Level Crossing lesson for cyclist

[CockneySparrow]

Looks like it was some stunt to be honest, just the way she turns the bike round and goes back, why didn't she go on her merry way towards Horningsea

 

[455driver]

my honest opinion is I think its time all these dangerous death crossings were demolished with proper road bridges built. Our trains have got faster and will continue to get faster and more dangerous. What a stupid woman.

Every crossing when used correctly is perfectly safe, the problems start when idiots arrive on the scene, maybe if the idiots paid for it I would agree with you.

I wonder if she treats a red traffic light the same as the crossing lights/siren/barriers, and if she was hit by a car/lorry I wonder whos fault it would be?

 

[dannypye9999]

Replacing crossings with bridges is expensive, and in many cases impossible without heavy remodelling of the local roads.

It seems to be more about £££ than it is lives. Replacing bridges is indeed expensive and costly to remodel the road, but what is the cost to pay when its a human life?

 

[455driver]

It seems to be more about £££ than it is lives. Replacing bridges is indeed expensive and costly to remodel the road, but what is the cost to pay when its a human life?

A human life on the road is costed at about £250,000 and on the railways at about £1,000,000.

 

[jon0844]

Probably rather a lot. How many people die every year? How much would it cost to replace every crossing?

Then you can pretty much work it out.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If they're not aware of that, God help us all. I hope these people don't have driving licences too. Wait a minute; fancy that, many of these dangerous cyclists might also be the dangerous motorists you keep speaking of!

They're certainly the same kind of idiot...
With the centre of that particular Venn Diagram probably also including many of the idiots who attempt to board trains before people have had chance to alight!

I mean all Level crossings. Sooner or later there will be another death.

Ultimately yes, that should be the aim. But (sadly) we live in a world where the prevention of each preventable death has a financial cost that has to be justified. :roll:
So a 'big-bang' approach is impossible:

On fast, and busy, railways I would say that we should be seeking to ultimately get rid of crossings - if only to improve traffic flows. You do that as and when you upgrade the network, and over a period of time.

But on rural routes where there aren't many trains, I can't see why a crossing with all the necessary warning bells and lights, barriers etc can't work just fine.

Go to mainland Europe, where most railways aren't even fenced off, and you have very open crossings and they cope. We seem to go to the other extreme and demand that even the dumbest people are protected from themselves, which means that they end up used to just doing whatever they like because someone else is looking out for them.

Until one day, their luck runs out for a range of reasons.

Indeed. Basically the key to reducing and ultimately preventing crossing 'incidents' is education coupled with a program of progressive investment to upgrade/replace crossings and reduce risk.

I agree one hundred percent. I also think that we should ban roads because somebody will die on them tonight.

In an ideal world, this would be an argument worth making. The roads are indeed far more dangerous than the railways by any measure. As I said above a scheme of education and investment is risk-reduction is needed, and Network Rail has in recent years launched a fair few high-profile information clips that have had reasonable if not sustained coverage in the media.

Perhaps some sort of scheme a bit like anti-drink-driving programmes for offenders at crossings could be sent on would help? If all crossing offences were, like drink-driving, punished by a mandatory driving ban- which could be shortened by attending a course much like those for drink-drivers, maybe there'd be a similar reduction in people chancing it at crossings?

Of course with crossing offenders, the worst offenders may well be unable to submit to any further punishment as fate as had the final word. But if weaving round or 'racing' the barriers became as much of a taboo (in most circles at least!) as drink-driving, that might have a preventative affect too.

Looks like it was some stunt to be honest, just the way she turns the bike round and goes back, why didn't she go on her merry way towards Horningsea

I hadn't considered that it could (and I suppose it could) have been deliberate. The footage isn't high-def, but she looks pretty shaken up to me! As she approaches it's like she's in her own little world (and being on the Autistic spectrum, I know the feeling!). Maybe she had headphones in?

And then...

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

I think the title of the thread is very accurate to be fair. I can't imagine this woman will approach a crossing in that manner again!

 

[krus_aragon]

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

And as a cyclist I hate the modern variety of traffic lights that sense the presence of traffic purely by induction with wires set in the road (as opposed to infra-red sensors above the lights, or just a set timing circuit). I have found several sets of lights where unless there is a reasonable amount of traffic I have to wait two or three minutes for a car to happen to pull up behind me and make the lights change, because even my "all-steel bicycle" isn't ferrous enough for the sensor. </rant>

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.
...
I am primarily talking about London though.

