2018 Barns Green crossing collision - RAIB report?

Lucan · 28 Jun 2026

A man (the driver) and his grandson were killed on 17 February 2018 when their car was struck by a train at the Barns Green level crossing between Horsham and Billingshurst. The inquest concluded that the driver had weaved round the lowered half barriers https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-disregarded-warning-signs-grandson-183326581.html

A retired teacher and his teenage grandson were killed when their car was struck by a train at a level crossing after the pensioner ignored the flashing lights and barriers indicating an incoming train, an inquest has found.

I have searched the RAIB pages for their report on this crash but cannot find it. Surely they would have reported on this?

RailUK Forums

D1537 · 28 Jun 2026

Lucan said:
A man (the driver) and his grandson were killed on 17 February 2018 when their car was struck by a train at the Barns Green level crossing between Horsham and Billingshurst. The inquest concluded that the driver had weaved round the lowered half barriers https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-disregarded-warning-signs-grandson-183326581.html

I have searched the RAIB pages for their report on this crash but cannot find it. Surely they would have reported on this?

If the person concerned put themselves in harm's way, and there was no railway-related safety aspect to the accident, then RAIB would not report on it.

From this RAIB page

"Some events on the main line railways that result in death or serious injury will not be investigated by RAIB (and in some cases they do not have to be notified to us). There are two main reasons why this may happen. In many cases, from the information available at the time, it appears that the person concerned has deliberately trespassed or otherwise put themselves in harm’s way. Sometimes we are satisfied, after making enquiries, that although an accidental sequence of events has resulted in tragic consequences, there are no safety lessons to be learned, and so we will not investigate further."

As for the second type, last year an elderly gentleman had a fatal medical episode at the wheel of his car, which rolled onto a level crossing near to where we live and was hit by a Wilton-Knowsley freight. RAIB did have a look but did not report on it once the medical report came through.

4069 · 28 Jun 2026

No, that was not the subject of an RAIB investigation. The preliminary examination concluded that there were no lessons for the railway in this event. RAIB staff provided evidence for consideration at the inquest, as reported in your link.

Lucan · 28 Jun 2026

Thanks. I did not realise that RAIB do not need to report on every serious event.

AlterEgo · 28 Jun 2026

Lucan said:
Thanks. I did not realise that RAIB do not need to report on every serious event.

Not quite. They do need to be *informed* by the railway of any incident which caused loss of life, serious injury or serious damage to property (or could have caused all three if a near miss); they can then decide if the incident warrants an investigation.

An inquest found in this case the driver drove around the crossing and unlawfully killed his grandson by doing so, and that his own death was accidental.

whoosh · 28 Jun 2026

Accidental, not misadventure?

AlterEgo · 28 Jun 2026

whoosh said:
Accidental, not misadventure?

Accidental (yes, surprised me too, as this looks like classic misadventure):

Man ‘disregarded warning signs’ before he and grandson died on level crossing

The car was struck by a train around 14 seconds after the barrier had been fully lowered, an inquest heard.

www.countytimes.co.uk

QueensCurve · 28 Jun 2026

whoosh said:
Accidental, not misadventure?

Inquests no longer seem to find death by misadventure. There seems to be a social tendency to lose the concept.

AlterEgo · 28 Jun 2026

QueensCurve said:
Inquests no longer seem to find death by misadventure. There seems to be a social tendency to lose the concept.

Not true. Misadventure is the most common short form conclusion found, accounting for a quarter of all verdicts. What is becoming more common are narrative conclusions, some of which will include cases involving what would otherwise be termed misadventure.

Coroners statistics 2024: England and Wales

www.gov.uk

TrainOnLine · 28 Jun 2026

Taken from the article:

"We want to make it very clear as a family we don't believe in any way Barry would consciously put the life of himself and his grandson at risk at any point."

I find this a very strange comment for the family to make.

He's intentionally ignored red lights and a barrier. A incredibly stupid decision to make

AlterEgo · 28 Jun 2026

TrainOnLine said:
Taken from the article:
"We want to make it very clear as a family we don't believe in any way Barry would consciously put the life of himself and his grandson at risk at any point."

I find this a very strange comment for the family to make.

He's intentionally ignored red lights and a barrier. A incredibly stupid decision to make

They're saying that they don't think he would *knowingly* have placed them both in danger, and that he was unaware of the mortal risk of driving around barriers. The lethality of level crossing collisions and the lack of knowledge of the risk is precisely why the railway tries to raise awareness of this.

