Level Crossing lesson for cyclist

[Furrball]

A cyclist came within seconds of being struck by a train when she tried to dodge a closed level crossing barrier in Cambridgeshire.

The train driver was forced to apply the emergency break when he saw the woman at Waterbeach on 12 September.

Richard Schofield, from Network Rail, said it was "one of the closest near misses we've seen".

British Transport Police are trying to trace the woman, who also ignored the flashing lights and warning signals.

More than 100 trains travel through the Waterbeach crossing each day, at speeds up to 75mph (120km/h).

'Mopped brow'
Transport police officers have released images of the cyclist to highlight the dangers of misusing level crossings.

The footage shows her cycling up to the tracks before breaking hard and scurrying backwards just as the train speeds past.

Moments later she can be seen mopping her brow.

Jay Thompson, Greater Anglia's head of safety, said: "Not only was this incident very traumatic for the driver, but it could have resulted in the cyclist being killed."

Network Rail's latest safety campaign, Track Tests, revealed a third of people think they would hear a train in time to move out of the way.

However, route manager Mr Schofield, said: "The person using the crossing not only didn't hear the train, but ignored the warning lights and barriers, putting her life, the lives of passengers and the train driver in danger.

"Warning systems at level crossings are there for a reason, to protect users from the railway.

"I hope the release of this footage will highlight the importance of following the safety advice at level crossings."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-24364332

 

[johnnyp_360]

Horrific footage but it does not surprise me. Some Cambridge cyclists appear to be oblivious to most other things around them. Cars, Pedestrians and now trains?

 

[swt_passenger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-24364332

Self explanatory really...

 

[marks87]

Stupid, stupid woman and does proper cyclists no favours.

While the dictionary might not agree, I don't consider people like this "cyclists"; I call them "people on bikes". To be a cyclist, in my book, you need to obey the rules of the road (so yes, that does mean people in full Lyrcra on road bikes who jump red lights aren't "cyclists").

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wouldn't have fancied doing her laundry that evening!

 

[soil]

Horrific footage but it does not surprise me. Some Cambridge cyclists appear to be oblivious to most other things around them. Cars, Pedestrians and now trains?

I'm not really sure why we inevitably get a comment of this kind when a cyclist has done something stupid.

Compare the top comments on this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eath-train-level-crossing-passes-barrier.html

with this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-death-driving-level-crossing-barriers.html

The latter is just seen an idiot, whereas the former is seen as an idiot because she is a cyclist.

Sigh.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Wouldn't have fancied doing her laundry that evening!

I notice that she turned around and headed back the way she had come, no doubt for a change of underwear .....

 

[Tobbes]

As stupid as she was, it also shows the problem of having half-barriers. Hope the train driver was ok, too.

Tobbes

 

[trentside]

As stupid as she was, it also shows the problem of having half-barriers. Hope the train driver was ok, too.

I live next to an Automatic Half Barrier (AHB) crossing and I've witnessed people on bikes cutting around the barriers before. Fortunately, I've never seen a near miss such as this - though during the summer I did witness a child riding a bike around in the centre of the crossing after the barriers had come down. He moved before the approaching freight was in sight, but had it been one of the infrequent passenger services it would have been right on him. Sadly - by the time I pulled up in my car, he was already cycling off in the opposite direction so he didn't benefit from an ear bashing from me (not that it would've done any good!).

My sympathies are always with the drivers and staff who have these incidents - it must leave them very shaken.

 

[johnnyp_360]

I'm not really sure why we inevitably get a comment of this kind when a cyclist has done something stupid.

Compare the top comments on this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eath-train-level-crossing-passes-barrier.html

with this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-death-driving-level-crossing-barriers.html

The latter is just seen an idiot, whereas the former is seen as an idiot because she is a cyclist.

Sigh.

FYI, i did say SOME cyclists. I had no intention of generalising all cyclists. I am not against cyclists.

Sigh

 

[EM2]

As stupid as she was, it also shows the problem of having half-barriers. Hope the train driver was ok, too.

Tobbes

And the sirens and flashing red lights aren't enough of a warning?

 

[michael769]

And the sirens and flashing red lights aren't enough of a warning?

Clearly not for this individual! Barriers are needed because a significant minority if road users of all types have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to obey signals at level crossings.

The bizarre thing is that after the episode the decides that her journey is not so urgent after all and proceeds back the way she came.

 

[Oswyntail]

And the sirens and flashing red lights aren't enough of a warning?

Not if you've got your head down and your MP3 on:roll:

 

[Monty]

Darwinism at work..

 

[anthony263]

Not if you've got your head down and your MP3 on:roll:

I have seen pedestrians and others just walk out into the road without fully checking to see if anything is coming.

I have see passengers after getting of the coach at Victoria coach station just walk out in front of another vehicle

 

[EM2]

Clearly not for this individual! Barriers are needed because a significant minority if road users of all types have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to obey signals at level crossings.

So people are idiots, therefore we should cater for them.
Extend that argument, and you'd have barriers across the road at red traffic lights to stop people driving past them.

 

[jon0844]

If there are any red lights that a cyclist might wish to obey, I'd say these are the ones.

 

[transportphoto]

I personally know the driver of the train involved, for your information he is fine however obviously took a few days to recover from the shock of the incident.

TP

 

[Silv1983]

As stupid as she was, it also shows the problem of having half-barriers. Hope the train driver was ok, too.

Tobbes

I have no issues with half barriers: the same way I have no issues with a single static red traffic light protecting me from colliding with other traffic on a dual carriageway at a potentially higher combined speed than at any crossing. Darwinism at it's peak.

Although, silly views aside, I actually feel sorry for her when I normally I think "Idiot!". 500 times out of a 1000 she'd be dead and she knows it. The fact she pushed her bike the way she came shows her legs were like jelly and was in a state of shock.

