• 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!

"Train Collision on level crossing, Newquay"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Essexman

Established Member
Joined
15 Mar 2011
Messages
1,472
Every driver makes mistkaes and mostly we get away with it, both by not causing an accident and not being caught.
However if someone is caught doing sometihng as serious as ignoring red lights at a level crossing they should receive a driving ban of several years. If that helps makes other motorists take more care at level crossings and saves just one accident then it is justified.

Anyone wilfully driving round barriers etc should be banned for life.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

scotsman

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2010
Messages
3,252
From pattersonlaw.co.uk...
Sentencing
If you are convicted of driving without due care and attention then you face 3 to 9 penalty points on your licence. You will also face the possibility of a fine and Court Costs. The penalty points of driving without due care and attention are 3 to 9. If it is a very serious allegation then the Magistrates can impose a discretionary disqualification under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for whatever period the Court feels is appropriate.

Surely this would merit a large fine, and disqualification under Section 34?
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
..
The main point I'm trying to get across being that I have never done anything illegal or legally classed as dangerous on the public roads where it would endanger either myself or any other road users. ..

.....
And I didn't deliberately cut other drivers up when I was in commercials or military, unless they did it to me first... Then I could scare the hell out of them, knew the size of my vehicle, and you're going to do exactly 69.5mph...
Does anyone else see the contradiction here?
To return to the topic, though. We have all had silly moments when driving, professionals and amateurs alike, but most of the time they affect no one else and are not detected (doesn't make them right, though). In this instance, the act was detected, and did affect others. I would expect serious consequences.
 

Terrafire

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2010
Messages
74
From pattersonlaw.co.uk...


Surely this would merit a large fine, and disqualification under Section 34?

The discretionary disqualification is essentially the maximum punishment, so it is unlikely to be applied here because she has pleaded guilty (at least, I presume she will - she may well have a valid defence).
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,498
Might i respectfully sugest that there may also be many people who have witnessed yourself (and everyone else who has posted on this topic) do something idiotic while behind the wheel (not nessarily at a level crossing) and think that you to should have your licence ripped up?

Makes me laugh, everyone on here makes out there great drivers and can do no wrong.... just because we know how to use a level crossing! I expect the woman involved could probably pick holes in all are driving styles if she was given the chance, just coz we all know how to safely use a level crossing does'nt mean were all safe behind the wheel in all circumstances.

I've never ran a red light and nearly got myself killed. If those had been traffic lights, she could have easily killed somebody else. I find it a bit worrying that you're so blasé about this. It's nothing to do with being able to 'pick holes in all [our] driving styles'! I doubt it's many peoples 'driving style' to sail through red lights, as it's not a style you could keep up for very long!

If I were to do something like she did in normal driving conditions, I'd personally consider whether I was still fit to drive.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,614
Sure, and I don't argue with the fact that the driver here should face penalties. But I was making the broader point that we just can't guarantee that everyone, in a population of 65m+, will follow the law. With big enough numbers, every possible scenario happens. And the consequences of one person breaking the law here could be very serious to many other blameless people. So this is an example of a situation where we should devote great efforts to preventing idiots from harming themselves by their own stupidity, because of the danger they put others in by that same act.

I think the cost of any such project to install barriers on open crossings would need to be assessed against other projects to reduce death and injury. Given the wide range of areas where government could spend money and have a greater impact in terms of death and injury prevented I find it hard to see how this could be a top priority for government funds.

Have I read that Network Rail closed 500 crossings of various kinds in 2011?
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,164
Location
Crewe
Not always, only if the policeman on the scene has suspicions that alcohol and/or drugs may be a factor.

....

Train drivers are always tested when a train accident occurs - not necessarly by the police but when they get back to depot - it's a mandatory requirement
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Virtually ALL incidents involving level crossings are down to mistakes or the stupid actions of motorists!

Except the one at Moreton - on - Lugg
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm all for the idea of having better barriers and flashing lights on level crossings. I just think the Highways Agency/Local Authority transport departments should be made to pay for it - since it's their uncontrollable clients that seem to cause the problems most of the time.

