Level crossing stupidity...

[DavidB-AU]

A bit of level crossing stupidity from Australia. This guy was lucky to walk away.

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Another RAIB report today:

 

 http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/130924_R172013_Beech_Hill.pdf

 

And once again it seems the initial reaction here and elsewhere that the driver is a complete idiot proves to be not the whole story:

 

"The RAIB took the wig-wag units and arranged for testing in an optical laboratory. It
was found that they were fitted with 36 W lamps and an obsolete design of red lens
unit. Their light output was measured to be well below the specification for lights of
this type. Network Rail had no plans in place to replace the light units with brighter
ones and had no process to identify that such replacement was necessary.
The RAIB has made four recommendations as follows:

1. infrastructure managers to determine which level crossings are fitted with 36 W
lamps and draw up plans for their replacement with LED units;

2. infrastructure managers to devise a method of assessing the risk of a bright
background and glare preventing wig-wag signals from being seen and propose
means of mitigating this;

3. infrastructure managers to introduce a new ‘brighter’ type of LED wig-wag for use at
sites where sunlight glare has been identified as a problem; and

4. infrastructure managers to enhance the inspection and maintenance process for
wig-wag lamps"

 

 

 

Martin.

[beast66606]

And once again it seems the initial reaction here and elsewhere that the driver is a complete idiot proves to be not the whole story:

 

I pass over a level crossing every day, at this time of the year the lights are virtually impossible to see clearly due to the sun, so I take the obvious action - I SLOW down until I can be certain the crossing is clear and there is nothing obstructing my journey - like the barriers for instance.

 

 

 

Analysis of the pictures from the forward facing CCTV on the train showed that

the car appeared to be braking as it ran onto the crossing. This was confirmed by

the driver of a car that was following the car involved in the collision, who stated

that the brake lights were on. She stated that she had seen that the wig-wags

were lit as soon as she turned off the main road, which is 600 metres from the

crossing, and thought that the car in front was going to stop at the crossing

 

 

 

My emphasis - Unfortunately more than just pride was affected.

 

I note the speed of the car was not mentioned in the report, I thought this would be a relevant factor - but granted I'm only an amateur.

 

 

 

Edit - correct my mistake about the outcome.

Edited September 24, 2013 by beast66606

[martin_wynne]

What is the reason that the lights don't show a normally-on green light like other traffic signals? Then the inability to see clearly any light at all would immediately act as a warning. At present, if you can't see the red lights flashing the assumption is that the crossing is clear.

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

What is the reason that the lights don't show a normally-on green light like other traffic signals? Then the inability to see clearly any light at all would immediately act as a warning. At present, if you can't see the red lights flashing the assumption is that the crossing is clear.

 

Martin.

They are different from road junction traffic lights for several reasons - firstly to indicate that they are to do with something which is not a traffic signalled road junction or similar (e.g. they are used at railway crossings (most types, airfield crossings, fire stations etc).  Secondly they use a flashing arrangement of the red lights in order to strengthen the 'you must stop' message and to grab a vehicle driver's attention, then they use two red lights instead of a single one - again to ensure the message is more obvious and that they are indicating a different type of hazard other then road traffic related ones.  In addition they fit into the usual European pattern of using twin red flashing lights at level crossings although the UK is the only European country (still I think) using a steady amber prior to the reds illuminating.

 

The inability to see a light - or rather the ability to see it - is down to the vehicle driver doing the job in a safe & sensible manner and obviously if visibility is poor the driver would (should) do as Beast has said and adjust their approach speed downwards to allow for any sighting problems.  Mind you that does of course rely on people driving road vehicles in a safe and sensible manner and sometimes I incline to the view that might be a rather forlorn hope with some of those we come across on the public highways.

[jamie92208]

The inability to see a light - or rather the ability to see it - is down to the vehicle driver doing the job in a safe & sensible manner and obviously if visibility is poor the driver would (should) do as Beast has said and adjust their approach speed downwards to allow for any sighting problems.  Mind you that does of course rely on people driving road vehicles in a safe and sensible manner and sometimes I incline to the view that might be a rather forlorn hope with some of those we come across on the public highways.

