"Train Collision on level crossing, Newquay"

[BestWestern]

I can't be bothered to search the internet looking for a picture of the crash scene on the M5 last year, Ufton Nervet was unfortunet... but i should also point out that the the car it hit had been deliberately parked there, not caused by someone jumping a red light!

I still fail to see how Jumping a red light at a level crossing is any more serious than jumping a red at a road junction!

Who jumped a red light on the M5, what has that to do with it?

That was the worst road accident in living history I believe, a very very rare event. Regretfully, poor driving is likely to have been present in a number of cases there, as it so often is on motorways. In the event of a road/rail accident, it is the actions of one individual which can cause huge damage, damage which the actions of others cannot avoid. A train cannot stop, swerve or observe a safe following distance as we all can and should do on the road.

Jumping a red light at a road junction is unlikely in the extreme to cause anywhere near as much carnage as causing a serious collision on a level crossing. That's why most level crossings have a physical barrier which you won't find at a set of traffic lights, the level of danger is clearly calculated as being considerably higher. The level crossing in this incident presumably didn't have barriers due to the low approach speed of the trains running over it, and this woman has proved that a collision there is unlikely to result in serious injury, which is very fortunate for her. One wonders if she would have continued on and driven straight into the barriers had they been in place, as she apparently has some issue with the ability to see clear and obvious warnings, and whether they will now be erected. Either way, she needs a driving ban.

 

[ainsworth74]

It took 27 vehicles to even come close to the level of death/injury as was found at Ufton Nervet. Again one car and one train colliding on a level crossing caused 7 fatalities and 71 injuries on the M5 it took 27 to get close to that number (and in terms of injuries Ufton Nervet suffered more from just two things colliding).

 

[transmanche]

I still fail to see how Jumping a red light at a level crossing is any more serious than jumping a red at a road junction!

i don't know of many traffic-light-controlled junctions where vehicles cross at 100mph...

 

[Oswyntail]

.....
I still fail to see how Jumping a red light at a level crossing is any more serious than jumping a red at a road junction!

Perhaps because, on the road crossing, the potential victims are in smaller "packets" each capable of taking evasive action if they can react in time, whereas, on the rail crossing, the potential victims are in one massive "packet", the train. The only evasive action open to the train driver is to attempt to stop in time, which may itself cause harm to the passengers. This is well illustrated in the photo of the M5 crash, where some of the vehicles within the area of catastrophe appear unscathed, simply because the individuals had more control of the situation.

 

[GB]

Although not related to crossing abuse, the Selby rail crash demonstrates the the severe consequences of a train meeting a car on the line which is why jumping a red light at a crossing is a huge no no.

 

[Harlesden]

Scary level crossing video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnUklPRorsQ&feature=related

 

[GearJammer]

Who jumped a red light on the M5, what has that to do with it?

That was the worst road accident in living history I believe, a very very rare event. Regretfully, poor driving is likely to have been present in a number of cases there, as it so often is on motorways. In the event of a road/rail accident, it is the actions of one individual which can cause huge damage, damage which the actions of others cannot avoid. A train cannot stop, swerve or observe a safe following distance as we all can and should do on the road.

Jumping a red light at a road junction is unlikely in the extreme to cause anywhere near as much carnage as causing a serious collision on a level crossing. That's why most level crossings have a physical barrier which you won't find at a set of traffic lights, the level of danger is clearly calculated as being considerably higher. The level crossing in this incident presumably didn't have barriers due to the low approach speed of the trains running over it, and this woman has proved that a collision there is unlikely to result in serious injury, which is very fortunate for her. One wonders if she would have continued on and driven straight into the barriers had they been in place, as she apparently has some issue with the ability to see clear and obvious warnings, and whether they will now be erected. Either way, she needs a driving ban.

Sorry, but who jumped a red light at Ufton Nervet? No one, the car was deliberately placed on the line as far as im aware, also, while i admit i don't know all the facts im pretty sure that the level of devastation was caused by the derailed HST hitting the facing set of points at the top of the pic...... im pretty sure there would be virtually no deaths and few injuries on the train if it had been plain line.....

