Level crossing stupidity...

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, corneliuslundie said:

If the crossing is a private one the situation may well vary depending on the original conditions under which the crossing was installed - sometimes back to the original Act of Parliament.

 

Indeed; alternatively it is a crossing on a public right of way - a footpath or bridleway. Such are not rights of way for motor vehicles, so we're back to the ambiguity of status of mobility scooters.

[boxbrownie]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

If it's an 8mph one it should re registered and insured for road use, as such it's legally a vehicle and subject to the appropriate regulations, whether it's in 4 or 8mph mode.

Just to clarify, Class 3 “invalid carriages”as they are officially classed (the 8 mph type of mobility scooter) do require registration but do not require insurance, although it is recommended.

[boxbrownie]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed; alternatively it is a crossing on a public right of way - a footpath or bridleway. Such are not rights of way for motor vehicles, so we're back to the ambiguity of status of mobility scooters.

 No ambiguities, an 8 mph mobility scooter (invalid carriage officially) can be ridden on a pavement or footpath but must then be restricted to 4 mph which all can be switched to by the rider.

When used on road they must be capable of 8  mph and be equipped with road legal lights.

[Dunsignalling]

39 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed; alternatively it is a crossing on a public right of way - a footpath or bridleway. Such are not rights of way for motor vehicles, so we're back to the ambiguity of status of mobility scooters.

AIUI, the ones that can do only 4mph are, legally speaking, wheelchairs, whilst the 4/8mph variety are classed as motor vehicles, whatever the speed setting employed. Use on pavements has been legalised conditionally so long as the low speed is selected, but it doesn't alter the legal status of the device.

 

Obviously, the safest way to negotiate a user-worked crossing on wheels is to open both gates, cross in one go, then close both gates once the vehicle is clear. Equally obviously, most people who can physically do that, aren't going to need a mobility scooter.  

 

This is obviously going to need a solution, and if NR are forced into a one-size-fits-all policy, they will deal with some crossings (those that are easiest/quickest/cheapest to do, in order to create favourable statistics) that never see such users whilst taking years to get round to more difficult examples that regularly do. It will be necessary to research usage in order to assess and prioritise the work required on many hundreds of such crossings. That won't please the hard-line "access for all, everywhere, today" advocates for whom practical and economic constraints just represent excuses. It will also, inevitably, lead to the outright loss of many such crossings wherever a closure case (or a buyout of vehicular access rights) can be made.

 

John 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[boxbrownie]

28 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

AIUI, the ones that can do only 4mph are, legally speaking, wheelchairs, whilst the 4/8mph variety are classed as motor vehicles, whatever the speed setting employed. Use on pavements has been legalised conditionally so long as the low speed is selected, but it doesn't alter the legal status of the device.

4 mph versions are mobility scooters or wheelchairs, 8 mph versions are classed as invalid carriages (although there are true wheelchairs also capable of 8 mph but both must have road legal lighting to be used on road) non are classed as motor vehicles.

All types can be used on footpaths, which includes pavements and footpaths which are public rights of way.

The legislation is clear.

Edited December 27, 2021 by boxbrownie

[RJS1977]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

As I said in my last post before discussing this in detail (which we already seem to be doing!) it would be handy to have some context. i.e. location, details of what sort of road/track it's on, etc., etc., which would then make it easier to see if there is a valid argument for changes to that crossing to make it scooter-safe or if the user was just being stupid in even trying to use it.

 

So as I asked earlier does anyone know any more details?

 

Found it:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2653088,0.1999464,3a,75y,287.05h,81.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIC4z1N1qSijqTeVVVycWWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

It appears to be on a public road/lane (the StreetView car has driven over it), and there is a sign saying that drivers of large or slow-moving vehicles should telephone a particular number before crossing. Arguably, a mobility scooter could be classified within that category.

[SamThomas]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Better still, is to get rid of them.

 

Easier said than done on this crowded little island, even if money was no object.

