Lorry backs over LC and breaks barrier

[Falcon1200]

No, it does not. If someone shoulders "most" of the blame, then there is some blame apportioned elsewhere. I would have thought this was obvious?

Some blame yes, but if NR shoulders most of the blame, as you stated, anyone else involved can only be almost blameless, as I stated. Is that not obvious too ?

 

[ComUtoR]

However, I'll await the RAIB report before offering my view on the correct apportionment of blame.

At the start of every RAIB report you can find the following quote.

The purpose of a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigation is to improve railway safety by preventing future railway accidents or by mitigating their consequences. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to establish blame or liability. Accordingly, it is inappropriate that RAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame, or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose.

 

[Western Gaffer]

James Dean, Network Rail’s West Coast South route director, said: “It’s almost unbelievable that this lorry driver decided to reverse over this level crossing, putting not only them but also the oncoming train and its passengers in danger."

Is it just me who thinks that if Network Rail felt the need to put up a spokesman to opine on the subject of safe motoring, they could have chosen someone with a less ironic name?

 

[Dave W]

If NR have gone to ground on this no one has told the social media team, who have just now posted it on Twitter

https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/1450524002070536200

 

[Baxenden Bank]

If NR have gone to ground on this no one has told the social media team, who have just now posted it on Twitter

https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/1450524002070536200

To which user VLA57 has already replied:

Not going to admit that the lorry was delivering to your engineers, there was no way to turn around, and the crossing phone was locked?

Someone needs to exercise some control over this press office. Clearly they do not employ journalists who would check facts before posting, and verify from two/three sources.

 

[AlterEgo]

Some blame yes, but if NR shoulders most of the blame, as you stated, anyone else involved can only be almost blameless, as I stated. Is that not obvious too ?

Not at all; surely this is basic English comprehension as to what the word “most” means?

If I have £60 and you have £40 do you have “almost nothing” despite me having most of the money?

Nowhere have I suggested the lorry driver is “almost blameless”!

 

[Paul Kelly]

Highway code states DO NOT reverse over a level crossing......for obvious reasons.

What are the obvious reasons? If it's unavoidable in that you can't travel forwards and there is no space to turn, and safe in that someone has checked the road for obstacles and it is clear behind, what is the problem?

 

[mmh]

And?
That doesn't make the driver exempt from obeying the Laws of the road.

It's been argued earlier in the thread that this is actually a private road.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==

What are the obvious reasons? If it's unavoidable in that you can't travel forwards and there is no space to turn, and safe in that someone has checked the road for obstacles and it is clear behind, what is the problem?

Indeed. Some posters appear to have criticised the driver for going above 5mph (quite how someone can determine that he was travelling at 8mph, as has been mentioned, is a curious question.

Perhaps he was simply trying to get his vehicle off the crossing as quickly as possible at the speed he was comfortable with doing. M'lud.

 

[dosxuk]

If NR have gone to ground on this no one has told the social media team, who have just now posted it on Twitter

https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/1450524002070536200

In that video there's clearly another vehicle just visible at the start on the far right, clearing the way for the lorry to reverse.

 

[GB]

It's been argued earlier in the thread that this is actually a private road.

There is nothing there to suggest it is a private road and even if it is, it’s publicly accessible so traffic laws still apply. Much in the same vein you can’t drive drunk around Tesco car park.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It is a private road in the sense its owned by Wedgwood. But it's a public road to all intents and purposes. This includes, I suspect. legally. Again, at a guess, the only difference being if you tripped and sued it would be Wedgwood rather than the council as the land owners.

 

[LAX54]

In that video there's clearly another vehicle just visible at the start on the far right, clearing the way for the lorry to reverse.

