety. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgman Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I know it not the UK but it's worth a look ! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) I can see that in the UK that being adopted as yet another job creation scheme! Edited June 24, 2015 by LMS2968 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted June 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 24, 2015 I can see that in the UK that being adopted as yet another job creation scheme! Not as a proper job though but as Workfare. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisman56 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 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! There are (were) at least two crossings on the Coastway West route that had different design wooden gates - one of which (forget which until I can find the book with the photo in) had three different gate designs out of the four fitted... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenw Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I know it not the UK but it's worth a look ! Obviously selected as the size of those two no-one would get past ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33602441 Later comments on Radio 4 suggest the car was abandoned on the tracks. Edited July 21, 2015 by LMS2968 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33602441 Later comments on Radio 4 suggest the car was abandoned on the tracks. When the Police arrested the man that abandoned the car on the level crossing, was he actually in possession of a brain? He no doubt abandoned that years ago. How stupid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 21, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33602441 Later comments on Radio 4 suggest the car was abandoned on the tracks. Not an old banger either, I wonder if it may have been stolen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2015 The thing i dont understand is clay mills is a cctv crossing monitored by derby box, the only way i can think it got on there was being driven through the closed barriers as surely the signaller will have seen the car on the crossing on the monitor in the box and not dropped the barriers or pulled off for the train? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 21, 2015 The thing i dont understand is clay mills is a cctv crossing monitored by derby box, the only way i can think it got on there was being driven through the closed barriers as surely the signaller will have seen the car on the crossing on the monitor in the box and not dropped the barriers or pulled off for the train? As the driver was found nearby its possible he had abandoned the car only a few seconds before the train hit it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2015 I know it not the UK but it's worth a look ! Absolute genius does require plenty of room to install the pedestals though and the building on the far side handily eliminates oncoming traffic! After having a proper play with OD crossings and training from the guy who created them I'm now firmly of the opinion that they are a very good system now the glitches are known and can be addressed in the installation design. It says something that the LIDAR manufacturer in Germany now uses the spec developed in the UK to increase the accuracy of detection after the initial issues with hail, rain and other spurious objects. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) The thing i dont understand is clay mills is a cctv crossing monitored by derby box, the only way i can think it got on there was being driven through the closed barriers as surely the signaller will have seen the car on the crossing on the monitor in the box and not dropped the barriers or pulled off for the train? Just looking at google, the road swings south on the East side of the crossing, the camera's look to point north though - one scenario might be he was travelling East, and turned right too early onto the tracks, and did so enough for it to put him out of camera range? Edited July 21, 2015 by Glorious NSE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Just looking at google, the road swings south on the East side of the crossing, the camera's look to point north though - one scenario might be he was travelling East, and turned right too early onto the tracks, and did so enough for it to put him out of camera range? Wasn't this the crossing where the driver of a road-rail excavator became disorientated, and headed off in the opposite direction to that he should have taken? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM42 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 The thing i dont understand is clay mills is a cctv crossing monitored by derby box, the only way i can think it got on there was being driven through the closed barriers as surely the signaller will have seen the car on the crossing on the monitor in the box and not dropped the barriers or pulled off for the train? My understanding Jim is that the car was not actually on the crossing, but the nearby crossing was a good landmark to report as a location for emergency services' response. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 My understanding Jim is that the car was not actually on the crossing, but the nearby crossing was a good landmark to report as a location for emergency services' response. Andy It must have been on the crossing until the train hit it, judging by the condition of train and car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 It must have been on the crossing until the train hit it, judging by the condition of train and car. Unless it was on the track, near the crossing - in which case it could have gone through the fence from the road... (Though "obstructing the railway" seems an odd charge to make if that were the case unless they thought it was deliberate?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2015 Or they didn't bother to attempt to report it as has happened in the past. We had a freight discover a car in the cess and found he'd called a taxi in and caught the train to London! Taxi driver reported a bloke with a strange story, almost the same time as the freight found it, about crashing his car near the railway but he'd not said to the taxi driver it was on the track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2015 "The car was destroyed but nobody was inside. The driver was found unhurt in nearby Meadow Lane. British Transport Police arrested a 35-year-old man on suspicion of obstructing the railway." Doesn't say the man arrested was the driver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2015 "The car was destroyed but nobody was inside. The driver was found unhurt in nearby Meadow Lane. British Transport Police arrested a 35-year-old man on suspicion of obstructing the railway." Doesn't say the man arrested was the driver. Well it does infer he put the car on there which suggests he drove it or pushed it somehow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2015 Well it does infer he put the car on there which suggests he drove it or pushed it somehow. It implies (not infers) that the man arrested was the one who put it on the track. It doesn't say that man was the driver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted July 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2015 If you want to be pedantic I inferred it then "deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements." As we don't know the full facts there are no explicit statements! And I didn't say explicitly he was the driver, as I said he drove OR pushed it into the crossing in that case. How else is he responsible for it being there? If he blocked the road then it would be the drivers responsibility to not block the railway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now