Level crossing stupidity...

[Titan]

Instead of flashing red lights, why not install normal red/amber/green traffic lights on Level crossings ?   Most drivers already understand these.

 

Because the same drivers treat them with even greater contempt than the level crossing ones.

[phil-b259]

For a full barrier crossing, once the barriers are fully down doesn't the crossing have to be proved clear (either visually or with obstacle detection) before the protecting signal is cleared?

Correct - but the moment the public cotton on to the fact then it will be even more encouragement to them to try and beat the barriers.

 

Level crossings are fitted with all sorts of things like boom proving (to prove the boom is still attached) etc that prevent signals from being set to a proceed so damage to the barriers will incur substantial costs to the railway with delay minutes (to which must be added the cost of replacement kit and staff wages while it is fixed). As such anything that discourages people to chance it is to be welcomed - even if it is not strictly true.

Edited August 23, 2017 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Instead of flashing red lights, why not install normal red/amber/green traffic lights on Level crossings ? Most drivers already understand these.

Because the law is different.

 

Road traffic signals installed at road junctions / pedestrian crossings can be passed by drivers when at red on the instruction of a Police officer and can also be ignored by emergency services personnel when responding to an emergency call.

 

Wig wags are an absolute stop - NOBOBY, not even railway personnel are allowed to instruct any persons, regardless of how many blue lights they have flashing to pass them when they wig wags are flashing to pass them.

 

Also regular traffic signals do not apply to pedestrians and 'red men' for pedestrians are only advisory - should a person wish to disregard them then no offence has been commuted. Flashing wig wags apply to pedestrians to and people not obeying them can be fined for breaking the law, just like drivers.

 

The overriding reason for the legal difference is this:- motor vehicles and pedestrians can take evasive action relatively easy and can also come to a halt pretty quickly. A fast moving jet aircraft, a body of water or a train cannot - hence the legal need to reinforce the 'none shall pass' message when it comes to airfields, lift / swing bridges and railway level crossings.

Edited August 23, 2017 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Even the Emergency Services, running on 'blues and twos', do not ignore the flashing red lights.

It is a criminal offence to ignore them - blues and twos are specifically mentioned as not being exempt in the legislation.

[Geoff Endacott]

Also regular traffic signals do not apply to pedestrians...

 

Do they apply to cyclists?

 

Geoff Endacott

[LMS2968]

Depends on whom you ask: to most people, yes; to a cyclist, no.

[Nick G]

From my local paper today.

 

 

Dashcam footage captures a man, woman and child running across railway line

 

The station is Barmouth.

 

 

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/family-level-crossing-danger-barmouth-13518024

[Horsetan]

 

Do they apply to cyclists?

Depends on whom you ask: to most people, yes; to a cyclist, no.

 

Slightly OT, but some cyclists even think that having brakes is optional

[Titan]

I do wonder why, if having no front brake is illegal, he was not charged with that as well?

[corneliuslundie]

Sorry Nick, but there seems to be something wrong with your link as it takes me back to this page.

Jonathan

[ruggedpeak]

For a full barrier crossing, once the barriers are fully down doesn't the crossing have to be proved clear (either visually or with obstacle detection) before the protecting signal is cleared?

I commend this publication to you - several chapters on crossings of all type, including the use of lasers and radar to detect obstacles on some types of crossings.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/abc-Modern-Signalling-Handbook-Chris-Hall/0711038392

[ruggedpeak]

I do wonder why, if having no front brake is illegal, he was not charged with that as well?

I suspect the no front brake offence will have had some trivial punishment like £30 fine so not worth bothering with when there were offences with custodial sentences.

 

Shame he was NG on manslaughter. Don't understand it, this was not an "accident" of bad luck but the result of deliberate acts by this chap. This tragic incident was entirely avoidable. The courts still seem to treat road deaths as not as serious as other types of death.

[Nick G]

Sorry Nick, but there seems to be something wrong with your link as it takes me back to this page.

 

 

 

 

Oops, try this.

 

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/family-level-crossing-danger-barmouth-13518024

[jamie92208]

I suspect the no front brake offence will have had some trivial punishment like £30 fine so not worth bothering with when there were offences with custodial sentences.

 

Shame he was NG on manslaughter. Don't understand it, this was not an "accident" of bad luck but the result of deliberate acts by this chap. This tragic incident was entirely avoidable. The courts still seem to treat road deaths as not as serious as other types of death.

 

I suspect that the brake offence is what is known as summary only and can only be tried in a magistrates court.  The two charges that he was tried on are indictable offences and manslaughter certainly can only be tried at the Crown Court where the trial took place.  

 

Jamie

[PhilJ W]

I suspect the no front brake offence will have had some trivial punishment like £30 fine so not worth bothering with when there were offences with custodial sentences.

 

Shame he was NG on manslaughter. Don't understand it, this was not an "accident" of bad luck but the result of deliberate acts by this chap. This tragic incident was entirely avoidable. The courts still seem to treat road deaths as not as serious as other types of death.

The victim apparently stepped into his path when the lights were against her so a manslaughter verdict was unlikely. Furthermore the victim was texting on her mobile and not paying attention. However he has been found guilty of other offences and has been told to expect a custodial sentence.

[DavidBird]

Road traffic signals installed at road junctions ... can also be ignored by emergency services personnel when responding to an emergency call.

.

 

No, they cannot be ignored, even when on an emergency call

 

It is a criminal offence to ignore them - blues and twos are specifically mentioned as not being exempt in the legislation.

 

Certainly not exempt from paying attention to them. 

 

However, "we" are allowed to treat a red traffic light as a "give-way", but there is no exemption from simply ignoring them, as to do so would be dangerous.  There is no exemption from dangerous driving.

