Dumb councillor confused over crossing lights failure

[yorkie]

http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/7678/Fear_over_rail_lights.html

Fear over rail lights

A CAITHNESS councillor was "horrified" to discover the lights at the unmanned rail crossing at Hoy, near Halkirk, were showing red earlier this week although there was no train on the line.

Caithness Landward representative Willie Mackay was in a queue of traffic when the incident happened just after 1pm on Tuesday.


"If these lights are coming on when they are not supposed to they could easily fail when they are meant to come on," he told the John O'Groat Journal.


Mr Mackay, who was on his way to a nearby farm, said he was "horrified" by what happened and said the other motorists were waiting at the flashing lights but there was no train in sight....."

Oh dear. He does not seem to understand the concept of failing in a safe position. Why did he not simply ask before coming up with such a comment? A councillor really should know better.

I could say I am "horrified" that a councillor can be so dumb and if they can make a blunder like this, what other blunders can they make?

 

[Capybara]

I suppose a light coming on when it shouldn't constitutes a major local event in Caithness

 

[Ferret]

I could say I am "horrified" that a councillor can be so dumb and if they can make a blunder like this, what other blunders can they make?

LMAO! Trouble is, half of the railway staff out there can't grasp the concept of right side and wrong side failures so a dumb Councillor has no chance!!!!

 

[dave12435]

I suppose a light coming on when it shouldn't constitutes a major local event in Caithness

A bucket getting stolen would be
But what an idiot:-x

 

[red circle]

Same as our councillors,The lights are on but no one's home.

 

[StewieG]

Has anyone thought he could be referring to the fact that if the lights are flashing when they're not meant to be, it could blow more easily?

Then when a train was coming, the lights wouldn't work?


But then again - there are 2 sets of lights at each side of the crossing =/

 

[Metroland]

Well its fairly typical of the sorts of comments from politicians, and perhaps even the public at large. I do love to read letters and comments in newspapers generally, over 90% of them are a complete load of balderdash, and while everyone is entitled to their opinion, should really save it sometimes for something they actually know something about - or at least can be bothered to check facts. This before making themselves look complete chumps and uber negative Daily mail readers on moanagra.

I despair sometimes, good find anyway.

 

[GB]

Has anyone thought he could be referring to the fact that if the lights are flashing when they're not meant to be, it could blow more easily?

Then when a train was coming, the lights wouldn't work?


But then again - there are 2 sets of lights at each side of the crossing =/

If the lights fail to work then the crossing will indicate "failed" and any train over the crossing will have been cautioned.

 

[Old Timer]

It rather does beg the question of whether the Railway Industry should come up with some sort of information package for people who are in such positions so that they can be educated on the various aspects of the way the Railway works ?

 

[boing_uk]

It wouldn't make any difference. Elected members aren't interested in technical details; I see it far too often day to day. However if there are political points to be scored and names gotten in to the paper due to a "safety crusade" then technical details dont matter to them.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sadly, I have to agree with you, boing_uk.
But there are, from time to time, opportunities to bring the politicos (and other officers in Gov't, RDAs or LAs) into an issue, especially where one of their agenda-issues is triggerred. So OT's suggestion of making sure that a reliable and informed info-pack is in each MP's office and Councillor's home might well be beneficial.
Although its the MPs and Councillors who do the talking and get the media's attention, its frequently the office staff and researchers who come up with "the words" which we hear, and ultimately become policy.

If we don't give them the the facts, we can't really blame them for making mistakes!

So where do we start? What framework do we have for producing a politically neutral, but economically and technically informative point of contact for politicians?

 

[boing_uk]

I deal with traffic signals on the highway, so get bombarded by questions from politicos about "why x happens" or "we cannot do y by law".

I have access to literally dozens of of leaflets explaining why things are and what they mean, yet I repeat myself over and over and over again. And yes, I have even written briefing papers on such matters, to no avail.

It really wouldnt matter if such a document was produced or not; hell, looking through the Network Rail standards documents I have access to there is a welath of information in there already albeit of a thoroughly technical nature, but any such paper would lose an elected members interest at the first page.

 

[GB]

If we don't give them the the facts, we can't really blame them for making mistakes!

If the councillor concerned does not know the facts about level crossing operations or how they work then he should not be making baseless comments or accusations in public.

Of course no one can know everything about anything right of the bat, but when you waffle on about something you clearly know nothing about it only serves to highlight your own ignorance.

 

[yorkie]

I agree. The issue is not so much what his initial reaction was, it's the fact he's gone ranting to the Press with clearly wrong information!

 

[royaloak]

And you are surprised Yorkie, since when has a politician ever been bothered about "the truth"

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It really wouldnt matter if such a document was produced or not; hell, looking through the Network Rail standards documents I have access to there is a welath of information in there already albeit of a thoroughly technical nature, but any such paper would lose an elected members interest at the first page.

