1038 INV-WIC hits car on crossing, 3 dead

[jamesontheroad]

This just in; would have been a 158 involved, less than a mile from Georgemas Junction. This is an unguarded crossing with lights. At a Community Council meeting in January 2009 a local resident reported that on one occasion recently he had ventured across the line while a train approached because the lights on one side weren't functioning http://halkirkcommunitycouncil.org/halkirkcommunitycouncil/minutes/2009/Halkirk_DCC_Minutes_21_01_2009.pdf

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8281025.stm

Three dead in rail crossing crash
Page last updated at 14:53 GMT, Tuesday, 29 September 2009 15:53 UK

Three people in a car have been killed following a collision with a train at a level crossing in the Highlands.

The accident happened on Bridge Street, Halkirk, in Caithness, at just after 1400 BST.

Eighteen passengers and four staff on the train were not injured. British Transport Police (BTP) confirmed all three who died were in the car.

Northern Constabulary said it was understood the 1038 BST service from Inverness to Wick was involved.

BTP, Northern Constabulary and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch will launch a joint investigation at the scene.

On its website, Scotrail warned that cancellations and delays to further services on the line should be expected following the accident.

JourneyCheck:

Line problem between Wick and Inverness.
Message Received :29/09/2009 14:27

Train services between Wick and Inverness are being disrupted due to emergency services dealing with an incident.

Short notice alterations, cancellations and delays can be expected.

 

[jon0844]

Is there not a fail-safe for when lights for a crossing may fail? I don't know what this might be, but either backup power, another lighting circuit or a way of automatically notifying Network Rail (or whoever).

I know that in some countries, they have a flashing light to show when it is clear to cross - so no lights would tell you take extreme care.

 

[GB]

Is there not a fail-safe for when lights for a crossing may fail? I don't know what this might be, but either backup power, another lighting circuit or a way of automatically notifying Network Rail (or whoever).

I know that in some countries, they have a flashing light to show when it is clear to cross - so no lights would tell you take extreme care.

If the crossing is working normally then the train driver should see a flashing white light. If for examples the road warning lights are not working then the signal should remain at a steady red idicating to the driver not to proceed any further.

At which point he will get on the phone to the NR signaller.

Unit involved in this incident was 158710

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I can not see why people cant look just before to see if a trains coming on un-protected level crossings even if a signal is saying it's
safe to go across.

But I guess it is not there fault at-all and they was doing it in a safe way I think the families should sue NR for all they can and maybe next time they'll protect there crossings.

 

[Drsatan]

Of course, signs should be erected at ungated level crossings stating that drivers should look on both sides and proceed with care. In the USA there have been plenty of accidents involving trains hitting cars whose drivers had failed to look before proceeding.

 

[GB]

I can not see why people cant look just before to see if a trains coming on un-protected level crossings even if a signal is saying it's
safe to go across.

But I guess it is not there fault at-all and they was doing it in a safe way I think the families shhould sue NR for all they can and maybe next time they'll protect there crossings.

Wow hold on. Lets wait untill investigations are completed before apportioning blame.

 

[68000]

But I guess it is not there fault at-all and they was doing it in a safe way I think the families shhould sue NR for all they can and maybe next time they'll protect there crossings.

I will put a wager on that the blame lies with the car driver for this incident

 

[jon0844]

If there is a fail safe that means the train gets a red if the other signal doesn't work then I'm with you in thinking the motorist was at a fault!

 

[thelem]

But I guess it is not there fault at-all and they was doing it in a safe way I think the families shhould sue NR for all they can and maybe next time they'll protect there crossings.

The posts above say that the lights haven't worked at one point in the past, not that the lights weren't working yesterday.

 

[turbo mick]

ive been stationary at a station with a ABCL crossing with the white light flashing and a car drove round the barriers whilst down ive had near misses the lot.The public dont understand the dangers of just waiting a couple of mins



cheers
mick

 

[jamesontheroad]

The Scottish Sun has a picture of the wreck today. Not a chance for the passengers in the car (a Nissan Almera) and one was apparently thrown from the vehicle, suggesting that he wasn't wearing seatbelt. Believed to be local. Sad times.

