Level crossing stupidity...

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

OK, so those attending model railway exhibitions, wearing big bulky backpacks and are unshowered etc, are merely making sure that they don't break any laws!

A few of them don't break any laws by using public transport. If you think that they are bad enough at exhibitions imagine what they are like in a packed London Underground car. 😁

[Andy Hayter]

We seem to have drifted a long way from the subject but as one who has left the UK over 25 years ago, something intrigues me.

 

After some tragic road accident or  major disturbance on the streets, there is often an appeal for dashcam footage.  I assume these devices are mounted looking out of the windscreen and as suggested by some are therefore illegal.  Could any of the resulting footage than be used in court if it has been obtained through illegal means?

 

Could we now get back on topic please.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

We seem to have drifted a long way from the subject but as one who has left the UK over 25 years ago, something intrigues me.

 

After some tragic road accident or  major disturbance on the streets, there is often an appeal for dashcam footage.  I assume these devices are mounted looking out of the windscreen and as suggested by some are therefore illegal.  Could any of the resulting footage than be used in court if it has been obtained through illegal means?

 

Could we now get back on topic please.

Accidents (and more commonly near misses) at level crossings are often caught on Notwork Rail's own CCTV with a view to prosecution. 

Of course, sometimes a dashcam may provide a better view of the circumstances and behaviour of other vehicles.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

22 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

I assume these devices are mounted looking out of the windscreen and as suggested by some are therefore illegal.

The government guidelines for using devices while driving (https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law) specifically permits windscreen and dashboard mounts but says

Quote

The device must not block your view of the road and traffic ahead.

 

Most dashcams are mounted either low down away from the driver, or high up where they only obstruct the driver's view of the sky. My own car has all sorts of things mounted high up immediately behind the windscreen monitoring rain, lights, traffic ahead, road markings and such like, and which partially obscure my view of the sky. They were fitted by the car manufacturer, and I can't imagine there is anything illegal about it.

[craneman]

6 hours ago, Hobby said:

... I'm not sure of where we can go with this other than I'll have to "agree to differ" with Stewart and Craneman!

 

 

If I am to be blunt, I don't really care whether you agree with me or not. The three pieces of legislation I quoted are those which have been used when prosecutions have taken place, this is a matter of fact not opinion. There have also been plenty of successful prosecutions, so the legislation is being used and the courts are recognising that the legislation has the effect of prohibiting the placement of devices in line with the windscreen.

 

I am not saying that this is right or fair, nor that it is wrong or unfair, I have in fact been careful not to express an opinion on the subject, I am merely answering your question. You asked for a reference to a law which prohibits such placement, I have provided you with that reference. The legislation is being used, successfully, to enforce the prohibition.

 

You may not think the legislation is being used correctly and you may disagree with the courts, but I suggest that that is a bold and probably unwise view in the face of significant precedent. 

[Hobby]

 

2 hours ago, craneman said:

You may not think the legislation is being used correctly and you may disagree with the courts

 

That i do need to reply to as I'm sure I never said that, simply pointed to others' interpretation of the law, from the Police, Law Firms and other motoring sources which all agree that it is legal to put them in the bottom-right as long as they don't obscure viision.The laws you quote do not prevent their use unless they obscure the forward vision of the driver, there is no precedent that I'm aware of, just individuals (police) interpretation of them. In fact if there is a precedent it is that Twitter post by the GMP.

 

As I said I'll agree to differ, even if you wont, there is plenty of evidence to support the sources I have quoted (NOT my views), prosecutions have taken place, but where the phone or satnav was obstruction line of vision.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Hobby

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

We seem to have drifted a long way from the subject but as one who has left the UK over 25 years ago, something intrigues me.

 

After some tragic road accident or  major disturbance on the streets, there is often an appeal for dashcam footage.  I assume these devices are mounted looking out of the windscreen and as suggested by some are therefore illegal.  Could any of the resulting footage than be used in court if it has been obtained through illegal means?

 

Could we now get back on topic please.

 

3 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

The government guidelines for using devices while driving (https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law) specifically permits windscreen and dashboard mounts but says

 

Most dashcams are mounted either low down away from the driver, or high up where they only obstruct the driver's view of the sky. My own car has all sorts of things mounted high up immediately behind the windscreen monitoring rain, lights, traffic ahead, road markings and such like, and which partially obscure my view of the sky. They were fitted by the car manufacturer, and I can't imagine there is anything illegal about it.

Most that I've seen are mounted behind the rear view mirror where they do not obstruct the drivers view.

[corneliuslundie]

Presumably you want your satnav in a position where you can see it without taking your eyes too far off the road. Therefore on the edge of the windscreen makes more sense than lower down.

Mind you I prefer proper maps, though they are not exactly convenient in a car.

