15-year-old girl killed on level crossing

[Oswyntail]

Why does every news report have to link in with the previous incident at Elsenham?:roll:
...

I suspect because of the story appearing coincidentally of NR admitting H&S breaches. And there is a common thread (not treating crossing the rails with the caution necessary).

 

[142094]

Just to put some numbers onto it, the RSSB recorded just four pedestrian fatalities at crossings during 2010/11. None of these were attributed to slips, trips or falls (click, then scroll down to Table 26 in para 9.2.3).

I had a quick read of that last night and it is astounding that the Media fail to pick up on the fact that UK roads cause 10x more deaths/injuries per year than the railways. I also note that in most of the other fatalities on the railway last year, alcohol (and drugs) played a role.

 

[Norwich317]

Could it be possible that a southbound train passed just before the northbound and she crossed thinking the red light was for the southbound train only and walked onto the crossing after the southbound train cleared without looking in the London direction?

 

[All Line Rover]

I love this... :roll:

Elaine Dawson, 69, said: 'There have been several deaths over the years. If young people are listening to Walkmans or have a phone to their ear, they don't pay attention to the signals, so we have to protect them. It's a dangerous crossing and we have campaigned for a bridge to be built.'

After a while this just gets ridiculous. So we also have to "protect" those who accidentally step in front of cars whilst listening to their iPod, do we?

People listening to music whilst cycling or walking are a danger to themselves and other road (and rail) users. The simple solution is just to turn the device off! :roll:

It's worth noting that headphones were only found near the scene. It is unknown whether or not the girl was wearing them at the time.

 

[SS4]

I love this... :roll:



After a while this just gets ridiculous. So we also have to "protect" those who accidentally step in front of cars whilst listening to their iPod, do we?

People listening to music whilst cycling or walking are a danger to themselves and other road (and rail) users. The simple solution is just to turn the device off! :roll:

It's worth noting that headphones were only found near the scene. It is unknown whether or not the girl was wearing them at the time.

Nah, we just have to protect people from the Daily Mail.
Is this the same "paper" that consistently moans about the nanny state? It'd be funny if it weren't so hypocritical.

At what point do people need to take responsibility for their actions? You only need to take the headphones out. My spare mp3 player and my main one came with instructions not to listen loudly when out, especially at busy crossings.
But we can't possibly say this girl is to blame because she's dead.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Interesting that if someone walks in front of a car it is their fault, but if someone walks in front of a train it is Network Rail's fault.

 

[O L Leigh]

Could it be possible that a southbound train passed just before the northbound and she crossed thinking the red light was for the southbound train only and walked onto the crossing after the southbound train cleared without looking in the London direction?

We discussed this at work this morning and discounted the possibility.

It's worth noting that headphones were only found near the scene. It is unknown whether or not the girl was wearing them at the time.

The driver will know.

Besides, "near the scene" is regrettably apt. She was hit by a train probably doing 50+mph.

O L Leigh

 

[142094]

Interesting that if someone walks in front of a car it is their fault, but if someone walks in front of a train it is Network Rail's fault.

Yup, that RSSB report has some good points - road accidents generally only involve one person (not counting the driver) whereas rail accidents have the potential to harm many. There is a clear disparity in the way that accidents on the railways are reported as well in the papers, in many cases it is due to the feeling that, if you are driving a car and have an accident, it could be through your own actions, whereas if you're on a train then you have no control over how it is operated.

 

[amcluesent]

Besides, "near the scene" is regrettably apt.

Aye, I recall a fatality where a hand was found weeks later in the beer garden of a pub 200 yards away.

 

[All Line Rover]

The driver will know.

Besides, "near the scene" is regrettably apt. She was hit by a train probably doing 50+mph.

Aye, I recall a fatality where a hand was found weeks later in the beer garden of a pub 200 yards away.

For the record, my post was not intended to be gruesome. I'm just saying that, as of yet, it is unknown if she was wearing headphones at the time, so assumptions should not be made.

I really don't see the point of these threads as it is always speculation!

 

[tsr]

For the record, my post was not intended to be gruesome. I'm just saying that, as of yet, it is unknown if she was wearing headphones at the time, so assumptions should not be made.

I really don't see the point of these threads as it is always speculation!

