Car struck by a train at Yarnton (nr Tackley) on 02/01/2013 & AHB Crossing Discussion

[fsmr]

As some of you seem to have got all excited and blinkered about my comment earlier about the thought of AHB LCs not being fit for purpose let me explain a few facts.

They were introduced in the 60s and 70s as a way of cutting costs by removing the thousands of crossing keeper boxes and rationalising the other signal boxes. Previous to that, short of human error on the part of trained and skilled railway employee, the level crossing was very safe and fit for purpose. This responsibility was then shifted over to the general public on foot, bike or vehicle. However traffic conditions and train operation have changed a lot since their introduction and many are now having to be replaced by full CCTV monitored and interlocked barriers.
A case in point being my own LC at Brooke rd in Oakham This was converted in the 70s from a gated crossing keeper box to AHB.
For years, I said this was dangerous and contrary to the regulations, and after meeting the head of Rutland Highways, the relevant bodies were involved carried out an audit and found that AHBs were not suitable at this location now due to increase in rail and road traffic and the real risk of queuing traffic being trapped on the LC with a train approaching due to poor visibility of the exit with parked cars especially when moving in a long line of traffic over the LC. The crossing was changed to CCTV full barriers worked from Oakham box and although it has created a much greater delay to road users, it is now 100 % safe if there are no SPADS or errors or errors on the part of the Oakham signalman. (Oakham main LC was subject to a serous SPAD in the 90s with an HST going through on route training with barriers still up although sequence had just been started by the signalman fortunately,. (Which is why even on full barrier you stop on the yellow starting), The RAIB enquiry resulting in the protecting signal being moved and operational procedures changed.
It has even prevented a tragedy when recently a lorry caught and knocked off one barrier at the start of the sequence but the Oakham box got a barrier warning plus the CCTV and kept the protecting signal on
If anyone is in any doubt as to what is now expected of the rail industry , have a read here
You will see they also say what I was saying and no I have not quoted the rail regulator before
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2797
It doesn’t matter if it is public mistakes or misfortune, it is not acceptable to leave the status quo Period it has to change
It should also be remembered that CCTV was in its infancy in the 60s and technology allows much easier solutions today in place of AHB
In response to all the head in the sand blame the motorists, if you were unfortunate to skid off the LC onto the edge of the track or collide with another vehicle, and the sequence started at that moment, could you get everyone out in under 30 seconds, bearing in mind seat belts were not in use in the 60s nor central locking or airbags going off and stunning the driver. Especially if elderly or confused. I doubt it very much
Yep it will cost ultimately the British tax payer but safety is always about risk management and the scales have gone over now to sorting this out for good. There are a number of MPs demanding the removal of AHB now and this latest tragedy will only add to it especially if what I am hearing is true.
Cost in delays and railway time alone will be many thousands plus police etc not to mention a lost life .
Local locking slam door stock were fit for purpose when they were designed but you wouldn’t contemplate them today even though it is only misuse that creates an issue
Off my soap box now

All thoughts are my own

 

[yorksrob]

As some of you seem to have got all excited and blinkered about my comment earlier about the thought of AHB LCs not being fit for purpose let me explain a few facts.

They were introduced in the 60s and 70s as a way of cutting costs by removing the thousands of crossing keeper boxes and rationalising the other signal boxes. Previous to that, short of human error on the part of trained and skilled railway employee, the level crossing was very safe and fit for purpose. This responsibility was then shifted over to the general public on foot, bike or vehicle. However traffic conditions and train operation have changed a lot since their introduction and many are now having to be replaced by full CCTV monitored and interlocked barriers.
A case in point being my own LC at Brooke rd in Oakham This was converted in the 70s from a gated crossing keeper box to AHB.
For years, I said this was dangerous and contrary to the regulations, and after meeting the head of Rutland Highways, the relevant bodies were involved carried out an audit and found that AHBs were not suitable at this location now due to increase in rail and road traffic and the real risk of queuing traffic being trapped on the LC with a train approaching due to poor visibility of the exit with parked cars especially when moving in a long line of traffic over the LC. The crossing was changed to CCTV full barriers worked from Oakham box and although it has created a much greater delay to road users, it is now 100 % safe if there are no SPADS or errors or errors on the part of the Oakham signalman. (Oakham main LC was subject to a serous SPAD in the 90s with an HST going through on route training with barriers still up although sequence had just been started by the signalman fortunately,. (Which is why even on full barrier you stop on the yellow starting), The RAIB enquiry resulting in the protecting signal being moved and operational procedures changed.
It has even prevented a tragedy when recently a lorry caught and knocked off one barrier at the start of the sequence but the Oakham box got a barrier warning plus the CCTV and kept the protecting signal on
If anyone is in any doubt as to what is now expected of the rail industry , have a read here
You will see they also say what I was saying and no I have not quoted the rail regulator before
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2797
It doesn’t matter if it is public mistakes or misfortune, it is not acceptable to leave the status quo Period it has to change
It should also be remembered that CCTV was in its infancy in the 60s and technology allows much easier solutions today in place of AHB
In response to all the head in the sand blame the motorists, if you were unfortunate to skid off the LC onto the edge of the track or collide with another vehicle, and the sequence started at that moment, could you get everyone out in under 30 seconds, bearing in mind seat belts were not in use in the 60s nor central locking or airbags going off and stunning the driver. Especially if elderly or confused. I doubt it very much
Yep it will cost ultimately the British tax payer but safety is always about risk management and the scales have gone over now to sorting this out for good. There are a number of MPs demanding the removal of AHB now and this latest tragedy will only add to it especially if what I am hearing is true.
Cost in delays and railway time alone will be many thousands plus police etc not to mention a lost life .
Local locking slam door stock were fit for purpose when they were designed but you wouldn’t contemplate them today even though it is only misuse that creates an issue
Off my soap box now

All thoughts are my own

So, what do you think of my point, i.e. that the costs of this exercise should fall on whichever transport mode is found to be most responsible for the misuse of these crossings ?

I'm not saying that there aren't incidences where a motorist could find themselves in danger through no fault of their own, but do you have any evidence to suggest that the majority of AHB accidents are caused by such circumstances rather than driver negligence ?

 

[Dolive22]

As some of you seem to have got all excited and blinkered about my comment earlier about the thought of AHB LCs not being fit for purpose let me explain a few facts.

They were introduced in the 60s and 70s as a way of cutting costs by removing the thousands of crossing keeper boxes and rationalising the other signal boxes. Previous to that, short of human error on the part of trained and skilled railway employee, the level crossing was very safe and fit for purpose. This responsibility was then shifted over to the general public on foot, bike or vehicle. However traffic conditions and train operation have changed a lot since their introduction and many are now having to be replaced by full CCTV monitored and interlocked barriers.
A case in point being my own LC at Brooke rd in Oakham This was converted in the 70s from a gated crossing keeper box to AHB.
For years, I said this was dangerous and contrary to the regulations, and after meeting the head of Rutland Highways, the relevant bodies were involved carried out an audit and found that AHBs were not suitable at this location now due to increase in rail and road traffic and the real risk of queuing traffic being trapped on the LC with a train approaching due to poor visibility of the exit with parked cars especially when moving in a long line of traffic over the LC. The crossing was changed to CCTV full barriers worked from Oakham box and although it has created a much greater delay to road users, it is now 100 % safe if there are no SPADS or errors or errors on the part of the Oakham signalman. (Oakham main LC was subject to a serous SPAD in the 90s with an HST going through on route training with barriers still up although sequence had just been started by the signalman fortunately,. (Which is why even on full barrier you stop on the yellow starting), The RAIB enquiry resulting in the protecting signal being moved and operational procedures changed.
It has even prevented a tragedy when recently a lorry caught and knocked off one barrier at the start of the sequence but the Oakham box got a barrier warning plus the CCTV and kept the protecting signal on
If anyone is in any doubt as to what is now expected of the rail industry , have a read here
You will see they also say what I was saying and no I have not quoted the rail regulator before
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2797
It doesn’t matter if it is public mistakes or misfortune, it is not acceptable to leave the status quo Period it has to change
It should also be remembered that CCTV was in its infancy in the 60s and technology allows much easier solutions today in place of AHB
In response to all the head in the sand blame the motorists, if you were unfortunate to skid off the LC onto the edge of the track or collide with another vehicle, and the sequence started at that moment, could you get everyone out in under 30 seconds, bearing in mind seat belts were not in use in the 60s nor central locking or airbags going off and stunning the driver. Especially if elderly or confused. I doubt it very much
Yep it will cost ultimately the British tax payer but safety is always about risk management and the scales have gone over now to sorting this out for good. There are a number of MPs demanding the removal of AHB now and this latest tragedy will only add to it especially if what I am hearing is true.
Cost in delays and railway time alone will be many thousands plus police etc not to mention a lost life .
Local locking slam door stock were fit for purpose when they were designed but you wouldn’t contemplate them today even though it is only misuse that creates an issue
Off my soap box now

All thoughts are my own

I was thinking basically that last night. Full barriers with CCTV, signaller checking crossing clear before clearing signal, sequence started in time to clear signal before train encounters a signal at caution. If it's too slow, they can build a bridge or have a COMB* crossing.

