Level/Public Crossings - Ruling on PUT incident

[alexl92]

Some people may remember an incident from December in which a schoolgirl was hit by the last Machester Victoria - Leeds service after sitting on the tracks at a public foot crossing with a friend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sat-set-railway-tracks-talk-best-friend.html

A 16-year-old schoolgirl was accidentally killed by a train after she sat down between a set of railway tracks to talk to her best friend.

Milena Gagic happily ventured onto the line just after midnight with friend Amelia Hustwick when she was hit by the last Manchester Victoria to Leeds Northern Rail at around 55mph.

It's obviously a horrible incident and I don't wish to be insensitive in any way but what I want to talk about in this thread is something the coroner said:

'I am satisfied that Milena and Amelia went onto the tracks without thought of doing themselves harm.

'They had had an evening with friends and they were doing something they had done many times before. It was possibly not a very wise thing to do but nobody is on trial here.

'The warnings on the crossing are there to be seen - "stop, look, listen" and they did not have to sit between the tracks, it is a remarkable thing to have done but the completely unexpected occurred in tragic consequences.

'Milena would have had absolutely no idea what happened to her.'

He added: 'I have considered whether to make a report to see if anything could be done to prevent future deaths because of pedestrian crossings on railway tracks.

'My view is that if there is a public road or way over a rail way track then that railway authority are very limited as to what they can do to prevent access and as a matter of law they cannot prevent access.

'There are warnings to stop, look and listen on either side. It is clear that the girls thought the last train had gone.

'Whatever steps that might be taken cannot legislate that someone would choose to sit between the tracks.'

Network Rail are frequently criticised about the safety of level crossings and public foot crossings in the UK, and I am no expert but I feel that this criticism is unfair, and that what has been said about this incident could apply to many others. Very often the cause of an accident is not that the crossing is not safe, it's people ignoring the signs or warnings, or being generally stupid, either out of ignorance or in an attempt to save themselves time - and as stated above, you simply cannot legislate for that.

I'm not particularly interested in discussing this particular incident - it's already covered in the article and has probably been covered on here before - but I'm just baffled as to why NR always seem to get the blame over incidents where a car or person on a crossing is hit when in the majority of cases the user, not the safety measures implemented, is to blame. Is it simply a case of playing the blame game?

 

[plymothian]

Quite simply it is a blame game.

"Something must be done!", even if that something should frankly be telling the users not to be twits.

Which is why you get ludicrous calls for every level crossing to be closed.

For example, the "killer" crossing at Ufton Nervet. It's only a killer crossing because someone, like the girls, chose to stop on the track (in this case to commit suicide). OK, if the crossing wasn't there he couldn't have done it there, but that's not to have stopped it happening somewhere else.

 

[dgl]

It seems a lot of the time to be a case of , You put up warning signs, there were flashing lights, there was a siren you even had barriers to try to prevent people from crossing and TV adverts to tell people of the risk but it is still your (NR's) fault and as such you should pay much compensation.

The problem now is with the blame claim culture people will always look for someone they can blame even if it is not their fault. Loads of things are incredibly dangerous in life and if you heed the warnings then nothing will happen.

You wouldn't jump off a cliff just to save yourself the time walking in the same way that if a train is coming you don't get yourself in the way of it, remember, in a fight between most things and a train the train will always win and it won't be like being in a low speed car collision it will be like sitting on a lit box of TNT and it exploding.

And as for this story, the trains don't stop even if the last passenger train has, There are trains that don't carry passengers.

And as for crossings without signals, you can cross the road without signals so whay should it be a problem crossing a railway line?

 

[BravoGolfMike]

That crossing has a whistleboard. Everyone knows the rules were changed a few years ago so horns are not used between 23.00 and 07.00. The girl was killed at 23.20. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned because had that rule not been brought in, the girl might have heard the train and got out of the way.

A similar thing happened in Cornwall a few years ago at Mexico Lane iirc. An old dear was hit by a train which correctly whistled but the RSSB thought she might have confused it with a truck as only one tone was used (correctly). Perhaps more emphasis needs placing on user safety instead of noise abatement.

