Police at level crossings

[OuterDistant]

I got stopped at a crossing for the first time in ages this morning, and it brought this thread to mind. Not that I'm condoning it, but I can see the temptation that people get to jump the lights at manual LCs, given that it's 3 or 4 minutes of waiting while absolutely nothing happens.

 

[fgwrich]

and the Welsh angle http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12405989

collisions down, interesting.

Interesting!

Also - I like the BBC's rather Heritage 158! The RR livery was phased out back in 2007 on FGWs former Ex VT / TPE 158s!

 

[Jonny]

Is it true that BTP have been pursuing pedestrians over alleged trespass by jumping crossing barriers? This sounds like an abuse of power...

I would have thought that, since the road is still the public highway with the barriers down, and you can't trespass by being on the public highway, trespass would be a non-starter. In terms of physical injury, it's only themselves at risk (since when has a human body derailed a train?).

 

[ChrisCooper]

Problem with pedestrians though, they might only kill themselves but there is the disruption whilst they are cleaned up, the effect on those given the unpleasent task of cleaning up, the effect on the driver, the effect on other witnesses (which could be quite a few at a busy crossing) plus the potential negative press for the railways. They can do a fair amount of damage to trains too, even if they won't derail one.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Doesn't the road between the barriers cease to be a public highway and becomes railway premises for the duration of the barrier closure? Sure I read it somewhere years ago...???

 

[43167]

They were watching Starbeck Crossing aswell on tuesday.

 

[Oracle]

I would argue that the area between the barriers is in fact part of the railway and owned by NR not the public highway authority. Trespassing on a LC is a criminal offence.

 

[Stigy]

From what I've heard and read it isn't a huge amount In the case of motorists I think the courts prefer the punishment to be more directed toward a persons' licence, ie points or ban etc. As for a pedestrian I'm not sure what the offence actually is, not trespass presumably, maybe obstructing or endangering a train or something similar?

Motorists would be punished using the Road Traffic Act, and pedestrians would be prosecuted under Section 55 of the British Transport Commissions Act 1949 (Trespass on the Railway). Unless they were messing about between the barriers and being "dangerous", in which case they'd probably be prosecuted under causing an obstruction on the railway.

The former is punishable by a £50 Penalty Notice for Disorder, which entails no Criminal Record or court hearing unless it doesn't get paid, although the offender could be deemed ineligible for several reasons, and an officer needn't issue one if he feels the offence is too serious! If the officer chose to report the matter instead, a Magistrates' Court can impose anything up to a £1,000 fine, and a Criminal Record obviously.

Trespass on the railway comes in to effect AS SOON as the red lights start to flash, as long as the lights and audio are in full working order!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would argue that the area between the barriers is in fact part of the railway and owned by NR not the public highway authority. Trespassing on a LC is a criminal offence.

It is, but obviously Trespassing only comes in to the equation once the red lights start to flash, at which point the crossing becomes a running railway!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it true that BTP have been pursuing pedestrians over alleged trespass by jumping crossing barriers? This sounds like an abuse of power...

I would have thought that, since the road is still the public highway with the barriers down, and you can't trespass by being on the public highway, trespass would be a non-starter. In terms of physical injury, it's only themselves at risk (since when has a human body derailed a train?).

The crossing is railway property, and becomes part of a live railway as soon as the red lights begin flash. I've issued PNDs for this very offence numerous times, and reported too.

 

[mindfeeder]

RE 2009 BBC article.

Seems as though its just relatives trying to blame the railway for what happened, of course none of the "victims" could have been doing anything wrong:roll:

This is the main problem IMO. Too many people seem to think it's the railway's fault for being in the way of their journey. It's a disgusting attitude.

 

[Broken Viking]

It should be a jail term - I've been involved in cars hit by trains on crossings and have seen the damage it does to all involved when a road driver thinks he can beat a train at a crossing.

Police need to apprehend them then and there. Chances are they will will find they are guilty of more than the crossing offence.

Agreed with both of the above suggestions. It surprises me immensely just how many people there are out there who don't realise just how much caution and respect needs to be extended towards level crossings! hock:

I must admit I'm at the other end of the scale (I'll stop if I get the very start of a yellow, but only if I can do so safely...If not, I'll floor it to get over the crossing ASAP) and I'm extremely cautious around crossings nowadays. I used to jump barriers in my youth (As a pedestrian) I have to admit, but the Selby incident soon put a stop to that!

