SWTCommuter
Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 353
And another. Sadly, this one wasn't just a close shave...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31124170
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31124170
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
More level crossing stupidity
- Thread starter PaxVobiscum
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I've just seen a feature on Sky news about this, just awful and it shows what level crossing misuse can lead too
As I understand it the following traffic signs/signals, and only the following signs/signals, apply to pedestrians:
Motorway starts
No pedestrians
Stop lights at a level crossing.
I would check, but Traffic Signs has a fiendishly complex statutory basis. I can try and check later if people care.
PermitToTravel
Established Member
I think wigwag signals (the type used at level crossings) always apply to pedestrians
SWTCommuter
Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 353
Highway Code rule 34
Highway Code Rules for Pedestrians said:
https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/situations-needing-extra-care-31-to-35
Last edited:
I should clarify - I meant all the signals meaning stop. WigWags included. Probably not the little red ones on the arms. I would guess that some forms of the lights which allow the crossing to stay open (with some lights out) are not prescribed as traffic signs, so aren't a Traffic Signs offence, but they are still dangerous driving.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
SWTCommuter, I wasn't aware that red pedestrian figures were prescribed (or used) at level crossings. I guess this is what comes of using the DfT Road Signs Manual instead of TSRGD
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
SWTCommuter, I wasn't aware that red pedestrian figures were prescribed (or used) at level crossings. I guess this is what comes of using the DfT Road Signs Manual instead of TSRGD
So what is your definition of nearly or nowhere near?
Deepgreen
Established Member
See news (BBC) of the New York state rail crash today - at least seven killed when a third rail train hit a Jeep on a level crossing. The Jeep's female driver (killed) had stopped on the crossing to examine damage caused when the barrier came down on her car. Presume the other six dead were rail passengers. The third rail was dislodged and forced through the front carriage and appears to have started a fire on board. Horrific.
Hope you enjoyed - I'm heading up there tomorrow. Might even take the camera!
martynbristow
Member
I think the police are being FAR too lenient with this.
Stray onto a crossing and you won't again!
Simply revoke their license for cars.
A level crossing has one of the greatest dangers posed on he roads and sufficent warning about how to deal with them, if you can't follow red flashing lights and barriers then why are you on the road!
Stray onto a crossing and you won't again!
Simply revoke their license for cars.
A level crossing has one of the greatest dangers posed on he roads and sufficent warning about how to deal with them, if you can't follow red flashing lights and barriers then why are you on the road!
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
It's not the police who are too lenient. It those sitting in the courts who are
martynbristow
Member
Well those too but they are going to use ANPR cameras, How will that deter someone.
Pull them over and have lengthy chat, that would seriously **** people off!
221129
Established Member
Using what resources?
A compulsory re-test seems like a must. Chances are someone with the wrong attitude or a load of bad habits will fail, or at the very least be forced to re-learn. And that would be a good thing.
Given the offender would need to pay for the test and possibly lessons, I don't see a downside. The taxpayer isn't any worse off.
Given the offender would need to pay for the test and possibly lessons, I don't see a downside. The taxpayer isn't any worse off.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Hope you have better luck than me.
Our train broke down at Cynghordy on the way down!!
Zoidberg
Established Member
PermitToTravel
Established Member
Searle here posted an interesting point about the video
If the video has been sped up then the man's crossing was less close than it looks (but still illegal, and unable to be condoned)
when others in that thread have said that it's impossible for a train to pass within 10 seconds of the barriers lowering.
If the video has been sped up then the man's crossing was less close than it looks (but still illegal, and unable to be condoned)
I can't find the link but the minimum time from barriers down to train reaching the crossing is 8 seconds...minimum 27 seconds from start of sequence (amber lights) 10 seconds if another train reaches the strike in point and barriers are already down and 10 seconds crossing open time between when barriers raise and then lower.
I see no evidence that the video is altered in anyway.
I see no evidence that the video is altered in anyway.
Last edited:
PermitToTravel
Established Member
Thanks - on the other thread it was said that 10 seconds from barriers down to train is a matter that needs reporting
This might help...
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2158/level_crossings_guidance.pdf (Page 21)
3 seconds Amber lights
4-6 seconds from the start of flashing red lights to start of lower sequence
6-10 seconds to reach the fully lowered position.
8 seconds minimum lowered time before train arrives.
3+6+10+8 = 27 seconds
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2158/level_crossings_guidance.pdf (Page 21)
3 seconds Amber lights
4-6 seconds from the start of flashing red lights to start of lower sequence
6-10 seconds to reach the fully lowered position.
8 seconds minimum lowered time before train arrives.
3+6+10+8 = 27 seconds
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
This is already being discussed on at least two other topics, which I've asked the Mods to merge together. Let's not start another identical conversation here too!
Yeah, I posted that here before Zoidberg (thanks) drew my attention to the thread dedicated to the incident.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=111651
All three of the 'incidents' look faked to me.