Anyway, as far as im concerned its all irrelavant, you can debate all day for all i care, jumping a red light at a level crossing is no more serious than jumping a red light at any road junction, and saying more people could get killed at a level crossing is in my opinion bo11ocks, does'nt matter how many people get killed, 1 is to many, red means stop no matter where it is and all should carry the same punishment, death is death, no matter how many people are involved!

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Anyway, as far as im concerned its all irrelavant, you can debate all day for all i care, jumping a red light at a level crossing is no more serious than jumping a red light at any road junction, and saying more people could get killed at a level crossing is in my opinion bo11ocks, does'nt matter how many people get killed, 1 is to many, red means stop no matter where it is and all should carry the same punishment, death is death, no matter how many people are involved!

Fine - so would you agree that jumping a red light and causing an accident at a junction should result in an automatic ban?

 

[GB]

Sorry, but who jumped a red light at Ufton Nervet? No one, the car was deliberately placed on the line as far as im aware, also, while i admit i don't know all the facts im pretty sure that the level of devastation was caused by the derailed HST hitting the facing set of points at the top of the pic...... im pretty sure there would be virtually no deaths and few injuries on the train if it had been plain line.....

The facing points were a contributing factor. The cause was the initial collision between train and car which then caused the leading bogie of the first vehicle to derail. How the car came to be there is irrelevant as is the point of whether the car driver jumped the light or not.

Anyway, as far as im concerned its all irrelavant, you can debate all day for all i care, jumping a red light at a level crossing is no more serious than jumping a red light at any road junction, and saying more people could get killed at a level crossing is in my opinion bo11ocks, does'nt matter how many people get killed, 1 is to many, red means stop no matter where it is and all should carry the same punishment, death is death, no matter how many people are involved!

The governing bodies must believe the risk is greater at level crossings otherwise they wouldn't differentiate them by having flashing red lights which convey the specific instruction that they must not be passed by anyone while flashing under any circumstances.

 

[transmanche]

The governing bodies must believe the risk is greater at level crossings otherwise they wouldn't differentiate them by having flashing red lights which convey the specific instruction that they must not be passed by anyone while flashing under any circumstances.

AFAIUI, Tramlink operates in 'street running' mode throughout, even when the trams are running on reserved track. So where there are level crossings, they are protected by standard traffic lights - not level crossing lights.

Obviously there's a difference in risk level, but I wonder if any research has been done to compare the reactions of car drivers at level crossings pre-Tramlink and post-Tramlink? Do car drivers react differently to level crossing lights than to standard traffic lights?

 

[Laryk]

Do car drivers react differently to level crossing lights than to standard traffic lights?

I think a lot of people regard a steady red light to have more authority as a flashing one.

 

[transmanche]

Do car drivers react differently to level crossing lights than to standard traffic lights?

I think a lot of people regard a steady red light to have more authority as a flashing one.

Exactly, like a flashing amber is 'less restrictive' than a steady amber. Just wondering if using standard traffic lights on level crossings would make them seem more 'normal', rather than something 'special'.

 

[GearJammer]

Fine - so would you agree that jumping a red light and causing an accident at a junction should result in an automatic ban?

Yes!!!!

 

[Cliveblackpool]

The flashing red lights are also used at fire stations, airports, lifting bridges, cattle crossing etc.

Years ago on the old busy Exeter bypass, the flashing lights started, the left hand barriers came down, a couple ignorant motorists went around the barriers onto the bridge before the right hand ones came down. They couldn't go far as the bridge had already started to swing!!! They didn't half look stupid!

When converting the lights to LEDs they could have the amber light changing to a steady red?

 

[BestWestern]

Exactly, like a flashing amber is 'less restrictive' than a steady amber. Just wondering if using standard traffic lights on level crossings would make them seem more 'normal', rather than something 'special'.