This shot was taken around 12th March 2008 at the manual crossing at Marchwood, on the Fawley branch. The driver of HX03VAX just could not wait for the bobbie to open the gates and just drove through!
This shot was published in RAIL..and Mr Editor you did not credit me!

Please tell me you also passed that photo on to the BTP! If that had been an AHB, there could easily have been a second train just about to slam through! :roll:
_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

As someone who always prefers to take a "hard hitting" approach to things like this, I reckon the solution to level crossing offences is simple. Just produce some extremely Blooded and Brütal footage showing - In every single Gory detail - Just what happens when a train hits a car, and another reel showing the same for a group of pedestrians. Craft the footage in such a way that it's strong enough to shock, traumatise and haunt the viewer for every remaining day of their lives.

Have this video supplied to Police "on the ground" which they can show to offenders at the roadside on a portable DVD player by way of roadside re-education. When showed to those offenders caught it should hopefully be enough to stop them "Running the risk", if not even encouraging them to avoid routes with level crossings full-stop!

Either way, a video strong and horrific enough to make even the Yorkshire Ripper cry a flood of tears would definitely do the trick...And if Network Rail need some pointers for producing a video like that, I'd be more than happy to offer my advice for completely zero cost!

 

[Oracle]

The photo was published in RAIL in the Edito's page but no-one ever pursued it. Of course the 66 was sat heading towards Marchwood in the station loop but it is galling nevertheless.

 

[Jonny]

Problem with pedestrians though, they might only kill themselves but there is the disruption whilst they are cleaned up, the effect on those given the unpleasent task of cleaning up, the effect on the driver, the effect on other witnesses (which could be quite a few at a busy crossing) plus the potential negative press for the railways. They can do a fair amount of damage to trains too, even if they won't derail one.

That's an occupational hazard for the staff involved. If they can't handle it, they were/are in the wrong job. With simulators, this should be part of the training now. In fact it's an occupational hazard for anyone who drives anything on the road, and then the local police would bang the driver of a road vehicle to rights over even the slightest breach.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The photo was published in RAIL in the Edito's page but no-one ever pursued it. Of course the 66 was sat heading towards Marchwood in the station loop but it is galling nevertheless.

Ah, but there was no actual danger of car vs train hitting, was there? Would make the prosecution look like a bunch of idiots if/when the case came to court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Motorists would be punished using the Road Traffic Act, and pedestrians would be prosecuted under Section 55 of the British Transport Commissions Act 1949 (Trespass on the Railway). Unless they were messing about between the barriers and being "dangerous", in which case they'd probably be prosecuted under causing an obstruction on the railway.

The former is punishable by a £50 Penalty Notice for Disorder, which entails no Criminal Record or court hearing unless it doesn't get paid, although the offender could be deemed ineligible for several reasons, and an officer needn't issue one if he feels the offence is too serious! If the officer chose to report the matter instead, a Magistrates' Court can impose anything up to a £1,000 fine, and a Criminal Record obviously.

Trespass on the railway comes in to effect AS SOON as the red lights start to flash, as long as the lights and audio are in full working order!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is, but obviously Trespassing only comes in to the equation once the red lights start to flash, at which point the crossing becomes a running railway!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The crossing is railway property, and becomes part of a live railway as soon as the red lights begin flash. I've issued PNDs for this very offence numerous times, and reported too.

The trouble with the road is, as part of the public highway, it's not exclusively NR's land; the local authority (or the highways agency if a trunk road) has an interest in it. Ownership is often a lot more complex than it would seem. BTP's stance is blatantly rent-a-cop (they're funded by the rail industry, who don't want the disruption (looking at it from a money not a human life angle)) anyway. I would also have thought that either it's a running railway all the time or it isn't...

Read the Law comission's recent report on level crossings and their abuse http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/level_crossings.htm that says - or at least implies - that prosecuting pedestrians for trespass on a level crossing is unlikely to succeed; PS have any of your cases stood up to challenge?