That would depend on how much brain power they use when driving.   I am told that humans use 25% of their energy to power their brains.  Unfortunately I fear that for a reasonable part of the population the percentage is considerbaly less.

 

Jamie

[martin_wynne]

When we have a SPAD on the railway the ensuing discussion concerns sighting, weather conditions, braking power, driving experience, route knowledge and several other factors.

 

When we have a SPAD on the road we immediately get the "Darwin was here" responses. I think it is sad and unfair.

 

Martin.

[Not Captain Kernow]

My emphasis - Thankfully only pride, and a car, were dented.

 

Tragically I believe the child in the car died of injuries sustained unless I misread the report.

[The Stationmaster]

When we have a SPAD on the railway the ensuing discussion concerns sighting, weather conditions, braking power, driving experience, route knowledge and several other factors.

 

When we have a SPAD on the road we immediately get the "Darwin was here" responses. I think it is sad and unfair.

 

Martin.

Not necessarily Martin - the police always investigate 'SPADs' on the roads when a significant collision involving personal injury or worse results and, standing aside some of RAIB's poorer efforts, I think every investigation into a road/rail vehicle collision at a level crossings takes into account the state of signage and its position, the condition of the road surface and markings and the condition of any lights etc and on many occasions has also considered the road vehicle driver's familiarity with the crossing and how frequently they use it - all of which is very much on a par with the factors considered when investigating a SPAD.

[martin_wynne]

Not necessarily Martin - the police always investigate 'SPADs' on the roads when a significant collision involving personal injury or worse results and, standing aside some of RAIB's poorer efforts, I think every investigation into a road/rail vehicle collision at a level crossings takes into account the state of signage and its position, the condition of the road surface and markings and the condition of any lights etc and on many occasions has also considered the road vehicle driver's familiarity with the crossing and how frequently they use it - all of which is very much on a par with the factors considered when investigating a SPAD.

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was referring to the responses on RMweb, not the official investigations.

 

Martin.

[Neil]

.... The inability to see a light - or rather the ability to see it - is down to the vehicle driver doing the job in a safe & sensible manner and obviously if visibility is poor the driver would (should) do as Beast has said and adjust their approach speed downwards to allow for any sighting problems. 

 

In an ideal world then I'd agree that's how such a situation should pan out. However when dazzled or in poor weather, the speed may be decreased to give a safe margin and the attention increased but precisely because the conditions are challenging that attention can be focussed more tightly on the risks from other traffic on the road and the bigger picture/situational awareness lost.

 

Careful individuals can make mistakes. I wonder how many of us have had bumps, scrapes or worse in the car and how many of us would consider our own actions leading to these incidents to be reckless?

Edited September 24, 2013 by Neil

[The Stationmaster]

In an ideal world then I'd agree that's how such a situation should pan out. However when dazzled or in poor weather, the speed may be decreased to give a safe margin and the attention increased but precisely because the conditions are challenging that attention can be focussed more tightly on the risks from other traffic on the road and the bigger picture/situational awareness lost.

 

Careful individuals can make mistakes. I wonder how many of us have had bumps, scrapes or worse in the car and how many of us would consider our own actions leading to these incidents to be reckless?

Not necessarily 'reckless' but even a brief moment of inattention or lack of care or minor misjudgement can result in things like that - just as much on the part of others where we become their victim.

[Richard E]

This latest report does show, sadly, that tragic consequences are not always entirely the fault of the car driver. In this case I think one has to feel for the lady who was driving who has lost, I assume, a grandchild and also all of those that were involved in the immediate aftermath of the collision.

[Grovenor]

I'm intrigued that the report uses the term "wig wag" which I have not previously seen used in any official UK context. I have only come across it before in North American and Australian contexts where is was a colloquialism for the original "Mechanical flagman" that eventually became the flashing lights. Although the Stationmasters explanation of the reasons for the twin red lights are correct he does not mention that they are directly derived from the 'flagman' required to wave a red lantern at the road traffic on railroads not blessed with fences and gates in the UK pattern.  (Common everywhere else long before accepted into the Uk to try and reduce road traffic delays caused by the traditional gates.) Swinging a lantern back and forth means that the lantern is momentarily stationary at each end of travel and passes at maximum speed through the centre of travel, hence to someone approaching appears as alternating flashes side by side. The first labour saving device was the mechanical flagman that replicated this swinging light and developments of reliable relays etc. found this replaced by the pair of lights till current and able to give a more powerful and focussed beam whilst keeping the original concept.

Some illustrations of mechanical flagmen, aka wigwags can be found with a bit of dedicated googling.

Keith

[Fat Controller]

I'm intrigued that the report uses the term "wig wag" which I have not previously seen used in any official UK context. I have only come across it before in North American and Australian contexts where is was a colloquialism for the original "Mechanical flagman" that eventually became the flashing lights. Although the Stationmasters explanation of the reasons for the twin red lights are correct he does not mention that they are directly derived from the 'flagman' required to wave a red lantern at the road traffic on railroads not blessed with fences and gates in the UK pattern.  (Common everywhere else long before accepted into the Uk to try and reduce road traffic delays caused by the traditional gates.) Swinging a lantern back and forth means that the lantern is momentarily stationary at each end of travel and passes at maximum speed through the centre of travel, hence to someone approaching appears as alternating flashes side by side. The first labour saving device was the mechanical flagman that replicated this swinging light and developments of reliable relays etc. found this replaced by the pair of lights till current and able to give a more powerful and focussed beam whilst keeping the original concept.

Some illustrations of mechanical flagmen, aka wigwags can be found with a bit of dedicated googling.

Keith

The 'mechanical flagman' still exists to signal road-narrowing due to roadworks on French autoroutes, though equipped with a flag rather than a lantern.

[The Stationmaster]

No need to Google - unless you want more - here's our friendly neighbourhood fully operational wig wag duly wigging or wagging on Sir William McAlpine's private railway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ZiderHead]

Careful individuals can make mistakes.

 

Indeed, but they make far fewer mistakes and those mistakes are less costly. This case does not appear to involve a careful individual, if it had they would have taken their poor eyesight and the prevailing conditions into account and made sure the crossing was clear to cross rather than barreling through the barrier into the path of an oncoming train.

[Talltim]

Route knowledge is mentioned wih regards to rail SPADs, it sounds like the lady in question had 'route knowledge' of this road so she would have been aware of the existence of the crossing

[Richard E]

Indeed, but they make far fewer mistakes and those mistakes are less costly. This case does not appear to involve a careful individual, if it had they would have taken their poor eyesight and the prevailing conditions into account and made sure the crossing was clear to cross rather than barreling through the barrier into the path of an oncoming train.

Whoa there - who said her eyesight was poor? There is nothing in the report beyond the fact that she had a new prescription at her last eyesight test and WAS wearing her NEW glasses. The opticians report confirmed her corrected eyesight was fine.

 

Do you need to wear glasses? By your standards if you need to even if you are wearing them you are a careless person ...

Edited September 25, 2013 by Richard E

[beast66606]

Whoa there - who said her eyesight was poor? There is nothing in the report beyond the fact that she had a new prescription at her last eyesight test and WAS wearing her NEW glasses. The opticians report confirmed her corrected eyesight was fine.

 

Do you need to wear glasses? By your standards if you need to even if you are wearing them you are a careless person ...

 

Being pedantic the optician did not confirm her corrected eyesight was fine he/she confirmed the driver was not red blind and therefore that was not the reason she missed the red light.

[ZiderHead]

Fair comment - she was wearing glasses so please read it without the eyesight section. 

 

Personally I'm very short sighted so wear contacts. Occasionally I have to wear glasses and the difference in vision is striking, especially in bright, glary conditions so I drive very much more defensively to compensate.

[Neil]

...... This case does not appear to involve a careful individual, if it had they would have taken their poor eyesight and the prevailing conditions into account and made sure the crossing was clear to cross rather than barreling through the barrier into the path of an oncoming train.

 

Several points of order here. I've read the report again and I can find no suggestion in it that the unfortunate car driver was 'barrelling' through anything. The is equally nothing else to suggest that any lack of care on the part of the driver. The report makes very clear that the flashing red lights were of insufficient brilliance to stand out against the low sun.To fulfil their warning functions the lights must be visible in all lighting conditions and must take into account the variation in individuals eyesights within the range of those able to hold a license. In this context the report mentions that  "research found that the threshold for detection of contrast rises with age and that a driver aged 65 requires the contrast to be 80% higher than a young,ocularly fit, person." Finally it's significant that the reports recommendations all centre on improving the visibility of the warning lights both at the crossing in question and any others similarly (ill) equipped.

 

While I think we'd all like to feel that the railway's long and hard won tradition of safety first continues to the present day, I also think we need to accept that stuff will slip through the net. Seeking to shield the railway from its fair share of blame doesn't do it any favours in the medium to long term.

[Talltim]

If instead of a railway, there was a crossroads, with the road she was driving on giving way to the crossing road, would she have just kept going straight across, possibly to be hit by an HGV? Such a junction would have far less in the way of warnings lights and signage (probably just a Give Way sign and road markings) yet there doesn't seem to be any recommendations from a Road Accident Investigatory Board that all such junctions with poor visibility in some sun/rain conditions should have bright lights fitted.

[Neil]

If instead of a railway, there was a crossroads, with the road she was driving on giving way to the crossing road, would she have just kept going straight across, possibly to be hit by an HGV? Such a junction would have far less in the way of warnings lights and signage (probably just a Give Way sign and road markings) yet there doesn't seem to be any recommendations from a Road Accident Investigatory Board that all such junctions with poor visibility in some sun/rain conditions should have bright lights fitted.

 

I'm afraid your logic is a little off here. Approaching an automatic half barrier level crossing one is not expected to stop and look to see if anything approaches before driving across. it's not even like a cross roads protected by lights where one would expect to see one of the three aspects displayed. For most of the time a level crossings warning lights will not be in operation, it would be routine to approach see no indication and drive across in safety. This lack of fail safe from the motorists point of view, arms the trap which becomes triggered in this case by the combination of low dazzling sunlight and insufficiently bright warning lights on the crossing. If one can't see the warning lights the crossing appears safe to cross.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Neil

[mcowgill]

The difference between a give way at a road crossing and a level crossing is that you would always expect to slow and check the road junction, if there is no apparent warning to stop to the road user (as described in this instance with low backlighting and crossing lights not meeting standards) the standard response at a level crossing would be to cross more quickly.    Appreciating the poor sighting conditions is a different matter but it's difficult to put yourself in the postition of that particular driver.

 

I had an interesting situation a few weeks back.

 

I cross the GEML on my way to and from work each day, I drive low slung sports car and am well aware of the crossing, I usually get stopped for a down Norwich train but some mornings I meet a Freightliner intermodal heading up the line or the returning fuel tanks working to Ipswich.   I ALWAYS slow down for the crossing, the superelevation on the two lines are in different planes, if I cross quickly I am liable to ground the car (with underfloor coolant pipes that's not a good idea) so I would guess I never exceed 15-20mph as I pass the barrier.

 

One morning I looked in my mirror immediately after crossing to see the barriers well on the way down, I must have entered the crossing with the amber light on or even after the first red light started, yet I had no recollection of seeing the lights, even crossing at that point in the sequence gave me a bad feeling.  I may have been distracted by something else, but it's easily done even when you are fully aware of the risks.

 

Martin

Edited September 25, 2013 by mcowgill