I see that level crossings are in the news today.
The driving test should have compulsory questions on level crossings to cut the number of drivers who take risks on them each year, Network Rail has said.
It said there were 14 crashes and 13 deaths last year and 140 near misses between vehicles and trains.
The rail operator recorded 3,200 incidents of misuse, but said the actual figure was likely to be higher.
Network Rail said motorists were “too often playing Russian roulette with a 200-tonne train” – and losing.
As an erstwhile signaller and signalling manager, I’m well aware of this one. I recall one of my crossing keepers complaining bitterly about the amount of cars playing that Russian roulette with his crossing.
However, before going any further, I want to make a point that is missing from the BBC reports; there is more than one type of crossing involved. On their news report this morning the BBC showed pedestrians milling about on a crossing as the barriers were coming down. This type of crossing was a full barrier type. These crossings will be directly operated by a signaller or crossing keeper who will be able to observe the crossing either from the signalbox or via CCTV. Once the barriers are down, they press the “crossing clear” button at which point the protecting signal will clear. Milling about on this type of crossing is not as dangerous as is being suggested. Jumping the lights as the barriers are coming down risks damage to the crossing and it entails delays to trains, but the likelihood of being struck by a train is remote – unless the train passes the protecting signal at danger (SPAD).
No, the really dangerous ones are the open crossings with lights only and the automatic half barriers. These crossings are operated by a treadle on the track. The signaller has no control over them and cannot see what is going on.
Modernised level crossings are a variation to the Railways act that requires the infrastructure to be fenced off to prevent public access. Level crossings require access, hence the variation. Each crossing will have a parliamentary order that details the location and type of crossing. It goes into road markings and the operation of the crossing – things that I had to check on an annual basis. When a train hits the treadle on an AHB, for example, you have about 30 seconds (the exact time will be in the parliamentary order) before the train reaches the crossing. Once the siren starts and the amber lights flash, that’s it – nothing will stop that train. These crossings are inherently dangerous. They are more so because they are used where the line speed is relatively low and the traffic not particularly dense – so they don’t look dangerous. Jump one of these and you are taking your life in your hands. Sure, you’ll delay trains as with the full barrier. You will also permanently delay your life.
Network Rail’s solution has some merit but rather misses the point. I believe fervently in the benefits of education – and if the driving test pays more attention to this, education must precede it. However, I’m inclined to agree with the AA.
Motorists must be aware of the rules, which are simple, logical and well signed.
The quote on the BBC site doesn’t do justice to what Mr Howard said on the news report that I watched. He went on to say that motorists know what they are doing and are taking a calculated risk. Exactly. Education will only go so far.
While I normally take a personal responsibility approach to risk taking; on this one, I take a slightly different view. Common law places a responsibility on all of us not to endanger others. Network Rail has a responsibility under common law not to set a trap – and the open and AHB crossings are a trap. The best solution ultimately is to close the damn things, which I’m sure Network Rail would love to do. Unfortunately, that’s a massive expense for what is still a relatively small risk – particularly if they are used properly. So the BTP has a point:
British Transport Police Deputy Chief Constable Paul Crowther welcomed the move, saying level crossing incidents were “wholly avoidable” and changing driver behaviour was the “only sustainable solution”.
Although, I don’t believe that the proposed solution will change driver behaviour for all the reasons I mention above.
However, should you be amenable to changing your behaviour; when approaching level crossings – any type – approach with the expectation of having to stop. Ease off, select a lower gear and as you approach the point of no return, you are in a position of being able to gently stop or accelerate away depending on what happens. If the siren starts and you have passed the point of no return, you should then be crossing on the amber light, not the red one. Approaching at full belt expecting it to remain open leads to that last minute panic whereby you cannot stop and have to jump on the red lights. Remember – thirty seconds ain’t long. Dead is a lot longer.
The driving test should have compulsory questions on level crossings to cut the number of drivers who take risks on them each year, Network Rail has said.
It said there were 14 crashes and 13 deaths last year and 140 near misses between vehicles and trains.
Isn’t this another knee-jerk reaction of
punishingaddressing the majority for the actions of the (tiny) minority (ala-push alcohol prices up?)How many people are driving on the roads today?How many are passing their tests today? Compared with how many accidents at crossings?Which rather begs the question, when are they going to get round to those who’ve already passed their tests and thus are ‘totally ignorant’ of what to do at a crossing?
Just wonderin’.
The theory test already has categories so that certain subjects will be covered, so I don’t think that it falls under the punishment scenario. Level crossings are a risk that, because of their nature, people tend to underestimate – so ensuring that they come up and are therefore adequately covered during training has a degree of logic.
The problem, though is that it won’t work, precisely because of the low perceived risk balanced against saving a couple of minutes.
That said, in the grand scheme of things, it’s a small overall risk – which is why my close ’em all approach will never be followed through. The cost risk balance doesn’t equate.
And, as the AA guy pointed out in the interview – people aren’t ignorant – they merely take a risk.
The other underlying issue not mentioned is that each of those crashes will have cost Network Rail dearly in delay payments to train operating companies 😉
Offences Against the Person Act, 1861; Section 34…
Whosoever, by any unlawful act, or by any wilful omission or neglect, shall endanger or cause to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years,…
A few exemplary sentences will soon fix the problem.
Level crossings always concentrate my mind, and I’m usually hyper-aware as soon as I see the sign. They scare me, even though I’ve no intention of fooling around. I suspect the ones who aren’t lack imagination and think it’ll never happen to them.
Just the sort of people who approach the current theory test as an obstacle to be passed then never thought of again, in other words.
.-= My last blog ..Sensible Suggestions On Asylum? =-.
I am convinced that the increases in these types of accidents stem from the “No bastards going to tell ME what to do. I KNOW my rights” attitude that has poluted the whole of society.
Well, sorry for the train drivers, but if it removes that kind of low life from the gene pool then great.
.-= My last blog ..Gates of Vienna News Feed 3/9/2010 =-.
Brian – agreed. At present, these will be prosecuted under the road traffic act incurring a fine and points.
Julia and Furor, again agreed. Unfortunately, if the train is derailed as happened at Reading a few years back, it’s not just the train driver, but the passengers as well.
Darwin in action yet again. If someone is stupid enough to walk onto a railway line or has parents who are stupid enough to let them, I say let natural selection do its work.
.-= My last blog ..Why I won’t be celebrating Nick Hogan’s release from jail =-.
Spot on this, just one thing to add whilst you are right about manned crossings being much safer that doesn’t allow for human error on the operators part. I work in a box with ten cctv crossings and you get so used to putting barriers down all day that it’s very easy to miss someone who’s wandered on at the last second, especially if the picture’s bad ( it usually is ) or you’re tired and not concentrating, the recent accident at Moreton-on-Lugg looks very much like signaller’s error unfortunately. Level crossings are a damn nuisance to us and potentially lethal to users, if people only realised just how inherently unsafe they are even the idiots might think twice about misusing them. I cant see Network Rail conducting an ad campaign on those lines though.
There is also the disturbing rise of suicides at crossings to consider, especially the ‘in vehicle’ ones a new phenomena that has no apparent solution.
Ten, eh? All the boxes I either worked or managed only ever had a couple CCTV crossings apiece. The crossing I had the most problems with was an AHB in a small market town. The local authority failed to notify us when roadworks were affecting the crossing. This resulted in a motorist unable to complete his journey, and unable to turn, reversed onto the crossing and came off the bowmacs, getting stuck with the inevitable result. I had to investigate that one…