Accommodation Crossings

[Bezzy Oppo]

I've just spoken to an elderly neighbour of ours who's recently had a visit from BTP. He was driving down a private road which he has permission to use when he came to a gated accommodation crossing. The crossing gates were hooked open on both sides of the line. He pulled up to the crossing far enough to view clearly the line each way. A train was approaching. He waited for the train to pass then proceeded to drive over the crossing. As he had not opened the gates he did not close them. Has he committed an offence or not? I've tried to find this scenario in the legislation but can't. The upshot was the TTI reported the car to the block's signalman who rang it thro' to BTP. 

[bodmin16]

The standard signage at user worked level crossings instructs the user to close the gates after crossing at the risk of £1000 fine. Although the gates were previously left open then the subsequent user should close the gates after using the crossing. I would suggest this is probably covered by railway bye laws, and as an authorised user of the crossing (if a private crossing) then the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to ensure that any of his visitors etc use the crossing correctly.

[SM42]

Possibly a Byelaw 12 offence in relation to not closing the gates as detailed on the signs.

 

However after opening the gates the instructions do state that you should check for trains before crossing and which he appears to do, although he did not open the gates personally, and IIRC it does not specify if you should check from the driver's seat or before returning to your vehicle. After all trains move and may not be visible when checking but appear by the time you return to your vehicle.

 

From the circumstances described it appears to the train crew as mis-use of the crossing, (which technically it is as the gates were left open) but they weren't there when your friend arrived at the crossing and can only go by what they saw and how they perceived the situation. Did he move back from the crossing when he saw the train or just wait part way on? (although not actually on the line per se) This could have  made a difference from the train crew's point of view.

 

Without knowing what was said to the BTP one cannot say whether the  BTP feel they have done enough and there will be no further action or they will pass it up for possible prosecution.

 

Unfortunatley he will have to wait it out to see. IIRC a case has to be laid at the court within 6 months. I.e the information has to be with the court within 6 months. It may be heard later. 

 

Andy

[beast66606]

The instructions for use always say "open BOTH gates" - so his presence at the crossing with both gates open should be nothing for the TTI to worry about - admittedly he should have closed the gates and was negligent for leaving them open - unless the train stopped at a station so the TTI could see him cross the line and then leave the gates open - if this is the case then I'm afraid I have little sympathy.

 

<edited to correct ramble !>

[SM42]

I don't think the fine is £1000. I think it is actually up to £1000 maximum.

 

You also need to take into account (from your explanation of events ) that the train driver does not seem to have been too concerned about his presence at the crossing, (who would probably be a more credible witness being sat at the front ) and there is also the possiblilty of forward facing CCTV from the train which the BTP would probably want to view before deciding what to do.

 

The evidence from your account does seem 50/50, i.e his word against the TTI's so I personally don't think he'll hear much more unless he admitted leaving the gates open to the BTP and the  BTP and more importantly the CPS feel it is worth a punt.

 

After all, thousands of byelaw offences probably occur every day across the rail network and not every one is prosecuted even when the BTP are present at the time.

 

But given the current political (not in the party politics sense) focus on level crossing safety nothing can be taken for granted I'm afraid

 

 

Andy

 

.

[caradoc]

Is the crossing provided with phones ? If so, he should have phoned the Signaller for permission to cross and could have reported finding the gates lying open at the same time. Either way, leaving crossing gates open is dangerous because the next person might not even realise the crossing is there and drive across in front of a train. 

[Bezzy Oppo]

Thanks to all who've replied to my original query.

 

I did tell our neighbour I thought the onus was on him to close the gates even tho' he hadn't opened them. The upshot was BTP travelled 30 odd miles to see him at home, take a statement and tell him he was on his 'first and final warning'. They interviewed him for nearly two hours (he's in his late seventies). He did make the case that everyone from the postie to the local plod don't bother closing the gates - but of course that's not the point. Anyway he's not particularly bothered; I think he's more focussed on getting a new hip!

[big jim]

If he made the point about everyone else leaving the gates open i bet you can expect to see a high profile mobile CCTV camera being installed there at some point as was done at the occupation crossing between bearley jn and stratford upon avon following numerous reported violations of the gate being left open!

 

I notice a lot of the well used occupation crossings in my area now have solar panels and what look to be remote locking gates on them, particularly between wrexham and shrewsbury, i think it may be to do with the increase in linespeed and eventual resignalling of the route?

[The Stationmaster]

If he made the point about everyone else leaving the gates open i bet you can expect to see a high profile mobile CCTV camera being installed there at some point as was done at the occupation crossing between bearley jn and stratford upon avon following numerous reported violations of the gate being left open!

 

I notice a lot of the well used occupation crossings in my area now have solar panels and what look to be remote locking gates on them, particularly between wrexham and shrewsbury, i think it may be to do with the increase in linespeed and eventual resignalling of the route?

I too suspect that if he has, in effect, reported to BTP repeated instances of misuse at the crossing them some sort of monitoring is going to be likely and quite likely to an early NR visit (if BTP tell them) to update the crossing's assessment and install monitoring cameras.  So the chap has in some respects done a public service although he'd better make sure he closes the gates next time he goes that way.  The fact that the TTI seems to have been looking, even if not - possibly - wholly understanding, does suggest there might be some traincrew awareness of problems at the crossing but equally as already noted there is nothing wrong with a vehicle standing there waiting to cross when both gates are open, that is simply a matter of timing and happenstance.

 

The focus on level crossing safety is now quite longstanding and regarded by ORR as being of considerable importance.  The matter of accommodation and occupation crossing abuse goes back for many years at some crossings  (we were regularly chasing one user on my then patch 40 years ago and  wouldn't mind betting that if he's still around he will still not close the gates!) so it's a lot more than some passing 'flavour of the year' - alas one can't account for idiots with a Darwin Prize complex.  (Neither will remote control locks on gates unless the mechanism can also close them in order to lock them.)