Thoughts about level crossings

[zwk500]

Additional red lights would reinforce the existing lights, but wouldn't stop the blazen willing offender types.
Someone above suggested cameras and that's probably the best solution. Installation paid for by NR at high risk crossings and monitored by the local highways authority. £10k fine min if you cross onto the crossing itself.
They would soon pay the installation cost back and provide an incentive for drivers to change their behaviour.

Cameras aren't new, of course: https://www.networkrailmediacentre....RLSE cameras,evidence to support legal action.

But agree with you that much steeper fines and many more points need to come motorist's way.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You have ahelpful sign on approach to warn you EXACTLY what you should do when the lights flash https://www.google.com/maps/@50.838...4!1sIgihs0MweDQemED0gmEJJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

If you have passed that sign and still don't remember what the lights mean, you have been driving without due care and attention. The Amber light is timed to allow for normal safe braking, a moment's hesitation is not a problem. If the lights are already red when you approach then you have ample sighting time to slow down the car wihtout heavy braking.

My suspicion is a number of people do not read every sign they encounter. Maybe there is not time.

As for the Amber I generally react to that and find the red zig-zags a bit wierd - its unfamiliarity !.

I have watched someone come to a stop in the middle of the crossing - it looked like they were totally disorientated. Not sure why they stopped badly but once there we waited for them to move forward !. They did but it just seemed so awkward. Obviously for many of us we know the danger and the imperative to get out of the way. There are those that don't care and those that need more reminding (via publicity) but still those who are confused.

If I understand AWS correctly - A parallel to the confusion is perhaps the AWS warning horn used for both red and proceed at caution. Train drivers know the rule BUT it can and has tripped them up (Purley collision for instance).

In an ideal world all busy and/or fast railway crossings would be replaced by bridges and not necessarily at the railways expense. I know that in the case of parts of the South Western division of Southern there are too many level crossings in London and historically this is not the railways "fault" - the railway was there before the houses and roads !.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Cameras aren't new, of course: https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/level-crossing-cameras-installed-to-catch-motorists-who-endanger-lives-on-the-railway-1#:~:text=Like speed cameras, RLSE cameras,evidence to support legal action.

But agree with you that much steeper fines and many more points need to come motorist's way.

Thanks for the link - obviously not widespread enough.
Yes, widespread cam use, in conjunction with steeper fines, is the only solution really.
£100 and a driver awareness course is pathetic.

Repeated breach should be 10 points, but I don't think the initial breach should be - the driver should have learnt their lesson with the large fine and you don't need to potentially ruin their entire life for a first offence.
The primary aim of justice should always be rehabilitation over punishment.

 

[zwk500]

My suspicion is a number of people do not read every sign they encounter. Maybe there is not time.

As for the Amber I generally react to that and find the red zig-zags a bit wierd - its unfamiliarity !.

I have watched someone come to a stop in the middle of the crossing - it looked like they were totally disorientated. Not sure why they stopped badly but once there we waited for them to move forward !. They did but it just seemed so awkward. Obviously for many of us we know the danger and the imperative to get out of the way. There are those that don't care and those that need more reminding (via publicity) but still those who are confused.

They have failed to drive with due care and attention.

If I understand AWS correctly - A parallel to the confusion is perhaps the AWS warning horn used for both red and proceed at caution. Train drivers know the rule BUT it can and has tripped them up (Purley collision for instance).

Whats AWS got to do with it? AWS goes off at nearly every signal, there is no question of unfamiliarity. The risks of AWS are mitigated through the use of TPWS.

In an ideal world all busy and/or fast railway crossings would be replaced by bridges and not necessarily at the railways expense. I know that in the case of parts of the South Western division of Southern there are too many level crossings in London and historically this is not the railways "fault" - the railway was there before the houses and roads !.

Hmm, the historical fault also doesn't really help solve the issue. Yes in an ideal world we wouldn't have level crossings, hence the general reluctance to authorise new ones, but many are on the network and for geographic reasons can't be replaced or closed, so we need to make sure cars stop in time.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Overall I would say the important thing is to identify the causes of railway crossing transgression (regardless of whether an accident results). Then look at reducing the risk of errors. Obviously there are plenty of cases where its not an error.

