stuck wrong side of level crossing barrier - suspended jail

[saaby93]

Here we go
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-36...

Barrier comes down behind car, she cant reverse - jail term (suspended)

BTP rep said:

"She was extremely lucky that a train was not coming at the time or the outcome would have been unthinkable," he said.

Why did the barriers go down if a train wasn't coming?
Is it commonplace?

[Chrisgr31]

saaby93 said:

Why did the barriers go down if a train wasn't coming?
Is it commonplace?

I'd guess that either there was a station just out of sight which the train was stationary at and was awaiting for the level crossing before leaving, or it was stopped at a signal because the crossing was not clear.

Generally level crossings are not lowered unless a train is expected.

[marshalla]

It doesn't really matter - the lights go red before the barrier comes down, and she drove under the barrier while it was coming down anyway. No sympathy here at all.

[WinstonWolf]

Barriers at a crossing near me now go down four minutes before a train arrives, it used to be a minute. No wonder people try to get through before the barrier goes down.

[Iva Barchetta]

The level crossing at Mortlake high street stays down for pigging ages.

Have sat there and seen 8 trains pass.

I was waiting at the Betchworth crossing the other day,50 yards down the queue,barriers went up,traffic moves,

orange light came on again for me and have to stop again.

There is NO excuse to get stranded on the lines,orange and red lights are on in plenty of time before barriers come

down.

[theboss]

No disputing the extreme fkwittery or the fact the punishment was justified - however are crossings with full width barriers like this always manned or observed to be free of obstruction before a train can be allowed to pass? i.e. there was no actual risk to a train in this instance.

Would be interesting to get the perspective of somebody in the industry or who knows more than I do.

[Krikkit]

WinstonWolf said:

Barriers at a crossing near me now go down four minutes before a train arrives, it used to be a minute. No wonder people try to get through before the barrier goes down.

Chicken and egg - the more people run the barriers the more time they're forced to make everyone wait.

[Late Turn]

theboss said:

No disputing the extreme fkwittery or the fact the punishment was justified - however are crossings with full width barriers like this always manned or observed to be free of obstruction before a train can be allowed to pass? i.e. there was no actual risk to a train in this instance.

Would be interesting to get the perspective of somebody in the industry or who knows more than I do.

In short, yes! Any full barrier crossing needs to be observed to be clear either directly or via CCTV (with a 'crossing clear' button in most cases, to confirm that this has been done and to allow the protecting signals to clear), or more recently proved clear using obstacle detection technology (radar/lidar). There's still a (very) small risk, especially with a CCTV crossing, that a trapped vehicle might be overlooked though, and the resulting degraded working if a barrier is damaged introduces more risks too, but it's not quite as dramatic as the media would have you believe!

[Simpo Two]

Of course if there were no barriers she'd have been able to drive across and this would be a non-event.

'Level crossing syndrome' seem to be just another media cherry-pick.

[WinstonWolf]

Krikkit said:

WinstonWolf said:

Barriers at a crossing near me now go down four minutes before a train arrives, it used to be a minute. No wonder people try to get through before the barrier goes down.

Chicken and egg - the more people run the barriers the more time they're forced to make everyone wait.

This particular barrier was changed to save money...

[theboss]

Late Turn said:

theboss said:

No disputing the extreme fkwittery or the fact the punishment was justified - however are crossings with full width barriers like this always manned or observed to be free of obstruction before a train can be allowed to pass? i.e. there was no actual risk to a train in this instance.

Would be interesting to get the perspective of somebody in the industry or who knows more than I do.

In short, yes! Any full barrier crossing needs to be observed to be clear either directly or via CCTV (with a 'crossing clear' button in most cases, to confirm that this has been done and to allow the protecting signals to clear), or more recently proved clear using obstacle detection technology (radar/lidar). There's still a (very) small risk, especially with a CCTV crossing, that a trapped vehicle might be overlooked though, and the resulting degraded working if a barrier is damaged introduces more risks too, but it's not quite as dramatic as the media would have you believe!

So essentially the BTP spokesperson is just hamming the story up - there was no actual risk of a train imminently bearing down on the crossing in this particular scenario, because the signaller would have to manually clear the signal protecting the crossing only after observing that the gates were down and the crossing area free of obstructions.

I have no problem with them making an example of this stupid woman, but why play to the sensationalist media agenda.

[Amateurish]

Couldn't she have driven straight through rather than stopping and getting stuck?