 

[TDK]

"Something must be done!", even if that something should frankly be telling the users not to be twits.

Something is being done - NR have a huge crossing safety campaign to alert the public of the dangers of level crossings - there isn't anything else they can do except close all crossings and build tunnels and bridges however believe it or not human life does have a price and the cost outweighs the risk unfortunately
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That crossing has a whistleboard. Everyone knows the rules were changed a few years ago so horns are not used between 23.00 and 07.00. The girl was killed at 23.20. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned because had that rule not been brought in, the girl might have heard the train and got out of the way.

Indeed, unfortunately people living near the railway complained that the noise pollution was affecting their quality of life so the rulings for the sounding of the train horn were upgraded. There was a fatality of a youth at Oakengates Tunnel who was trespassing, yes he shouldn't have been there but this incident happened about 2 weeks after the ruling changed, if the driver had sounded the horn the youth may have had time to react, this was not mentioned in the report either. As a driver there is a rule that states that a driver can use the warning horn where they feel it is necessary, I use the horn if I am entering a tunnel I cannot see right through, I use the horn at crossings that are frequently used at certain times where they will be used more, for instance when the schools turn out even if there is no whistle board. I am not saying that the driver should have used the horn as the rules are quite clear and are in place to accommodate whining residents who decide to purchase a property near the railway.

 

[bluenoxid]

Some people may remember an incident from December in which a schoolgirl was hit by the last Machester Victoria - Leeds service after sitting on the tracks at a public foot crossing with a friend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sat-set-railway-tracks-talk-best-friend.html


It's obviously a horrible incident and I don't wish to be insensitive in any way but what I want to talk about in this thread is something the coroner said:


Network Rail are frequently criticised about the safety of level crossings and public foot crossings in the UK, and I am no expert but I feel that this criticism is unfair, and that what has been said about this incident could apply to many others. Very often the cause of an accident is not that the crossing is not safe, it's people ignoring the signs or warnings, or being generally stupid, either out of ignorance or in an attempt to save themselves time - and as stated above, you simply cannot legislate for that.

I'm not particularly interested in discussing this particular incident - it's already covered in the article and has probably been covered on here before - but I'm just baffled as to why NR always seem to get the blame over incidents where a car or person on a crossing is hit when in the majority of cases the user, not the safety measures implemented, is to blame. Is it simply a case of playing the blame game?

I might be being a bit dim here but what the judge says in my mind is that the railway cannot reasonably take any further steps to mitigate what happened in this situation.

However, the judge also appears to remark that he has considered making a report to Network Rail to ask them to review the circumstances. Fair to say, that should occur as part of any strategy to improve safety at crossings. Even if it is just a numbers game that shows fatalities that could have been avoided by further use of the horn, it is good practice to get that information.

 

[Agent_c]

That crossing has a whistleboard. Everyone knows the rules were changed a few years ago so horns are not used between 23.00 and 07.00. The girl was killed at 23.20. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned because had that rule not been brought in, the girl might have heard the train and got out of the way.

I'm not buying that. There's still usually a lot of sign that a train is approaching, rails rattling, windrush, etc.

 

[BravoGolfMike]

I'm not buying that. There's still usually a lot of sign that a train is approaching, rails rattling, windrush, etc.

They did hear it coming, that's why there was only one fatality and not two. Unfortunately they didn't get enough warning. Whistleboards are placed according to linespeed, visibility and any other factor which could affect whether someone can see/hear a train or not. If we could rely on sight/rails rattling /windrush etc then there wouldn't be a need for whistleboards at all.

 

[najaB]

I'm not buying that. There's still usually a lot of sign that a train is approaching, rails rattling, windrush, etc.

Rail noise can be a giveaway, but by the time you can hear windrush it's too late. Thinking about it, even rail noise might not give you enough warning if the linespeed is high.

 

[plymothian]

The PTS course says not to rely on noise to determine if a train is approaching, as they can be silent until upon you.