I grasp it, but I don’t agree with it. It’s such an odd suggestion that I’m not sure if you’re being entirely serious. I don’t believe for a second that people somehow think wig wags mean stop “less” than normal traffic lights do.

If you (or anyone else reading this) genuinely have a moment’s hesitation before remembering what wig wags mean then I’d suggest it isn’t me who should consider stopping driving…



Catching and properly punishing people would be a start - perhaps cameras at every crossing with high fines and driving bans.

Yes. Catch and punish the blatant offenders but that is not going to rule out those who might see a level crossing very rarely.

It would be interesting to see from statistics how many transgressions could be down to unfamiliarity. If it is many then the punishment is merely shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Additional red lights would reinforce the existing lights, but wouldn't stop the blazen willing offender types.
Someone above suggested cameras and that's probably the best solution. Installation paid for by NR at high risk crossings and monitored by the local highways authority. £10k fine min if you cross onto the crossing itself.
They would soon pay the installation cost back and provide an incentive for drivers to change their behaviour.

I agree there need to be solid red lights to make sure. I understand the flashing zig-zag lights still need to be there as well to ensure emergency services know they cannot ignore the red even by driving cautiously. Cameras don't help avoid first offenders (whether deliberate of inadvertent) but are needed to nail repeat offenders although points on their licence are not necessarily going to stop them - many of them drive regardless of a licence !.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I agree there need to be solid red lights to make sure. I understand the flashing zig-zag lights still need to be there as well to ensure emergency services know they cannot ignore the red even by driving cautiously. Cameras don't help avoid first offenders (whether deliberate of inadvertent) but are needed to nail repeat offenders although points on their licence are not necessarily going to stop them - many of them drive regardless of a licence !.

Cameras can help catch first offenders, because police can still send them targeted warnings to try and curb offending amongst amenable motorists.
Those driving without a license is a separate topic altogether - I'd personally consider an immediate short custodial sentence as a deterrent for first time offenders.

 

[Peter Sarf]

..............................

Whats AWS got to do with it? AWS goes off at nearly every signal, there is no question of unfamiliarity. The risks of AWS are mitigated through the use of TPWS.

..............................

And why was TPWS invented ?. Was it to help avoid train driver error ?. My point is errors happen and punishment is not the solution to errors. Punishment is for blatent rule breaking.

By all means catch as many rule breakers as possible and ground them. BUT I fear there are a significant number of car drivers who react poorly to something unfamiliar - red zig-zag lights.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2023 ==

Cameras can help catch first offenders, because police can still send them targeted warnings to try and curb offending amongst amenable motorists.
Those driving without a license is a separate topic altogether - I'd personally consider an immediate short custodial sentence as a deterrent for first time offenders.

I agree cameras help reduce the number of amenable car drivers that just need educating rather than punishing. But it would be safer if they did not make the mistake in the first place which is where I think a solid red would help.

As for repeat offenders - I dream of a cheaper method that avoids costly custodial sentences. One day a tag will disable a modern car perhaps.

 

[AlastairFraser]

agree cameras help reduce the number of amenable drivers that just need educating rather than punishing. But it would be safer if they did not make the mistake in the first place which is where I think a solid red would help.

As for repeat offenders - I dream of a cheaper method that avoids costly custodial sentences. One day a tag will disable a modern car perhaps.

It might help, but cameras are more tried and tested.
Custodial offenders don't have to cost a fortune - prison work should help contribute to the cost.
The level crossing offenders could precast signalling troughs for NR in the can....

 

[plugwash]

Not sure on that one. I know on the Croydon Tramlink the “level crossings” do use normal traffic lights,

Up here in on the Metrolink in Manchester it varies. The section near Altrincham uses rail style signalling and shares rail style level crossings with the adjacent rail line. There also seems to be at least one rail style crossing on the bury line though I don't know how it's operated.