The problem though would be that people would then abuse them just as much as they do road junctions. A level crossing isn't 'normal', it's far more dangerous if abused and should be recognised as such.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyway, as far as im concerned its all irrelavant, you can debate all day for all i care, jumping a red light at a level crossing is no more serious than jumping a red light at any road junction, and saying more people could get killed at a level crossing is in my opinion bo11ocks, does'nt matter how many people get killed, 1 is to many, red means stop no matter where it is and all should carry the same punishment, death is death, no matter how many people are involved!

You clearly have a poor understanding of the passenger capacities of your average road vehicle in comparison to your average (or indeed any) train then.

 

[transmanche]

Just wondering if using standard traffic lights on level crossings would make them seem more 'normal', rather than something 'special'.

The problem though would be that people would then abuse them just as much as they do road junctions. A level crossing isn't 'normal', it's far more dangerous if abused and should be recognised as such.

Perhaps I should explain more.

For the vast majority of car drivers, the instinctive reaction on seeing a traffic light change to red is to stop. Traffic lights are a commonplace thing for nearly all drivers, level crossing lights less so. So on encountering level crossing lights, car drivers may not have that same instinctive, immediate stop reaction.

Is it because level crossings are marked out as 'special', that causes some drivers to react differently to something 'normal'?

(Obviously, it would not be suitable for every location.)

 

[Cliveblackpool]

When I visited Weymouth about 10 years ago, drivers ignoring the red lights on the Town Bridge was insane! Eg up to 2 minutes after the red lights started flashing! (Closes every 2 hours from 8am for around 15/20 minutes)
looks like they are cracking down on it.
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/9167778.Crackdown_on_Weymouth_town_bridge_dodgers/

I have used the Newquay branch a lot many years ago.
The driver would slow for the crossings and as soon as the light flashed the brakes came off. (The driver timed it perfectly, no doubt done it hundreds of times before!)
What may surprise motorists is the very short time between the red lights flashing and the train on those crossings!

 

[BestWestern]

To be perfectly honest, if people are uncertain of how to react to the warnings given at a level crossing, opening bridge, fire station etc, even if they are a relatively rare occurrence to many drivers, then they shouldn't be behind the wheel of a vehicle, full stop. I'd have to make the point also that red is pretty universal in it's meaning, it means "STOP". Even if a driver was unsure of what a level crossing looked like, I would expect anybody competent enough to hold a driving license to interpret a set of large red flashing lights as very obviously being a danger signal.

 

[seriously?]

Firstly... Im amazed at the arrogance of NYM. really?

Secondly if you wernt part of an accident or a witness then dont judge, there seems to be soo many people calling the lady stupid.... stupid is NOT the right word

thirdly. Do we allow mcdonalds to test their own food when a food poisning case is put forward? If its found that a local river has become contaminated from a farm do we allow the farmer to test the river and then tell us "everything is working fine"?????????????

so why do we allow a company working for the railway to test the lights themseleves and tell us whether they worked ok............. just a question


iv got more, lets see how this goes down first

 

[Nym]

Firstly... Im amazed at the arrogance of NYM. really?

Me, where?

I'm intrested as to what post from over a month ago you're refering to here...

 

[Harbon 1]

I'd put money on this one being Network Rail's fault again...

 

[Donny Dave]

Firstly, welcome to the forum.

Secondly if you wernt part of an accident or a witness then dont judge, there seems to be soo many people calling the lady stupid.... stupid is NOT the right word

I speak for myself here, and a couple of other members who are either HGV drivers or van/small vehicle drivers. In the many tens of thousands miles I've covered as a driver on the roads, the sheer stupidity of some drivers is beyond belief. It is my opinion this accident was caused by the stupidity of the woman concerned. She was not paying attention approaching the level crossing. This was borne out by her statement saying she did not see the signs, and she did not see the flashing red lights at the crossing itself. If in doubt, please refer to my previous comments in this very topic.