QueensCurve · 28 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
Not true. Misadventure is the most common short form conclusion found, accounting for a quarter of all verdicts. What is becoming more common are narrative conclusions, some of which will include cases involving what would otherwise be termed misadventure.

Coroners statistics 2024: England and Wales

www.gov.uk

Thank you for that. I am not aware of hearing misadventure reported in the media in recent years. Socially I think there is more pressure to regard a death as someone's negligence for which they should be compensated.

It defies belief that anyone would do anything so stupid, particularly when it puts their grandson or any other family member at risk.

driverd · 28 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
They're saying that they don't think he would *knowingly* have placed them both in danger, and that he was unaware of the mortal risk of driving around barriers. The lethality of level crossing collisions and the lack of knowledge of the risk is precisely why the railway tries to raise awareness of this.

My read is something along the lines of "he probably didn't realise a train was coming, he wouldn't have knowingly caused this outcome", which is fair I suppose - over the years I'm sure there's a sizable minority who have chanced it in some way or form at level crossings and seen no harm come to them. In other words, they believe it doesn't place them in harms way because it worked that last x number of times/works for other people.

It's a really sad and tragic episode, ongoing testament to the value of keeping these risks at front and centre of the public's collective mind.

Swedenorer · 28 Jun 2026

QueensCurve said:
Thank you for that. I am not aware of hearing misadventure reported in the media in recent years.

You'd be lucky to find any inquest reported these days.

Towers · 28 Jun 2026

TrainOnLine said:
Taken from the article:

I find this a very strange comment for the family to make.

He's intentionally ignored red lights and a barrier. A incredibly stupid decision to make

It would surely be a lot stranger if the family had sent a child out with somebody who they did believe was likely to consciously put theirs or their own life at risk?

There could be all manner of reasons behind what happened, including an impaired ability to drive safely and make sound judgements for whatever reason; we will of course never know and it simply remains a desperately sad incident.

TrainOnLine · 28 Jun 2026

Towers said:
It would surely be a lot stranger if the family had sent a child out with somebody who they did believe was likely to consciously put theirs or their own life at risk?

There could be all manner of reasons behind what happened, including an impaired ability to drive safely and make sound judgements for whatever reason; we will of course never know and it simply remains a desperately sad incident.

You're correct a very sad incident.
From what you've said in the second paragraph it only strengthens the argument for retest or retraining later on in a persons driving life.
Perhaps an approach similar to the HGV industry is needed where a driver is to complete CPC training elapsing every 5 years. Refreshing on new rules , driving styles, smart motorways etc.

D1537 · 28 Jun 2026

TrainOnLine said:
From what you've said in the second paragraph it only strengthens the argument for retest or retraining later on in a persons driving life.

Whilst re-testing would not be a bad thing IMO, if someone believes that driving round level crossing gates while the alarms are sounding is a good idea they should not be on the road at all. The problem is that I'm not entirely sure how you'd pick this sort of thing up even in a re-test (after all, you're not going to directly ask someone if they'd do that...)

TrainOnLine · 28 Jun 2026

D1537 said:
Whilst re-testing would not be a bad thing IMO, if someone believes that driving round level crossing gates while the alarms are sounding is a good idea they should not be on the road at all. The problem is that I'm not entirely sure how you'd pick this sort of thing up even in a re-test (after all, you're not going to directly ask someone if they'd do that...)

During CPC training you are shown previous incidents, exposed to scenarios you may have never encountered and receive general guidance. You have to remember someone that may have passed their test 40+ years ago may never have encountered some of the newer elements on the road network today.

coppercapped · 28 Jun 2026

TrainOnLine said:
During CPC training you are shown previous incidents, exposed to scenarios you may have never encountered and receive general guidance. You have to remember someone that may have passed their test 40+ years ago may never have encountered some of the newer elements on the road network today.

Really? That may be true if the person took the test and then never drove again for 40 years. Anyone who drives regularly since their test will be aware of changes as they occur. They don’t all happen at once.

Deepgreen · 28 Jun 2026

driverd said:
My read is something along the lines of "he probably didn't realise a train was coming, he wouldn't have knowingly caused this outcome", which is fair I suppose - over the years I'm sure there's a sizable minority who have chanced it in some way or form at level crossings and seen no harm come to them. In other words, they believe it doesn't place them in harms way because it worked that last x number of times/works for other people.