OTOH in the city center they operate on visual seperation and use tram style signals which are integrated with regular traffic lights at road crossings. I think th same is true of at least parts of the new-build lines added to the network later.

but of course trams are driven on sight and at a much slower speed, so are a different kettle fish.

My understanding is that trams also have very aggressive emergency brakes. I think some of them may be magnetic track breaks though i'm not 100% sure.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Up here in on the Metrolink in Manchester it varies. The section near Altrincham uses rail style signalling and shares rail style level crossings with the adjacent rail line. There also seems to be at least one rail style crossing on the bury line though I don't know how it's operated.

OTOH in the city center they operate on visual seperation and use tram style signals which are integrated with regular traffic lights at road crossings. I think th same is true of at least parts of the new-build lines added to the network later.


My understanding is that trams also have very aggressive emergency brakes. I think some of them may be magnetic track breaks though i'm not 100% sure.

My bold. I believe that is the case (magnetic track brakes) with Croydon Tramlink. The trams also have a very loud horn - quite unpleasant if you are an innocent pedestrian nearby !.

 

[L401CJF]

From my personal experience level crossing misuse seems to be quite rare up my way. Full barrier crossings here (no AHB) one of which is at Leasowe on the 413/414/423 bus route. When I drove the route you were pretty much guaranteed to be caught by the train every time. I can count on one hand how many times I've seen people jump the lights.

Only on 1 occasion for 1 trip I saw the mobile camera van parked up there to catch people so I'd assume isn't much of a hot spot or it'd be there more often?

After spending 7 years driving buses, I'd say people using their phones at the wheel and running general red lights is a lot bigger issue on the roads unfortunately.

 

[Falcon1200]

Logans Road level crossing in Motherwell. Since this crossing has full barriers and is monitored by CCTV, emergency vehicles ignoring the red lights isn't a major concern.

Yes, Logans Road LC is immediately adjacent to a traffic light-controlled road junction, and as you say has full barriers so safety is not compromised. But I have to ask too, when a motorist encounters (multiple) flashing red lights, what on earth can they think that means other than 'stop'?!! (As per red lights, signs etc in other walks of life).

 

[zwk500]

And why was TPWS invented ?. Was it to help avoid train driver error ?. My point is errors happen and punishment is not the solution to errors. Punishment is for blatent rule breaking.

TPWS was invented as a cheaper method of speed control than ATP, which AWS doesn't do at all.
This is a bizarre strawman. AWS and TPWS have nothing to do with driver familiarity either signals.

By all means catch as many rule breakers as possible and ground them. BUT I fear there are a significant number of car drivers who react poorly to something unfamiliar

Stop making excuses for lazy drivers.

I agree cameras help reduce the number of amenable car drivers that just need educating rather than punishing. But it would be safer if they did not make the mistake in the first place which is where I think a solid red would help.

No this is where sending everybody a copy of the highway code and recertification of the theory test would help.

As for repeat offenders - I dream of a cheaper method that avoids costly custodial sentences. One day a tag will disable a modern car perhaps.

On this I agree, prison would be a very serious sanction and is generally economically and financially ineffective. Far better tosieze their car and license so that they're forced to get the train to go places.

 

[43066]

In an ideal world all busy and/or fast railway crossings would be replaced by bridges and not necessarily at the railways expense.

Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen, so we need to work with the current system. Therefore drivers need to follow the rules and be punished if they transgress. I don’t believe for a second that any competent driver wouldn’t understand what wig wags mean and, even if they don’t, that’s entirely their own fault; if you drive a car you are responsible for keeping up to date with the Highway Code and knowing the meaning of signs you may encounter.

If I understand AWS correctly - A parallel to the confusion is perhaps the AWS warning horn used for both red and proceed at caution. Train drivers know the rule BUT it can and has tripped them up (Purley collision for instance).

This doesn’t really work as a comparison. AWS cancellation can become automatic because of repetition/over familiarity, not because the driver doesn’t understand the meaning of the signal aspect they’re approaching.

And why was TPWS invented ?. Was it to help avoid train driver error ?. My point is errors happen and punishment is not the solution to errors. Punishment is for blatent rule breaking.