Myself and several other members who make a living driving various types of vehicles will be able to provide plenty of true stories about the chaos stupid drivers cause, mostly through in-attention. My worst delay caused by an accident ahead of me is 7 hours. That was someone who wasn't paying attention to the signs on a motorway, and at the very last second, veered across 2 lanes of traffic to get into the lane they needed and caused a 7 vehicle accident. The result was a complete closure of the carriageway while the emergancy services had to deal with the injured, and clean up the mess afterwards (not to mention the fuel spillage as well).

thirdly. Do we allow mcdonalds to test their own food when a food poisning case is put forward? If its found that a local river has become contaminated from a farm do we allow the farmer to test the river and then tell us "everything is working fine"?????????????

so why do we allow a company working for the railway to test the lights themseleves and tell us whether they worked ok............. just a question

I'm in no position to answer this 1, as I do not work within the railway industry at all, so I'll leave it to the members who work for either a TOC or Network Rail to answer.

iv got more, lets see how this goes down first

Ask the questions. If they are about railway operations, there are plenty of members on here who will be able to provide a rebuttal to all your allegations provide all the answers you require.

 

[Smudger105e]

Firstly... Im amazed at the arrogance of NYM. really?

Secondly if you wernt part of an accident or a witness then dont judge, there seems to be soo many people calling the lady stupid.... stupid is NOT the right word

thirdly. Do we allow mcdonalds to test their own food when a food poisning case is put forward? If its found that a local river has become contaminated from a farm do we allow the farmer to test the river and then tell us "everything is working fine"?????????????

so why do we allow a company working for the railway to test the lights themseleves and tell us whether they worked ok............. just a question


iv got more, lets see how this goes down first

The lady might not be stupid, but her actions were.

And are you really saying (and I will quote again) that...

if you wernt part of an accident or a witness then dont judge

It is a fact of life that we all make judgements every day, on the information available. You cannot expect people to not have a view on any situation. This opinion may alter when more data becomes available, but opinion will be formed, and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent that.


Are you saying that for every incident of this type NR should employ the services of an independant body, such as RAIB? Who will pay for this? Also, if your implication is that NR should not test their own equipment after an alleged failure, why not? The staffs testing the equipment will have established and documented testing procedures after an alleged wrong side failure. Are you saying the staffs doing the testing will not do the job as documented, or lie about the results of the testing? Also, where would you draw the line at when in-house testing is not required, all incidents? Only when material damage occurs? What about near misses?

I feel that there is nothing at all wrong with NR testing their own equipment.... just an answer.

Finally, who are you? Creating an account and then making disrespectful comments to fellow forum users, and making comments that seem to me to be simply intended to irritate other forum users. Post count = 1!!

 

[Donny Dave]

Finally, who are you? Creating an account and then making disrespectful comments to fellow forum users, and making comments that seem to me to be simply intended to irritate other forum users. Post count = 1!!

I was wondering that as well. If the mods/admins look at the IP, I'm guessing it will point to a location somewhere near Newquay. I wonder if the new member is related to the lady driver in question .....

 

[GB]

Firstly... Im amazed at the arrogance of NYM. really?

Secondly if you wernt part of an accident or a witness then dont judge, there seems to be soo many people calling the lady stupid.... stupid is NOT the right word

thirdly. Do we allow mcdonalds to test their own food when a food poisning case is put forward? If its found that a local river has become contaminated from a farm do we allow the farmer to test the river and then tell us "everything is working fine"?????????????

so why do we allow a company working for the railway to test the lights themseleves and tell us whether they worked ok............. just a question


iv got more, lets see how this goes down first

After a serious incident such as this the barriers and signalling equipment are not only tested by Network Rail but also the RAIB who act independently. The crossings are also fitted with data loggers to prove the sequence of signalling events.

So if you are insinuating that lies are being told you are wrong.

If stupid is not the right word then what is? A public liability maybe?

 

[seriously?]

Im glad everyone has posted back so quickly i thought i would wait weeks! Im not related and i dont know the lady in question. Youve cleard up a few points and questions. And yes i believe there should be a sole independant body to deal with any 'questioning' of accidents. ofcourse...thats common sense. agreed the 'accidents to needing and independant body' ratio is probably very low and it would be hard to find the funding.

Lets not forget i only question in the interest of safety and fair justice.