 

[swt_passenger]

I might be being a bit dim here but what the judge says in my mind is that the railway cannot reasonably take any further steps to mitigate what happened in this situation.

I didn't interpret it as criticism of NR either. He seemed to be saying that despite all the signage etc, they couldn't really prevent someone doing something completely unexpected.

 

[sbt]

Everyone knows the rules were changed a few years ago so horns are not used between 23.00 and 07.00.

No. 'Everyone' does NOT know the rules were changed, or even that there WAS a rule.

Most ordinary people have no interest at all in the details of rail regulations and wouldn't know where to find the relevant document if they did.

And as for unjustified criticism, lets be clear who is doing the criticising, why and even if it is criticism at all. Press, public and even the courts may get it wrong more often than the RAIB or RSSB.

Dealing with the last first. Do not confuse a recommendation to investigate whether something might reduce the risk at a crossing with a criticism. It is a recognition that NR have more expertise and resources than the person doing the recommendation. If there is any criticism it is that NR has not looked at that option without prompting.

NR have, rightly in my view, taken a lot of stick from the RAIB and RSSB in recent years for, in the past, displaying the attitude that I have seen from quite a few posters here that all, or almost all, accidents on Level Crossings are the fault of the crossing user and therefore nothing need be done to deal with them.

A typical case would be 'There was a sign saying to stop and look, they got hit by a train, therefore they didn't stop and look, therefore we need do nothing. Case closed.' when, yes there was a sign saying to stop and look but there was also a Location Cabinet or, in one case, a fence put up by NR that meant that you had to be at an unsafe distance from the track before you got a view of the line. In cases like these the RAIB, quite rightly in my view, do criticise NR.

There is also the very big, and contentious, issue of catering for expected misbehaviour. It was touched on in an earlier post - TDK sounds his horn at crossings when he expects school kids to be using, and potentially misusing, them.

Crossing accidents don't affect only the victim, they affect their families and friends, they affect the Emergency Services and rail staff that have to deal with them, they can affect the safety of the railway, they definitely affect the driver involved, they also affect rail travellers through disruption. Even if you have no sympathy for the immediate victim surely you should have some for the secondary ones, including those that may end up as fatalities (remember Ufton Nervet).

So why not push NR, and, very importantly, others, where appropriate, to do things like:

a) making the final approaches to crossings at 90 degrees to the track, rather than at an angle facing away from the usual direction of approach from trains.
b) making sure that crossing surfaces are level and free of hazards (eg recent-ish case of an element of a road crossing surface flipping up and causing car to be trapped on the crossing)
c) clearly marking the last safe point to stop and look
d) making sure that you can actually see what you need to see from that point
e) taking extraordinary measures where there is a history of misuse, like prioritising and pushing local authorities to allow, footbridges at locations at high risk of, or with histories of, misuse
f) reduce the number of times people have to cross the line by putting (working) ticket machines on both platforms of a station

Its ironic. 'They broke the rules, so its their fault' is in fact playing the 'Blame Game' that so many posters have complained of at its most extreme. It doesn't really matter to the dead driver whether the cause of the accident was someone obeying the rules or not, they are still dead. Its a bit like saying 'the driver was at fault for the SPAD that led to those deaths, therefore we should do nothing to make it easier for drivers to avoid SPADs'.

The objective is safety, for everybody, NOT being able to say someone else was to blame.

 

[BravoGolfMike]

No. 'Everyone' does NOT know the rules were changed, or even that there WAS a rule.

Most ordinary people have no interest at all in the details of rail regulations and wouldn't know where to find the relevant document if they did.

And as for unjustified criticism, lets be clear who is doing the criticising, why and even if it is criticism at all. Press, public and even the courts may get it wrong more often than the RAIB or RSSB.

Dealing with the last first. Do not confuse a recommendation to investigate whether something might reduce the risk at a crossing with a criticism. It is a recognition that NR have more expertise and resources than the person doing the recommendation. If there is any criticism it is that NR has not looked at that option without prompting.