TPWS is a passive system which does nothing to avoid driver error, it simply mitigates the results. If a driver trips it often enough they can end up losing their job, not as punishment, per se, but on the grounds of lack of capability to do the job.

It really has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

[Krokodil]

I am not saying they are unfamiliar with the rule BUT I suspect many are not instinctively reacting to it as fast as they would to a red.

When they floor it straight through lowering barriers, or weave between them they know full bloody well what they are doing.

Listen to the police officer in this video, it's overfamiliarity rather than underfamiliarity that is the propblem:

 

[Lucan]

I find a flashing light is more attention grabbing than a fixed one, and the human brain is wired to be more alert to any visual change than visual statics (think hunter-prey situations). However the vast majority of crossing jumpers simply don't want to spend waiting at what will probably be 5 minutes of empty space in front of them and 5 seconds of passing train. There may be a few senile drivers who don't know what a red light means, and remember that the typical Joe Sixpack's idea of a train has not progressed much beyond what he learned from Thomas the Tank Engine episodes.

Instead of a debate of fixed versus wig-wag, why not have both? A big red light and, below it, a pair of wig-wag red light. That leaves no-one with an excuse.

 

[gg1]

If a driver is unfamiliar with the signal they have failed to uphold their part of the license where they undertake to make sure they know the highway code. Wig-wags aren't convoy working or something most drivers wouldn't see in a year.

I beg to differ on the last point, at least if you're talking about seeing them in operation, it's certainly been well over a year since I last saw one simply because there are no routes I drive which include level crossings. There are less level crossings around now than there used to be and those that do exist don't tend to be on major roads (there are exceptions obviously).

Wig-wags to protect fire/ambulance stations only tend to be used for very short periods, you could easily drive past one dozens of times and never see them in operation.

This isn't a valid excuse however, even if they haven't seen one for years any driver should still be aware of their existence and anyone who doesn't know that flashing red lights + siren = danger really shouldn't be on the road at all.

 

[zwk500]

I beg to differ on the last point, at least if you're talking about seeing them in operation, it's certainly been well over a year since I last saw one simply because there are no routes I drive which include level crossings. There are less level crossings around now than there used to be and those that do exist don't tend to be on major roads (there are exceptions obviously).

Wig-wags to protect fire/ambulance stations only tend to be used for very short periods, you could easily drive past one dozens of times and never see them in operation.

In operation is very different to not seeing them at all. Unless you only drive very particular routes or live in certain areas of the country, the chances are you'll pass at least 1 set of wig wags every few months or so.

This isn't a valid excuse however, even if they haven't seen one for years any driver should still be aware of their existence and anyone who doesn't know that flashing red lights + siren = danger really shouldn't be on the road at all.

Quite.

 

[ComUtoR]

What about using pop up vehicle barriers

 

[zwk500]

What about using pop up vehicle barriers

Much as I'd like them, I suspect the cost of linking them into the Level Crossing Controls would mean they're non-starters.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Ocurred to me today as I was waiting at North Sheen for three trains to cross (and I was the penultimate vehicle to get across before the wig wags started again, so it could easily have been six....). Level crossings are often near stations. Some people driving near stations are trying to catch trains, so waiting at the crossing may make them miss their train.

Similarly, rail replacement buses are disproportionately represented in bridge strike stats - because they are more likely to be near a railway than a typical chartered bus. (Service buses of course run on fixed routes that are chosen to have adequate headroom)

 

[zwk500]

Ocurred to me today as I was waiting at North Sheen for three trains to cross (and I was the penultimate vehicle to get across before the wig wags started again, so it could easily have been six....). Level crossings are often near stations. Some people driving near stations are trying to catch trains, so waiting at the crossing may make them miss their train.

Solutions to this include convincing people to use alternative travel to the railway or providing for car parking on both sides of the line and a footbridge for when the LX is down.

