Level crossing stupidity...

[RAF96]

I have often thought the red lights should deploy stingers not barriers. Folk would soon learn.

[Titan]

I have often thought the red lights should deploy stingers not barriers. Folk would soon learn.

 

Not sure a car coming to a halt in the middle of a level crossing with four flat tires and a train approaching will be much of a safety improvement...

Edited October 12, 2018 by Titan

[Wickham Green]

Not sure a car coming to a halt in the middle of a level crossing with four flat tires and a train approaching will be much of a safety improvement...

It might help the human race if the car driver qualified for a Darwin Award as a consequence ...... but I'd pity the train crew and anyone else involved in the clearup.

[Grovenor]

Spoke to BTP - unfortunately my footage doesn't show the amber light (due to sunlight reflecting off the windscreen) and so there's not enough evidence for a prosecution - close but no cigar.

If he was jumping the Red as was stated then the amber light would not be lit.

rgds

[ejstubbs]

Not sure a car coming to a halt in the middle of a level crossing with four flat tires and a train approaching will be much of a safety improvement...

 

Deploy the stinger at the far side of the crossing?

[beast66606]

If he was jumping the Red as was stated then the amber light would not be lit.

rgds

 

The amber lights BEFORE the red Keith, I never mentioned the amber not lighting, I said the sun obscured the amber so the sequence is not visible - a defence could easily argue the amber had gone out a split second before the lights were clear in my video. The barriers don't seem important for prosecutions as I've also sent pictures of a car with the barriers almost hitting it but apparently that wasn't good enough either (presumably because he might just be very quick at accelerating and the barriers could be going up - even though the sequence of photos proves the opposite.

 

I can but try

[kevinlms]

I have often thought the red lights should deploy stingers not barriers. Folk would soon learn.

The problem with that is simple. What if they went off in error and someone had a set of 4 tyres ruined?

 

Such a device was trialled here some years ago at a petrol station. The idea didn't last long as it got expensive for the business owner. A lot of petrol needs to be sold, to cover the cost of an emergency call out to replace a set of tyres, after hours if they got someone with a receipt!

[BlackRat]

Thread creep......not much you can do about it but look out for the thread plod!!!!

 

There always about.

 

Now......Beast next time, if there is one.....it's worth filming (if you can) the sequence of lights to show that they were working correctly or the sequence of lights, barriers etc after the event.

 

It's pretty difficult for plod then ( or the accused) to deny the crossing wasn't working correctly and Magistrates should accept the evidence from your phone etc of said crossing lights etc.

 

It pretty much negates any defence.

 

No doubt someone will know better, but a phone is no different to a dash cam, and a picture, or even better a video paints a million words!

Edited October 12, 2018 by BlackRat

[PhilJ W]

Thread creep......not much you can do about it but look out for the thread plod!!!!

 

There always about.

 

Now......Beast next time, if there is one.....it's worth filming (if you can) the sequence of lights to show that they were working correctly or the sequence of lights, barriers etc after the event.

 

It's pretty difficult for plod then ( or the accused) to deny the crossing wasn't working correctly and Magistrates should accept the evidence from your phone etc of said crossing lights etc.

 

It pretty much negates any defence.

 

No doubt someone will know better, but a phone is no different to a dash cam, and a picture, or even better a video paints a million words!

Problem is if your behind the wheel and if you used your mobile phone you are breaking the law.

[meil]

Problem is if your behind the wheel and if you used your mobile phone you are breaking the law.

His behind!! This thread is going in a very odd direction.

[Budgie]

Problem is if your behind the wheel and if you used your mobile phone you are breaking the law.

So you stop the engine, take the key out of the ignition, get out of the car, and use the phone to video the light sequence from outside the car.

[phil-b259]

So you stop the engine, take the key out of the ignition, get out of the car, and use the phone to video the light sequence from outside the car.

 

By which time the offender will have long gone and the barriers will probably be down.

 

Nothing wrong with parking up by the roadside to catch folk - its what the BTP camera vans do (and lots of folk STILL get caught despite said van being pretty obvious)

 

BUT Beast66606 was on his way somewhere to do something when the incident occurred, not playing at being BTP camera van was he....

[Coryton]

So you stop the engine, take the key out of the ignition, get out of the car, and use the phone to video the light sequence from outside the car.

 

I believe that only the first two out of the three are required.

[BlackRat]

By which time the offender will have long gone and the barriers will probably be down.

 

Nothing wrong with parking up by the roadside to catch folk - its what the BTP camera vans do (and lots of folk STILL get caught despite said van being pretty obvious)

 

BUT Beast66606 was on his way somewhere to do something when the incident occurred, not playing at being BTP camera van was he....

You see and offence being committed by the car crossing when it shouldn't.

 

You want to report the matter.

 

You record the sequence of lights ( if practicable) to negate any defence that the lights weren't working.

 

Used to be standard with plod that you HAD to check the light sequence if you booked someone for jumping a light.

 

Unfortunately the CPS decided many years ago that single eye witness evidence wasn't good enough for road traffic offences........probably down to the expense as usual and the cost of all those court hearings!