It's a really sad and tragic episode, ongoing testament to the value of keeping these risks at front and centre of the public's collective mind.

That is precisely what red lights and barriers down tells you, though! Sounds like he should not have been driving at all.

swt_passenger · 28 Jun 2026

coppercapped said:
Really? That may be true if the person took the test and then never drove again for 40 years. Anyone who drives regularly since their test will be aware of changes as they occur. They don’t all happen at once.

…and for the first half of that 40 years almost every other car tax letter included a colourful leaflet telling you all about the latest rule changes.

Swedenorer · 28 Jun 2026

As I mentioned in another thread the RAIB may have taken no action but the railway did puttng cameras by pretty well every AHB in the area pretty quickly iirc certainly within a couple of years. As it happens I had a long and complex journey to make that day and the departure boards went to Armageddon just as I got to the top of the subway I think the final return leg was by cab in the small hours!

Lucan · 28 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
They're [the victims' family] saying that they don't think he would *knowingly* have placed them both in danger, and that he was unaware of the mortal risk of driving around barriers.

From my recollection of news reports at the time, the family did not think he had done anything wrong at all, and believed that the barriers had not come down and the red lights had not shown. However the police concluded from marks in the road that the car had weaved around closed barriers. It did not help that [from the Yahoo article] :

However investigators were unable to offer definitive proof they had lowered as a data-storage box nearby was destroyed by fire after one half of the car became embedded in it

Having seen some level crossing crash videos (there are many on YouTube from the USA) in which destruction is caused over a significant radius, I wonder why a data storage box is not sited in a safer place.

GordonT · 28 Jun 2026

TrainOnLine said:
Taken from the article:
I find this a very strange comment for the family to make.

Comments made by those in the throes of being grief-stricken and wrestling directly with an overwhelming situation will always have the potential to diverge from rationality.

GarethW · 29 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
Not true. Misadventure is the most common short form conclusion found, accounting for a quarter of all verdicts. What is becoming more common are narrative conclusions, some of which will include cases involving what would otherwise be termed misadventure.

Coroners statistics 2024: England and Wales

www.gov.uk

Not true.

If you read the report it doesn’t mention Accident just Misadventure in the statistics narrative.

But if you look at the graphs, they show the 25% for Accident/Misadventure.

Seems very poor proof reading, and the categories may have been merged.

None of the recent reports in local rags I’ve seen mention misadventure just accident.

The exile · 29 Jun 2026

Towers said:
It would surely be a lot stranger if the family had sent a child out with somebody who they did believe was likely to consciously put theirs or their own life at risk?

And even stranger if they said so. Inevitably, statements made by family and friends after a tragedy are going to be through very rose-tinted spectacles - if not it is surely a cruel twist of fate that it is only the future brain surgeons who die young , not the uncouth toe-rags who everyone dreaded having to sit next to.

DelW · 29 Jun 2026

Swedenorer said:
As I mentioned in another thread the RAIB may have taken no action but the railway did puttng cameras by pretty well every AHB in the area pretty quickly iirc certainly within a couple of years.

Also doing away with AHBs altogether in many places. In my area (not far from this case) they have been pretty much eliminated from the Portsmouth Direct and the North Downs Line, replaced by full barrier crossings.

Bikeman78 · 30 Jun 2026

DelW said:
Also doing away with AHBs altogether in many places. In my area (not far from this case) they have been pretty much eliminated from the Portsmouth Direct and the North Downs Line, replaced by full barrier crossings.

Also Parsonage Road in Horsham, which has made it a tedious road to use because the crossing is shut so much. Now I use a nearby foot crossing if I walk, or the road over rail bridge by the station if I drive.

Cricketer8for9 · 30 Jun 2026

And as a result drivers wait longer.

Port Road · 30 Jun 2026

Cricketer8for9 said:
And as a result drivers wait longer.

Let them wait. With AHB's the safety of everyone travelling by rail is in the hands of the motorist - inherently unsafe.
During an AHB failure (on the WCML) some years ago S&T staff attending witnessed at least half a dozen cars and, incredibly, a service bus ignoring the red lights and weaving round the barriers to get through. The trains were all being stopped and cautioned - but the motorists didn't know that! This crossing is now CCTV controlled thankfully.

2018 Barns Green crossing collision - RAIB report?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member