-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Level crossing justice
- Thread starter merlodlliw
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
O L Leigh
Established Member
Oh, you idealists.
O L Leigh
O L Leigh
The 158 Man
Member
I just hate farmers in general (notice how they're not even worth the capital 'F' as far as I'm concerned.....)
You should try living in the country up here, you'd soon get sick of them. They call themselves "Gaurdians Of The Countryside" - MY ARSE! :roll:
LondonLarry
Member
The law should be changed so the driver is liable for the accident on a level crossing unless proven otherwise. The same should apply on norml roads where a driver hits a cyclist or pedetrian or a cyclist hits a pedestrian. Hopefully, this would make drivers realise that the world extends beyond their vehicle/mobile phone conversation...
Not at all. He's very 'non-PC' (like me!). I don't know if it's true in this case, but in the cases of my mate's magistrate sentencing, it's that controversy sells newspapers and attracts TV viewers, so the reporters often deliberarly put a 'slant' on the story by only reporting the bits they want to report.
I have no time at all for moronic motorists who put trains at risk on crossings, so of course I hold no candle for the farmer in this case.
All my mate says is that if you didn't hear ALL the evidence presented in court (as opposed to only the snippets reported by the press) you really can't nay-say the magistrate's judgement.
Oracle
Established Member
I have driven tractors and enjoyed every second. Learned to pull and reverse trailers. It was almost akin I thought at the time to the pleasure of driving diesel and steam locos in my experience. However, we had a LC down the land and it was incumbent to ensure that you had enough time to get across, otherwise it was a requirement to stop and use the phone.
BlythPower
Member
Swift-Deere
Member
Me to lol I was only about 13 as well so it felt weird to be in charge of somthing so big and i was shocked the power stearing was so light!!!
The 158 Man
Member
Do they indeed..?
Yeah they do, why? :?
royaloak
Established Member
I agree with this but why only a driver, what about people on mobility scooters or pedestrians?.
I don't agree with this at all, how many times do cyclists ride straight out of side streets/ off the pavement without looking, ride in the dark with no lights on or disregard the rules of the road.
A car should be in the road a pedestrian shouldn't so unless its at a pedestrian crossing the pedestrian shouldn't be in the road so why should it be the car drivers fault.
All this "its the nasty car drivers fault" bull really gets my back up, people should be responsible for their own safety (up to a point) and if they break the rules of the road then its their fault!
Can you explain to mt why you feel that somebody who walks in front of my train is at fault, but if that same person walks in front of my car when I am on my way home it suddenly becomes MY fault?
I get the feeling you dont drive/ own a car!
Well said Royaloak. There is no doubt that there are plenty of bad car drivers out there but alot of cyclists and pedestrians are not whiter than white thus blame should be appointed were blame is due, and as said, people need to take responsability for their own action.
I personly resent being accused or blamed for something that is not my fault!
I personly resent being accused or blamed for something that is not my fault!
Old Timer
Established Member
Do you have a link ? and are you posting the link on other sites ?Petition raised.
I dont, as yet. It is awaiting approval. When its approved, I'll post the link up here.
As this is the only rail forum I am on, I am sure other memebers on here will take up the issue on other rail forums. I will, however be posting it up on the two roads forums I am on, when I get the link.
As this is the only rail forum I am on, I am sure other memebers on here will take up the issue on other rail forums. I will, however be posting it up on the two roads forums I am on, when I get the link.
BlythPower
Member
Might they not regard themselves as Guardians instead?
Recently promoted to Chief Inspector in the Grammar Police
The 158 Man
Member
Might they not regard themselves as Guardians instead?
Recently promoted to Chief Inspector in the Grammar Police
My apologies Inspector.
I would say that the vast majority of farmers understand that their job - the production of food from the land - depends for its success on proper husbandry of the natural resources themselves. (OK, there are bad ones, but there are in any line of work). For much of the countryside to be maintained, we look to farmers. When we see unnecessary developments proposed (such as Prescott's tarmac stretching from Hull to Liverpool) we see farmers among the most coherent opponents.
merlodlliw
Established Member
I have been asked to post this from North Wales Rail Forum newsboard 4th December www.nwrail.org.uk
Weston Rhyn level crossing (again)
In our item about level crossing accidents (last update) we quoted the Daily Post report on the trial of the tractor driver involved in the Weston Rhyn accident in 2008, and expressed surprise that he was acquitted, even of the lesser offence of careless driving. It's been pointed out to us that a more detailed report in the Shropshire Star on 27 November goes some way toward explaining the jury's reaction:
Mr Butler, giving evidence in his own defence, said that he was used to the level crossing but that day he did not see amber lights or red flashing lights and heard no alarm. During the trial the defence called a number of witnesses who described the level crossing as troublesome and claimed that they had suffered near misses while travelling over it. Mr Butler’s father Jim told the jury on one occasion he had approached the crossing and the orange light came on, followed by red lights and then barrier started to descend with no time lapse.
