level crossing crash - vehicles supposed to phone - didnt

[saaby93]

Level crossing with a bend so it's poorly sighted
Any vehicle, youre supposed to phone to check



Trail bikers didnt realise

RAIB ask NR to improve content and position of all signs based on actual use rather than expected use

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershi...

[tight5]

Yeah, NR's fault !

[steve j]

The signs are pretty clear to me, ignore the warnings and you pay the price

[HarryW]

I'm going to go against the grain here.
The sign split into a red and white sections could have lead to the confusion.
The red background section gets the attention but the smaller print underneath the initial large font STOP could be easily be ignored as small print qualifying why you should stop as part of a natural speed reading some have.
The list of instructions are then shown underneath with a white background which are numbered and clear. However they do not tell you to do the initial actions from the small print in red above inform you.
Simply the sign should have the recognised STOP sign and the complete list of instructions underneath in clear numerical and process order.






Before anyone's says rubbish....The reason I say the above is I did exactly that when looking at the sign from the comfort of my sofa, if I did it then someone else could do it too.......

[Catweazle]

Full accident report.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...

[eldar]

HarryW said:

I'm going to go against the grain here.
The sign split into a red and white sections could have lead to the confusion.
The red background section gets the attention but the smaller print underneath the initial large font STOP could be easily be ignored as small print qualifying why you should stop as part of a natural speed reading some have.
The list of instructions are then shown underneath with a white background which are numbered and clear. However they do not tell you to do the initial actions from the small print in red above inform you.
Simply the sign should have the recognised STOP sign and the complete list of instructions underneath in clear numerical and process order.






Before anyone's says rubbish....The reason I say the above is I did exactly that when looking at the sign from the comfort of my sofa, if I did it then someone else could do it too.......

Technically, you have a good point. However I fear that however clear the sign is some people won't read it and act in accordance with it, at times common sense can be in short supply

[tight5]

HarryW said:

The reason I say the above is I did exactly that when looking at the sign from the comfort of my sofa, if I did it then someone else could do it too.......

But if you get it wrong on yer sofa, you don't get a train in your ear !


How long does it take to read the sign (properly) ?

[Simpo Two]

HarryW said:

I'm going to go against the grain here.
The sign split into a red and white sections could have lead to the confusion.
The red background section gets the attention but the smaller print underneath the initial large font STOP could be easily be ignored as small print qualifying why you should stop as part of a natural speed reading some have.
The list of instructions are then shown underneath with a white background which are numbered and clear. However they do not tell you to do the initial actions from the small print in red above inform you.
Simply the sign should have the recognised STOP sign and the complete list of instructions underneath in clear numerical and process order.


Before anyone's says rubbish....The reason I say the above is I did exactly that when looking at the sign from the comfort of my sofa, if I did it then someone else could do it too.......

You were looking at it analytically and in the knowledge that a fatality had occured. I suggest that the biker involved, not having the hindsight that he had been killed, applied no thought beyond 'woo, gate, let's open it and cross the line'.

He did cross a line, but not the one he intended.

[saaby93]

HarryW said:

I'm going to go against the grain here.
The sign split into a red and white sections could have lead to the confusion.

Before anyone's says rubbish....The reason I say the above is I did exactly that when looking at the sign from the comfort of my sofa, if I did it then someone else could do it too.......

yep same here
You read the big read STOP
Then read the white instructions
open gate, go through, get run over by something you hadnt seen due to the bend
Looks as though RAIB thought similar

[Catweazle]

There was a roadsign missing, this one.

[Mave]

I don't understand why the BBC article implies trail bikers weren't allowed to use the crossing, whereas the signage implies they can?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 2nd June 23:33

[saaby93]

Catweazle said:

There was a roadsign missing, this one.

