Level crossing stupidity...

[leopardml2341]

Or a crossing failure (in which case it is not clear who has right of way), or in the case of an unforseen mechanical failure (where the train does have right of way, but the road user is not necessarily guilty), etc. 

 

By saying 'train hits car' you are describing the facts, without allocating blame. How would you word it?

 

Adrian

Hello Adrian,

 

You are correct 'Train hits car' is describing fact but to remain in the context of 'wot I rote' earlier :-

 

"Train hits car............"

 

Almost always inferred to be the fault of the railway because there's an opportunity (at AHB crossings) for a car driver to weave around them.

 

The subtext of a media article (intended to be represented by the '........' ) needs to be considered and I'll wager that most media reports will refer to previously aired safety concerns about crossings, or it's the nth time its happened in the last x years.

 

In the case of an observed failure (of the intended operation) of any equipment, surely a greater proportion of the responsibility for safety passes in part at least to the user? - if only for self preservation.

 

Road markings at level crossings e.g. box markings, double white lines, the application and maintenance of which is required by law, all indicate the presence of a hazard for the benefit of the road user.

 

The intent being, I assume, to heighten awareness, and give the road user an opportunity to assess a variaince in the level of risk, compared to say the 'open road' and act accordingly. This might mean slowing down, opening the window to better hear surrounding noise (approaching train perhaps ?) or even stopping and checking whether it IS safe to proceed.

 

All too often these aids to self preservation are not acted upon or even recognised.

 

"Train hits car" -

 

I wouldn't describe it any other way; though I would refrain from drawing irrelevant comparisons of the type that change the objective statement of "Train hits car" to the subjective inference (or statement) that 'level crossings are the only root cause of the problem'

 

 

 

Editted for at least one noticed misspelling.

Edited April 12, 2013 by leopardml2341

[Adrian Wintle]

Hello Adrian,

 

You are correct 'Train hits car' is describing fact but to remain in the context of 'wot I rote' earlier :-

 

"Train hits car............"

 

Almost always inferred to be the fault of the railway because there's an opportunity (at AHB crossings) for a car driver to weave around them.

 

 

In the case of an observed failure (of the intended operation) of any equipment, surely a greater proportion of the responsibility for safety passes in part at least to the user? - if only for self preservation.

 

But I'm not sure that most readers would infer that it was the train's fault. It may be that people who are defensive about railways read in an inference that isn't necessarily there. Of course, having people associated with the railway stating that level crossings are dangerous doesn't help matters.

 

In the case of a failure of the crossing to operate, how is the road user supposed to know the difference between a failed crossing and a working crossing with no train coming? Are you suggesting that road users should 'stop, look, and listen' every time they come to a crossing on the assumption that it MIGHT not be working? It would certainly annoy the road users.   However it would fuel calls for level crossings and/or railways to be removed as they couldn't get essential safety equipment to a level where it could be trusted (and you don't want to go down that route).

NOTE: buses are required to do that at level crossings over here.

 

Adrian

Edited April 12, 2013 by Adrian Wintle

[Edwin_m]

"Stop look and listen" for a road vehicle arguably makes things more dangerous, because of the risk of starting off in the wrong gear and stalling on the crossing, and also the false sense of security if the driver doesn't see or hear anything. 

[leopardml2341]

I'm not sure how "In the case of an observed failure" equates to suggesting "road users should 'stop, look, and listen' every time they come to a crossing on the assumption that it MIGHT not be working".

 

One thing of which I am certain, is that in the case of recognising rather than ignoring the warning systems that are put in place to communicate increased risk, I will do what I can to minimise the potential impact to me and others.

 

An example is sounding a car horn when approcahing a blind bend; which our highway code also recommends........and how many people do that?

Edited April 12, 2013 by leopardml2341

[PaulRhB]

Sadly most users don't read the signs as demonstrated yesterday by one of our S&T stopping a man from opening gates and crossing, without calling the box, despite the lights being out on a red/green light crossing.

The sign saying "if both lights are out ring Signalbox" couldn't be much more obvious without riveting it to their car!

He just assumed that no light meant no train and admitted not even bothering to read the signs despite seeing them. We have to have lots of signs for legal reasons due to previous incidents so has it made the task of their own safety too onerous for some despite seeing this regularly on the news? The man in question had perfect English and is hopefully fairly intelligent as he was working on overhead power lines. It scared the S&T as they phoned me up to be told a train was virtually with them. I don't think it'd hit but it'd have been close. Needless to say we reported it to their company but as there was no photo of him attempting to open the gate and no offence actually committed we can't do anything apart from the telling off a shaken S&T tech gave him.

Edited April 13, 2013 by PaulRhB

[The Stationmaster]

Or a crossing failure (in which case it is not clear who has right of way), or in the case of an unforseen mechanical failure (where the train does have right of way, but the road user is not necessarily guilty), etc. 

 

By saying 'train hits car' you are describing the facts, without allocating blame. How would you word it?

 

Adrian

Except in the very rare case of a wrong side failure the situation is very simple - red lights showing at the crossing means road vehicles must stop and not enter onto the railway (to do so is a criminal offence), end of story.  Might well be very frustrating for motorists but the law is crystal clear (assuming you know it, and Paul had to update me on part of it but I still know that a red light means stop, go no further).

Edited April 12, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[Gruffalo]

Various contributors mention "stop, look & listen". As a motorcyclist, may I submit that many drivers cocooned in their steel boxes look but fail to see! I do not assume that these drivers will all run a red light at a crossing but there seem to be too many reasons why accidents occur today. Loud music played on overpowered sound systems, mobile phones frequently used in anything but a "hands-free" way, the perceived need to go somewhere shaving a split second off the journey. I am reminded of The Eagles track, Life in the fast lane, with its lyric of "faster, faster, the lights are turning red". 

There will always (and very rarely) be tragic accidents but there are frequently dangerous or even fatal incidents that can only be ascribed to a person believing that they have some pre-ordained right to do whatever they want at the time, regardless of what preventative measures are put in place.

[uax6]

I blame modern cars, far too much power and built for speeds that no-one can do. 48 BHP can be too much at times, no radio, and a heater that is either cold or lukewarm. Yes the joys of using a real car, where you actually have to drive and pay attention to whats going on around you. Modern motors are just dangerous, as you don't get any feedback about what is going on around you.

 

Andy G

Moggy van driver

[scorpion]

the current highway code does not contain the words "right of way", it does however mention that amber means stop, red means stop and the term "give way" appears frequently

 

when the lights change to green I always look to make sure no one is running the red, I don't have to, I could say it was their fault when there's a crash, i'd rather be alive than right and dead

 

too many selfish people about

[Norm81]

the current highway code does not contain the words "right of way", it does however mention that amber means stop, red means stop and the term "give way" appears frequently

 

when the lights change to green I always look to make sure no one is running the red, I don't have to, I could say it was their fault when there's a crash, i'd rather be alive than right and dead

 

too many selfish people about

These days I joke that amber means drive faster, as that seems to be how it's treated i.e. foot planted to the floor to get through before it turns red. People don't approach green lights expecting them to change anymore it seems.

 

I always check at the junction into my estate for people running the red as it's happened more than once.

[The Stationmaster]

I had wondered about the effectiveness a periodic update and examination on the highway code and legal aspects of driving coupled with stronger enforcement, the Railway, Aviation and Maritime Industries are particularly strong on this so why not for private motorists? It must surely be time for the arguments of the so called Freedom Lobby and the Fast Lane Owner's Club etc. to be put to one side and for a large number of people to realise that The War on the Motorist only exists between the ears of a few self centered individuals with an adjenda of their own whose viewpoint and behaviour is at best anti-social and at worst lethal.   

I expect it would be  non-starter on grounds of cost but it is a good idea.  However an even better step might be to enforce compliance with the existing requirements regarding Driving Tests and vehicle insurance.

[Budgie]

I expect it would be  non-starter on grounds of cost but it is a good idea.  However an even better step might be to enforce compliance with the existing requirements regarding Driving Tests and vehicle insurance.

But even that isn't going to work. Those who drive without insurance can't afford it. How are you going to punish them? Send them to jail? There aren't enough jails. Make them do 200 hours unpaid work? How do their families eat during that period?

[PaulRhB]

But even that isn't going to work. Those who drive without insurance can't afford it. How are you going to punish them? Send them to jail? There aren't enough jails. Make them do 200 hours unpaid work? How do their families eat during that period?

There's laws and if you break them be prepared for consequences, sorry but there's a welfare system that picks up the pieces however harsh that may seem. Many don't get insurance simply because they think they can get away with it and aren't poor, spending the money on luxuries instead.

The law is there to protect life and property if we allow it to be ignored because someone is hard up we head for anarchy.

On top of this you will find no correlation between red light abuse and poverty, in fact mainly its the better off with decent cars who think they need to be there faster than the rest of us. How many times are you recklessly overtaken by an old escort compared to a Imprezza with full body kit or a merc?

At a local school the majority of those caught when they speed trapped just down the road were 'housewives' (parents of the kids), driving big cars so they weren't losing money and probably in a hurry to get to the gym or shops! The police made an example of this in the local paper as several caught were campaigning for cameras outside the school!

[PaulRhB]

There have been five vehicle incursions, on my area, onto the railway while I've been on shift.

1 genuine accident due to a stroke. Outside box on crossing.

1 accident due to slightly excess speed in poor road conditions and unfortunate place to happen. Missed two trains crossing at location by minutes.

1 due to massively excess speed, (car flew approx 30ft), and complete disregard for safety, car left unreported right next to the track! Spotted by train on opposite line.

1 excess speed while tired after 400 mile journey, car pushed 1/4 mile by train.