NR have, rightly in my view, taken a lot of stick from the RAIB and RSSB in recent years for, in the past, displaying the attitude that I have seen from quite a few posters here that all, or almost all, accidents on Level Crossings are the fault of the crossing user and therefore nothing need be done to deal with them.

A typical case would be 'There was a sign saying to stop and look, they got hit by a train, therefore they didn't stop and look, therefore we need do nothing. Case closed.' when, yes there was a sign saying to stop and look but there was also a Location Cabinet or, in one case, a fence put up by NR that meant that you had to be at an unsafe distance from the track before you got a view of the line. In cases like these the RAIB, quite rightly in my view, do criticise NR.

There is also the very big, and contentious, issue of catering for expected misbehaviour. It was touched on in an earlier post - TDK sounds his horn at crossings when he expects school kids to be using, and potentially misusing, them.

Crossing accidents don't affect only the victim, they affect their families and friends, they affect the Emergency Services and rail staff that have to deal with them, they can affect the safety of the railway, they definitely affect the driver involved, they also affect rail travellers through disruption. Even if you have no sympathy for the immediate victim surely you should have some for the secondary ones, including those that may end up as fatalities (remember Ufton Nervet).

So why not push NR, and, very importantly, others, where appropriate, to do things like:

a) making the final approaches to crossings at 90 degrees to the track, rather than at an angle facing away from the usual direction of approach from trains.
b) making sure that crossing surfaces are level and free of hazards (eg recent-ish case of an element of a road crossing surface flipping up and causing car to be trapped on the crossing)
c) clearly marking the last safe point to stop and look
d) making sure that you can actually see what you need to see from that point
e) taking extraordinary measures where there is a history of misuse, like prioritising and pushing local authorities to allow, footbridges at locations at high risk of, or with histories of, misuse
f) reduce the number of times people have to cross the line by putting (working) ticket machines on both platforms of a station

Its ironic. 'They broke the rules, so its their fault' is in fact playing the 'Blame Game' that so many posters have complained of at its most extreme. It doesn't really matter to the dead driver whether the cause of the accident was someone obeying the rules or not, they are still dead. Its a bit like saying 'the driver was at fault for the SPAD that led to those deaths, therefore we should do nothing to make it easier for drivers to avoid SPADs'.

The objective is safety, for everybody, NOT being able to say someone else was to blame.

You have misunderstood my point. "Everyone" meant railway employees, especially drivers, not members of the public. And it is drivers who have been saying that the rule is a bad rule and needs looking at, both the times and tone used.

And I don't think anyone is victim blaming, not withstanding the fact that sitting on a level crossing isn't particularly sensible. Network rail used to victim blame a lot in the past but their attitude has certainly changed over recent years (and rightly so.) I think the RSSB needs to have a good look at cases like this and the other accidents over the years which may have been prevented had the rule regarding whistleboards not been changed.

 

[ComUtoR]

NR have, rightly in my view, taken a lot of stick from the RAIB and RSSB in recent years for, in the past, displaying the attitude that I have seen from quite a few posters here that all, or almost all, accidents on Level Crossings are the fault of the crossing user and therefore nothing need be done to deal with them.

When does it become the responsibility of the user ? Without placing direct victim blame there does have to be a point where you take responsibility for your own actions.

There is also the very big, and contentious, issue of catering for expected misbehaviour. It was touched on in an earlier post - TDK sounds his horn at crossings when he expects school kids to be using, and potentially misusing, them.

I do the same. However I do not expect misuse. I try to have faith in people and that they are essentially honest and will abide by the rules and keep themselves safe. I don't believe that people should be treated like criminals.

So why not push NR, and, very importantly, others, where appropriate, to do things like:

a) making the final approaches to crossings at 90 degrees to the track, rather than at an angle facing away from the usual direction of approach from trains.
b) making sure that crossing surfaces are level and free of hazards (eg recent-ish case of an element of a road crossing surface flipping up and causing car to be trapped on the crossing)
c) clearly marking the last safe point to stop and look
d) making sure that you can actually see what you need to see from that point
e) taking extraordinary measures where there is a history of misuse, like prioritising and pushing local authorities to allow, footbridges at locations at high risk of, or with histories of, misuse
f) reduce the number of times people have to cross the line by putting (working) ticket machines on both platforms of a station

What about educating crossing users ? I grew up in the "play it safe" era. I wouldn't dream of sitting on a level crossing. I still use the green cross code.