I know that you're right, boing_uk. But in the perverse world of politics, then having the correct information available to a politician when they make a wrong decision, can be used for political gain. (eg Winning support after showing that the Member for Xxxxx authorised something when info in their own office explained the error of that decision!).
So I still approve of the idea of producing a practical guide to politicians containing all the references to the supportive research and other evidence including past facts and and future projections.

 

[yorkie]

And you are surprised Yorkie, since when has a politician ever been bothered about "the truth"

I didn't say I was surprised.

But I think it's an exaggeration to suggest they're all like that. If a customer made such a sweeping statement about all rail staff, you'd not be happy

 

[royaloak]

But I think it's an exaggeration to suggest they're all like that.

True there are a few decent ones.

If a customer made such a sweeping statement about all rail staff, you'd not be happy

As has been said a few times over the last couple of days

 

[boing_uk]

You're right Yorkie, not ALL of them are like that; I have met one or two in the ten years Ive been in my industry... but to be fair, most of them are indeed either self-serving individuals who aren't interested in *real* things, or just want to make a political name for themselves on any issue that is easy to grasp on to that the media will print a story about.

 

[jon0844]

There's more to the story too..

This latest incident comes less than three months after three elderly people were killed at the unmanned rail crossing at Bridge Street in Halkirk when their car was in a collision with a northbound train.

The tragedy claimed the lives of 66-year-old Donald MacKay, who stayed at the Forse House residential nursing home in Latheron, his brother, Angus MacKay (81), and sister-in-law, Margaret MacKay, also 81, and led to calls for improved safety at unmanned rail crossings.

Shortly after the crash Network Rail extended the hoods above the warning lights at the crossing to try and stop motorists' visibility being reduced by sun glare.

That was welcomed by politicians and local councillors but they wanted more to be done.

Landward Caithness councillor David Flear called for "a root-and-branch review" of the unmanned crossings while his colleague, Robert Coghill, said the best way to improve safety would be to install a barrier.

What more? Someone is driving along and can't see lights because of the glare? Bong; Driving without due care and attention.

If you can't see, you slow down. Glare will also mean not being able to see people stepping out in front of you.

Network Rail didn't have to do anything, but did presumably as a goodwill gesture and to try and counter the stupidity of motorists. To be expected to do more (but the councillor wants barriers) is totally unfair.

 

[boing_uk]

I dont quite know what the lamp monitoring requirements are on level crossing wig wags, but is there any technical hurdle to putting LED retrofits in to existing lanterns, like we do with traffic signal junctions?

 

[merlodlliw]

Makes me smile, has the elected representative(was he ever actually been voted on the Council) been stuck on the roadway when repairs are carried out
and portable traffic lights jam on red, a frequent happing in my area,
all these lights are now radio controlled(no wires) and are very prone to default onto red.

We have a local Cllr in my ward , everyone calls him the Sheriff, loves publicity
and milks the press, but lacks common sense.

 

[IAmNotTheStig]

http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/7678/Fear_over_rail_lights.html
QUOTE]

lol the same thing happened to me not so long ago at Thatcham level crossing, the light came on and flashed for about 2 seconds and then switched off. the barriers didn't drop or anything. nobody moved for about 5 minuits

 

[jon0844]

I just get so annoyed when I read about an accident caused because someone couldn't see the lights (e.g. glare from the sun) and it's attributed to a fault with the lights.

If you're driving and can't see a traffic signal clearly, as I said above, you bloody well slow down until you can be 100% certain that it is safe to proceed. Why assume that as you can't see it, so it must be green?

At a railway crossing, there are plenty of signs before that aren't going to be hard to see. As I know a train hitting me isn't likely to be nice, I tend to drive quite carefully near railway lines!

And failing to red might be a pain, but what's the alternative? It's clear that there is a fault, so it's not supposed to happen, but faults DO occur which is why we have fail safe systems!!

 

[IAmNotTheStig]

I just get so annoyed when I read about an accident caused because someone couldn't see the lights (e.g. glare from the sun) and it's attributed to a fault with the lights.

If you're driving and can't see a traffic signal clearly, as I said above, you bloody well slow down until you can be 100% certain that it is safe to proceed. Why assume that as you can't see it, so it must be green?

At a railway crossing, there are plenty of signs before that aren't going to be hard to see. As I know a train hitting me isn't likely to be nice, I tend to drive quite carefully near railway lines!

And failing to red might be a pain, but what's the alternative? It's clear that there is a fault, so it's not supposed to happen, but faults DO occur which is why we have fail safe systems!!

trust me mate, it wasn't the sun reflecting or anything, it was a general fault. When I say nobody moved for 5 minuits, I mean about 10 cars in front of us, so surely if at least 20 people saw the same thing, then I'm sure it wasn't just me eyes playing tricks on me

 

[142094]

May not be a fault with the barriers, could be that the train had to stop for some reason, but the signaller had already started the process of lowering the barriers, and then had to put them up again.