[jamie92208]

You see and offence being committed by the car crossing when it shouldn't.

 

You want to report the matter.

 

You record the sequence of lights ( if practicable) to negate any defence that the lights weren't working.

 

Used to be standard with plod that you HAD to check the light sequence if you booked someone for jumping a light.

 

Unfortunately the CPS decided many years ago that single eye witness evidence wasn't good enough for road traffic offences........probably down to the expense as usual and the cost of all those court hearings!

As Black Rat has mentioned the problem is not BTP's unwillingness to prosecute but the CPS who often have very rigid guidelines as to whether to continue a prosecution or not. They have the final say. It's a sad fact of life that with good video evidence from a phone they won't have a go but unfortunately that is the system.

 

 

Jamie

[jim.snowdon]

As Black Rat has mentioned the problem is not BTP's unwillingness to prosecute but the CPS who often have very rigid guidelines as to whether to continue a prosecution or not. They have the final say. It's a sad fact of life that with good video evidence from a phone they won't have a go but unfortunately that is the system.Jamie

Which makes enforcement by design the better option in the long term. Abuse of crossings, and other things, will continue as long as there are opportunities and perceived benefits to the perpetrator.

 

Jim

[beast66606]

Problem is if your behind the wheel and if you used your mobile phone you are breaking the law.

 

Dashcam

[beast66606]

As Black Rat has mentioned the problem is not BTP's unwillingness to prosecute but the CPS who often have very rigid guidelines as to whether to continue a prosecution or not. They have the final say. It's a sad fact of life that with good video evidence from a phone they won't have a go but unfortunately that is the system.

 

 

Jamie

 

Indeed - I have no problem with BTP, in fact I've had someone prosecuted for red light offences at a crossing using my videos.

 

To clarify my comment - my dashcam caught the naughty boy but the glare from the sun masked some of the sequence so although it was obvious to the human eye, not so with the evidence. No problem - he knew I'd seen him and caught him on camera, maybe next time he'll think twice before "going for it". He's by no means the worst, I've seen cars go over the crossing at 60mph+ - in a 30mph. Probably only accidentally though.

[Reorte]

Which makes enforcement by design the better option in the long term. Abuse of crossings, and other things, will continue as long as there are opportunities and perceived benefits to the perpetrator.

Up to a point. People will always work out ways around things and just how much of a rigidly controlled world do we really want to live in? Not that I'm talking about specific cases here (hard to argue with replacing a level crossing with a bridge where practical for example) but I don't think it makes a good general rule.

[boxbrownie]

Gates and Keepers........job done.

[Reorte]

Gates and Keepers........job done.

Incidents weren't unknown when most level crossings were gates and keepers. You'll still get someone crashing in to the gate, or seeing it about to move and putting their foot down, and it's said that the automatic detection systems do a better job than someone looking to see if the crossing is clear. The only way of reliably turning a level crossing in to something that idiots can't abuse is by replacing it with a bridge (and even then someone will probably find a way through the parapet no matter how tall and strong it's made).

[alastairq]

Of course, as Channel 4 Dispatches recently made known, Police forces across the country are so hard-pressed [personnel-wise] that they have become selective about what types of Law-breaking they will investigate. [For example, with West Yorkshire, the Constabulary openly admit [if you ask] they will not investigate up to 70% of all reported law breaking...[crimes or otherwise]....]

 

I suspect BTP are no better or worse than other Forces in this respect?

 

{ I may try enquiring of my own personal Constabulary....but suspect no-one will answer the phone?  It is a weekend, after all?}

[Budgie]

Incidents weren't unknown when most level crossings were gates and keepers. You'll still get someone crashing in to the gate, or seeing it about to move and putting their foot down, and it's said that the automatic detection systems do a better job than someone looking to see if the crossing is clear. The only way of reliably turning a level crossing in to something that idiots can't abuse is by replacing it with a bridge (and even then someone will probably find a way through the parapet no matter how tall and strong it's made).

What parapet? Underbridges don't have parapets.

[Reorte]

What parapet? Underbridges don't have parapets.

They do on the rail side. Fool comes belting along the road, hits something, goes flying up in the air... Yeah, I'm being a bit silly there but people have managed to do sillier things in cars.

[jim.snowdon]

Incidents weren't unknown when most level crossings were gates and keepers. You'll still get someone crashing in to the gate, or seeing it about to move and putting their foot down, and it's said that the automatic detection systems do a better job than someone looking to see if the crossing is clear. The only way of reliably turning a level crossing in to something that idiots can't abuse is by replacing it with a bridge (and even then someone will probably find a way through the parapet no matter how tall and strong it's made).

Level crossings will be with us for a long time for the very reason that they were built in the first place. Bridges were always the cheaper option where the geographical circumstances determined that the railway was above or below ground level, if only because they didn't need to be manned and didn't create obstructions to railway traffic. Where they didn't, building a bridge became the expensive option, not just by virtue of the construction costs but also the additional land required. That is still true today, with the added problems of getting planning approval.

 

Jim