1 pure idiocy showing off in daddy's 4x4 to friends. Glancing blow from train made car chassis bend sideways.

None of these resulted in a fatality but the two that were hit by trains resulted in damage to the train, one extremely serious with debris from the car damaging the front 5 coaches to lessening extents.

The poorest motorist was the first and the only genuine accident, all the rest were decent mid to top range cars being driven incorrectly.

[StuAllen]

It seems to me some drivers are just ignorant to what could happen to them and their car if they ignore the warnings - why not show them?

 

The last Network Rail advert I saw showed a driver thinking about weaving around the barrier then stopping just as a train nearly took the front off of his car. Why not use shock tactics show the train hitting the car, show the effect it has on the emergency services, the driver of the train, and then the impact it has on the drivers family.

 

Then extend that advertising to bill boards around level crossing, show the crushed car.

 

Hopefully this will make people think twice

[Guest]

Shock tactics, yes, and maybe a little irony/sarcasm thrown in for good measure. There was a TV ad in Australia some years ago on the theme of jumping crossing lights. I can't find it on youtube so I'll describe it here. No background music, as I recall, just some birdsong like this was a quiet country place normally at peace with itself.

 

Rail crossing...camera pans slowly along the track...picks up first pieces of debris...(Caption appears in screen) Your family won't have to worry about scattering your remains...camera continues to pan...picks up crushed but recognisable parts of car...(Caption) The train will do it for them.

 

In my view, brilliant! 

[EddieB]

But even that isn't going to work. Those who drive without insurance can't afford it. How are you going to punish them? Send them to jail? There aren't enough jails. Make them do 200 hours unpaid work? How do their families eat during that period?

Sorry, but I have no sympathy with those who drive without insurance - and that's not because I pay extra on my premiums because of them.  Likewise I think there are certain motoring offences that should result in an instant 12-month driving ban, these include jumping the lights on a level crossing or texting while driving.  I'd also like to see cameras installed at all level crossings on public highways.

[PhilJ W]

Sorry, but I have no sympathy with those who drive without insurance - and that's not because I pay extra on my premiums because of them.  Likewise I think there are certain motoring offences that should result in an instant 12-month driving ban, these include jumping the lights on a level crossing or texting while driving.  I'd also like to see cameras installed at all level crossings on public highways.

And before the return of licence make them retake the driving test.

[dmustu]

Sorry, but I have no sympathy with those who drive without insurance - and that's not because I pay extra on my premiums because of them.  Likewise I think there are certain motoring offences that should result in an instant 12-month driving ban, these include jumping the lights on a level crossing or texting while driving.  I'd also like to see cameras installed at all level crossings on public highways.

 

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/hm-government-instant-ban-for-using-a-mobile-phone-while-driving

[frobisher]

And before the return of licence make them retake the driving test.

That is generally what happens with a ban, no?

[Richard E]

No compulsory re-test, only if the court orders a re-test or the ban is for causing Death by Dangerous Driving or Dangerous Driving.

 

All other bans just get their licence handed back to them, for a short ban, or have to reapply for the licence.

[Wellyboots]

But even that isn't going to work. Those who drive without insurance can't afford it. How are you going to punish them? Send them to jail? There aren't enough jails. Make them do 200 hours unpaid work? How do their families eat during that period?

 

Sorry but this is all a bit naive, what you seem to say here is that the poorer in society will not have insurance while the better off will, it's more to do with the selfish and greedy, the type who believes that the rules don't apply to them and they can do whatever they want without consequence. Most people despite their income will keep their vehicle legal even if it means going without in an other areas, but it's only the criminal who doesn’t have insurance even if their only crime is not having insurance! And criminals come for all socio-economic backgrounds.

 

As for Community Sentences the government website www.gov.uk has this to say; 

 

If you have a job, the Community Payback work will be arranged outside your working hours, like evenings or weekends. 

 

So no excuses for not feeding your family!

[Fat Controller]

This was on the SNCF web-site today:-

http://www.sncf.com/fr/presse/fil-info/collision-TER-Marseille

Amazingly, the unit was not derailed, nor did anyone on board sustain serious injuries. The effect of the blow on such a large piece of plant is startling; you can see how such an impact would destroy a smaller vehicle. After the initial impact, the jib apparently swung and hit the side of the train.

[CHAZ D]

But even that isn't going to work. Those who drive without insurance can't afford it. How are you going to punish them? Send them to jail? There aren't enough jails. Make them do 200 hours unpaid work? How do their families eat during that period?

They have the money for petrol and have in their posession a motor vehicle the other requirements are insurance road tax and  a current driving license, which most people think of as a right, not a privelige given by society to those who fit the criteria for the safe use of what can be a lethal weapon.

The sale of the car and the lack of need to buy petrol will probably go a long way to pay for the food!

[carlw]

Someone has hit the one in bow brickhill (Milton Keynes) on Tuesday morning