No that would only invoke the law of unintended consequences.
It's an ORPA either side which the trail riders are allowed to use
In 1970 vehicular rights to the crossing were arbitrarily removed - I cant see why this hasnt been challenged but hey ho
Neither the council, trail riders or maybe most anyone else knew this, so presumed they could use the crossing.
However it's a bit of a side issue as whether youre a pedestrian or trail rider the main concern is most of time there is no train so its always safe to cross. Occasionally and with limited warning there will be a train. Other local crossings have warning sirens.
The sign tells you to phone, but its made up in such a way most people wouldnt bother reading it for such a short distance to cross the line (and probably wouldnt think it worth bothering phoning the signalman about) They didnt even think they could use those phones after the accident, instead tried to find the local pub to report it
Pre 2008 the warning sign was much bigger and positioned more prominently. Whether anyone bothered to phone then...

Trail riders are almost bound to use the crossing bearing in mind they can use the road either side
If you put up the no vehicles sign above all it will mean is they definitely wont phone to cross the line! That's the opposite of what you want to happen.
And theres still the issue of pedestrians

Surely the best thing is for the 1970 vehicular access restriction to be removed so it's in line with common usage and warning sirens or lights installed to account for the poor visibility due to the bend and so avoid the necessity to phone

[shouldbworking]

If you ask a child 'did you do x?' and they think they might be in trouble, the answer is always no, even in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary.

In this case with adults, they are saying 'I didn't know', when they really meant 'I knew, but I disregarded it because I thought I knew better'.

[Catweazle]

saaby93 said:

No that would only invoke the law of unintended consequences.
It's an ORPA either side which the trail riders are allowed to use
In 1970 vehicular rights to the crossing were arbitrarily removed - I cant see why this hasnt been challenged but hey ho

22 March 1971 actually but that's of no consequence.

saaby93 said:

Neither the council, trail riders or maybe most anyone else knew this, so presumed they could use the crossing.

The council wrote on the 9th of December 1968 to say that no public vehicular traffic had used the crossing for 20 to 30 years. Presumably consultations had taken place at this time, hence no objections to the crossing being closed. Access was left in place for the use by farm vehicles which is why the large vehicle gates were locked.

saaby93 said:

However it's a bit of a side issue as whether youre a pedestrian or trail rider the main concern is most of time there is no train so its always safe to cross. Occasionally and with limited warning there will be a train.

As is the case at many user worked crossings.

saaby93 said:

Other local crossings have warning sirens.

This crossing has whistle boards which are considered to be sufficient for the footpath and bridleway use, when crossing with vehicles or animals by the authorised user a telephone is provided.

saaby93 said:

The sign tells you to phone, but its made up in such a way most people wouldnt bother reading it for such a short distance to cross the line (and probably wouldnt think it worth bothering phoning the signalman about) They didnt even think they could use those phones after the accident, instead tried to find the local pub to report it
Pre 2008 the warning sign was much bigger and positioned more prominently. Whether anyone bothered to phone then...

Here I agree with you.

saaby93 said:

Trail riders are almost bound to use the crossing bearing in mind they can use the road either side
If you put up the no vehicles sign above all it will mean is they definitely wont phone to cross the line! That's the opposite of what you want to happen.

The no vehicles sign should have been in place from the time that the crossing was closed in 1971, this was the responsibility of the council. The rights of way map should have been updated at the time the crossing was closed, this was the responsibility of the council.

saaby93 said:

And theres still the issue of pedestrians.

Whistle boards.

saaby93 said:

Surely the best thing is for the 1970 vehicular access restriction to be removed so it's in line with common usage and warning sirens or lights installed to account for the poor visibility due to the bend and so avoid the necessity to phone
phone

Network Rail are looking to close crossings not re-open them so this is a complete non-starter. I can see the need for miniature warning lights if pedestrian traffic were to increase. Perhaps trail riders should be instructed to dismount and walk across after having telephoned the signalman?

[Catweazle]

Mave said:

I don't understand why the BBC article implies trail bikers weren't allowed to use the crossing, whereas the signage implies they can?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 2nd June 23:33

The signs relating to vehicles are for the authorised user worked crossing gates which are locked. The trail riders used the adjacent bridleway crossing.

