Network rail fined level crossing crash
Discussion
Its not clear what happened - was it an unsigned open crossing?
http://www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk/news/regional-ne...
It says they've closed 700 crossings in the last 4 years.
Are those mainly private roads or is it a loss of access to all of us?
http://www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk/news/regional-ne...
It says they've closed 700 crossings in the last 4 years.
Are those mainly private roads or is it a loss of access to all of us?
I believe it is caused either by the removal of barriers, or by not having barriers in the first place. The only reason can be on grounds of cost-saving.
Hence for the motorist there is no visual barrier across the road, merely a light up high to the side. Motorist doesn't see light (or assumes that because there is no barrier across the road they have time to cross) and whammo, accident.
It's so bloody obvious.
That £500,000 fine could have paid for some barriers...
Hence for the motorist there is no visual barrier across the road, merely a light up high to the side. Motorist doesn't see light (or assumes that because there is no barrier across the road they have time to cross) and whammo, accident.
It's so bloody obvious.
That £500,000 fine could have paid for some barriers...
Simpo Two said:
I believe it is caused either by the removal of barriers, or by not having barriers in the first place. The only reason can be on grounds of cost-saving.
Hence for the motorist there is no visual barrier across the road, merely a light up high to the side. Motorist doesn't see light (or assumes that because there is no barrier across the road they have time to cross) and whammo, accident.
It's so bloody obvious.
That £500,000 fine could have paid for some barriers...
I'd be surprised if motorists don't see the lights. They presumably see them but just think they will get across before the train arrives. So its sheer stupidity by the car driver that causes the problem.Hence for the motorist there is no visual barrier across the road, merely a light up high to the side. Motorist doesn't see light (or assumes that because there is no barrier across the road they have time to cross) and whammo, accident.
It's so bloody obvious.
That £500,000 fine could have paid for some barriers...
Simpo Two said:
I believe it is caused either by the removal of barriers, or by not having barriers in the first place. The only reason can be on grounds of cost-saving.
Hence for the motorist there is no visual barrier across the road, merely a light up high to the side. Motorist doesn't see light (or assumes that because there is no barrier across the road they have time to cross) and whammo, accident.
then that money is passed onto the fare paying public and more people complaining !Hence for the motorist there is no visual barrier across the road, merely a light up high to the side. Motorist doesn't see light (or assumes that because there is no barrier across the road they have time to cross) and whammo, accident.
there is no barriers because that crossing will not be used much .
the more usage a crossing gets , the higher spec. the crossing gets ( open/half/full barriers )
if a driver can't see flashing red lights , he/she has no business driving !
mrmaggit said:
There is a train (no pub intended) of thought that some people do not treat the red flashing lights as stop indicators, and that they would work better if replaced by standard traffic lights.
Problem is that some vehicles have authority to go through standard traffic lights at red. Wig wags they cannot.
tight5 said:
then that money is passed onto the fare paying public and more people complaining !
there is no barriers because that crossing will not be used much .
the more usage a crossing gets , the higher spec. the crossing gets ( open/half/full barriers )
if a driver can't see flashing red lights , he/she has no business driving !
Indeed, but accidents are caused by humans not being perfect. A physical barrier across the road is still easier to see and can't be gambled with by the foolhardy. But what you're really saying is 'that crossing doesn't have gates because it's not worth it'; therefore it's a calculated risk by the rail company. Ultimately life DOES have a price beyond which it's not worth paying. And therefore, when somebody DOES get the chop, there's no point getting upset about it - because it was all worked out by statisticians and accountants to happen.there is no barriers because that crossing will not be used much .
the more usage a crossing gets , the higher spec. the crossing gets ( open/half/full barriers )
if a driver can't see flashing red lights , he/she has no business driving !
Simpo Two said:
Ultimately life DOES have a price beyond which it's not worth paying. And therefore, when somebody DOES get the chop, there's no point getting upset about it - because it was all worked out by statisticians and accountants to happen.
ah , quite right !in future all car journeys must be taken while wearing a five point harness , flame resistant suit and crash helmet .
no crossing roads , drinking coffee or alcohol , flying , sun bathing , using mobile phones or anything else with any risk !
king idiot I don't know. 
Maybe they should have barriers at traffic lights too
Stoopid is as stoopid does
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/5269.aspx
Stoopid is as stoopid does
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/5269.aspx
Edited by Rick101 on Sunday 30th June 07:50
Rick101 said:
Maybe they should have barriers at traffic lights too
Stoopid is as stoopid does
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/5269.aspx
That's just normal behaviour - human endeavour.Stoopid is as stoopid does
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/5269.aspx
No harm came to anyone
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff