Level crossing stupidity...

[jamie92208]

... is perhaps the most basic function of any form of government apart from anarchic totalitarianism.

In the 1990's I did an OU management course and one of my assignments was about exactly that. I gave examples of how on my patch various forms of vigilantes/alternative policing had emerged as the force had withdrawn officers to squads and taken them off basic policing. Unfortunately with stupid and irresponsible behaviour by motorists, eg, running Xing lights and using mobiles whilst driving, there aren't many ways that alternative enforcement can take place. The only thing that I can see happening is that the insurance companies will do a lot more with tracking and in car monitoring technology and impose higher premiums on drivers who transgress in this way.

 

Jamie

[royaloak]

when I joined the Police in 73 I was instructed to go out an get some in the book every day without fail. It was actually very good training in talking to people under stress. However the perfect gift for me was a brick built bus shelter on a main road just along from a stop sign for a busy junction. All I had to do was stand there out of sight but still able to see the stop line and any that didn't stop and turned left got waved into the bus lay bye. .

 

Jamie.

So just out to catch motorists (who couldnt cause any harm to anyone else) to make the figures look good, rather than out catching any proper criminals who did cause harm to others, some things never change!

 

 

 

However, joking apart the lack of enforcement of existing laws is a real problem and the way police numbers have gone down, whilst demands on officers time has gone up is worrying. The sad thing is that most of the demands on their time are created by the same politicians that cut the number of people. I well remember one home secretary who forced a new prosecution paperwork system on the whole country. In my force that meant that simple offence files went from 2 pieces of paper to 12 or more

Also the cuts to the back office staff meaning Police Officers had to spend more time doing the paperwork instead of out catching more motorists oops I mean criminals (or do I?).

[The Stationmaster]

Offences such as crossing gambling shouldn't need police - just a camera or two.

 

It certainly works at traffic lights.

 

But does it work at level crossings?  the reason I ask that is because our friendly neighbourhood AOC(L) at one time had an enviable record for near misses plus doing fairly well in the occasional collision league tables.  NR (might even have been in Railtrack's time) installed  some discrete monitoring cameras and one thing they captured even appeared in one of NR's national level crossing awareness campaigns.  Which only went to show that abuse had not been stopped although that by locals was probably reduced and camera evidence plus crossing monitoring came in very handy when one local resident managed to collide with a DMU.

 

What really stopped abuse by vehicle drivers was not even the very obvious cameras mounted there a few years back (which the locals objected to!!) but the addition of barriers on a crossing where there isn't much room to weave; but that hasn't completely stopped abuse by pedestrians of course.   Overall now it is much less subject to abuse but not 100% solved.

 

Incidentally this is the crossing where on one famous occasion a police car approaching it stopped short of the crossing and the passenger, a uniformed copper, got out and walked forward to the crossing and looked both ways along the railway before waving the vehicle driver over the crossing.

[Titan]

https://youtu.be/Jx7tX1a0-J8

[SHMD]

^

There's some impressive Grade A stupidity on display there!

 

 

Kev.

[DLT]

when I joined the Police in 73 I was instructed to go out an get some in the book every day without fail. It was actually very good training in talking to people under stress. However the perfect gift for me was a brick built bus shelter on a main road just along from a stop sign for a busy junction. All I had to do was stand there out of sight but still able to see the stop line and any that didn't stop and turned left got waved into the bus lay bye. However, joking apart the lack of enforcement of existing laws is a real problem and the way police numbers have gone down, whilst demands on officers time has gone up is worrying. The sad thing is that most of the demands on their time are created by the same politicians that cut the number of people. I well remember one home secretary who forced a new prosecution paperwork system on the whole country. In my force that meant that simple offence files went from 2 pieces of paper to 12 or more.

 

Jamie.

 

A Policeman I knew once told me that if he made an arrest during the first hour of his working shift, that was it.  He was deskbound doing the paperwork for the rest of the shift.

[duncan]

Given that it is Russia & most are low speed incidents, I wonder how many of the drivers were drunk ?

[corneliuslundie]

Just occasionally, someone does get "done".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45762409

But no consolation for the relatives.

Jonathaan

[beast66606]

My son has just arrived home after leaving Norwich on the 18.00 to Liverpool St - which was turned back from Diss to Norwich, he then got back to London via Cambridge.   The Down train which was involved in the collision was apparently just about visible from Diss station although obviously a good distance away;  the collision presumably having occurred at Palgrave AHB?

 

The crossing viewed from the South looking North, the way the train was travelling.

[boxbrownie]

Given that it is Russia & most are low speed incidents, I wonder how many of the drivers were drunk ?

Given that it’s Russia.........all of them

[101]

Looks like the Russians like playing roulette - this was next to the above video (turn the volume down)

[PhilJ W]

Looks like the Russians like playing roulette - this was next to the above video (turn the volume down)

I watched that one as well, the only thing is that some were fatal, such as the cyclist who dodged through the barriers and behind the train only to be hit by one coming the other way.

[GeoffAlan]

I never can get used to people's stupidity.

 

Some years ago my wife got a letter from British Transport Police. Her car had been spotted zig-zagging the gates at a local level crossing. Fortunately the car at the time of the offence had been in the local garage for a service. So we contacted them for the name of the driver. Their MD was horrified and got in touch with BTP for a copy of the video in order to identify the driver. 

 

When they eventually got that, apparently they were reluctant to let it be seen, it showed a red car, ours was blue, with a vaguely similar number plate in the video. The grovelling apology from the BTP Inspector was a sight to savour.

[Wickham Green]

Just occasionally, someone does get "done".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45762409

But no consolation for the relatives.

Jonathaan

Why, Oh Why isn't killing someone with a motor car the same as with any other sort of weapon .................. six months is PATHETIC !

[Colin_McLeod]

Possibly because a car is not a "weapon" It is a machine that can be fatal in an accident. Like an electric saw or a hammer.

[Mark Saunders]

Possibly because a car is not a "weapon" It is a machine that can be fatal in an accident. Like an electric saw or a hammer.

 

Anything can be a weapon it is just how it is used!

[kevinlms]

I never can get used to people's stupidity.

 

Some years ago my wife got a letter from British Transport Police. Her car had been spotted zig-zagging the gates at a local level crossing. Fortunately the car at the time of the offence had been in the local garage for a service. So we contacted them for the name of the driver. Their MD was horrified and got in touch with BTP for a copy of the video in order to identify the driver. 

 

When they eventually got that, apparently they were reluctant to let it be seen, it showed a red car, ours was blue, with a vaguely similar number plate in the video. The grovelling apology from the BTP Inspector was a sight to savour.

I think sometimes they try it on.

A customer once told me he got a speeding ticket. When he asked for a copy of the photo (a pay for 'extra' - allegedly to stop hoons, pinning it on the notice board!). When it arrived, he made an inquiry on the line of 'Was it me speeding in the left lane, or the ambulance with flashing lights on, in the right lane'? It was quickly withdrawn with an apology and a refund for the photo. But the photo was a keeper!

[ejstubbs]

Why, Oh Why isn't killing someone with a motor car the same as with any other sort of weapon .................. six months is PATHETIC !

 

According to the article, the jury cleared her of death by dangerous driving, which I believe would have had a significantly higher sentence.

 

It does seem that the "there but for the grace of God" sentiment enters in to verdicts and sentencing rather too often in such cases.  Magistrates, judges and jurors are far more likely to be familiar with driving as an activity than they are most other activities that have a significant risk of causing serious injury or death to third parties if carried out carelessly or recklessly.

 

More than one study has found that most of the people surveyed thought that they were a better than average driver.  And yet in this case a dozen random people seem to have been able to agree that texting while driving at night does not constitute driving that "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous" (the definition of dangerous driving in the 1991 RTA) even though it's illegal.  Arguably, it's tantamount to a tacit admission by the jury that they would do it too.

 

Lack of enforcement contributes significantly to 'normalisation' of law breaking behind the wheel IMO.  (And yes, that does mean that I disagree with royaloak's remark in post #2856.)

[The Stationmaster]

Why, Oh Why isn't killing someone with a motor car the same as with any other sort of weapon .................. six months is PATHETIC !

 

I think part of it too is the way in which the word 'accident' is attached to all such incidents - coming back to that sort of 'it can happen to anybody and it was only an accident' line of thought.  Whereas in reality many of these incidents result from a positive action, or a positive omission (if that makes sense as a term?) on the part of the miscreant.  In a very high percentage of cases a collision etc leading to an injury or death occurs because somebody made a positive decision to do or not do something.  it is one reason why I dislike use of the word 'accident' in such cases because most of the time the last thing which happened was in any way accidental, but we as a society continue to hide behind that word.

 

Unfortunately however we also suffer the opposite situation where serious injury or death could result from a minor error and there is a call for the person responsible to be hung, drawn and quartered before their head is put on a stake.  The problem is finding a balance between the two and applying it consistently.  An example (updated to include a contemporary distraction) which we used to be given on disciplinary process training courses was enough to cause some very careful thought -

 

Example A - a train Driver suffers a momentary loss of concentration and slips by a signal at danger running into a road vehicle on a level crossing killing the woman driving the vehicle and her six month old baby who is in the car with her.  The level crossing is only about 10 yards in advance of the signal and the visibility was good and the train's brakes were working correctly and the train was not running too fast and comes to a stop no more than 50 yards in advance of the signal.

 

Example B - a train Driver using a mobile 'phone for personal reasonss completely misses a succession of signals but eventually notices one at red.  He makes an emergency brake application but passes the signal by several hundred yards without hitting another train or anything else.  Once again the visibility was good and the train's brakes were working correctly and the train was not running too fast.

 

Both Drivers have previously good records but should they receive the same punishment under the disciplinary process or should one of them be more harshly dealt with than the other (and which one should that be?)

[melmerby]

^

There's some impressive Grade A stupidity on display there!

 

 

Kev.

There are hundreds more on You Tube as the Ruskys seem to be abysmal drivers hence most have dash cams so plenty of recordings.

The winter shots are a treasure trove of absolute stupidity.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

Why o why do people think that a they need to use a mobile in the car?

Mine is never switched on when I'm driving and I would like to see more enforcement of the laws as people using them are still commonplace.

 

Keith

[Ohmisterporter]

IIRC the police have dropped RTA (Road Traffic Accident) and adopted RTC (Road Traffic Collision). Perhaps recognising that most collisions are avoidable by the parties involved.

[Compound2632]

Why o why do people think that a they need to use a mobile in the car?

 

I'm afraid that the clue is in the name. The whole point of a mobile device is that it enables one to communicate while on the move - especially when travelling and one's timings might be uncertain. So the technology creates a temptation that is inimical to safe driving (or walking). It would be far better and healthier to ban mobile devices altogether - says he, as a secondary school teacher. They create nothing but distraction and misery*. 

 

*Rather like motor cars. I do have both myself, though in neither case are they the most sophisticated model.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Compound2632

[melmerby]

I think one of the problems with mobiles is that to some people using them has become an instinctive move because they are so addcted to them and sometimes don't even realising they are doing it.

There was item on a recent BBC program about road policing and a woman was pulled over and seemed to be totally unaware she had been using the mobile (I don't think she was acting)

Only when she was shown a video of herself using the 'phone without even looking ahead did she realised and seemed to be quite shocked.

 

keith

[Reorte]

I think part of it too is the way in which the word 'accident' is attached to all such incidents - coming back to that sort of 'it can happen to anybody and it was only an accident' line of thought.  Whereas in reality many of these incidents result from a positive action, or a positive omission (if that makes sense as a term?) on the part of the miscreant.  In a very high percentage of cases a collision etc leading to an injury or death occurs because somebody made a positive decision to do or not do something.  it is one reason why I dislike use of the word 'accident' in such cases because most of the time the last thing which happened was in any way accidental, but we as a society continue to hide behind that word.

Then the meaning of the word needs to be re-emphasised. All "accident" means is "not deliberate", so almost every time it is accidental. It's only not an accident if someone deliberately intended to cause a crash. "Accidental" definitely does not mean no-one is to blame.

 

Just because something is an accident the behaviour that caused it can still fall so far below acceptable that the one responsible should have the book thrown at them for being utterly irresponsible. Replace the word with another and the same view will get attached to it in time.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Reorte