Although this does raise an important point - there are many Level Crossings right on the end of stations that are closed prior to a stopping train arriving, or are held closed by the rear of the train blocking the road whilst passengers alight and board. This undoubtedly increases the chance of a driver wanting to beat the lights as it extends the crossing time. More could be done by the railway to change stopping positions or lengthen platforms to avoid the need for these extended blockages.
On a similar note, are there many Level crossings where a freight train may be held in a loop or at a junction that would block the road for a serious length of time? I know the Down loop at Claypole on the ECML has a level crossing in the middle, although there is limited freight traffic on that section, and IIRC doesn't Stowmarket have a restriction on holding trains for too long because of a crossing that's blocked?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's a long time since I sat my Theory Test, but how about making it so that the questions on wig-wags come up in every test (if that isn't already the case)? It would remove the "unfamiliarity" argument at least. A more extreme version would be to include a level crossing on every practical test route, though this is unrealistic in places like Huddersfield and Halifax where the nearest level crossings are at Dodworth/Streethouse/Cononley. In those cases you'd have to use the wigwags at fire or ambulance stations as a substitute.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2023 ==

Solutions to this include convincing people to use alternative travel to the railway or providing for car parking on both sides of the line and a footbridge for when the LX is down.

Or setting off in good time to avoid missing your train. Someone upthread mentioned being on your "last warning" at work as a reason someone might jump the lights... I'd argue that if you're on your last warning you should set off a bit earlier, particularly if there's a level crossing on your route to work. Besides, if being late once more will get you fired, being dead or seriously injured won't help either. Of course nobody who jumps the wigwags thinks they'll actually get hit by a train until they do.

As for tougher penalties, I'm surprised how many people are in the "go easy on the first offence" camp, including railway professionals. When it comes to level crossings it should be "one strike and you're out"- Misuse a level crossing? Bang, licence suspended for six months, no ifs, no buts.

 

[zwk500]

It's a long time since I sat my Theory Test, but how about making it so that the questions on wig-wags come up in every test (if that isn't already the case)? It would remove the "unfamiliarity" argument at least. A more extreme version would be to include a level crossing on every practical test route, though this is unrealistic in places like Huddersfield and Halifax where the nearest level crossings are at Dodworth/Streethouse/Cononley. In those cases you'd have to use the wigwags at fire or ambulance stations as a substitute.

I don't think they need to be on the practical test - after all, you can't guarantee they'll activate and you need multiple test routes. I think the current theory test setup is fine, although the Wigwags could come up a bit more often than other signs (if they don't already).
Retesting the theory regularly will be more effective than changes to a test you only do once.

Or setting off in good time to avoid missing your train. Someone upthread mentioned being on your "last warning" at work as a reason someone might jump the lights... I'd argue that if you're on your last warning you should set off a bit earlier, particularly if there's a level crossing on your route to work. Besides, if being late once more will get you fired, being dead or seriously injured won't help either. Of course nobody who jumps the wigwags thinks they'll actually get hit by a train until they do.

Agreed.

As for tougher penalties, I'm surprised how many people are in the "go easy on the first offence" camp, including railway professionals. When it comes to level crossings it should be "one strike and you're out"- Misuse a level crossing? Bang, licence suspended for six months, no ifs, no buts.

Straight suspension would be harsh if no other offences - hence my 10 points proposal.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think they need to be on the practical test - after all, you can't guarantee they'll activate and you need multiple test routes. I think the current theory test setup is fine, although the Wigwags could come up a bit more often than other signs (if they don't already).
Retesting the theory regularly will be more effective than changes to a test you only do once.

As I alluded, including them on every practical test route would be impractical. Though in the event that they don't activate (which in most cases will be almost every time) the examiner could simply ask a few questions about them to ensure the student knows their stuff- perhaps pulling over first.

Straight suspension would be harsh if no other offences - hence my 10 points proposal.

