Level crossing stupidity...

[Glorious NSE]

Quite - "do not enter unless your exit is clear" also applies to box junction traffic lights, and we don't appear to be assuming that means if the exit is clear you can go through a red...

[Welly]

Can I point out that the person who designed the survey I linked last night is a student mechanical engineer not a psychology student!

 

It was fun answering such open ended questions!!

 

As to Lincoln, the bridge over the Brayford and the older Pelham Bridge (that replaced the notorious Durham Ox crossing) relieves the traffic on the High Street to a great extent. I find myself preferring to drive over either of these bridges to High Street.

 

The new East West road through what used to be the rail served coal yard and the St Marks line will take traffic off the High Street LC in a couple of years time.

 

Oh while we are in Lincoln: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-35826079 words fail me....

[Glorious NSE]

That's the incident we were discussing I think Welly!

[Spitfire2865]

 

Oh while we are in Lincoln: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-35826079 words fail me....

Wow. And I thought American news sources were grossly incompitent.

 

While were at it, why dont we change the 1944 Normandy invasion to "Allies go to the beach"?

[ejstubbs]

And the point is.....improvements...simples

 

Such as?

 

Improvements in driver behaviour generally would make the whole world a more pleasant and safer place, so I'd be strongly in favour of those.  Actually I'd go further and say improvements in the behaviour of all road users (including pedestrians and users of pedalled and powered two-wheel vehicles) would contribute to greater overall wellbeing.

 

These last few days I have personally witnessed:

• A taxi speeding up to ~40mph in a 30 limit order to run an amber traffic light - and predictably failing, passing it when the red light had been on for several seconds.  (You've never heard mechanical pain until you've heard an Edinburgh black cab being thrashed like that!)
• A private car being driven through a traffic-light controlled pedestrian crossing with the lights at red and other traffic stopped, as if they hadn't even noticed that it was there.

Do you fix all those sorts of behaviours by "improvements"?  Why not be honest and admit that some people really are too stupid and dangerous to others to be allowed to drive?

 

In my opinion there is far too much acceptance that road users are unable to do anything other than act like selfish idiots, so everyone and everything else has to adapt to allow them to continue doing so.  I can't readily think of any other transport system which is allowed to operate that way.

Edited March 17, 2016 by ejstubbs

[Glorious NSE]

If you think about another transport system then - if you go back to the 70s and 80s when a train ran a red light causing a collision then the usual result would be to just (assuming another reason couldn't be found) blame that on driver error, case closed. These days we don't just effectively say "we're sorry, but the driver did something stupid", we ask why, we also accept that these (in this case highly trained) people are not infallible, so we put mitigating systems in place, such as trying to manage how much information they have to deal with, as well as automatic systems designed to mitigate when a mistake does happen, which we know and accept that from time to time it will...

So on the road, we're dealing with folk that are human - IE just as fallible, have much less formal training than a train driver (potentially none at all in the case of some road users!) - they are also at much greater risk of distraction from a wide range of sources (some directly within their control, some not) - and I'd suggest at times they have a much greater variance in external factors which they have to try and deal with at once, which is something you can try and design out of a closed system like a railway, but you can never do with a road...

So, in terms of incidents at crossings, sorry I don't agree that in EVERY case we should dismiss the cause as just a driver who has deliberately acted like a selfish idiot - because if that's the default reaction both officially and unofficially in places like this then the only result of those attitudes will be to guarantee that it keeps happening at the same rate. 

Luckily it doesn't appear to be the official response, as we are getting improvements in crossings (retrofit gates to open crossings, better lighting for example) on top of the closure program. Long may it continue in my book...

Edited March 17, 2016 by Glorious NSE

[newbryford]

 

I still do not like the wording of that rule. The implication is that it is ok to cross while there are warning lights flashing and even the barriers are dropping. Just because it may appear to be clear to exit does not mean that it is clear to enter with enough time to exit.

 

No implication to cross with the warning lights on.

For clarification:

Rule 293

Controlled Crossings. Most crossings have traffic light signals with a steady amber light, twin flashing red stop lights (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’ and ‘Traffic signs’) 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.

[The Stationmaster]

What a load of Bull that survey is, poorly put together and ambiguous in many places. It seems to be condoning the behaviour shown in some of the videos and encouraging people to think along the same lines. I was rather scathing in the comments!

 

Hence my comments referring to stupidity,  idiots,  the moronic, drunkards, and those under the influence of drugs, when asked to describe some of the things which were happening.