The first one definitely looks edited, you can see the leaves on the left shift when the shot of the train gets superimposed (poor choice of location there), the massive bloom effect to cover the end of the train passing is a blatant giveaway, and they did a horrible job of the colour correction. So long as I picked a better location for the shoot, I could have done a more convincing job with about 15 minutes of editing.
The second one with the cyclist also looks as if it was staged by a stunt rider. Most real cyclists would have grabbed a fistful of rear brake and hit the deck as their rear wheel skidded and washed out underneath them, probably seeing them slide underneath the barrier instead of the more dramatic collision with the barrier.
The third one has been filmed from a typical CCTV camera location, but the footage is clearly too good to be from a proper CCTV camera - again, something that more competent editing (i.e. adding a lo-fi look effect) would have solved.
The sound effect at the end is clearly a recorded effect added in.
If you're going to stage it, you may as well go all the way and do a properly well-produced ad instead of just trying to cook up 'real' footage. Like this classic campaign from 2005 where the ad agency did a brilliant job of showing the 'impact' without being too gory to put on TV.
[youtube]ZMzwr2rMXbk[/youtube]
[youtube]-4rPgWmVLdk[/youtube]
The first one definitely looks edited, you can see the leaves on the left shift when the shot of the train gets superimposed (poor choice of location there), the massive bloom effect to cover the end of the train passing is a blatant giveaway, and they did a horrible job of the colour correction. So long as I picked a better location for the shoot, I could have done a more convincing job with about 15 minutes of editing.
The second one with the cyclist also looks as if it was staged by a stunt rider. Most real cyclists would have grabbed a fistful of rear brake and hit the deck as their rear wheel skidded and washed out underneath them, probably seeing them slide underneath the barrier instead of the more dramatic collision with the barrier.
The third one has been filmed from a typical CCTV camera location, but the footage is clearly too good to be from a proper CCTV camera - again, something that more competent editing (i.e. adding a lo-fi look effect) would have solved.
The sound effect at the end is clearly a recorded effect added in.
If you're going to stage it, you may as well go all the way and do a properly well-produced ad instead of just trying to cook up 'real' footage. Like this classic campaign from 2005 where the ad agency did a brilliant job of showing the 'impact' without being too gory to put on TV.
[youtube]ZMzwr2rMXbk[/youtube]
[youtube]-4rPgWmVLdk[/youtube]
Last edited:
andrewkeith5
Member
I haven't read the whole thread so this might have been said before (if so, sorry), but I had to post:
All of the level crossings in Crawley are absolutely ridiculous, and it wouldn't surprise me if people regularly mistrusted their being closed.
On Up trains, they can be closed up to 5 minutes before the train passes in my experience, and stay closed until the train is berthed in the platform.
Down trains are even more absurd - they close almost as soon as the train has left Three Bridges, stay closed for the entire duration the train is in the station, and only open shortly after departure.
If you time it badly you can be waiting up to 15 minutes while two trains pass in opposite directions at station approach speed (which on the Southern network is only about as fast as it takes for me to break into a light jog!) - a totally unnecessarily long wait.
I don't think they are. I've no idea how the first one was filmed, but I'd guess that the other two are footage from enforcement cameras - Narborough's renowned locally for motorists blocking the crossing and generally being foolish, and they're likely to be panicked into making bizarre decisions in cases like that. I'm sure that Network Rail would be delighted to know that the quality of their footage is "too good" - although the little camera that perches on our windscreen is comparable!
I think I'm possibly in the minority in holding the view that excessive and (to road users) seemingly unnecessarily long closure times are likely to encourage misuse. We have one crossing where we're instructed to delay starting the sequence for stopping trains to minimise the closure time, meaning that the train passes the distant at caution and is checked heavily by the approach released home signal (the next signal, the section signal, is the one that protects the crossing, a little way beyond the platform). I accept that this introduces some additional risks into the operation (SPAD trap, risk of anticipating the home signal coming off etc), and also a noticeably slower approach, but very much believe that the overall risk is probably reduced. Regular users might know that they can 'get away' with dodging around the lowered entrance barriers to avoid what they know will be a long wait (though with a significant risk of being prosecuted), then encounter an AHB crossing and try the same thing - which they're rather less likely to escape from unscathed!
Llanigraham
On Moderation
None of the 3 videos from BTP are faked!!
That would be an interesting insurance claim...
Well (assuming of course that he actually has insurance) the rise in premiums could well put him off the road...
PermitToTravel
Established Member
Do they ask for the details of the accident? I seem to recall that there's just a form with some tickboxes - "Yes I've had an accident in the last 5 years; only 1; other driver was not at fault."
andrewkeith5
Member
You need to at least select the category of the accident. Bet there isn't one for a level crossing - there wasn't one for the barrier at the car park at work falling onto my car!
- Status