Is the risk of yourself being humiliated by being made to look incompetent in court or, worse still, pulled up for misconduct in a public office with the consequences thereof worth it?

Methinks the risk probably isn't worth it in non-legal terms so you can breathe easy oh and just before I finish what about half-barriers/Opens where it is a running railway all the time, yet the public are allowed to cross?

 

[ChrisCooper]

I'm surprised there is not some law when it comes to pedestrians abusing crossings. Surely that would also mean that someone abusing an open crossing on foot (for example playing chicken) would also be not breaking the law? I suppose it's difficult as they are not really causing a danger to anyone but themselves. Roads are a different matter as a pedestrian acting stupid on the roads is a danger to other traffic who may swerve to avoid them leading to an accident. Actually the inability to swerve is an advantage when it comes to train vs. human incidents, as they cannot swerve to avoid and therefore possibly loose control or hit something else, and there is the psycological (not that it's a big help) and legal benefit to the driver that there really was nothing they could have done. Still I'm not entirely sure if a pedestrian dangerously crossing or even walking down a busy road would be breaking a law, unless it was a motorway. At the end of the day, is crossing a crossing on foot after the lights come on any different to crossing a road when the red man is showing (and far more get hit like that then get hit by trains)? Of cource in the US they have laws against jaywalking, so perhaps we need similar laws, including railway equivalents, here.

 

[Oracle]

I think that jaywalking on a LC when the lights have turned red is trespass on the railway.

 

[GB]

If they can't handle it, they were/are in the wrong job.

Says who? You? With the best will in the world, you do not know if you will be able to "handle it" unless you have been in the situation (or similar) before and even then there is no gaurentee the second time round won't affect you.

You talk like its no big deal.

 

[Oracle]

Thank goodness I have only ever seen someone die once...keeled-over at age 42 from a heartattack whilst having dinner in a refectory. It has however stuck with me and that was 16 years ago. A good friend was a tube driver and had someone throw themselves in front of his train. It deeply affected him and ultimately he left the Underground through ill health. However, I cannot imagine the effect on a train driver who hits someone who was attempting a crossing on a LC. The thought that it could possibly have been avoided must surely be a haunting experience?

 

[the sniper]

Says who? You? With the best will in the world, you do not know if you will be able to "handle it" unless you have been in the situation (or similar) before and even then there is no gaurentee the second time round won't affect you.

You talk like its no big deal.

I almost stopped reading his post after his suggestion that 'simulators' (computer simulators?) should be used to prepare staff for the times when they have to scrape the remnants of a human off the tracks... How a 'simulator' is supposed to replicate a real life incident like this, I don't know.

He also conveniently overlooks ChrisCooper's other valid points, including the disruption to passengers caused by accidents or near misses at level crossings.

BTP's stance is blatantly rent-a-cop (they're funded by the rail industry, who don't want the disruption (looking at it from a money not a human life angle)) anyway.

What does the BTP's source of funding have to do with anything? If the BTP were funded directly by the state (i.e. by you via Tax), why do you think that'd suddenly mean that they'd stop policing incidents that disrupt the railway and its passengers, like trespass?

 

[Jonny]

Sorry if I seemed insensitive, but I didn't like the attitude of some previous posters who thought that it was OK to criminalize people for the most minor of minor breaches, and besides such incidents are very rare.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Sorry if I seemed insensitive, but I didn't like the attitude of some previous posters who thought that it was OK to criminalize people for the most minor of minor breaches, and besides such incidents are very rare.

If they've broken the law then they are criminals. End of. To what extent they are criminals is a different matter.

 

[Jonny]

I almost stopped reading his post after his suggestion that 'simulators' (computer simulators?) should be used to prepare staff for the times when they have to scrape the remnants of a human off the tracks... How a 'simulator' is supposed to replicate a real life incident like this, I don't know.

He also conveniently overlooks ChrisCooper's other valid points, including the disruption to passengers caused by accidents or near misses at level crossings.



What does the BTP's source of funding have to do with anything? If the BTP were funded directly by the state (i.e. by you via Tax), why do you think that'd suddenly mean that they'd stop policing incidents that disrupt the railway and its passengers, like trespass?

To reiterate, pedestrian deaths at level crossings are very rare; at least if the police were directly tax-funded they might be less pedantic (there are a lot worse crimes that go on that BTP pass on because they're non-railway). It wouldn't get over-prioritised - but it would be seen in the light of everything else. It takes a very pedantic definition of trespass to cover public level crossings. Besides, being criminalised for trespass carries a certain stigma which IMHO is unfair for level crossing misuse.

I also wonder how much of the railway companies being bothered is because of the financial cost of disruption and bad PR rather than caring about the people involved. Anyway, BTP should concentrate on non-level-crossing trespass anyway. They're the ones who do the graffiti, the theft and so on...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they've broken the law then they are criminals. End of. To what extent they are criminals is a different matter.

That sort of attitude is what really irritates me. Besides, the law is rigged to get people that the government doesn't like (such as people who think for themselves) while leaving scumbags alone.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

...least if the police were directly tax-funded they might be less pedantic (there are a lot worse crimes that go on that BTP pass on because they're non-railway)...

The BTP are the transport police. They deal with specific transport crime, and certainly on railways, deal with very specific legislation. The civil police do everything else. That is why the BTP pass civil things to the civil police, and the civil police pass railway things to the BTP.

I'm also very surprised that you are insinuating that there is corruption in the higher-levels of the BTP that the senior officers are doing things on the basis of who pays them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That sort of attitude is what really irritates me. Besides, the law is rigged to get people that the government doesn't like (such as people who think for themselves) while leaving scumbags alone.

Why does it? If I kick someone in the nuts; I'm a criminal. If I graffiti on a wall; I'm a criminal. If I murder someone; I'm a criminal. But someone who is a murderer is a higher-"priority" criminal that someone who goes 5mph over the speedlimit.

I'd love to know why, and show some evidence, that the law is is rigged to get rid of people that the goverment don't like. Especially considering the judicary is separate from the legislature.

 

[Jonny]

The BTP are the transport police. They deal with specific transport crime, and certainly on railways, deal with very specific legislation. The civil police do everything else. That is why the BTP pass civil things to the civil police, and the civil police pass railway things to the BTP.

I'm also very surprised that you are insinuating that there is corruption in the higher-levels of the BTP that the senior officers are doing things on the basis of who pays them.

I meant bias rather than corruption. Bias is not acting improperly, but selectively pursuing an agenda that is legitimate but, well, off-balance.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Put it this way, how would you feel if you end up stuck on a train for 2 hours going nowhere because someone decided they couldn't be bothered to wait a few seconds for it to go past? Perhaps you are waiting at the crossing youself at the time and see it in all it's glory. Even police and ambulance staff, who deal with death and injury on a day to day basis, can find people being hit by trains hard. In many cases it's not a body but bits. Apparently the smell is pleasent too, especially if the bowels are hanging out and leaking **** everywhere.

I remember some years ago, back when the 101s were still running around Manchester (supposedly for the last year, but I think they ran for another 2 or 3) going up between Christmas and New Year and catching a Virgin West Coast service from Stoke on Trent to Manchester, hauled by 87019. We stopped at Macclefield then were just getting up to speed when the brakes came on hard through Prestbury station and we ground to a halt just outside of the tunnel (the DVT was still just inside). We didn't move for 2 hours. Turns out someone had thrown themselves under the trains. Nice. ****ed my day up big time, even though I still had time in Manchester I was hardly in the mood, afterall some poor ******* had just died a few feet infront of me (I was sitting in the front seat of the leading coach). Like I said, just after Christmas. Really nice. I had it easy though. You couldn't see much on the front of the loco, other than a patch of missing paint, probably where their head struck. It was still there until it got repainted into LNWR Black before withdrawal.

 

[transportphoto]

I meant bias rather than corruption. Bias is not acting improperly, but selectively pursuing an agenda that is legitimate but, well, off-balance.

Sorry if I have mis-understood your post...

The BTP deal with anything that is rail related - be this assault on a train (or at the station), trespass (inc level crossing's) or fare evasion... this is what they were founded for.

As their name suggests - they deal with things on the transport network
They work alongside the county forces.