[kevinlms]

Instead of flashing red lights, why not install normal red/amber/green traffic lights on Level crossings ?   Most drivers already understand these.

They can be used in conjunction. Interlocked traffic lights, with the boom gates and flashing lights, is a very common arrangement here.

[kevinlms]

Also regular traffic signals do not apply to pedestrians and 'red men' for pedestrians are only advisory - should a person wish to disregard them then no offence has been commuted.

Not so here. Pedestrians regularly get done here for ignoring 'red men' signs.

 

Edit to add.

 

They usually use the excuse of 'I didn't see it', true, cos they were too busy looking at their phone!

Edited August 24, 2017 by kevinlms

[phil-b259]

No, they cannot be ignored, even when on an emergency call

 

 

Certainly not exempt from paying attention to them. 

 

However, "we" are allowed to treat a red traffic light as a "give-way", but there is no exemption from simply ignoring them, as to do so would be dangerous.  There is no exemption from dangerous driving.

 

What I was getting at is if a ambulance driver treated wig wags as a "Give way" sign then they would instantly be committing a criminal offence. If an ambulance driver treats a red traffic light as a "Give way" sign (and does what that implies such as proceeding cautiously, checking that other vehicles have seen it and are slowing down etc) then no criminal offence will have been committed.

 

Naturally emergency vehicle drivers are not immune from being prosecuted for dangerous driving when responding to an emergency call out - indeed I vaguely recall such a incident being a major storyline in one of the "London's Burning" TV series that was made back in the early 1990s.

[phil-b259]

Not so here. Pedestrians regularly get done here for ignoring 'red men' signs.

 

Edit to add.

 

They usually use the excuse of 'I didn't see it', true, cos they were too busy looking at their phone!

 

Indeed, the UK being one of the few countries in the developed world NOT to have any form of 'jaywalking' laws which can be used to punish pedestrians for not obeying / using pedestrian signals to cross roads.

[PaulRhB]

Instead of flashing red lights, why not install normal red/amber/green traffic lights on Level crossings ? Most drivers already understand these.

As flashing reds are used for a variety of situations, Swing and lifting bridges, outside several fire stations on busy roads, at the end of airport runways as well as railway crossings, oh and you have to have studied the highway code to get a license, how is it people are unfamiliar?

They are pretty common and there's no defence in law as part of holding a license is a requirement to make yourself familiar with and changes to the Highway Code, how many have an up to date copy or regularly check the online version? The tax disc reminder struck me as a wasted opportunity to issue updates to what was new in the Code each year, now sadly even the opportunity to use that is gone.

[jamie92208]

What I was getting at is if a ambulance driver treated wig wags as a "Give way" sign then they would instantly be committing a criminal offence. If an ambulance driver treats a red traffic light as a "Give way" sign (and does what that implies such as proceeding cautiously, checking that other vehicles have seen it and are slowing down etc) then no criminal offence will have been committed.

 

Naturally emergency vehicle drivers are not immune from being prosecuted for dangerous driving when responding to an emergency call out - indeed I vaguely recall such a incident being a major storyline in one of the "London's Burning" TV series that was made back in the early 1990s.

 

The law about ignoring a variety of traffic regulations is a tricky one to understand.    I can't remember the exact wording but it's something along the lines of that the driver of an emergency vehicle cannot perform his/her duty without ignoring traffic signs and signals then he may do.    However if they have an accident it's their fault. 

 

Jamie

Edited August 24, 2017 by jamie92208

[PatB]

The law about ignoring a variety of traffic regulations is a tricky one to understand.    I can't remember the exact wording but it's something along the lines of that the driver of then it's an emergency vehicle cannot perform his/her duty without ignoring traffic signs and signals then he may do.    However if they have an accident it's their fault. 

 

Jamie

Here in Australia the law (which varies from state to state but is based upon a national template) contains specific provisions exempting emergency vehicle drivers from various traffic regulations. Although it's a while since I dealt with such things, the exemptions apply when it is "safe and reasonable". The onus, on the ground, is for the driver to decide when this is the case, although organisations such as the police, the fire services and the ambulance services have their own internal operational policies to provide a foundation for the decision. Clearly, in the event of a crash, a particular action was, prima facie, not safe and the driver involved would, at the very least, have some fairly serious, probably under oath, explaining to do.

[Coryton]

Because the law is different.

 

Road traffic signals installed at road junctions / pedestrian crossings can be passed by drivers when at red on the instruction of a Police officer and can also be ignored by emergency services personnel when responding to an emergency call.

 

Wig wags are an absolute stop - NOBOBY, not even railway personnel are allowed to instruct any persons, regardless of how many blue lights they have flashing to pass them when they wig wags are flashing to pass them.

 

Also regular traffic signals do not apply to pedestrians and 'red men' for pedestrians are only advisory - should a person wish to disregard them then no offence has been commuted. Flashing wig wags apply to pedestrians to and people not obeying them can be fined for breaking the law, just like drivers.

 

The overriding reason for the legal difference is this:- motor vehicles and pedestrians can take evasive action relatively easy and can also come to a halt pretty quickly. A fast moving jet aircraft, a body of water or a train cannot - hence the legal need to reinforce the 'none shall pass' message when it comes to airfields, lift / swing bridges and railway level crossings.

 

They are also used to protect the exit from some fire (and ambulance) stations.

 

So a police car has to stop to let a fire engine out...

[Coryton]

Indeed, the UK being one of the few countries in the developed world NOT to have any form of 'jaywalking' laws which can be used to punish pedestrians for not obeying / using pedestrian signals to cross roads.

 

Who would enforce them if we did?

 

The same people who don't do anything about cyclists (or - as I saw this morning, skateboarders!) going through red lights and across pedestrian crossings when the green man is on?