[Mave]

Catweazle said:

Mave said:

I don't understand why the BBC article implies trail bikers weren't allowed to use the crossing, whereas the signage implies they can?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 2nd June 23:33

The signs relating to vehicles are for the authorised user worked crossing gates which are locked. The trail riders used the adjacent bridleway crossing.

So there are no instructions at all for users of the bridleway crossing?

[saaby93]

Catweazle said:

Network Rail are looking to close crossings not re-open them so this is a complete non-starter.

They may be but there's increasing backlash against it especially if a crossing's perfectly safe, and there's no convenient alternative.

This one has to be in place 'for access'. Although this collision happened to trail raiders wouldn't the same argument apply to those using it for access whether on foot, horse, trail bike or vehicle?

Once you have the 'for access' safety measures, it would be very difficult to argue the crossing shouldnt be open to anyone else using the ORPA up to either side of it

[rs1952]

saaby93 said:

Catweazle said:

Network Rail are looking to close crossings not re-open them so this is a complete non-starter.

They may be but there's increasing backlash against it especially if a crossing's perfectly safe, and there's no convenient alternative.

This one has to be in place 'for access'. Although this collision happened to trail raiders wouldn't the same argument apply to those using it for access whether on foot, horse, trail bike or vehicle?

Once you have the 'for access' safety measures, it would be very difficult to argue the crossing shouldnt be open to anyone else using the ORPA up to either side of it

This example is a lot more complicated than it appears on first sight, and has as much to do with the archaic rights of way laws in this country as it has to do with level crossing safety.

There are various categories of rights of way, all carrying their own different rights. A footpath is what it says on the tin - a right of way on foot only - no horses and no cycling. A bridleway can be used by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians but not by motor traffic (except where rights have been granted to specific people for specific reasons) and this is what we have here. Until 1970/71 the level crossing was a right of way for all traffic, after which it effectively got bridleway status over the crossing itself, whilst the unsurfaced roads on either side retained their "open for all traffic" status.

You have to realistically ask the question how many people other than a few in the local areas actually knew about this change back in 1971, and how many people are aware of it now? This is exactly the sort of thing that gets forgotten about as years go by.

The fact is that the trail riders were not using vehicles that were authorised to use the crossing, so they were technically in the wrong from that point of view. The locals who would have vehicle access rights over the crossing will be more aware than visitors to the area of the level of line usage and also, of course, the sight line visibility issue, so they are going to be very much more fastidious about contacting the signaller. Locals on horseback will also probably contact the signaller (the last thing you want when on a horse is for it to be spooked by an oncoming train and then throw you off its back and straight into the train's path). I suspect that local pedestrians will simply look and listen, and not even stop unless they see or hear something coming.

But - and here comes the big BUT - we live in the real world. I happen to know this area reasonably well, and it is a very pleasant and picturesque neck of the woods not too far from major towns and cities such as Gloucester, Cheltenham, Swindon and Cirencester. It has the mainly currently-derelict Thames and Severn canal running up the valley next to the railway and, although the canal is currently of little use as a waterway, the towpath makes a very pleasant walk indeed. The area is going to get a fair number of visitors, very few of whom are going to be fully conversant with rights of way legislation. It would not only be difficult to enforce "the rules" on this crossing, it would be impossible in all practical terms. How would you do it? CCTV? What bloody good would that be because, once someone had seen what was going on and then sent somebody around to "nick" the unauthorised crossing user, they'd be half way to the river Severn before anybody got there to deal with it. Permanent staffing? For an average of one pedestrian a day using the crossing? Do me a favour...

Although Network Rail may have discovered some minor failings or irregularities in the signing, the facts at the end of the day are that this is one of those things that are going to happen from time to time. Whilst I have sympathy with the blokes family, he was doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing, with hindsight didn't do it particularly well or safely, and paid the ultimate price for doing it.