Their agenda is going to prioritise those things which happen on the rail network as that is their patrol area - for example, officers from Norfolk don't patrol Suffolk, similarly the BTP do not patrol outside of their remit (unless responding to a rail related 999)

 

[Stigy]

Read the Law comission's recent report on level crossings and their abuse http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/level_crossings.htm that says - or at least implies - that prosecuting pedestrians for trespass on a level crossing is unlikely to succeed; PS have any of your cases stood up to challenge?

Is the risk of yourself being humiliated by being made to look incompetent in court or, worse still, pulled up for misconduct in a public office with the consequences thereof worth it?

Methinks the risk probably isn't worth it in non-legal terms so you can breathe easy oh and just before I finish what about half-barriers/Opens where it is a running railway all the time, yet the public are allowed to cross?

Regarding footcrossings where there's no lights etc, you can't PND/Prosecute for trespass here unless there's waring lights that activate when a train is approaching. Unless somebody strays from the crossing of course.

I couldn't be charged with misconduct in a public office, because I'm not in a public office

Any prosecution would not get as far as court if there were legalities or potential legalities that made the charge 'unstable' so to speak. That being said, I'd have been told by now if it wasn't allowed to be done. I have issued many a PND for crossing trespass in the past, and BTP have never queried it. Bearing in mind that ANY PND offence can also be dealt with by the Mags Court, and if an offender doesn't accept the PND the only feasable option to to report the matter for consideration of prosecution.

Also, same applied if the individual isn't suitable for whatever reason. They can be arrested, but usually reporting them is more convenient!

 

[Greeny]

To help clear up what seems to be some confusion; the primary responsibility for policing the railways rests with the BTP Chief Constable, NOT the sole responsibility. Civil Police can, and do, deal with railway related crime and usually hand it over to the BTP. Similarly the primary responsibility for policing on “the streets” (for want of a better expression) rests with the local Chief Constable, NOT the sole responsibility. Under the ‘extended jurisdiction’ provisions of the ACPO policing protocols BTP and MDP (but not the CNC) can, in certain situations (and with some restrictions) exercise police powers outside of their natural jurisdiction, but they are not expected to routinely exercise such jurisdiction and have to advise the Local Force ASAP when they do. When they are assisting the Local Force, or a ‘Specialist Force’ they take on the powers and privileges of an officer of that Force but ONLY in that Police area. The CNC were left out of the extended jurisdiction and mutual aid arrangements but I don’t know why.

However, regarding level crossings - and having attended incidents of vehicles being hit by trains, I have no time for motorists or agricultural vehicle drivers who try to beat trains, and having actually witnessed some fatalities occurring, and attended about 40 fatalities (including pedestrians at Level Crossings) with few exceptions, I have no time for the individuals killed by trains. Nor do I have any time for some of the Police who attend some fatalities, considering the motives of some of them and some of the comments they make – I’ve seen some Coppers cracking their faces grinning whilst telling their Control Rooms that the will be “tied up here for a few hours yet” and making filthy comments regarding the size of a mans wotsit, or a woman’s breasts. Though it has to be said that Merseyside and Lancashire Police are pretty good, Cheshire and GMP are the problem.

My sympathy has always been with the poor sod driving the train and the relatives of the individual who has been killed.

It is not like a fender bender caused by some idiot jumping a red light at a road junction. I have seen a Volvo estate (the big ones) reduced to the size of a metro and buried in the side of a house after a train hit it. Somehow the cretin driving the car and his girlfriend survived but the Police made a mess of the case and lost one of the ‘photo’s I took of a red light at the crossing lit up. The car driver ended up suing the Railways and won !. This was at a MWL crossing with R/G lights, so he couldn’t be charged with disregarding the red anyway. Crossings, be they AHB or full barriers equipped with and Amber light preceding the Red, are different. The Amber preceding the Red, makes that Red an absolute Signal to stop IN LAW. So after seeing the results of idiots jumping lights or those on foot ignoring warnings (and purely as a personal opinion) I have no problem with ‘criminalising’ vehicle drivers, nor with regarding it as serving right those who were on foot. I also have to agree with Captain Speaking and those who regard it as window dressing when the BTP decide to get tough at Crossings.

Sorry if that offends anybody, but over the last 36 years I’ve seen too much suffering caused by idiots.