It may be harsh, but I say it has to be. 10 points is a reasonable compromise though, as that is effectively a straight suspension for anyone who doesn't have a clean licence.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't believe any but a tiny fraction of the offenders don't know the rules. They are just making their own risk assessment based on familiarity. I would bet the vast majority of offenders use the particular crossing regularly, if not every day. For example.......
I went to Warwick Uni. For one year I lived in Cov and cycled in and out across the LC by Canley station that eventually got closed. If it came down then it could be down for multiple trains including ones stopping at the station - long enough to make you noticeably late and too much to just leave earlier every day.
So I quickly learnt how far away I could be when the ambers kicked off and still make it through before the barriers came down. I did push it one day when I was already late and it really mattered - actually had to duck under the far barrier. But I knew worst case was I would be trapped inside the barrier still clear of the line - I made my own risk assesment.
This is obviously a bit different for those weaving around barriers - they might be familiar with how long it is before a train arrives or just really desperate. How many cases of weaving are there - its going to be memorable but how often does it really happen?

 

[zwk500]

I don't believe any but a tiny fraction of the offenders don't know the rules. They are just making their own risk assessment based on familiarity. I would bet the vast majority of offenders use the particular crossing regularly, if not every day. For example.......
I went to Warwick Uni. For one year I lived in Cov and cycled in and out across the LC by Canley station that eventually got closed. If it came down then it could be down for multiple trains including ones stopping at the station - long enough to make you noticeably late and too much to just leave earlier every day.
So I quickly learnt how far away I could be when the ambers kicked off and still make it through before the barriers came down. I did push it one day when I was already late and it really mattered - actually had to duck under the far barrier. But I knew worst case was I would be trapped inside the barrier still clear of the line - I made my own risk assesment.
This is obviously a bit different for those weaving around barriers - they might be familiar with how long it is before a train arrives or just really desperate. How many cases of weaving are there - its going to be memorable but how often does it really happen?

Thing is a cyclist can usually move to a place of safety and then get themselves around the barriers. However a car running the crossing will almost always foul one line or damage the gates to prevent stopping. And replacing damaged LX parts costs the railway, and therefore the taxpayer, a bleeding fortune.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen, so we need to work with the current system. Therefore drivers need to follow the rules and be punished if they transgress. I don’t believe for a second that any competent driver wouldn’t understand what wig wags mean and, even if they don’t, that’s entirely their own fault; if you drive a car you are responsible for keeping up to date with the Highway Code and knowing the meaning of signs you may encounter.



This doesn’t really work as a comparison. AWS cancellation can become automatic because of repetition/over familiarity, not because the driver doesn’t understand the meaning of the signal aspect they’re approaching.



TPWS is a passive system which does nothing to avoid driver error, it simply mitigates the results. If a driver trips it often enough they can end up losing their job, not as punishment, per se, but on the grounds of lack of capability to do the job.

It really has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

My bold. I was not really thinking of drivers level of familiarity. More the case that a straight red evokes a more instant/fundamental response. Certainly not referring to people who go through having seen the zig-zag reds for long enough to think.

When they floor it straight through lowering barriers, or weave between them they know full bloody well what they are doing.

Listen to the police officer in this video, it's overfamiliarity rather than underfamiliarity that is the propblem:

This was interesting and answers my earlier question about how many are deliberately chancing it and how many are a little slow on the uptake. The officer said 90% (or was it 92% ?) live local to the crossing they offended at so that is pretty damning. The crossing in the video seemed to be at Barnes and I seem to recall a large proportion of every hour the crossings around there are shut to road traffic - getting on for 50%. So impatience around South West London has to be a factor - but not an excuse.

I find a flashing light is more attention grabbing than a fixed one, and the human brain is wired to be more alert to any visual change than visual statics (think hunter-prey situations). However the vast majority of crossing jumpers simply don't want to spend waiting at what will probably be 5 minutes of empty space in front of them and 5 seconds of passing train. There may be a few senile drivers who don't know what a red light means, and remember that the typical Joe Sixpack's idea of a train has not progressed much beyond what he learned from Thomas the Tank Engine episodes.

Instead of a debate of fixed versus wig-wag, why not have both? A big red light and, below it, a pair of wig-wag red light. That leaves no-one with an excuse.