From a computer forensics point of view, it would be possible for at least some of the data on a modern mobile phone or digital music player to be released, and hopefully this would tell the experts all they need to know about when certain files were accessed, and thus when music may have been played. Unfortunately, faulty or incorrect clock settings can make this a bit more opaque, as can continuous playlists, whereby the device may have carried on playing music well after the accident.

Bear in mind that there may be no way to establish whether or not earphones were being worn at the time of the incident. I have no idea whether or not CCTV footage was obtained. Given the speculation, I assume it may not have been.

Since this most probably wasn't a suicide attempt, it is all the more terrible. My condolences go to the girl's friends and family, the staff and any witnesses.

 

[O L Leigh]

For the record, my post was not intended to be gruesome. I'm just saying that, as of yet, it is unknown if she was wearing headphones at the time, so assumptions should not be made.

I really don't see the point of these threads as it is always speculation!

And neither should it be assumed that she was not. If speculation is anathema to you, perhaps you should not have started the ball rolling by mentioning the headphones in the first place.

BTW, and also for the record, these facts ARE known even if they have not been released. As I said before, the driver will have seen and, as I am given to understand the train involved was a Cl379, it will also have been caught on the front-facing cameras.

O L Leigh

 

[GB]

And neither should it be assumed that she was not. If speculation is anathema to you, perhaps you should not have started the ball rolling by mentioning the headphones in the first place.

BTW, and also for the record, these facts ARE known even if they have not been released. As I said before, the driver will have seen and, as I am given to understand the train involved was a Cl379, it will also have been caught on the front-facing cameras.

O L Leigh

Good point about the foward facing cameras all though I dont know what the quality is like. Brings me to another point, I dont envy anyone that has the task of having to watch through it!

 

[O L Leigh]

Having watched the playback on the in-cab screens (though not of this incident, obviously) I can vouch for the quality.

+1 about having to watch this footage back, though.

O L Leigh

 

[Mutant Lemming]

y? We're not comparing like for like, so please lets keep this relevant.

Actually if a comparison between road and rail traffic were to be made then it should be to compare a rail line with a motorway - fast moving traffic with limited ability to stop.
No expense is spared in constructing bridges, tunnels etc (even for cattle crossing once a month) to seperate people and animals from the traffic.
It is of course highly unlikely that with the limiited funds available for railways that crossing on the level will be eliminated in our lifetimes.

 

[jon0844]

I'd expect the quality to be good on all the cameras, including the older stock (as the cameras were fitted relatively recently). I am sure it will make everything perfectly clear, but it still won't be enough for the Daily Mail crowd.

 

[tsr]

Actually if a comparison between road and rail traffic were to be made then it should be to compare a rail line with a motorway - fast moving traffic with limited ability to stop.
No expense is spared in constructing bridges, tunnels etc (even for cattle crossing once a month) to seperate people and animals from the traffic.
It is of course highly unlikely that with the limiited funds available for railways that crossing on the level will be eliminated in our lifetimes.

Three points here: firstly, traffic on most motorways is more frequent than trains, therefore it makes sense to have more grade-separated crossings. Crossing many railways will not result in the same risk as crossing motorways if this is done properly and by the rules, despite many potential hazards, because many railway crossings simply do not have the same traffic frequency, and engineers et al have installed crossings on railways for specific reasons at specific locations - but they haven't put them on motorways. Secondly, traffic on busy motorways can come to a standstill at a rate of one mile of stationary traffic a minute, and in dry conditions any road vehicle which has been properly maintained will probably stop in a far shorter distance than a train travelling at a similar speed and in similar conditions, but this is largely irrelevant except as a point of interest. Thirdly, expenses are often spared in constructing interchanges for roads which carry vehicles travelling at similar speeds to those on motorways, but which are not in fact classed as motorways. Large and complex road junctions often catch the eye, but they are not prevalent anywhere and often they are not well-designed either. By and large, crossing even moderately busy railways can be done safely and efficiently, and railways are shown by many sets of statistics as safer than road transport.

(Naturally, very busy railway lines often avoid non-separated crossings, for completely understandable reasons. Also, as we know, a level crossing with few train services passing over it can also be very dangerous, as can a road with little traffic.)

This is besides the point rather, but I hope you don't mind me mentioning this. I don't want to start an argument. This is predominantly a thread discussing an absolutely tragic incident which does bring to light the hazards of crossings, even when they are well-maintained and considered to be reasonably well-designed.