G

 

[Jonny]

Regarding footcrossings where there's no lights etc, you can't PND/Prosecute for trespass here unless there's waring lights that activate when a train is approaching. Unless somebody strays from the crossing of course.

I couldn't be charged with misconduct in a public office, because I'm not in a public office

Any prosecution would not get as far as court if there were legalities or potential legalities that made the charge 'unstable' so to speak. That being said, I'd have been told by now if it wasn't allowed to be done. I have issued many a PND for crossing trespass in the past, and BTP have never queried it. Bearing in mind that ANY PND offence can also be dealt with by the Mags Court, and if an offender doesn't accept the PND the only feasable option to to report the matter for consideration of prosecution.

Also, same applied if the individual isn't suitable for whatever reason. They can be arrested, but usually reporting them is more convenient!

So if you aren't in a public office, then, what are you? TOC staff with legal powers under bylaws etc? One of Jacqui Spliff oops I meant Jacqui Smith's irregulars (so-called "accredited personnel")? Either of those could count as a public office, which could land you on a sticky wicket.

PS your management wouldn't tell you if your legal position was wrong - they would just keep quiet and hang you out to dry (you are their scapegoat if this backfires) - and as for the ownership, whereas the land to either side of a level crossing is the railway's to sell (if they were to close the line or similar) (and trespassers outside level crossings deserve what they get) the railway can't just sell the land that the road is on for a level crossing unless the road is "stopped up" first - and that needs a lot more than the activation of red flashing lights etc. - so exactly how is a level crossing pure railway land?

Besides, if you haven't read that Law Commission report - they are the experts - then you really will be on a sticky wicket. Just remember that, to your management, you are potentially disposable.

PS BTP probably didn't bother to query it as they just cash the cheque (or whatever) and bank it.

 

[Stigy]

So if you aren't in a public office, then, what are you? TOC staff with legal powers under bylaws etc? One of Jacqui Spliff oops I meant Jacqui Smith's irregulars (so-called "accredited personnel")? Either of those could count as a public office, which could land you on a sticky wicket.

Any TOC staff can report under the Byelaws, and no power relating to any individual is required. I am an Accredited Person, yes, which allows other powers, not given to all staff like the Byelaws are (PND issuing etc). To be charged with Misconduct in the public office, even if I am able, in my current role, would need to be something a little more serious than rerporting someone for a Trespass offence, only to find out I shouldn't have done. For a start, the court would need to prove that it was willful on my part, and not merely unclear legislation.

 

[momeast]

Presumably that's Mount Pleasant LC? I doubt whether the one in St Denys on the Fareham line sees enough traffic to warrant a blitz. That said, BTP would be having a field day at Totton's Junction Road LC...

I have no idea about Brockenhurst, and cannot say that I have ever seen anyone go over on reds there before.

Yes it was Mount Pleasant one of the most abused on the Eastleigh mom's area. The crossing mentioned at St Denys is infact Adelaide Road CCTV.it is vey quiet but we do have our problems mostly with school children & their parents!!! I have asked re attendance at Totton( The most abused) and have been informed by the Network Rail/BTP coordinator that it is planned in for the near future. Before now we have had barriers knocked off by vehicles trying to beat the crossing this as you can imagine causes massive delays to services

 

[TDK]

That's an occupational hazard for the staff involved. If they can't handle it, they were/are in the wrong job. With simulators, this should be part of the training now. In fact it's an occupational hazard for anyone who drives anything on the road, and then the local police would bang the driver of a road vehicle to rights over even the slightest breach.

What an idiot you are Jonny - you have not got a clue have you think about the above statement, I think maybe before you pass your test in a car you should be subjected to the aftermath of a 3 year old child being run over outside a school and must be there to help anyone who needs it - Why you think? In you rediculous post above you say if a train driver cannot handle hitting someone in a 300 ton train the driver is in the wrong job? I think you are on the wrong forum here there are plent of websites around for you to feed your brain cell. There is no way a fatality can be simulated on any simulator, it is not real, you cannot measure a drivers reaction to this. I would be interesting to know what job you have, if you are an office worker maybe you should have a simulation of someone jumping out of the window from 15 floors up, could you handle it? If you was a school teacher maybe you should witness a child slashing their wrists can you handle that?