 

The only safe way to keep them would be to go back to manned crossings interlocked with the signalling.

[RJS1977]

Looking more closely at StreetView, I can't see a telephone on the side of the crossing the gentleman crossed from - there is a vertical rail which looks as if it may have had one fitted to it, but no phone is visible on that side.

 

I notice that the gates open outwards, so he could in theory have pushed the exit gate open with his scooter, although he would have had to slide a bolt first. There's also the difficulty of closing the entry gate behind him.

 

 

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Better still, is to get rid of them.

 

Victoria is spending a fortune, but is well under way to get rid of 85 of them.

 

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/projects

 

Edit to add.

 

Specifically, I used to live near this one.

 

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/projects/manchester-road-mooroolbark

 

It is - but the problem is in the UK the low hanging fruit has already been tackled. Whats left is generally expensive to resolve and in many cases also benefits other non railway organisations who should by rights help with the funding.

 

For example getting rid of level crossings on the Windsor line services from Waterloo would do wonders for safety, train performance and traffic congestion - but unlike Melbourne doing so means bulldozing lots of expensive private property to make space.

 

This sort of spending causes panic at HM Treasury who are masters at not spending money on infrastructure (preferring to flog it off to their mates in the city for a quick buck) and who already regard the railways as 'far too expensive'

 

Then there are the inhabitants of the areas affected who are very good at pestering their elected representatives lest anything should affect them.

 

Meanwhile local Government (Surrely CC, TfL and the London boroughs responsable for the roads) are also broke due to underfunding by Central Government) so don't have any cash to supply and there is also no handy large development site which can be used as a source of funding either.

 

 

[Compound2632]

So, the signage needs to be altered so that mobility scooter users are treated in the same way as herds of cows etc. 

[petethemole]

28 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Found it:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2653088,0.1999464,3a,75y,287.05h,81.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIC4z1N1qSijqTeVVVycWWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

It appears to be on a public road/lane (the StreetView car has driven over it), and there is a sign saying that drivers of large or slow-moving vehicles should telephone a particular number before crossing. Arguably, a mobility scooter could be classified within that category.

From the Sreetview images from about 100m west of the crossing, it would appear that the gates were open as it approached.  It then travelled c100m to the end of the paved road and presumably returned the way it came.  I wonder if they shut the gates.

[RJS1977]

39 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

It is - but the problem is in the UK the low hanging fruit has already been tackled. Whats left is generally expensive to resolve and in many cases also benefits other non railway organisations who should by rights help with the funding.

 

For example getting rid of level crossings on the Windsor line services from Waterloo would do wonders for safety, train performance and traffic congestion - but unlike Melbourne doing so means bulldozing lots of expensive private property to make space.

 

This sort of spending causes panic at HM Treasury who are masters at not spending money on infrastructure (preferring to flog it off to their mates in the city for a quick buck) and who already regard the railways as 'far too expensive'

 

Then there are the inhabitants of the areas affected who are very good at pestering their elected representatives lest anything should affect them.

 

 

Though I would argue that the crossings that carry the highest risk aren't the automated or manned/CCTV road crossings, it's the minor roads, footpaths and access tracks to properties that by and large don't have any major vested interests in their usage, but would cause major inconvenience or even isolation to individual householders or groups of pedestrians if removed.

 

[SamThomas]

You could argue that the roads were there before the railways so the railways should be resposible for the expences incurred in the quest for safety ?

[Hobby]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

. It was suggested that they therefore ought not to use level crossings, citing motorways. 

 

I did not say that. I said that they should not be used where they could not be used safely. Not that they couldn't use level crossings. I used a motorway as an example, which would actually be illegal, but I could have used a dual carriageway which would be legal but not safe which was the point I was making. It's down to the user to judge and there are many examples of, shall we say, users not being very good at such judgements!

 

However if what someone else has said that there was suitable sineage it would seem as this us more a case of misuse of the crossing than a fault with the crossing itself or changes so there is a telephone both sides?