Civil engineer David John Evans told how he drove through it once when he heard a bell, there were no flashing lights, he drove through it quickly and saw the barriers come down behind him. On another occasion he was about to cross when the lights flashed, the barriers came down almost immediately, and if he had gone ahead he would never have made it. Farmer Richard Roberts told how he once was about to slowly cross the track when the lights flashed, the barriers came down and the train shot past very quickly.
Clearly the jury were faced with a 'reasonable doubt' situation in which they are obliged to read a 'not guilty' verdict. But what's this about a bell? The sound is surely a 'warble alarm' not a bell.
And yet, asked by the newspaper to comment on the trial, Rachel Blackman, Network Rail spokeswoman, said: 'We are fully confident that the level crossing was in full working order at the time of the incident. The crossing has an in-depth inspection every 12 months and all of its functions are tested every 13 weeks. Following the incident the crossing all aspect of the crossing was fully tested and all found to be in working order. Level crossings such as this are completely safe if used correctly. We have not had any reports of any problems with this crossing. We always act upon concerns.'
There are contradictions here. Reading various reports, it appears that nobody from Network Rail actually gave evidence at the trial, as the Border Counties Advertizer tells us that:
The judge, Eleri Rees, informed the jury that she agreed with their verdict and told the Crown Prosecution Service barrister to advise Network Rail to look again at the safety of the crossing.
We also read:
Steven’s mum, Joyce, thanked everyone who had helped Steven put his life back together including Phil James who was his employer at the time and was instrumental in persuading him to get back behind the wheel of a tractor. She also thanked the local farming community and the Young Farmers for their support.
As it stands, this trial leaves the public (including rail staff and passengers) with a great uncertainty about the safety of the ABCL (Automatic Barrier Crossing, Locally Monitored) system which is use around the country. We are asked to believe that these sometimes malfunction in a dangerous manner, despite being passed as safe by Network Rail inspectors and supposedly found to be working correctly after an incident.
Unanswered questions include whether the witnesses who had such narrow escapes reported the incidents, and why drivers about to cross 'slowly' with their agricultural vehicles do not telephone the signaller as required by the sign at the crossing. Perhaps if they did so every time the uneven surface might get fixed. Unfortunately, there seems to be no Rail Accident Investigation Branch investigation into this accident: perhaps, in the light of the trial evidence, there should be.
This is a situation in which people may be killed: let us hope something happens to follow up this very worrying incident. Maybe these crossings should all be equipped with a camera to record what actually happens so that witness reports can be checked?
To the person who re-posted our earlier article on to the UK Railways Forum: please do the same with this one.
Weston Rhyn level crossing (again)
In our item about level crossing accidents (last update) we quoted the Daily Post report on the trial of the tractor driver involved in the Weston Rhyn accident in 2008, and expressed surprise that he was acquitted, even of the lesser offence of careless driving. It's been pointed out to us that a more detailed report in the Shropshire Star on 27 November goes some way toward explaining the jury's reaction:
Mr Butler, giving evidence in his own defence, said that he was used to the level crossing but that day he did not see amber lights or red flashing lights and heard no alarm. During the trial the defence called a number of witnesses who described the level crossing as troublesome and claimed that they had suffered near misses while travelling over it. Mr Butler’s father Jim told the jury on one occasion he had approached the crossing and the orange light came on, followed by red lights and then barrier started to descend with no time lapse.
Civil engineer David John Evans told how he drove through it once when he heard a bell, there were no flashing lights, he drove through it quickly and saw the barriers come down behind him. On another occasion he was about to cross when the lights flashed, the barriers came down almost immediately, and if he had gone ahead he would never have made it. Farmer Richard Roberts told how he once was about to slowly cross the track when the lights flashed, the barriers came down and the train shot past very quickly.
Clearly the jury were faced with a 'reasonable doubt' situation in which they are obliged to read a 'not guilty' verdict. But what's this about a bell? The sound is surely a 'warble alarm' not a bell.
And yet, asked by the newspaper to comment on the trial, Rachel Blackman, Network Rail spokeswoman, said: 'We are fully confident that the level crossing was in full working order at the time of the incident. The crossing has an in-depth inspection every 12 months and all of its functions are tested every 13 weeks. Following the incident the crossing all aspect of the crossing was fully tested and all found to be in working order. Level crossings such as this are completely safe if used correctly. We have not had any reports of any problems with this crossing. We always act upon concerns.'