Rising bollards would cure the problem
 

Laryk

Member
Joined
11 Jun 2011
Messages
188
Location
Taiwan
Rising bollards would cure the problem

Until you get the inevitable idiot who tries to out-run them and becomes stuck halfway over :roll:

Rising bollards in a city centre, fair enough. I think on an open road it would be slaughtered by HSE
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,164
Location
Crewe
Until you get the inevitable idiot who tries to out-run them and becomes stuck halfway over :roll:

Rising bollards in a city centre, fair enough. I think on an open road it would be slaughtered by HSE

Not if you have the lights set back and the bollards far enough from the track, it will damage the car and deem it undrivable - mission accomplished I would say, how abaout a mandatory 15mph speed limit with speed cameras - these will pay for the work to be done.
 

Terrafire

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2010
Messages
74
Not if you have the lights set back and the bollards far enough from the track, it will damage the car and deem it undrivable - mission accomplished I would say, how abaout a mandatory 15mph speed limit with speed cameras - these will pay for the work to be done.

Or, force people to STOP at unbarriered level crossings, with a camera enforcing that one. Not unreasonable to come to a complete stop, seeing as we would generally have to if crossing a main road at a crossroads, rather than a railway track.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,890
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
Not if you have the lights set back and the bollards far enough from the track, it will damage the car and deem it undrivable - mission accomplished I would say, how abaout a mandatory 15mph speed limit with speed cameras - these will pay for the work to be done.

And when someone gets stuck on the crossing as the bollards go up?
 

DavidBrown

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2011
Messages
234
Location
North Devon
Put them far enough away from the track so that the levitating vehicle won't foul the line :D

The problem then comes in that you'd have to put them at least a full articulated lorry's distance from the tracks, which for a lot of crossings is not possible without closing off a huge area/major junction needlessly. Nice idea in theory, but it would take a lot of brains to find a workable system.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,303
for the price of all that we could probably build a bridge.

Lower maintenance too.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
The discretionary disqualification is essentially the maximum punishment, so it is unlikely to be applied here because she has pleaded guilty (at least, I presume she will - she may well have a valid defence).

Is there a defence that any sensible judge will accept for causing a rail accident through bad driving?! The cause would seem to be that she completely failed to acknowledge a set of big red flashing lights, something which most people would argue are far easier to see than, say, a pedestrian or cyclist or even another vehicle. This individual should clearly be banned for a period, though I don't expect that will happen, but I would dissapointed in the extreme to find a judge or magistrate finding these actions to have been anything other than totally unacceptable. The added fact of it being a rail accident makes it far, far more serious than a simple RTA, and the courts ought to be making that very clear.
 

Terrafire

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2010
Messages
74
Is there a defence that any sensible judge will accept for causing a rail accident through bad driving?! The cause would seem to be that she completely failed to acknowledge a set of big red flashing lights, something which most people would argue are far easier to see than, say, a pedestrian or cyclist or even another vehicle. This individual should clearly be banned for a period, though I don't expect that will happen, but I would dissapointed in the extreme to find a judge or magistrate finding these actions to have been anything other than totally unacceptable. The added fact of it being a rail accident makes it far, far more serious than a simple RTA, and the courts ought to be making that very clear.

Well obviously no word of anything like this has come out so far, but something like a stroke at the time of driving would be a complete defence.

Edit: As long as there was no hint of it before she started driving, that is.
 

GearJammer

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
897
Location
On the Southern
The added fact of it being a rail accident makes it far, far more serious than a simple RTA, and the courts ought to be making that very clear.

Er excuse my obvious ignorance but why the hell is crashing into a train at a level crossing far far more serious than any other RTA ?

This is what makes me laugh when people comment on these things as i commented earlier in the thread, if this woman had driven through a red traffic light at a 4 way crossing, hit a bus and killed a passenger, you lot would'nt bat an eye lid.... in fact i doubt it would even get a mention on here, but because shes hit a train, she should be strung up and made an example of.....

Please will somebody explain to me why running a red light at a level crossing is more serious than running a red light at a road junction?
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Er excuse my obvious ignorance but why the hell is crashing into a train at a level crossing far far more serious than any other RTA ?

Rightly or wrongly, a road traffic collision would generally be thought of as less serious than causing an accident on a railway line I would think.

In fairness, I would agree that the potential for injury, death or general carnage would generally tend to be worse if a train is involved than a smash between two vehicles on a road. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule of course.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,089
Location
Redcar
Er excuse my obvious ignorance but why the hell is crashing into a train at a level crossing far far more serious than any other RTA ?