[droopsnoot]

Amateurish said:

Couldn't she have driven straight through rather than stopping and getting stuck?

Not if it's a full-barrier crossing as theboss implied further up - I haven't read/watched the original story. Full-barrier crossings have four barriers, as the name implies, so no exit once they're down. Although the ones I have seen in operation locally close the "on" barrier a few seconds before they close the "off" barrier. But as also mentioned, they're checked for being clear before the signal is released.

I've seen some idiots around here though - our local full-barrier crossing has radar (used to be a signal box, but that's gone now), CCTV, the usual warning lights, box junction markings, big signs saying "you will be prosecuted if you stop in the box", and yet still people think it's a good idea to pull up immediately after the crossing to drop people off at the station, leaving me nowhere to go. I always hang back, but there's a limit to how much of a gap you can build up to try to cover every eventuality - there's a junction just after the crossing too, so a reasonable chance a helpful motorist will stop to let someone out. So I try to avoid that crossing now, as the two either side are half-barrier.

Edited by droopsnoot on Wednesday 13th April 11:07

[anonymous-user]

I see that as bad luck. She should have got back out as the other barrier was left open, but typically seemed bewildered as to what to do.
I live near a crossing and after a recent burglary the police just couldn't be arsed to look at the CCTV footage despite there being a only a 5 min window when the criminals crossed so amazing that they're on the case when a car does this.

[wazztie16]

Used to live in the village of the crossing involved, it's classed as a long crossing, with a station one side just out of sight. Quite a busy line as it's a few miles from Derby and the main line to Nottingham I think. The lights come on and about 15 secs later the barriers go down, then it's usually a 2-3 min wait for a fast t train (or 2, sometimes 3) if the train isn't stopping at the station, which it isn't a particularly busy station.

She was on her way to pick kid up from nursery, Tbh not saying it's right but I'm sure there's a disused line in front of her before the next barrier, she could've driven to that and I'm sure avoided both active lines.

Stupid though to ignore the warnings, lives in the area I live now too.

Can't wait to meet her at a junction...

[SamR380]

Entry barriers always close first, then a pause to clear traffic, then the exit barrier closes. There should be no circumstance short of a malfunction where you end up trapped.

[anonymous-user]

SamR380 said:

Entry barriers always close first, then a pause to clear traffic, then the exit barrier closes. There should be no circumstance short of a malfunction where you end up trapped.

Yep, bewildered. Could have just driven out.

[ianrb]

SamR380 said:

Entry barriers always close first, then a pause to clear traffic, then the exit barrier closes. There should be no circumstance short of a malfunction where you end up trapped.

You've overlooked the stupidity of some people, which is on display in that video. The driver had ample time to exit the crossing, but no they chose to compound the idiotic decision to drive under a closing barrier.

[anonymous-user]

ianrb said:

You've overlooked the stupidity of some people, which is on display in that video. The driver had ample time to exit the crossing

Yes that's the problem there. The sort of driver that just stops and freezes whenever anything happens.

Often occurs in car parks where I'm behind someone looking for a space, someone pulls out 50m away and the car in front just freezes unable to comprehend what is needed to manoeuvre their car further to park.

[theboss]

FunkyChucker said:

theboss said:

So essentially the BTP spokesperson is just hamming the story up - there was no actual risk of a train imminently bearing down on the crossing in this particular scenario, because the signaller would have to manually clear the signal protecting the crossing only after observing that the gates were down and the crossing area free of obstructions.

I have no problem with them making an example of this stupid woman, but why play to the sensationalist media agenda.

Because there are different types of level crossing barriers. With automatic half barriers (AHB) the time between the lights flashing and a train crossing can be as little as 27 seconds. These are not monitored by CCTV and are not protected by signals.

You can't trust joe public to know the difference.

I understand that - though of course with an AHB crossing, by definition, she wouldn't have become trapped in this way. Not that I'd condone driving across one with barely 20 seconds to spare.

What BTP should have said is "it was a stroke of luck this was a fully manned/controlled crossing rather than an automatic one" rather than "it was a stroke of luck there wasn't a train coming" because the latter wasn't really a possibility.

I'm also surprised she wasn't fined more as it appears she damaged the barrier by reversing into it. No doubt it would have had to have been checked, repaired as necessary, tested and signed off as functional, incurring NR further costs and adding delays to traffic. Maybe a £20k fine in these instances would be more constructive than a suspended sentence.