There are contradictions here. Reading various reports, it appears that nobody from Network Rail actually gave evidence at the trial, as the Border Counties Advertizer tells us that:
The judge, Eleri Rees, informed the jury that she agreed with their verdict and told the Crown Prosecution Service barrister to advise Network Rail to look again at the safety of the crossing.
We also read:
Steven’s mum, Joyce, thanked everyone who had helped Steven put his life back together including Phil James who was his employer at the time and was instrumental in persuading him to get back behind the wheel of a tractor. She also thanked the local farming community and the Young Farmers for their support.
As it stands, this trial leaves the public (including rail staff and passengers) with a great uncertainty about the safety of the ABCL (Automatic Barrier Crossing, Locally Monitored) system which is use around the country. We are asked to believe that these sometimes malfunction in a dangerous manner, despite being passed as safe by Network Rail inspectors and supposedly found to be working correctly after an incident.
Unanswered questions include whether the witnesses who had such narrow escapes reported the incidents, and why drivers about to cross 'slowly' with their agricultural vehicles do not telephone the signaller as required by the sign at the crossing. Perhaps if they did so every time the uneven surface might get fixed. Unfortunately, there seems to be no Rail Accident Investigation Branch investigation into this accident: perhaps, in the light of the trial evidence, there should be.
This is a situation in which people may be killed: let us hope something happens to follow up this very worrying incident. Maybe these crossings should all be equipped with a camera to record what actually happens so that witness reports can be checked?
To the person who re-posted our earlier article on to the UK Railways Forum: please do the same with this one.
Old Timer
Established Member
It sounds like it was very, very badly mishandled by the Prosecution team.
The defence would have been advised in advance and therefore the Prosecution team should have arranged for witnesses from Network Rail to be in attendance.
I would have thought that there is also the possibility of a claim that the Jury were misdirected, as the allegations that the crossing was not working correctly were clearly fundamental to the defence but should have been tested in cross-examination.
It should have been the BT Police who were in the lead with the prosecution team, and they certainly should have considered this aspect. It is ALWAYS claimed that the lights/barriers/etc, were not working, always has been which is why monitoring equipment is sometimes installed at crossings.
The defence would have been advised in advance and therefore the Prosecution team should have arranged for witnesses from Network Rail to be in attendance.
I would have thought that there is also the possibility of a claim that the Jury were misdirected, as the allegations that the crossing was not working correctly were clearly fundamental to the defence but should have been tested in cross-examination.
It should have been the BT Police who were in the lead with the prosecution team, and they certainly should have considered this aspect. It is ALWAYS claimed that the lights/barriers/etc, were not working, always has been which is why monitoring equipment is sometimes installed at crossings.
ffcphone
Member
If you're going to have an accident do it behind the wheel. Motoring sentences are extremely lenient. How many times do we hear of drunk drivers killing innocent people or joyriders skidding off into innocent pedestrians. If they get 4 years it's a miracle.
The thing is, even the (you would think) most reliable witnesses are often incorrect in their recollection.
I often get claims that my traffic signals were doing this, or that. Even in the face of the explanation that it is impossible for the situation described to occur.
One guy and a policeman were absolutely adamant that on one of my junctions, a green arrow appeared when the guy turned across oncoming traffic.
All well and good I hear you say. Except that there was no lamp in the arrow aspect and the cables had been disconnected about a year earlier so there was absolutely no possibility in the world that the green arrow could have come on, even if the signal stage that the green arrow *should* have come on in was in the plan, which it wasnt.
Its the same with green conflicts. A site cannot have an intermittent green conflict with modern microprocessor controllers as the conflict monitor would prevent such an occurrence. The only way for it to happen would be for someone to re-wire a pole and even then that would be a big job to do; and the fact that the re-wiring had been done would more than likely be picked up in the controller fault log as a lamp fault. But, alas, claims of green conflicts come through at least once a week.
So everything I read in that post above about the witnesses, I disregard as complete nonsense.
I often get claims that my traffic signals were doing this, or that. Even in the face of the explanation that it is impossible for the situation described to occur.
One guy and a policeman were absolutely adamant that on one of my junctions, a green arrow appeared when the guy turned across oncoming traffic.
All well and good I hear you say. Except that there was no lamp in the arrow aspect and the cables had been disconnected about a year earlier so there was absolutely no possibility in the world that the green arrow could have come on, even if the signal stage that the green arrow *should* have come on in was in the plan, which it wasnt.
Its the same with green conflicts. A site cannot have an intermittent green conflict with modern microprocessor controllers as the conflict monitor would prevent such an occurrence. The only way for it to happen would be for someone to re-wire a pole and even then that would be a big job to do; and the fact that the re-wiring had been done would more than likely be picked up in the controller fault log as a lamp fault. But, alas, claims of green conflicts come through at least once a week.
