Level Crossings in Driving tests

[fsmr]

we used to have the local NWR at our railway events with the incident truck and a poster campign handing out leaflets to families and colouring packs for the kids. A lot of emphasis was on the level crossing misuse aspect with large posters everywhere
saddly, budget cuts last year meant they no longer go out to events and so that inteeraction with the public has gone.
We have many Lcs on the Oakham to Leicester line, but all are now locally or remotely controlled and monitored up to Melton and only some Lcs from Melton to Syston are still AHB, although even with local manned control, there have been incidents on the line, thankfully not fatal where road vehicles and rollingstock have interacted.
I personaly dont belive in this day and age that AHBs are acceptable and should be replaced with full barriers and their interlocks
At least that way a vehicle crash or breakdown on the LC at the point of no return, shouldnt result in the train getting involved. Sure it wont stop vehicles crashing through once the signals are cleared but it would remove a significant risk
albeit adding delays to road users, as happens in Oakham when Brooke rd was converted from unsafe AHB a few years back due to queing traffic on the crossing and exit routes, which due to being on a bend cannot be seen until they are on the crossing. Rather wait 5 minutes more than someone get killed

 

[jon0844]

Why can't you just introduce certain things on a simulator that takes the hazard perception test a step further? You wouldn't get rid of the practical test, obviously, but you can then introduce a number of scenarios to people. You could simulate trying to join a motorway, slipper road surfaces and so on.

You don't need a simulator costing millions either; you could do it with a high-spec PC and multiple monitors. We'd probably be looking at £5-10k per installation, including the cost of developing the software. Far better than watching a video and clicking a mouse when you perceive there to be a hazard (although I passed before this existed so I'm not sure that's exactly how it works?).

Yes, a large cost, but one that would be recouped very quickly surely?

 

[Heinz57]

Practically, it's not possible to get to a level crossing and back again in the allocated 38-40 minutes from every test centre in the country. The same applies with fast roads, or single track country roads.

Yes exactly. Plus not all test centre routes will have a level crossing. I know for a fact none of the routes from the centre I did my test at have a level crossing on them. And I don't think there are any near it anyway. So they couldn't alter the route so it's included.

Besides, it wouldn't help anyway. It should just be common sense to stop at a level crossing. People need to realise that playing chicken with a HST isn't the cleverist thing to do.

 

[142094]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...rcedes-then-broke-down-in-front-of-train.html

In that case she was drunk, but there are others who have done it as they don't have common sense, a brain cell or both.

 

[mindfeeder]

I notice in a lot of LC cases drivers use excuses like "I thought the train was sounding it's horn to let me cross" or "I didn't notice the lights" The sad fact is many drivers seem to think that cars should have priority over trains.

I'm currently learning to drive myself and I look forward to seeing how my driving instructor goes about teaching me how to deal with level crossings, which will be interesting as the nearest crossing is a good 15 miles away at Dorridge!

 

[whoshotjimmi]

I agree with GearJammer regarding the systems in place at level crossings - a more conventional system would be more useful i think. Sounds stupid, but in my experience, drivers have a more common sense approach to ordinary traffic lights. I think, perhaps, we can go further without being stupid though - improving the view along the line would be a good start. Obviously, it would not be sensible to do this everywhere, but I can think of 3 or 4 examples off the top of my head where the view is restricted by trees or other removable objects.

With regards to level crossings being more rigourously tested in examinations, there are a number of reasons why it would not be reasonable to do so. First and foremost is the fact that a red light means stop. If a driver cannot understand this basic principle, they should not even be on the road. There is little else you can say to a person with regards to this. Secondly, there is no guarentee that, whilst on a test, a level crossing would become active, rendering the whole point of examining this aspect of driving virtually useless. Thirdly, the majority of test centres are not located in such a place where test routes would be able to incorporate a level crossing.

I am all for restructuring theory tests and driver education. Adding questions on stopping at red lights, however, is not a reasonable use of resource. I think the only real way of examining drivers with regards to level crossings would be using the Hazard Perception part of the theory test. A number of scenarios could be engineered to produce the perfect test situation.

Someone mentioned Pass Plus. I firmly believe that all drivers should be required to take the pass plus qualification following the practical test. It is designed to provide a person with a) building confidence of using the road now they are no longer a learner and do not have the benefit of displayed L-plates and b) introduces drivers to road situations that they will previously not had any access to e.g. motorways. Unfortunately, the same issues apply to pass plus as they do to a practical driving test. A large enough proportion of the population does not live close enough to a level crossing in order to separate level crossings from the rest of the Junctions, signals and signs sections that already cover it. Making this mandatory would cost some people hundreds of pounds.

 

[chuffchuff]

So many people have got a major fault on their test on here
it's not the flashing reds it's the single Amber light means stop

Junctions controlled by traffic lights
175
You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision.


[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36]

 

[jon0844]

Amber means accelerate. Any driver knows that!

And every driver also knows that red doesn't count for the first few seconds...

 

[GB]

Sounds stupid, but in my experience, drivers have a more common sense approach to ordinary traffic lights.

Do they? As far as I can see, traffic lights are far more abused than lights at level crossings.

As previously said by somone else, flashing reds at a level crossing (and other areas) have a specific meaning, if you replace them with standard traffic lights there is nothing to differentiate between the two.

Improving the view along the line would be a good start

Uh why? The view of the line has absolutely no bearing on the issue what so ever. If the red lights are lit (or the amber light comes on) you stop and you wait...plain and simple. In any case, do you know how difficult it is to judge the speed and distance of a train when looking down the line? It can be very disorientating and is often under appriciated just how quick a train can be looking down on you.

 

[royaloak]

An emergency vehicle treats a red traffic light as a "give way", cant see that working at an open level xing.

The problem isnt with the xing or lights, its with impatient car/van drivers, sort the problem NOT the symptom! Heavy fines would be a good start.