J

[peanuts]

The guidance we were given by vosa whilst driving hgv were no more than two devises to be in the area swept by the wipers .this was rigidly enforced during stops .

[Hobby]

Back on topic, Romania yesterday:

 

https://www.sursazilei.ro/video-accident-la-suceava-mocanita-aruncata-de-pe-sine/

[Siberian Snooper]

Nasty!! Hopefully they can maintain the water level, to avoid any localised hot spots and serious boiler damage, until the boiler cools down.

 

 

[25kV]

Found on the internet...  I'm sure it'll be fine.

[Adam88]

DUI report: He choo-choo-chose the wrong way

 

DUI Express

 

Here's one from Virginia

[kevinlms]

One from Australia

 

An update says that the two train crew members have died, sadly.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-31/train-and-truck-crash-near-nsw-sa-border/103275502

Edited December 31, 2023 by kevinlms
More info & deleted duplicated link

[Wickham Green too]

"Today’s tragic incident underscores the urgent need to improve Australia’s rail safety regime," ......... well, someone's safety regime anyway.

[kevinlms]

An update says that the 75 year old truck driver has been charged.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-01/truck-driver-charged-over-crash-that-killed-train-workers/103276656

[Hobby]

20 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

"Today’s tragic incident underscores the urgent need to improve Australia’s rail safety regime," ......... well, someone's safety regime anyway.

 

That statement was from a senior rail union official, so it's aimed at the railway I'd have thought.

[Wickham Green too]

Actually from a senior rail, tram and bus union official ................................ I note the Police have already added these unfortunate deaths to the road statistics.

[Hobby]

34 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Actually from a senior rail, tram and bus union official

 

That's pointless nick-picking, he represents rail staff.

 

The point I was making, and his, I suspect, is that, unlike the UK where rail/road crossings are very strictly controlled, even foot and farm crossings, it would seem, from previous examples seen on this thread, things aren't as well controlled in Australia, nor, come to that, in the USA. Yes the road user is more often to blame, but the whole set-up, with ungated crossings, etc., is also an issue. I suspect that his comment was that the railways could do more to protect his Union's members.

Edited January 1 by Hobby

[johnofwessex]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

That's pointless nick-picking, he represents rail staff.

 

The point I was making, and his, I suspect, is that, unlike the UK where rail/road crossings are very strictly controlled, even foot and farm crossings, it would seem, from previous examples seen on this thread, things aren't as well controlled in Australia, nor, come to that, in the USA. Yes the road user is more often to blame, but the whole set-up, with ungated crossings, etc., is also an issue. I suspect that his comment was that the railways could do more to protect his Union's members.

 

Also because he's a Rail Union Official he has the ability to change things on the railway not the behaviour of road users

[Hobby]

Quite.

 

He's also a member of the TrackSAFE Foundation which I suspect is another reason they quoted him:

 

https://tracksafefoundation.com.au/activity/level-crossing-safety/

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

That's pointless nick-picking, he represents rail staff.

 

The point I was making, and his, I suspect, is that, unlike the UK where rail/road crossings are very strictly controlled, even foot and farm crossings, it would seem, from previous examples seen on this thread, things aren't as well controlled in Australia, nor, come to that, in the USA. Yes the road user is more often to blame, but the whole set-up, with ungated crossings, etc., is also an issue. I suspect that his comment was that the railways could do more to protect his Union's members.

One thing that can't be used as a reason at that location, is the trees or building infrastructure getting in the way of a good view!

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Actually from a senior rail, tram and bus union official ................................ I note the Police have already added these unfortunate deaths to the road statistics.

Being Australia there will be far more to it than that,  Railway safety in NSW has gone through several periods of extremely politicised involvement of public officials and wannabe politicians or officials aiming for higher office.  This quite possibly still lurks in the background of the way some things are said  although the collision occurred in SA.

 

In this case the union is the one that represents train Drivers as their union amalgamated with others to form the RTBU in the 1990s so their is a legitimate reason for someone from the union to comment.  I don't doubt that it is also part of a wider campaign to improve level crossing safety and that also takes us back to the poiitical element

 

[Wickham Green too]

Whoever this gentleman is, his reference to "...  the urgent need to improve Australia’s rail safety regime," implies that he believes the rail safety regime was lacking in this case - when the full facts have not been established at this stage.

[martin_wynne]

16 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Whoever this gentleman is, his reference to "...  the urgent need to improve Australia’s rail safety regime," implies that he believes the rail safety regime was lacking in this case - when the full facts have not been established at this stage.

 

If two railway employees have been killed while on duty it is self-evident that something is lacking in the safety regime.

 

It's also unfair to expect words to be finely tuned when everyone is in shock.

 

Martin.