I have a point to make and reading everyones comments on here, i think we have all agreed that in general, as humans we dont drive like robots makeing perfect descisions for every mile of the day, and that goes for EVERYONE. There is also room for discussion about the lights, i believe a point was made earlier about the lights being changed for propper trafic lights. Red means red, on a daaly basis i see probably 5+ sets of traffic lights. I should think thats a good national average. When i see green i go, yellow i slow, and red i stop. This is a subcontious reaction to my years of driving that im sure we all have. However if you asked me about yellow flashing lights (the lower lights flash yellow, with a single red above). My instinctive reaction due to the common day to day viewing of yellow lights would be, workers in road, traffic cones. NOT ...STOP!!!
And there is a problem here, as the general road user drives around with the radio on thinking about what they are going to eat for lunch a moment in time such as seeing a light NEEDS to be a subcontious reaction. RED MEANS STOP. flashing lights mean ...WHAT. And its that moment that your subcontius reaction doesnt take place that is going to cause accidents. milliseconds can save lives.

Now im sure some of you will dissagree, i expect that. But read this carefully and put yourself in a drivers shoes. How often do you cross a level crossing..once a week? how often is that level crossing telling you stop...once a year? you cant expect a 'dumb driver' to have a subcontious reaction to those lights. as this lady mentioned, she never saw them/ She was in a 'dream state', driving and DID NOT have the subcontious reaction press her brakes in time. something im sure that if it was a RED traffic light would have MORE of a chance of happening. Now this isnt to say at all that driving without due care and attention shouldnt be considered her fault, or anyone elses fault for that matter.

What im saying is, if 50% of the drivers on the road (and its probably more) are driving in a dream state wondering when their next facbook notification will come in. maybe just maybe it would be in the interest of safety to make the signalling on this in particular crossing (and st coloumb crossing) a little more obvious. On the trencreek crossing, it is blind for both the train driver and road users, There is no way for either to see what is potentially coming, due to hedges and houses. the rumble strips mentined earlier are as good for nothing worn out. incidentally There was also Building work going on 50 yards from the accident with guess what TRAFFIC LIGHTS and YELLOW flashing lights. Very easy to get confused and not see whats going on if your driving without due care and attention.
this isnt my final point, but would it not be in the interest of safety, IF your going to drive a wall of metal into potentially oncoming traffic that will more than likelly be driving without due care and attention... would it not make sense to cater for these drivers? Yes it will cost money and yes IT WILL SAVE LIVES.

Is it up to the rail companys to pay for this? probably not. They hold higher rights from yester year to say that they have right of way over the road users so it would be mad to think that with evolution and democracy we could ever find a way to make them pay for it....that was sarcasm.

enjoy

 

[bailey65]

This seems to happen quite a lot on this line even though there is only a handful of trains a day.
I could understand if this was on a sunny day as the sun shining in the eyes could make it difficult to see the lights at the crossing but this was at night and the crossing is well signed plus this is not a fast road so plenty of time to spot hazards so there is no excuse this woman isn't fit to drive and should have been jailed and banned from driving.

 

[richw]

I was wondering that as well. If the mods/admins look at the IP, I'm guessing it will point to a location somewhere near Newquay. I wonder if the new member is related to the lady driver in question .....

my thoughts as well, googled the accident involving themself, and come across this thread.

 

[GB]

I'd put money on this one being Network Rail's fault again...

Unless that is sarcasm, would you care to explain your wisdom with the rest of us?

 

[Michael.Y]

McDonald's and other food companies do indeed carry out their own internal investigations into occasions of food poisoning, which are often discovered, nullified and treated before the FSA / local council need to send in their footsoldiers. That's what cleaning procedures, hygiene, food safety etc are all about.

As for investigating a railway incident, who else would you have investigate it? A bunch of suits from the HSE who know nothing about the intracacies involved in the railway? or NR and the RAIB whose JOB it is to investigate railway incidents? I think it's quite clear given that NR have been found at fault at Grayrigg that there is little interest in burying the truth and/or protecting their own.