He could (or she) be just reversing out of the way after seeing a large HGV heading towards them, and looking at the video, not that slowly !
IF as said he was delivering to Net Rail, he would have had a contact number, call it, and wait for assistance, the 'contact' if not on site, or close by could have called Control, or the Signaller, who would have sent the MOM, or BTP even the S&T if they were handy, if no one was close (within 20 mins or so) the 'civil' police would have been asked to attend.
Even if the NR 'contact' called the Signaller and gave him the Lorry Drivers mobile, he could have called him, and put the CCTV on manual until he had made the move, that would not be the first time that has been done.
A regular driver, lorry or otherwise of CCTV and manual barriers, would know the trailing barrier comes down last, (to allow escape), had the lorry not been over the white line he would have got away with it !

 

[Dave W]

He could (or she) be just reversing out of the way after seeing a large HGV heading towards them, and looking at the video, not that slowly !
IF as said he was delivering to Net Rail, he would have had a contact number, call it, and wait for assistance, the 'contact' if not on site, or close by could have called Control, or the Signaller, who would have sent the MOM, or BTP even the S&T if they were handy, if no one was close (within 20 mins or so) the 'civil' police would have been asked to attend.
Even if the NR 'contact' called the Signaller and gave him the Lorry Drivers mobile, he could have called him, and put the CCTV on manual until he had made the move, that would not be the first time that has been done.
A regular driver, lorry or otherwise of CCTV and manual barriers, would know the trailing barrier comes down last, (to allow escape), had the lorry not been over the white line he would have got away with it !

Would all of this have been made clear to the lorry driver? How does he know that calling the number would resolve the situation?

Seems to me that - at the absolute least - he was trying to use his initiative to fix a problem not entirely of his own making. Like you say, in other situations he'd have got away with it. Maybe everyone here would have done it differently; there but for the grace of god go us all...

If I was Network Rail, rather than finding ways to publically demolish an individual who - unless other details come to the fore - has acted in good faith throughout, I'd be conducting an internal investigation that doesn't automatically point fingers and rather considers the whole piece. Perhaps that's happening - reposting the video on social media last night implies it isn't.

 

[TrafficEng]

He could (or she) be just reversing out of the way after seeing a large HGV heading towards them, and looking at the video, not that slowly !
IF as said he was delivering to Net Rail, he would have had a contact number, call it, and wait for assistance, the 'contact' if not on site, or close by could have called Control, or the Signaller, who would have sent the MOM, or BTP even the S&T if they were handy, if no one was close (within 20 mins or so) the 'civil' police would have been asked to attend.
Even if the NR 'contact' called the Signaller and gave him the Lorry Drivers mobile, he could have called him, and put the CCTV on manual until he had made the move, that would not be the first time that has been done.
A regular driver, lorry or otherwise of CCTV and manual barriers, would know the trailing barrier comes down last, (to allow escape), had the lorry not been over the white line he would have got away with it !

*The following is on the assumption the lorry was being used in relation to NR works*

Your comments are missing the fundamental point that if the lorry was delivering/collecting plant to/for NR then there appears to have been a breakdown in the process outlined in NRA19-07.

The risk of the lorry having to reverse back across the level crossing should have been identified at the planning stage and adequate risk mitigation measures identified and validated/agreed with Level Crossing Managers and Local Operations Managers.

Your comments are putting the onus on the lorry driver to identify the risk(s) and create an ad-hoc risk mitigation strategy.

The RAIB report on Mucking is quite clear about how ad-hoc arrangements can pose a serious risk to the safety of the railway. It shouldn't be left up to a lorry driver (with or without experience of 'rail' jobs) to identify the risk and develop a safe strategy for completing the task.

Ad-hoc arrangements are very often the cause of accidents in construction (and from what I understand also on the railway). They should be avoided by good project planning.

If the lorry was there on NR business then the risk of it needing to be reversed over the crossing should have been identified by NR and adequate risk mitigation measures put in place. The level Crossing Manager(s) should have know the lorry would be there and would have to reverse back over the crossing. This action should not have come as a surprise to anyone.