So everything I read in that post above about the witnesses, I disregard as complete nonsense.
Some years ago I was unfortunate enough to witness a collision at an ahb crossing about a mile away from my home here in Littlehampton. At the time both barriers were up and none of the warning lights were on when the train a 12 car cig formation hit a ford escort van. The train approached the crossing sounding its horn for some time and was obviously doing an "emergency stop" as it sidewiped the van. Fortunately the van was knocked out of the way and the driver although shaken up survived with only scratches.
The crossing at the time was very old it had one of the "another train coming illuminated signs" underneath the stop lights. Subsequently a report appeared in the local paper where railway officials stated that the crossing had been tested and had been found to be in full working order.
As a witness to the accident I was about 2 cars away from the crossing and i subsequently gave evidence to the BTP from Brighton that the crossing had not operated. The crossing for the next few months had a crossing keeper installed in a little plastic hut. I'm not sure if he actually operated the crossing or was just there to monitor it.
There followed a period when there was an attempt to close the crossing but this was I believe objected to by the emergency services and the crossing was renewed with a modern AHB arrangement.
The crossing at the time was very old it had one of the "another train coming illuminated signs" underneath the stop lights. Subsequently a report appeared in the local paper where railway officials stated that the crossing had been tested and had been found to be in full working order.
As a witness to the accident I was about 2 cars away from the crossing and i subsequently gave evidence to the BTP from Brighton that the crossing had not operated. The crossing for the next few months had a crossing keeper installed in a little plastic hut. I'm not sure if he actually operated the crossing or was just there to monitor it.
There followed a period when there was an attempt to close the crossing but this was I believe objected to by the emergency services and the crossing was renewed with a modern AHB arrangement.
royaloak
Established Member
Of all the people saying the crossing was faulty, did they report it at the time on the telephone provided?, no of course not this sounds like the prosecution messed up big style.
Dont be silly. They probably wrote in to the letters section in the local paper instead.
Old Timer
Established Member
I can to a large degree accept that maybe people thought they saw something incorrect with the operation of the barriers, although this would be unlikely in many cases because the Driver would generally notice if for example the barriers were slow to drop or had not dropped.
The public at large are generally quite lazy when it comes to reporting things such as this. There is always the tendency to believe someone else will do it, also we all lead much busier lives than we did years back, and there is much more long distance travelling than there used to be. As a result people are reluctant to tale time out of their schedule to report such matters.
I am sure we have all at one time or other been annoyed by some form or poor service when out shopping, stay6ing at hotels, on holiday, etc, etc, and promised to write when we got home. How many of us actually carry out the intent ?
I also think that there is a genuine reluctance to use the level crossing phones by many, for what reason I do not know, but again we all know people who don't like to use the telephone to talk to stangers I am sure !
Over the years whilst doing crossing inspections I have been approached by members of the public about some perceived shortcoming or other. Sometimes the alleged occurrence had taken place a long while back, making any immediate action rather pointless.
I think at the end of the day until all crossings are fitted with monitoring and recording equipment there will always be the motorists getout that the "crossing did not work properly", and on troublesome crossings where this equipment has been fitted, there has been a refreshing increase in the number of Prosecutions where previously doubt would have been cast and under UK Law, where there is reasonable doubt the defendant has to be acquitted.
The public at large are generally quite lazy when it comes to reporting things such as this. There is always the tendency to believe someone else will do it, also we all lead much busier lives than we did years back, and there is much more long distance travelling than there used to be. As a result people are reluctant to tale time out of their schedule to report such matters.
I am sure we have all at one time or other been annoyed by some form or poor service when out shopping, stay6ing at hotels, on holiday, etc, etc, and promised to write when we got home. How many of us actually carry out the intent ?
I also think that there is a genuine reluctance to use the level crossing phones by many, for what reason I do not know, but again we all know people who don't like to use the telephone to talk to stangers I am sure !
Over the years whilst doing crossing inspections I have been approached by members of the public about some perceived shortcoming or other. Sometimes the alleged occurrence had taken place a long while back, making any immediate action rather pointless.
I think at the end of the day until all crossings are fitted with monitoring and recording equipment there will always be the motorists getout that the "crossing did not work properly", and on troublesome crossings where this equipment has been fitted, there has been a refreshing increase in the number of Prosecutions where previously doubt would have been cast and under UK Law, where there is reasonable doubt the defendant has to be acquitted.
Ladies, Gentlemen, Boys and Girls
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Level-Crossing/
Please find therein, the petition spoken of upthread.
Spread the word.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Level-Crossing/
Please find therein, the petition spoken of upthread.
Spread the word.
- Status