To that end, I usually choose to cycle on the road rather than on a shared use cycle lane, because I feel I'm more of a danger to pedestrians when I pedal along at 12-20mph than cars are to me.

Bad behaviour can be found in Cardiff too (though probably to a lesser extent). Until I moved down here, I thought Red Light Jumping was starting to pedal off very early before the lights changed back to green, not breezing through without even stopping! (Oh, the innocence...)

 

[dannypye9999]

I agree one hundred percent. I also think that we should ban roads because somebody will die on them tonight.

Really? at 40 mph the roads are considered very safe compared to a 100mph level crossing which is why we have DANGER do not cross the line, I don't see DANGER: Do not cross the road or £1000 fine for trespassing onto the road

 

[455driver]

A 40mph collision with a car and you will likely die, a 100mph collision with a train and you will likely die!

So whats the big difference which makes it necessary for the railways to spend millions protecting the stupid but the roads can be left as they are?

How many people died on the railways today?
How many people died on the roads today?

 

[Tomnick]

It seems to be more about £££ than it is lives. Replacing bridges is indeed expensive and costly to remodel the road, but what is the cost to pay when its a human life?

Some crossings have been replaced by bridges. Other crossings have been upgraded (e.g. half-barrier to full-barrier). Either way, it'd be in response to a safety concern, perhaps increased traffic levels or a risk of traffic queuing across an AHB, or traffic problems on the road. I'd say that's a sensible approach. Going all out to replace all level crossings is ridiculous though (take note, Bob Crow) - even if you have a problem with AHBs (which are still safe if used properly), what's the issue with full-barrier crossings?

 

[kieron]

I have to wait two or three minutes for a car to happen to pull up behind me and make the lights change, because even my "all-steel bicycle" isn't ferrous enough for the sensor. </rant>

Get on to whoever is responsible for the lights. If a detector is faulty, they need to know about it before they can fix it.

So whats the big difference which makes it necessary for the railways to spend millions protecting the stupid but the roads can be left as they are?

Two main differences: (1) steering wheels; and (2) brakes.

 

[FGW_DID]

Every crossing when used correctly is perfectly safe, the problems start when idiots arrive on the scene, maybe if the idiots paid for it I would agree with you.

I wonder if she treats a red traffic light the same as the crossing lights/siren/barriers, and if she was hit by a car/lorry I wonder whos fault it would be?

Motorist every time, the cyclist is never to blame!:roll:

 

[Dieseldriver]

Really? at 40 mph the roads are considered very safe compared to a 100mph level crossing which is why we have DANGER do not cross the line, I don't see DANGER: Do not cross the road or £1000 fine for trespassing onto the road

Do you know what, I agree. In fairness to the cyclist, this near miss appeared to happen on an AHB crossing. As everyone knows, the reason they only have half barriers is so that people have the option of weaving around them if they are running late.
Also, why was the train driver going so fast? Surely if he'd not been going at such a ridiculous high speed it would never have happened? The even more worrying thing is that from looking at that video, he didn't even seem to attempt to swerve around the bike? hock:
Now back to reality, if you put yourself in the path of several hundred tons of metal moving at high speed requiring vast distances to stop (after deliberately ignoring several extremely obvious warnings) then you are an utter moron. The railway does their bit by educating people, warning people and making level crossings as safe as they possibly can. At some point you kind of hope that the people whose safety is being taken so seriously can take the minuscule step of not being, a complete f**king moron...

 

[bnm]

my honest opinion is I think its time all these dangerous death crossings were demolished with proper road bridges built. Our trains have got faster and will continue to get faster and more dangerous. What a stupid woman.

Tell me. How do you propose to build bridges in the town centre locations of many dozens (possibly hundreds) of level crossings? Residential and commercial buildings right up the railway boundary on both sides. Roads that are major routes through those towns. Any bridge building likely to cause months of disruption - both to traffic and local business. Roads that have junctions in close proximity to the level crossing. Not only prohibitively expensive, but also impossible without major urban land clearance, compulsory purchase and eviction.

Take a look at the crossing just south of Wokingham Station.
http://goo.gl/maps/9U39B

Three roads parallel to the railway all with junctions close to the crossing, one of which is the station access road. A roundabout. Numerous commercial and residential buildings on either side that would all have to be demolished or be blighted for the 'run up' to a bridge. How do you build a bridge here?