 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Hobby

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Though I would argue that the crossings that carry the highest risk aren't the automated or manned/CCTV road crossings, it's the minor roads, footpaths and access tracks to properties that by and large don't have any major vested interests in their usage, but would cause major inconvenience or even isolation to individual householders or groups of pedestrians if removed.

 

 

It depends how you quantify 'risk'

 

You can have a crossing which has a relatively high risk scoring but is used very infrequently or a lowish risk crossing that is used intensively.

 

On an individual scoring system the first situation would be a priority for addressing  - but if you average the risk over say 365 days then the cumulative risk factor posed by the grater volume of users in the second example could make that crossing the one most in need of improvement.

[Hobby]

4 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

You could argue that the roads were there before the railways so the railways should be resposible for the expences incurred in the quest for safety ?

 

Yes,  but you could also argue that the railways have already provided for the safety of road users and its an increase of road traffic that is now causing the problem! To be fair both sides should contribute, but neither side has the will nor share cash.

[RJS1977]

Just now, Hobby said:

 

Yes,  but you could also argue that the railways have already provided for the safety of road users and its an increase of road traffic that is now causing the problem! To be fair both sides should contribute, but neither side has the will nor share cash.

 

If it is misuse of crossings by road users that is causing the problem, then road users should pay for the improvements.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

You could argue that the roads were there before the railways so the railways should be resposible for the expences incurred in the quest for safety ?

 

You could - but on the other hand many of the roads were quite quiet when the ea railway was first built. The growth in suburbia (OK partly - but not entirely generated by railways themselves) thus making the roads busier was mostly down to others.

 

The principle still applies today - if a new housing development is built adjacent / close to a level crossing then NR can require the developers to part fund upgrades to the crossing on the basis that if it wern't for the development then the crossing would not need upgrading.

 

Of course the railways didn't invent mobility scooters, motor vehicles, noise cancelling headphones or attention focusing smart devices either! All of which could be said to be external factors thrust on the railway to deal with after the event.

 

(Note upgrading is not the same thing as a like for like renewal)

[eastglosmog]

But the railway was allowed to save money in the first place by using a level crossing and not building a bridge because it was deemed at the time that noisy engines and slow trains could be seen and heard in good enough  time for the road users to avoid them.  A lot of the increased danger of using level crossings is down to the much higher speeds of the trains and decreased noise.  There is a public footpath crossing near Kingham on the Cotswold line that can be scary to use as modern IET's slowing to stop at Kingham make hardly any noise and visibility in summer is restricted when the vegetation is high, blocking the view.

[corneliuslundie]

Can I just make one correction to what I said earlier?

Although, in general, legislation may not mandate provision for the disabled etc, on public transport it does to a greater extent. Hence the phasing out of Pacers, buses having to have wheelchair access (preventing use of coaches on rail replacement services - and I have seen an 8 mph type mobility scooter on a bus) etc. And much higher costs for new or reopened stations than would otherwise be the case. 

But back to that level crossing, why if it is as suggested from Google Street View was there a need for the user to open and close gates? I can see that the gates open away from the railway line but there is no notice about operating the gates. As is said above, if the gates were operated by the driver of the camera van one would expect to see one closed on a backward view. Odd. Or have I just never come across a crossing like this in real life?

And in response to the last post, when the railways were built there was generally an assumption that humans would take care of themselves, so fencing was about keeping animals off the railway property , not humans. Now the railways are required to protect humans from their own stupid actions. The whole framework in which the railways operate has changed greatly. Agreed much quieter, faster trains pose a new problem. (As will electric cars, hence the requirement that in future they make a noise).

But we are where we are.

Jonathan

[RJS1977]

35 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

But the railway was allowed to save money in the first place by using a level crossing and not building a bridge because it was deemed at the time that noisy engines and slow trains could be seen and heard in good enough  time for the road users to avoid them.  A lot of the increased danger of using level crossings is down to the much higher speeds of the trains and decreased noise.  There is a public footpath crossing near Kingham on the Cotswold line that can be scary to use as modern IET's slowing to stop at Kingham make hardly any noise and visibility in summer is restricted when the vegetation is high, blocking the view.