 

[MCR247]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sco.../3-killed-by-train-level-crossing-horror.html

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I agree on the point now that is kind of the drivers fault and he/she should of been wearing a seatbelt in the first place and should of been more alert looking out for trains etc....

But NR should improve the quility,safety,and reliability,for level crossings like this one as elederly drivers may be at risk aswell if the warning light's are not working and this is just one thing.

 

[Oswyntail]

The newspaper report seems fairly typical, but...
a) If many locals have indeed had near misses, that suggests that they are consistently abusing the system. "Och, there's usually a few minutes grace once the lights flash..."
b) If the lights are poorly visible in certain sunlight conditions, you drive more carefully. Sometimes I drive in the morning directly towards the rising sun, and this obscures my view of a set of local traffic lights. So, knowing my view is obscured, I slow to a crawl until I can actually see the lights.
c) from the photograph, the signage at the crossing is pretty clear. Even if the car driver was not local, he could tell he was approaching a crossing, and would be expected to exercise caution (including as described in b above). That is what road signs are for.

 

[90019]

and he/she should of been wearing a seatbelt in the first place

Where did it say that the driver wasn't wearing a seatbelt?

for level crossings like this one as elederly drivers may be at risk aswell

If you're going to stereotype like that, then it would probably be younger drivers because they take more risks.

 

[Geezertronic]

Even if the driver and the passengers were wearing seatbelts, I doubt the mounting points would last long when a big f'ing train hit the car side on, no matter what side the impact was.

 

[Donny Dave]

"It's hard to count the near misses we have seen. People race out the village. They don't look to see if a train is coming."

Pretty much sums up why the accident happened.

 

[robvulpes]

RAIB report into LC train/car collision at Halkirk now available:-

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/100923_R162010_Halkirk.pdf

 

[YorkshireBear]

Appears drivers eye sight is to blame? (ive onyl read it briefly so sorry if im wrong)

 

[jon0844]

I wonder if The Sun will publish or modify its story (and, no, I don't really expect they will!) and tone down the style of writing that suggests it was the fault of the railway.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sco.../3-killed-by-train-level-crossing-horror.html

Yes, we COULD spend a load of tax payers money to prevent people who have poor eyesight (and from the report, had been told to get glasses twice without doing so), perhaps having someone that travels with every person in the car to give guidance, or make trains wait until someone gives the all-clear that no lunatic is planning to race through a crossing... or we could just put this down to the driver being 100% at fault and, effectively but not literally, murdering the other people in the car with him.

 

[NSEFAN]

I wonder if The Sun will publish or modify its story (and, no, I don't really expect they will!) and tone down the style of writing that suggests it was the fault of the railway.

To be fair, it wouldn't be the Sun if it were to say anything else. Demonise your readers and you lose revenue. :P

The report basically says that a combination of poor driver visibility and poor quality of the signals.

The railway now does its part to make the crossing safer, like the new LED lights being put in. The rest is up to users of the crossing to pay attention to where they are going, especially if they have "sub-standard eyesight" as the report calls it.

 

[jon0844]

Brighter lights are good, but if I am driving and can't see lights then I tend to slow down and use caution. With traffic lights, they should be showing something.

Now, I suppose that DOES highlight a problem with these lights - they would be off if it was safe to cross (but are they off or is it just hard to see them?). The report mentions how people can be confused, and perhaps we should actually change the lights to include a green light.

Then, if you don't see green, you might then be wary.

That's obviously beyond what the industry can change on its own though.

 

[NSEFAN]

It would be interesting to see if having normal traffic-style green-yellow-red lights would work. I personally think that whilst having a green light is a good idea for open crossings, people might be more confused. They might think it's exactly like normal junction lights, attempt to save a few seconds by carrying on, and end up in the same nasty situation as before.

You would have thought that the current system is fairly self-explanatory. Perhaps thinking for oneself is too much to ask these days?

 

[jon0844]

Yes, that's far too much in our nanny state!