What about building a 6ft wall with a door and a crossing keeper ? You can take all of those steps listed above and you sill still get people misusing the crossing and doing very very silly things. I pass over a level crossing and there is a footbridge. In all the years I have been going over it I can count on my hands the number of people using the footbridge.

 

[SPADTrap]

The PTS course says not to rely on noise to determine if a train is approaching, as they can be silent until upon you.

I've been shocked at how close a train has been when I've heard it when doing my pts practical when I started as a driver. They're extremely quiet! No way would I rely on hearing one as warning to move - it's quite correct

 

[najaB]

I pass over a level crossing and there is a footbridge. In all the years I have been going over it I can count on my hands the number of people using the footbridge.

Does the crossing have barriers/warning lights? I can understand why people would avoid using the footbridge if there is an indication that the line is clear. If there are neither lights nor barriers I would probably use the footbridge, personally.

 

[ComUtoR]

Full barrier (I think) crossing with keeper. Barriers for cars, footbridge for people. I couldn't tell you the setup for lights etc as I haven't used it for many many moons. Charlton Lane crossing if your interested.

Typically we hit Charlton on a single yellow (next signal protects the crossing) and then it clears to green. The length of time the barriers are down for you can be over the bridge and on your way pretty sharpish.

Its odd how we automatically try to justify behavior and provide excuses for people not using the correct method for crossing whilst the barriers are down. My point is that no matter what safety systems are provided people will usually default to the easiest course of action.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Just a small point, for clarity:

I might be being a bit dim here but what the judge says in my mind is that the railway cannot reasonably take any further steps to mitigate what happened in this situation.

However, the judge also appears to remark that he has considered making a report to Network Rail to ask them to review the circumstances.

This was an Inquest, by Coroner Longstaff, not a Trial by a Judge.

The inquest has no role in determining liability and no jurisdiction to make recommendations for the future - its function is to clarify the facts of the event, specifically the cause, place and time of death.

 

[Bodiddly]

Tragic accidents inevitably come with cold hard facts. Every 'incident' has a cause but as the railway is very strict on rules compared to other industries, the blame,for want of a better word, is nearly always placed on the injured or deceased. This isn't unique to railway crossings. I have witnessed youngsters on platforms disregarding their safety by being far too close to the edge and mucking about and kids trespassing at the most dangerous of places i.e tunnels etc. Nobody but nobody wants to hear of people being struck by trains but there needs to be a common sense approach to this. Instantly blaming NR or a TOC every time a member of the public is injured or killed is totally unfair before the facts are made clear. I can't stress enough, any loss of life is tragic but as intelligent beings, we are in charge of our own destiny and being near the running line reduces our chances of reaching old age. As a former track worker, I know first hand that trains are very silent killers. I have had too many near misses to feel comfortable with and can recall one in particular where I was literally a few feet from death.
I also speak to train drivers on a regular basis and they always say they are at their most attentive when entering a station full of schoolkids. Kids will be kids but there cannot be any room for complacency when you are standing a few feet from a 400 tonne train travelling at speed.
It is always upsetting to hear of youngsters losing their lives no matter how it happens.

 

[najaB]

Full barrier (I think) crossing with keeper. Barriers for cars, footbridge for people. I couldn't tell you the setup for lights etc as I haven't used it for many many moons. Charlton Lane crossing if your interested.

At a crossing with barriers and a keeper I understand why people feel safe enough crossing by the road: if it is safe for cars to cross then pedestrians/cyclists/etc. are equally safe from being hit by a train - though if the traffic was heavy I would probably use the footbridge even when the barriers are raised since I wouldn't want to get hit by a car!

If there wasn't a keeper and barriers I would almost certainly use the bridge at all times.