Because when trains and cars hit each other this can happen:

_40502833_aerial300300_pa.jpg


7 people die and 71 are injured
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,089
Location
Redcar
Need I mention that it's 3000+ killed on the roads every year?

Across how many accidents? I'd wager you're talking hundreds at least. One car and one train colliding in one incident did all that in my post above.
 

curb

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2012
Messages
24
Does this woman realise that trains run on rails, hence the train didn't hit her car, her car had to be in the way of the train?

There is a worrying trend in this country for people to automatically blame everybody else except themselves.

It brings to mind an incident last year when I was reversing my van out of a driveway into a one-way street. My view down the street was blocked by a wall but I could see perfectly well up the street in the direction I thought vehicles would be coming in. After checking both mirrors and keeping an eye on any vehicles coming down I reversed out only to hit, corner to corner, a young woman reversing up the one-way street.
When we got out the vehicles I was met with a tirade of abuse from the driver and passenger who wanted me arrested for the damage I did to her car.
When I calmly pointed out that she was equally to blame as we were both reversing, she went off in a huff saying 'what's the point, the ******'s never going to accept responsibility'.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Does this woman realise that trains run on rails, hence the train didn't hit her car, her car had to be in the way of the train?

There is a worrying trend in this country for people to automatically blame everybody else except themselves.

It brings to mind an incident last year when I was reversing my van out of a driveway into a one-way street. My view down the street was blocked by a wall but I could see perfectly well up the street in the direction I thought vehicles would be coming in. After checking both mirrors and keeping an eye on any vehicles coming down I reversed out only to hit, corner to corner, a young woman reversing up the one-way street.
When we got out the vehicles I was met with a tirade of abuse from the driver and passenger who wanted me arrested for the damage I did to her car.
When I calmly pointed out that she was equally to blame as we were both reversing, she went off in a huff saying 'what's the point, the ******'s never going to accept responsibility'.

You're quite right, I imagine any insurer would consider that to have been a 50/50 accident.

I agree entirely that there is what seems a natural, almost instinctive, tendency to blame everybody else but ourselves in today's grim society. The driver in this accident appears completely unaware of the obvious fact that she, and she alone, was directly responsible for causing a rail crash, an extremely serious event whatever the outcome. She appears almost 'blinded' (excuse the unintended pun) by the fact that it was possible for her to drive straight through the warnings, rather than understanding what a major fault it was on her part to have missed those warnings, which we have all accepted are very prominent indeed. Yes people make mistakes, but whilst in charge of a motor vehicle there is a threshold above which those mistakes are simply not acceptable, and if you are in the mindset to make them then it is time to stop the vehicle until you are safe to continue.

Let's hope that the Police and the courts reinforce the message by pushing for an appropriate punishment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Need I mention that it's 3000+ killed on the roads every year?

Road deaths occur through a wide range of incidents with a huge variety of reasons behind them. They are however almost always very low on the mortality rate when taken as individual incidents. A train can easily be carrying several hundred people, all of whom will be involved if an accident occurs, which can easily be caused by just one person in one vehicle. You would struggle to directly involve a three-figure number of people in one RTA. The consequences scarcely have the potential to be anywhere near as serious.
 
Last edited:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
Does this woman realise that trains run on rails, hence the train didn't hit her car, her car had to be in the way of the train?

There is a worrying trend in this country for people to automatically blame everybody else except themselves.

It brings to mind an incident last year when I was reversing my van out of a driveway into a one-way street. My view down the street was blocked by a wall but I could see perfectly well up the street in the direction I thought vehicles would be coming in. After checking both mirrors and keeping an eye on any vehicles coming down I reversed out only to hit, corner to corner, a young woman reversing up the one-way street.
When we got out the vehicles I was met with a tirade of abuse from the driver and passenger who wanted me arrested for the damage I did to her car.
When I calmly pointed out that she was equally to blame as we were both reversing, she went off in a huff saying 'what's the point, the ******'s never going to accept responsibility'.

Reversing up a one-way street? Um, that's not legal is it (barring enough to come out of a driveway, parking space etc)? Hopefully the insurance company saw it that way?
 

GearJammer

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
897
Location
On the Southern
Because when trains and cars hit each other this can happen:

_40502833_aerial300300_pa.jpg


7 people die and 71 are injured


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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top