Normal lights would obviously go amber/red as normal. The obvious problem is that people do seem happy to jump red lights.

The flashing ones do appear to give a more serious warning (at least to me).

In Sweden, they have a flashing light when it's clear (it just fades in/out, either in yellow or white - can't remember which).

I'm surprised that we haven't adopted a EU-wide warning system yet actually.

 

[boing_uk]

What I can't understand is why the road signals at level crossings have not kept pace with road traffic signals elsewhere in terms of technology.

Retrofit LED's are available, with effective lamp monitoring capabilities and the physical cost* to replace the lamps on this site would be about £2,500, assuming we replace the backing boards as well, lets say £4,000.

*Using real-world prices, not Network Rail's.

What surprises me more about this particular site is the lack of sufficient number 4x2 markings on the approach to the crossing. From the RAIB pictures and Streetview, there are only 3 marks on the approach to the crossing, where there should be 7.

However, the road also looks under 5.5m wide from some pictures, and wider in others, so I dont know. If its less than 5.5m you are not supposed to have centre lines, so what should be there are carriageway edge markings for approximately 45m either side of the crossing, keeping the three centre line marks already extant.

Either way, the road markings are IMO substandard and do not sufficiently pick out the hazard for approaching traffic. Nor do the traffic signs on the approach - instead of yellow backed signs, larger signs should have been used.

IMO the local highway authority should share *some* of the blame in the collision rate at this crossing.

 

[yorkie]

I think the blame lays solely with the driver and the system that allows someone with such poor eyesight to be a danger to themselves and others on the roads.

It has nothing to do with the crossing itself. The crossing is quite clear to anyone who is reasonably capable of driving.

If you can't see that, you can't see other hazards and should be off the roads.

Unfortunately this country has it's priorities totally wrong with this sort of thing, and the responsibility should be firmly with the driver, and we should not be afraid to stop people driving. Why do we almost consider driving a right? It's scandalous.

 

[142094]

Even if the driver could not see the lights due to glare from the sun or the condition of the backboard, as a motorist you are taught to slow down to check things like this out in order to see if you can proceed - eg at a junction with poor sight lines you slowly move forward until you can get a better view. Perhaps this is another problem - the person started driving a good few years ago and possibly did not have to take a test?

 

[boing_uk]

Im not saying that in this particular instance that there is anything wrong with the crossing itself, nor that in this instance the vast majority of the blame is laid with the driver.

However, it is clear from the report that the driver had a condition with his eyes that meant that the reflected sunlight affected his vision.

All I am saying is that the signing and markings on the approach are not as good as they could/should be, particularly given this crossings supposed history. A yellow backed small sign is only as good as a small sign. Make the sign bigger, put some more markings down, make the crossing a bit more visible.

It probably wouldn't have made a jot of difference in this case but you never know. The fact the gent was driving substandard eyesight in the first place is another discussion altogether.

 

[Greenback]

Quite. There must be a lot of peoppe driving around with sub standard eyesight in the first place. We really need to be tougher with both the eyesight requirments and the enforcement of them.

 

[jon0844]

Having substandard eyesight probably meant something bad was going to happen sooner or later, even if it was somewhere else.

So, you make the crossing with brighter lights, barriers, bigger signs and so on - then the driver mows down pedestrians on a crossing or crashes into a bus stop five minutes later.

The fault was clearly with the driver. I think we have more road markings, highly reflective warning signs and barriers than anywhere else in Europe, if not the world. In many places, you really are reliant on your eyes (and ears) to get around. We make it much easier, and safer, than others - even when we might fall short of every single safety system available.

Have you seen how they do road works on motorways abroad, compared to us? Even in Sweden, which has this 'vision zero' plan I have been shocked at how they just do work without any protection and make drivers move out to potentially have head-on collisions on roads with a 90-100kph limit. Absolutely crazy!

As I said before, they DO have a 'safe to cross' flashing light on railway crossings - but in rural areas, they have no barriers - not even fences along the track! They have countdown markers, but that's about it.

I don't know if they have loads of accidents in Sweden mind you, but suspect that people know there's a danger and act accordingly.