[ejstubbs]

in terms of incidents at crossings, sorry I don't agree that in EVERY case we should dismiss the cause as just a driver who has deliberately acted like a selfish idiot

 

Neither do I.  Add I don't think I suggested that (although I'll admit I did drift off in to a bit of a rant).  However, the tone of stevex59's post to which I was replying seemed very much to be suggesting the opposite ie EVERY case has to be assumed to be caused by a deficiency in the infrastructure and that's the only thing that needs to be fixed.

 

Quite frequently on RMWeb people wax nostalgically lyrical about the old public information films warning people of the danger of various foolhardy behaviours on or near railways (and elsewhere - remember "don't be an amber gambler"?)  I can't remember the last time I saw anything like that broadcast.  Admittedly a lot of people these days watch recorded TV and FFWD through the ads; I just offer it as an example of what would appear to be a fairly straightforward mechanism for reminding people about how they are would be wise to act in the face of everyday risks no longer being deployed for some reason.  Relying on enforcement alone - camera vans and the like - apart from being expensive and therefore almost never being able to achieve sufficient coverage to have a reliable deterrent effect (viz speed cameras) can also create an adversarial feeling ("us against The Man'") which almost encourages the more 'rebellious' and dimwitted to to break the rules.

[Kenton]

 

It's not saying you can ignore other prohibitions like the lights and barriers, each bit is being described separately is all, so the summary after looking at all the rules is "You can enter if the exit is clear, the light's aren't flashing, the barrier isn't dropping or down etc." Not spelling the whole lot of things when a rule is used in conjunction with others doesn't imply others should be disregarded in my view (unless they specifically say that one over-rules the others).

 

While you are correct. The quote was given without the support of the "other" rules. So the casual observer would read it as the only rule in force or that it might ovrride any other rules that could be guessed at. We have to remember that these are idiots and most examples given indicate that they do not know of rules or think that they are above those rules. |F|IC the only rule should be never go on a crossing with the warning lights showing - it is irrelevant that the exit is clear. That merely gives you an excuse for breaking the primary rule of do not ignore the warnings.

[Reorte]

   

While you are correct. The quote was given without the support of the "other" rules. So the casual observer would read it as the only rule in force or that it might ovrride any other rules that could be guessed at. We have to remember that these are idiots and most examples given indicate that they do not know of rules or think that they are above those rules. |F|IC the only rule should be never go on a crossing with the warning lights showing - it is irrelevant that the exit is clear. That merely gives you an excuse for breaking the primary rule of do not ignore the warnings.

Perhaps the old picture I was looking at pre-dates lights. But "don't go on a crossing with the warning lights showing" isn't the only rule. Whilst it's irrelevant whether the exit is clear or not under those circumstances it's very relevant when the lights aren't flashing / alarms not sounding / barriers or gates still open.

 

There's no point in reminding anything to people who think they're above the rules, they're just a danger whatever, but people who'd get the hint from lights or barriers might not think so much about leaving a gap. I rather suspect that someone who interprets it to mean "go even if the other warnings are up" will find some excuse to do something daft no matter what.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Reorte

[The Stationmaster]

   

While you are correct. The quote was given without the support of the "other" rules. So the casual observer would read it as the only rule in force or that it might ovrride any other rules that could be guessed at. We have to remember that these are idiots and most examples given indicate that they do not know of rules or think that they are above those rules. |F|IC the only rule should be never go on a crossing with the warning lights showing - it is irrelevant that the exit is clear. That merely gives you an excuse for breaking the primary rule of do not ignore the warnings.

 

That's an interesting point Kenton and one which should always be taken into consideration when writing Rules etc.

 

The proper method is to always start with the most restrictive and mandatory 'messages' or instructions and then progress to those which allow exceptions or relaxations or make supplementary points.  The reason for doing this is quite simple - most humans tend to look for a way out of any sort of restrictive situation therefore you leave that to the end because another human failing is quite often to not read beyond the first couple of lines.

 

So you should start with 'stop when the red lights are illuminated' and go on from there.

[stevex59]

Can I point out that the person who designed the survey I linked last night is a student mechanical engineer not a psychology student!

 

It was fun answering such open ended questions!!

 

As to Lincoln, the bridge over the Brayford and the older Pelham Bridge (that replaced the notorious Durham Ox crossing) relieves the traffic on the High Street to a great extent. I find myself preferring to drive over either of these bridges to High Street.

 

The new East West road through what used to be the rail served coal yard and the St Marks line will take traffic off the High Street LC in a couple of years time.

 

Oh while we are in Lincoln: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-35826079 words fail me....

 

You are perfectly correct here, however the current road works divert traffic into places they would prefer not to go.

 

As for the new link road we wait to see how traffic will emerge on to the foot of Pelham Bridge as even before there were long queues and no traffic signals to help with traffic control....only time will tell. 