 

[Rich McLean]

It's not just level crossing where it happens.

At RAF Brize Norton, at the East end of the runway on the civilian side of the fence, there are level crossing Beacons protecting a section of road, which light up and sound when either an Aircraft is taking off or landing from the East. Once a cyclist chose to ignore the warnings, and as a consequence got blow off his bike at a high rate of knots from a C17 at full thrust.

 

[stut]

Darwinism at it's peak.

So if a train driver or passenger dies as the result of a vehicle on a level crossing, they deserve it?

(Yes, I am being deliberately obtuse. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the observation of an effect - that evolution by definition favours those characteristics that are conducive to successful procreation, not a green card to let the careless kill themselves.)

 

[anme]

I have seen pedestrians and others just walk out into the road without fully checking to see if anything is coming.

I have see passengers after getting of the coach at Victoria coach station just walk out in front of another vehicle

I often see car drivers move off without looking. I don't defend bad cyclists, but bad car drivers are much more dangerous and kill many more people. And bad pedestrians - well, they were here first.

 

[Silv1983]

So if a train driver or passenger dies as the result of a vehicle on a level crossing, they deserve it?

(Yes, I am being deliberately obtuse. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the observation of an effect - that evolution by definition favours those characteristics that are conducive to successful procreation, not a green card to let the careless kill themselves.)

Who is talking about train drivers and vehicle drivers? I'm referring to a vulnerable cyclist.

A cyclist who lacks the common sense and instinct to recognise a life threatening situation who goes on to die will not procreate...
A cyclist who checks, obeys and adheres to instinct, regulation and law will live and improve their chances of procreation. Not sure I see what you're suggesting by the 'green light to kill themselves' business. Darwinism is a theory not a paradigm...

 

[jon0844]

I don't defend bad cyclists, but bad car drivers are much more dangerous and kill many more people.

But that does defend bad cyclists. Of course there are more people in cars, and a car can do a lot more damage - but it's a silly argument to justify cyclists breaking the law.

 

[Railcar B]

Unfortunately there are some cyclists and some motorists who break the law.
Try this for one of the latter:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24367601

Presumably if this guy had driven through a LC barrier he would have claimed he couldn't see the red lights . . . . . .

 

[soil]

But that does defend bad cyclists. Of course there are more people in cars, and a car can do a lot more damage - but it's a silly argument to justify cyclists breaking the law.

Depends which law we are talking about.

For example, if you take your typical pelican/puffin crossing, they exist to allow pedestrians to cross the road without being killed by a motor vehicle.

They don't exist to protect pedestrians from cyclists (you won't find them on shared use paths, for example, even at conflict points), because cyclists pose only a very minimal risk to pedestrians.

Pretty much all the rules of the road are designed to protect pedestrians (soft, light and slow) from motor vehicles (big, heavy and fast). That they incidentally also apply to cyclists (in most cases) is not really the point.

Our road casualty rates have fallen a lot because we have changed our roads to protect people from motor vehicles. Motor vehicles pose a major existential threat to people in their environment.

The road fatality in say Thailand is almost 10 times what it is in the UK. Why? It's because they haven't gone as far down the road as recognising and mitigating against the existential threat posed by motor vehicles.

All of this road safety stuff then, has basically got nothing to do with cyclists, and much of bicycle law breaking is essentially in the same category as jay-walking - more of a threat to yourself than to others.

A level crossing isn't probably the best example of it, because of the risk of derailment, but otherwise bicycles breaking laws are nearly all doing so on what I would consider to be a 'fair' basis, i.e. the risk is to them and not to others.

Motorists do get irate at cyclists sailing through an empty puffin crossing, only to come sailing past at 10mph past the speed limit 1/2 a mile down the road. For some reason they have no problem mentally justifying the latter even while shaking their fist for the former.

My experience is that motorists break certain laws more or less with impunity, try driving on a motorway and counting the number of motorists exceeding 70mph.

People in general pretty much pick and choose on these kind of laws, but the collective cyclist certainly should not be the target of general opprobrium given the far greater death/damage caused by motorists (and let's be clear, if motorists did stick to the rules the death toll would be less than half what it is now ).

 

[Deerfold]

Who is talking about train drivers and vehicle drivers? I'm referring to a vulnerable cyclist.

A cyclist who lacks the common sense and instinct to recognise a life threatening situation who goes on to die will not procreate...
A cyclist who checks, obeys and adheres to instinct, regulation and law will live and improve their chances of procreation. Not sure I see what you're suggesting by the 'green light to kill themselves' business. Darwinism is a theory not a paradigm...

A cyclist who could result in a derailment or at the very least damage to the train if it was on the line with a bicycle when the train went through - not as likely as with a larger vehicle, but possible

 

[richw]

I'm not really sure why we inevitably get a comment of this kind when a cyclist has done something stupid.

Compare the top comments on this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eath-train-level-crossing-passes-barrier.html

with this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-death-driving-level-crossing-barriers.html

The latter is just seen an idiot, whereas the former is seen as an idiot because she is a cyclist.

Sigh.

apparently it s ok as she is wearing a helmet!

 

[EM2]

Motorists do get irate at cyclists sailing through an empty puffin crossing...

It's when they sail through a busy crossing when I get irate. Or come up the kerbside of a bus and can't even see if there's anyone on the crossing.

 

[jon0844]

I've been clipped by cyclists when crossing a road at a crossing, and it hurts. I fail to see how anyone can say that a cyclist poses no real risk to a pedestrian.

Sure it a car fails to stop at lights, it's going to hurt a lot more, but how likely is that to happen? Lights change, maybe one or even two jump but then they stop and remain stopped.

A cyclist will happily go through at any point so you never know you're safe.

I am primarily talking about London though.