So, in the absence of a method of completing the task without the reversal (e.g. opening up the old car park for use as a turning area) adequate risk mitigation measures should have been in place.

On that basis, which scenario is going to lead to the fewest red-faces at NR? That there was someone from NR present on site who guided the lorry as it reversed over the crossing, or that nobody from NR was present on site and the 'risk mitigation' consisted of leaving the lorry driver to figure out what to do by themselves. (personally, I'd be less embarrassed by the former)

*Again, all the above is based on the assumption the lorry was being used in relation to NR works*

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

There is nothing there to suggest it is a private road and even if it is, it’s publicly accessible so traffic laws still apply. Much in the same vein you can’t drive drunk around Tesco car park.

The corollary of that is if drivers are expected to comply with 'traffic laws' then the traffic signs should comply with TSRGD and be placed with reference to the guidance given in the Traffic Signs Manual.

They aren't.

A driver (regardless of whether involved in NR works or not) might use in mitigation the fact that the signs are non-standard and potentially misleading.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'm not on twitter personally, but I'm told Network Rail will release something and it automatically appears on twitter a bit later. I'm also told that people have responded saying pretty much what happened at Wedgwood and Network Rail have fallen into silence. I would have thought they'd be keen to deny it if untrue. However, without them being forthcoming there's not really a story & it quietly dies, which I guess is their aim.

 

[norbitonflyer]

As I said earlier, that seems to confirm that the driver started his maneuveur whislt the yellow light was flashing. So he is at fault.

On the contrary. The yellow light may well have lit before the cab passed it, but as the lorry was reversing, the cab was the last part of the vehicle to enter the crossing. The manouvre started when the first (rear) part of the lorry entered the crossing, which it did long before the barriers moved (indeed most of the lorry (except the cab) had cleared the crossing before they came down.

 

[jfowkes]

By coincidence, Geoff Marshall has a video out today with a Wedgwood station visit in it.

 

[Towers]

What's all this (on the Twitter thread linked above) about an NR employee assisting the lorry over the crossing?! A tad embarrassing if that was indeed the case.

 

[Deafdoggie]

What's all this (on the Twitter thread linked above) about an NR employee assisting the lorry over the crossing?! A tad embarrassing if that was indeed the case.

Apparently the lorry driver arrived at the site and a Network Rail employee (or at least someone in orange hi-viz) waved them over the crossing. Orange hi-viz man then reversed their car over the crossing before the lorry reversed over to ensure any traffic was clear.

In other news, there's some doubt if he was delivering to the site or was in fact collecting from the site. Apparently the equipment was dropped off on a previous occasion using the same method, but the barriers didn't lower. This time the equipment was being collected the barriers did come down. But this would mean Network Rail were fully aware where the equipment was and how to access it!
Just to say it's a pretty quiet road and straight with good visibility. If there were no level crossing there, the manouver would not be considered a problem, although possibly not ideal! Lorrys reverse a lot whilst out and about making deliveries, it's par for the course. If the site organised the point and are responsible for the only real hazard and provided staff to oversee it, then the driver isn't really going to question it.

 

[BrianW]

I received this email from RAIB this morning:

I can confirm that this incident is not being investigated by RAIB. It was not notifiable to RAIB as the systems that the railway has in place for such incidents worked as intended, so no trains were about to pass over the crossing when the incident happened.

 

[Grumpy Git]

If indeed there are no places to turn round, one assumes if they'd driven over the crossing normally on the way in, they'd still have had to reverse over the crossing on the way out?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If indeed there are no places to turn round, one assumes if they'd driven over the crossing normally on the way in, they'd still have had to reverse over the crossing on the way out?

Indeed, and this has been discussed at length already. Question remains as to whether the driver needed to cross the LC in the first place, depends on where exactly he was expected/required to take the load still to be seen on the trailer. (Assuming here that it was about to be delivered in the immediate area and hadn't just been collected).