[scouser]

If you think about another transport system then - if you go back to the 70s and 80s when a train ran a red light causing a collision then the usual result would be to just (assuming another reason couldn't be found) blame that on driver error, case closed. These days we don't just effectively say "we're sorry, but the driver did something stupid", we ask why, we also accept that these (in this case highly trained) people are not infallible, so we put mitigating systems in place, such as trying to manage how much information they have to deal with, as well as automatic systems designed to mitigate when a mistake does happen, which we know and accept that from time to time it will...

So on the road, we're dealing with folk that are human - IE just as fallible, have much less formal training than a train driver (potentially none at all in the case of some road users!) - they are also at much greater risk of distraction from a wide range of sources (some directly within their control, some not) - and I'd suggest at times they have a much greater variance in external factors which they have to try and deal with at once, which is something you can try and design out of a closed system like a railway, but you can never do with a road...

So, in terms of incidents at crossings, sorry I don't agree that in EVERY case we should dismiss the cause as just a driver who has deliberately acted like a selfish idiot - because if that's the default reaction both officially and unofficially in places like this then the only result of those attitudes will be to guarantee that it keeps happening at the same rate. 

Luckily it doesn't appear to be the official response, as we are getting improvements in crossings (retrofit gates to open crossings, better lighting for example) on top of the closure program. Long may it continue in my book...

 

 

This is the worse type of " we are all victims" excusism! If anybody can't cope with the realities of the road then they should get off it.

What you are saying is that the woman in Shrewsbury, who was sitting in the middle of thebox junction on the level crossing, with a Chryslef Voyager full of kids wasn't really an idiot but a victim of an uncaring society.

Infastructure such as level crossings are being changed because there is a realisation that nobody is willing to teach or punish the brain dead road users.

Last year over three thousand people were killed on our roads. Are you really excusing the people who caused this?

[ajwffc]

My apologies - however, we all know the rules are basically the same - do not enter unless your exit is clear. Quoted back in post#1199

 

My local full barrier CCTV controlled crossing doesn't have a yellow box either.

 

This van has been there on regular occasions and despite it's proximity and visibility to the crossing users, it still manages to catch a few offenders.

 

crossing van.jpg

 

Cheers,

Mick

When the BTP have the crossing van out in Scotland they tweet what crossings the van will be siting at and they still catch  crossing jumpers. 

[stevex59]

 

No implication to cross with the warning lights on.

For clarification:

Rule 293

Controlled Crossings. Most crossings have traffic light signals with a steady amber light, twin flashing red stop lights (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’ and ‘Traffic signs’) 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.

 

 

without wanting to cause any offence here, some rules are clear and some are not.

For instance, just assuming the poster has written all the rules and not omitted any by accident.

 

It does state....you must stop behind the white line....correct

Keep going if you have passed the white line.....

But it doesn't say anything about making sure you can exit.....so a little grey area.

 

Also probably a rule needs to be written about what to do if you are caught in that situation, as if you have passed the white line but can not clear the crossing most people will panic as the driver did in the video.

There was no yellow box.

 

Perhaps network rail could advise what to do in such cases as this is certainly not the first case and have involved most types of road users.

 

But it does have to be asked why the signaller who could see that the crossing was not clear lowered the barriers.

Surely if had set the lights going he had control of the barriers to lower them once the crossing was clear.

As long as the lights were showing that would stop new traffic entering the crossing and it would only take a while for the obstruction to exit the crossing.

 

having watched the video it is clear the video is not all it seems as it has been edited to show the worst and not all that led up to the incident.

 

One poster said that public information films seemed to be none existant...he is correct.

That was one way we all learned...Tuffty...Green cross code and even clunk click...things that still stick in my mind.

 

Just on a light note... when the barriers were first installed here my friend who worked nearby noted a man who put his dog lead on the barrier red light.

Of course the barrier went up taking his small dog with it...at the time they were large barriers and not half type as they are now. 

[Dagworth]

But it does have to be asked why the signaller who could see that the crossing was not clear lowered the barriers.

Surely if had set the lights going he had control of the barriers to lower them once the crossing was clear.

As long as the lights were showing that would stop new traffic entering the crossing and it would only take a while for the obstruction to exit the crossing.

 

All the signaller does is press a button to start the sequence, he doesn't control *when* the barriers start to lower.

 

Once the sequence is complete he then presses a button to confirm that the crossing is clear which then allows the signals to clear.

 

Andi

[newbryford]

All the signaller does is press a button to start the sequence, he doesn't control *when* the barriers start to lower.

 

Once the sequence is complete he then presses a button to confirm that the crossing is clear which then allows the signals to clear.

 

Andi

 

My local box was (I don't know if it still is) slightly different. The signalman had to keep the "down" button pressed until they were down. He then got a light to confirm and then he pressed "crossing clear" to enable him to release the signals.