I feel it is the other way round - a solid red means stay here and wait. So does a flashing red invoke alarm and make one more likely to run away rather than just stop ?. If it invokes flight then a problem is if the flight is in the wrong direction !.

I am trying to recall - are flashing single/double amber lights on the railway a less restrictive aspect than a solid single/double amber ?. If less restrictive then that is a psychological argument that is the opposite to that applied to a flashing red. Furthermore a flashing orange/amber on the road means proceed if safe to do so / no-one on your carriageway whereas a solid amber although momentary means prepare to stop as red is next.

I do think having both would be beneficial. That would mean stop here - and to cover any doubt don't think about chancing it.

Begs the question how many people who dodge zig-zag red lights also dodge normal red traffic lights ?. Could this reveal the same impatient mentality or perhaps instead a subconscious dismissal of the zig-zag red.

Solutions to this include convincing people to use alternative travel to the railway or providing for car parking on both sides of the line and a footbridge for when the LX is down.

Although this does raise an important point - there are many Level Crossings right on the end of stations that are closed prior to a stopping train arriving, or are held closed by the rear of the train blocking the road whilst passengers alight and board. This undoubtedly increases the chance of a driver wanting to beat the lights as it extends the crossing time. More could be done by the railway to change stopping positions or lengthen platforms to avoid the need for these extended blockages.
On a similar note, are there many Level crossings where a freight train may be held in a loop or at a junction that would block the road for a serious length of time? I know the Down loop at Claypole on the ECML has a level crossing in the middle, although there is limited freight traffic on that section, and IIRC doesn't Stowmarket have a restriction on holding trains for too long because of a crossing that's blocked?

You are correct. Too much temptation - not an excuse of course. Unfortunately level crossings came into existence often (eg SW London) when there was a lot less road traffic and there was a heavy solid gate in the way. So level crossings are maybe less fit for purpose than they were 100-200 years ago.

I don't think they need to be on the practical test - after all, you can't guarantee they'll activate and you need multiple test routes. I think the current theory test setup is fine, although the Wigwags could come up a bit more often than other signs (if they don't already).
Retesting the theory regularly will be more effective than changes to a test you only do once.

Agreed.

Straight suspension would be harsh if no other offences - hence my 10 points proposal.

I agree about regularly re-sitting the theory test. That would have all sorts of benefits regardless of railway crossings. So I would go for quite a high frequency - probably impractically high !.

It is a bit like the speed awareness course except, in that case, while some drivers learn something from it others just see it as a way of avoiding points on their licence.

EDIT

Just to add. For the hardened transgressors of railway level crossings this is no different to drivers who persistently break the speed limit. They think the rules are irrelevant to them. I know of a person who will accelerate hard to around 45mph in a 20 and more in the 30. Irony is I have followed them at the limit and quite often ended up just behind them 20 minutes later. That person will never get caught because they know where the cameras are and brake hard for them. Sadly they will encounter a pedestrian or other surprise though - one of those insurance devices that record how you drive might hit them HARD in the pocket though. I wonder if something could be done like that for jumping lights of all kinds. Irony is fact complacent old me is more likely to drift slightly above 20 just enough to get collared and yet most of the time I sense the anger of those behind me for sticking to the limit !.

 

[dosxuk]

Flashing yellow means proceed at caution and be prepared to stop. Flashing red means do not pass. It's very simple - and any driver who doesn't understand those simple rules should not be allowed on the road.

The use of flashing signals is not restricted to level crossings - by far the most common installation of flashing red (and yellow) signals hasn't yet been mentioned on here - motorway signage. Flashing red signals above a lane mean exactly the same - you must not pass this signal - use another lane if available or stop here. I suspect the motorway ones are even more abused than the level crossing ones though.

 

[43066]

My bold. I was not really thinking of drivers level of familiarity. More the case that a straight red evokes a more instant/fundamental response. Certainly not referring to people who go through having seen the zig-zag reds for long enough to think.

Is this the case? I have always understood that a flashing light is easier for the human eye to detect than a steady one - hence why cyclists often have flashing head and tail lights. It’s also why emergency vehicles have flashing rather than steady lights.