Moderator: Moderators
Actually, since the accident last year, the RH&DR have installed new control systems in their level crossings, such as CCTV cameras; so technically the RH&DR have done something too help prevent accidents like this one.jbilton wrote:Therefore it would be reasonable to argue they have done very little, if anything, since the last accident to ensure their drivers and more so their passengers safety.
The GM's wife is a train driver, and she has just been killed. Do you not think that he and the railway did everything they could to prevent this happening again? These are enthusiasts who are employed to do what they love, so the thought that they are just employees is rediculous. The railway cant afford to install AHB's on 15+ level crossings - it is not possible and neither should they have to.jbilton wrote:Hi GavinGavinW wrote:
You really don't get it do you??
The railway was NOT at Fault last time so why should they be fined. This was (last time) death by dangerous driving and the fine was pathetic!
I do "get it"...however my arguement stems from the fact that the railway concerned has had 2 fatal accidents in very similar circumstances, in a short period of time.Therefore it would be reasonable to argue they have done very little, if anything, since the last accident to ensure their drivers and more so their passengers safety.
It is a very sad, but fact of life that companies do very little to protect their employees until they are made to.That is why I said, if they had been heavily fined last time this accident would not have occurred.
To say the railway was/is not to blame is not a solution, nor a defence.
I do hope the train drivers family is well represented, as this clearly was a totally preventable accident.
Cheers
Jon
Hi ChrisChristopher125 wrote: The GM's wife is a train driver, and she has just been killed. Do you not think that he and the railway did everything they could to prevent this happening again? These are enthusiasts who are employed to do what they love, so the thought that they are just employees is rediculous. The railway cant afford to install AHB's on 15+ level crossings - it is not possible and neither should they have to.
Plus, where did you get the idea this was 'completely preventable' - you cant stop people blatantly driving onto a railway if they want to - look at ufton nervet for proof of that.
Chris
Hi TomTomnick wrote:Seems to me that the only 'ideal' solutions (i.e. preventing further accidents due to irresponsible motorists) are either to provide full, manually controlled, gates/barriers at all crossings (the cost of which should be passed to the Highways Agency or whoever's responsible for the local roads), replace level crossings with flyovers (again, not at the railway's cost) or simply close the crossings and expect motorists to find an alternative route. I don't see why this shouldn't be allowed to happen, since it's quite clear (also from my own personal observations elsewhere) that a large proportion (maybe not a majority, but certainly no small number) are unable to use these crossings in a safe manner.
Not entirely sure what the speed restriction on this crossing is, but there are speed restrictions on the approach to all AOCLs, to ensure that the train can stop in time if the driver sees that the crossing is obstructed when it 'strikes in' - i.e. the crossing sequence is started. To me, that seems sufficient to prevent any accidents caused by, for example, a car broken down on the crossing and therefore causing an obstruction before the red lights began to flash. So, as long as motorists obey the red traffic lights, sufficient steps have already been taken to reduce the number of potential accidents - but sadly, thanks to the irresponsible actions of some motorists, there's little that can be further done by the railway to prevent accidents such as this.jbilton wrote:Hi Chris
As stated in my original post...the easiest solution would be to slow the trains down at unmanned crossings....any accident then, would not be so serious.This could be implemented overnight, by a change to the timetables.Which I assume are set and controlled by the railway.Hence my reasoning that this accident was/is completely preventable.
Cheers
Jon
I'm hoping that neither will have to happen! Of course, in the ideal world, these crossings would operate, in complete safety, as they were designed to. However, it is the motorist that has been to blame in every similar accident that I can remember - so it is clear where the problem lies. A nationwide campaign to educate motorists about the danger presented by level crossings, as has already been suggested, would definitely help in some cases - but would it eliminate the reckless behaviour of those who think they can 'beat the train'?jbilton wrote:If the crossings were to close...it would be the removel of the railway rather than the road.
Hi TomTomnick wrote:Not entirely sure what the speed restriction on this crossing is, but there are speed restrictions on the approach to all AOCLs, to ensure that the train can stop in time if the driver sees that the crossing is obstructed when it 'strikes in' - i.e. the crossing sequence is started. To me, that seems sufficient to prevent any accidents caused by, for example, a car broken down on the crossing and therefore causing an obstruction before the red lights began to flash. So, as long as motorists obey the red traffic lights, sufficient steps have already been taken to reduce the number of potential accidents - but sadly, thanks to the irresponsible actions of some motorists, there's little that can be further done by the railway to prevent accidents such as this.jbilton wrote:Hi Chris
As stated in my original post...the easiest solution would be to slow the trains down at unmanned crossings....any accident then, would not be so serious.This could be implemented overnight, by a change to the timetables.Which I assume are set and controlled by the railway.Hence my reasoning that this accident was/is completely preventable.
Cheers
Jon
Of course you're right to say that it must be assumed that warnings to motorists will not be ignored. However, the railways (speaking of the network in general) cannot be expected to proceed at walking pace over any open crossing (presumably you're including user-worked crossings and AHBs too, since they rely on the motorist obeying instructions), as that would increase journey times to ridiculous levels! On the road network - should we introduce (and enforce) a 3-4mph speed restriction over all junctions and roundabouts, to allow for the fact that there's a good chance that someone who should give way (or stop at a red traffic light, where these exist) will fail to do so? You'll no doubt be aware that there have been a number of (sadly fatal) accidents around Lincolnshire in past years, some of which have been caused by reckless overtaking. Yet if anyone were to suggest a total ban on overtaking, I think I know what the general reaction would be!jbilton wrote:Hi Tom
I'm afraid I cannot totally agree with you.
Unfortunately its already known motorists will jump red lights.
Therefore we have to assume they are not effective.ie The railway cannot control the motorist.
So other steps have to be taken, or another similar accident will occur.
If you dont run a train, no accidents.
Obviously this is a bit harsh, so a compromise somewhere between will have to be made.
Train at walking pace over the unmanned crossing would seem the cheapest, safest and easiest solution...IMO.
Cheers
Jon
I think that's one partial solution - would hopefully certainly make people think twice. However, there's still the small minority who would approach the crossing, see no oncoming traffic, misjudge the distance and speed of the approaching train - and continue to ignore the traffic lights. This is what we're up against, and there isn't really a lot that can be done to totally prevent the possibility of this happening, other than the three (fairly unrealistic) measures that I half-suggested earlier. It still seems to be that the best solution would be to remove that idiotic minority from the roads as soon as possible!jbilton wrote:Hi
Having given a little thought.
What about making the road a light contolled single lane crossing .Therefore one direction would always be at red.
Both at red when the train needs to cross.
This could be re-inforced by speed ramps and resticted speeds on the approaches to the crossing ie traffic calming methods etc.
Motorists would then be less likely to ignore the lights.
Cheers
Jon
What about the fact that the Railway is already a light railway and so only operates on a 25 mph speed limit anyway and in the area of a level crossing it is down to less than 15. You can't ask the locos to go slower than this because otherwize it would be at a basic standstill.jbilton wrote: As stated in my original post...the easiest solution would be to slow the trains down at unmanned crossings....any accident then, would not be so serious.
Cheers
Jon
As I said above they do!jbilton wrote: Obviously this is a bit harsh, so a compromise somewhere between will have to be made.
Train at walking pace over the unmanned crossing would seem the cheapest, safest and easiest solution...IMO.
Very true!Riche wrote: To teach the driver a lesson he should have to pay for barriers out of his own pocket, and that would discourage him.