If he let go of the down button, the sequence halted until he pressed it again.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

[PatB]

Neither do I.  Add I don't think I suggested that (although I'll admit I did drift off in to a bit of a rant).  However, the tone of stevex59's post to which I was replying seemed very much to be suggesting the opposite ie EVERY case has to be assumed to be caused by a deficiency in the infrastructure and that's the only thing that needs to be fixed.

 

Quite frequently on RMWeb people wax nostalgically lyrical about the old public information films warning people of the danger of various foolhardy behaviours on or near railways (and elsewhere - remember "don't be an amber gambler"?)  I can't remember the last time I saw anything like that broadcast.  Admittedly a lot of people these days watch recorded TV and FFWD through the ads; I just offer it as an example of what would appear to be a fairly straightforward mechanism for reminding people about how they are would be wise to act in the face of everyday risks no longer being deployed for some reason.  Relying on enforcement alone - camera vans and the like - apart from being expensive and therefore almost never being able to achieve sufficient coverage to have a reliable deterrent effect (viz speed cameras) can also create an adversarial feeling ("us against The Man'") which almost encourages the more 'rebellious' and dimwitted to to break the rules.

 

Ah, the old Public Information Films. Last time I saw such things broadcast was in early 1991 when I was suffering from insomnia and staying in a cottage on the Lleyn Peninsular in remote North-West Wales. In the small hours of  the morning I resorted to the TV to pass the time and suddenly there were all the terrifying PIFs which had formed such  a major part of my childhood nightmares. The smouldering cigarette down the side of  the sofa, the bloke in a thin polo neck jumper driving his Vauxhall Victor int a brick wall because he overtook near a  junction, the kid drowning in a slurry pit; it was all there.

 

Whether broadcasting them to an audience consisting of half a  dozen waterlogged sheep and me actually had any positive benefit to  public safety seems somewhat questionable.

 

On a slightly more serious, and recent, note, wasn't there the Class 31 vs Toyota Tarago footage not so very long ago? You know,  the one with Jeremy Clarkson in a hi-viz vest.

[Dagworth]

 

On a slightly more serious, and recent, note, wasn't there the Class 31 vs Toyota Tarago footage not so very long ago? You know,  the one with Jeremy Clarkson in a hi-viz vest.

[uax6]

I recall being out on a cycle ride with the nipper a couple of years back. We headed in the direction of the local AHBC and what did I see? A BT transit reverse over the crossing! Needless to say I gave him some advice, and the look on his face after I pointed out how dangerous his actions were, was a picture. I would like to think he won't do it again.

 

His reasoning for doing it? He was only going to the other side of the crossing, so didn't need to turn the van round....

 

We also have people that refuse to use telephones at UWC's with limited sighting... excuse? They are new, and I've been crossing here all my live. Reaction by the member of staff telling him to use them: Your life is probably not going to be a long one, I'll get a body bag and put your name on it.......

 

Andy G

[Glorious NSE]

Last year over three thousand people were killed on our roads. Are you really excusing the people who caused this?

So we know you've never, ever made a mistake behind the wheel then?

 

That number has come down drastically over the years.

 

Has it done that because we call people names?

 

Has it done that because we've drastically increased the number of police out there 'punishing' people?

 

Has it done that because our roads are so much quieter than they were?

 

Or has it done that because lots of work has gone into trying to design roads with fewer risks and cars that are less likely to kill when something does inevitably go wrong...

 

Such namby pamby pandering I'd humbly suggest is what has made a huge difference to bringing those figures down.

[RJS1977]

 

I can't help thinking it would have done a better public service if they'd kept the Renault Espace in one piece and crashed into Jeremy Clarkson....

[Glorious NSE]

Being pedantic for a second - 3000 deaths? Now I've had chance to look that up it's been under 1800 since 2012, after passing through the 3000 mark around 2007, although the dropping trend has plateaued in the 1700s...

From the government figures the year to Q3 2015 figure appears to be 1780, down from a peak of just under 8000 in 1966...

Ref the Clarkson stunt - personally I reckon no amount of somebody being serious and po-faced would have made the point that the images do...

 

[avonside1563]

without wanting to cause any offence here, some rules are clear and some are not.

For instance, just assuming the poster has written all the rules and not omitted any by accident.

 

It does state....you must stop behind the white line....correct

Keep going if you have passed the white line.....

But it doesn't say anything about making sure you can exit.....so a little grey area.

. 

If you go back and read my post 1225 you'll see Rule 291 from the Highway code which covers this. Or even better, go and read the Highway code. Perhaps we should be asking for a re-testing every five years of all road users, just to make sure everyone is keeping up with their competencies!