Just one example that came to mind. There are dozens more.

 

[NSEFAN]

It seems to be more about £££ than it is lives. Replacing bridges is indeed expensive and costly to remodel the road, but what is the cost to pay when its a human life?

As grim as it may sound, we have to put a price on human life if we are to decide if it's worth implementing a new safety feature. Of course if we had infinite moneys then this wouldn't be an issue, but sadly the world doesn't run on altruism.

 

[83G/84D]

Heard on the radio earlier today that the woman on the bike that had the near miss has made herself known to BT Police.

 

[Deerfold]

(A few) More details at :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-24401099

She's to be interviewed "voluntarily" by BT Police on the 9th.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Looks like it was some stunt to be honest, just the way she turns the bike round and goes back, why didn't she go on her merry way towards Horningsea

I am certain it was not a stunt.
Imo the lady was possibly in her own little world, (she almost left this one) contemplating shopping etc.
I wondered what made her stop, heard/saw the train, horn, or saw the metal rails in the road. Any faster she would have gone arse over t*t.
I have no doubt she had one hell of a shock, and would have gone straight home to change, shaking like a leaf etc etc.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I'm saying this in serious jest, and I know it's no way near feasible but what are your thoughts on spiked level crossings? I'm more than aware that people could step on them and cars will run them over but vehicles won't be able to get past.
As for humans, you can't make the railway any more idiotproof if you try. Someone will always find their way onto the track.

 

[455driver]

no doubt she will be let off with a warning due to the shock etc she has suffered, poor little lamb.

As for being in her own little world, she is riding on a public road, surely she should be concentrating on that!

 

[Oswyntail]

....As for being in her own little world, she is riding on a public road, surely she should be concentrating on that!

I was once cautioned (unjustly) for "Riding without due care and attention" on my pedal bike

 

[edwin_m]

As grim as it may sound, we have to put a price on human life if we are to decide if it's worth implementing a new safety feature. Of course if we had infinite moneys then this wouldn't be an issue, but sadly the world doesn't run on altruism.

Indeed. At its most basic level, would public money be better spent saving lives at level crossings instead of (for instance) more NHS treatments, other road safety improvements, anti-smoking campaigns, or [insert your pet cause here]? That debate can't really be had without some idea of how much it costs to save a life in each case.

I think part of the cycling thing is about self-preservation by the cyclist. If they make a mistake they kill themselves or occasionally injure a pedestrian. If a road vehicle driver makes a mistake then with modern crash survival standards they are likely to be uninjured themselves but could quite easily kill either a cyclist or a pedestrian. This must be the basis of the presumption in the Netherlands that the driver is guilty in any accident involving a cyclist. So cyclists need to be on guard not only against their own mistakes but against those of vehicle drivers.

On the other hand some of it is like playground bullying. A proportion of bullying victims take it out on someone weaker than themselves. A proportion of cyclists, feeling bullied by the behaviour of road vehicle drivers, take it out on pedestrians.

 

[Trainfan344]

I'm saying this in serious jest, and I know it's no way near feasible but what are your thoughts on spiked level crossings? I'm more than aware that people could step on them and cars will run them over but vehicles won't be able to get past.
As for humans, you can't make the railway any more idiotproof if you try. Someone will always find their way onto the track.

I don't think it would work, and would only end in more complaints from people who try to run the barriers, get caught by the spikes and then when the tyres get blown out block the crossing, therefore making it more dangerous to use the level crossings.

 

[TOCDriver]

Looking at the video footage, I'm quite sure that this was a total lapse in concentration. We'll see but I'm certain she'll just get a very hard slap on the wrist.

 

[14xxDave]

I've followed this with interest and I have to say that I disagree with you TOCDriver..she had to steer round that barrier..she just treated these red lights as she would have treated normal traffic signals "they don't appertain to me". Sadly these ones were a bit more deadly.

 

[Gathursty]

Water-lucky-beach!

 

[14xxDave]

Water-lucky-beach!

I know it's late, but I don't get this one:cry:

 

[jon0844]

Water-lucky-beach!

Isn't that Britney Spears' latest release?

 

[ainsworth74]

I know it's late, but I don't get this one:cry:

Say it out loud.

 

[14xxDave]

Say it out loud.

Ah, get it now