 

I believe that for most foot or user-worked crossings there is a requirement for the driver to sound the horn on approach - though in some cases I think that has been suspended owing to neighbours complaining!

[Michael Hodgson]

Road-worthy Mobility scooters are supposed to be registered and a (free) tax disc obtained, though of course you no longer get the disc!  It is my belief that the vast majority never bother.  They may be supposed to use the carriageway, but are generally a menace to others and a serious danger to themselves when they do.  This category of driver does by its very nature tend to include a disproportionate number of elderly people with weakened physical senses, sometimes combined with failing mental faculties, but these "Drivers" don't need to pass any driving test, eyesight or hearing test and are not required to have insurance. 

 

I remember one elderly lady who regularly used the B4235 Chepstow-Usk road in one with a transparent plastic rain cover.  She looked like an accident waiting to happen, although after several years I did hear she had died of old age.   The road is hilly, winding, is close to overhanging trees and rocks and has some steep drops on sharp curves, and is used by fast-moving heavy lorries and buses, motor-cyclists enjoy racing on it taking the corners on the wrong side at excessive speed to the point that the police periodically try to catch them and the council erect notices about the number of casualties.  She didn't have an alternative route that was much different, and there was no footpath.

 

A friend of mine who uses a mobility scooter told me of an experince she once had.  She was travelling from Ascot to Winsdor along a busy road using  a tarmac footpath wide enough for her buggy, separated from the carriageway by undergrowth.  Unfortunately, in the middle of nowhere, she met another disabled person coming the other way, and there was insufficient room to pass because of the vegetation.  Although they had sufficient mobility to walk a short distance neither was strong enough to manhandle one of the buggies aside so the other could pass so they were obliged to sit there staring at each other, nor was there anywhere either could conveniently reverse to.  The impasse was only resolved by a motorist who kindly stopped and lifted one of the buggies clear.

 

It is common sense that causes most mobility scooters to be driven on the footpath where one exists, although they are then obliged by law to be switched to 4mph mode.  Some do ignore that of course and irresponsible or incompetent users are sometimes a threat to pedestrians in like manner to reckless and unlawful use of e-scooters and push-bikes.  The police make no attempt at enforcement, as it would be reported by the media as persecution of the disabled.  The footpath can present problems depending on wheel size and general design where the local authority has not provided dropped kerbs wherever they need to cross a road, although this problems is much less of an issue than it used to be.

 

As for level crossings, a disabled person has a right to use it, the same as anybody else, and I imagine any surviving public footpath crossing using stiles would be open to legal challenge.  The majority of the problematic user worked crossings are on access to private property (either occupation crossing or accommodation crossing).   

[SamThomas]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Yes,  but you could also argue that the railways have already provided for the safety of road users and its an increase of road traffic that is now causing the problem! To be fair both sides should contribute, but neither side has the will nor share cash.

But the increase in volume of rail traffic combined with the higher speeds & quietness of current trains has also contributed to the situation.

 

 

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

As for level crossings, a disabled person has a right to use it, the same as anybody else, and I imagine any surviving public footpath crossing using stiles would be open to legal challenge. 

 

Although there would very likely be any number of stiles on the rest of the footpath!

[petethemole]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

As for level crossings, a disabled person has a right to use it, the same as anybody else, and I imagine any surviving public footpath crossing using stiles would be open to legal challenge. 

It hadn't occurred to me but the recent closure of a footpath crossing near me (north of Swaythling Station) may have been partly due to this.  It connected a path through woodland to another path between industrial premises to a main road.  The access from the woodland was up steps to a stile and there was a stile on the other side. It was little used and I thought it was closed in the general cull of such crossings.  You'd never get a mobility scooter through the woodland path though.