*COMB Continously Operating Masonry Based (a brick wall).

 

[phonoplug]

Apparently the latest is that the two occupants of the car were 85 (passenger) and 78 (driver). That puts a new spin on things.

 

[anthony263]

Apparently the latest is that the two occupants of the car were 85 (passenger) and 78 (driver). That puts a new spin on things.

I most certainly agree especially since I believe there is more to this that what we have learned so far.

 

[Dolive22]

Apparently the latest is that the two occupants of the car were 85 (passenger) and 78 (driver). That puts a new spin on things.

What are you thinking? Dazzled, inattentive, stroke at wrong moment, not seeing signal in time?

yorksrob, if the money really isn't there, NR should have to find the money for a COMB, if anything more expensive is desirable for road traffic and can't be funded by NR, the local council has a budget and (in theory) resort to taxation.

 

[yorksrob]

What are you thinking? Dazzled, inattentive, stroke at wrong moment, not seeing signal in time?

yorksrob, if the money really isn't there, NR should have to find the money for a COMB, if anything more expensive is desirable for road traffic and can't be funded by NR, the local council has a budget and (in theory) resort to taxation.

Personally, I think that if the majority of AHB accidents are found to be a result of driver error, then that would be a sensible solution.

 

[Dolive22]

Personally, I think that if the majority of AHB accidents are found to be a result of driver error, then that would be a sensible solution.

It seems harsh, but in essence traffic is crossing the railway. If that isn't safe, it mustn't happen. The public policy considerations favour the train over all other transport even if only on CO2 etc.

 

[Dolive22]

Apparently a zig-zagging problem in the area which BTP were worried about:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10..._crash_with_train_at_crossing_outside_Oxford/

I wrote that before I saw the post above. Startled (as related to age) hadn't occurred to me, although it should have given how much they went on about it in Hixon.

 

[yorksrob]

It seems harsh, but in essence traffic is crossing the railway. If that isn't safe, it mustn't happen. The public policy considerations favour the train over all other transport even if only on CO2 etc.

I don't think it's harsh at all. If it is decided that AHB's aren't fit for purpose (and there has certainly been talk of this over the past month or so) then thought needs to be given to how such a change should be paid for. It would seem counter-productive if funding, which had been set aside to improve railway services, had to be diverted to what are essentially road schemes, as this could effectively push people into road transport, which is itself a less safe environment than the railway to begin with.

 

[Goatboy]

It seems harsh, but in essence traffic is crossing the railway. If that isn't safe, it mustn't happen.

Thankfully policy is a tad more common sense than this. If we stopped every practice in the country that wasn't 100% safe with nil risk we'd all sit at home and never leave.

The lights flash. The barriers come down. Yes there are all manner of things that perhaps might maybe possibly happen but there comes a time when you have to realise that some things can never be 100% safe and instead we have to aim for a best effort situation. The safety procedures in use at AHB's are exactly this. There are multiple warning signals and a physical obstruction which blocks traffic. Far, far more protection than is offered for drivers using a road junction onto a busy dual carriageway, for example.

Driving cars is dangerous, as the thousands of deaths on our roads every year demonstrate. Spending billions reconfiguring every AHB because 0.0000001% of cars which cross them might break down or crash and 1% of cars which cross them might be driven by people who think the law doesnt apply to them is wasteful - just think where else the same amount of money could be spent that would save even more lives?

Moving people around in self propelled metal boxes can never be 100% safe. That it's as safe as it is currently is testment to our already excellent levels of road safety.

The events yesterday were a tragic accident. But whatever the cause - its just that - an accident. Accidents will always happen. If something was obviously wrong - ie the barrier didnt function or the lights failed - then absolutely immediate action is required. But if it was just simple driver error then thats what it is - driver error. Like most of the other accidents on our roads every day.

Yesterday, multiple other people also died in road traffic accidents. If all the equipment was working correctly why is this one any more deserving of the idea of throwing billions at extra safety measures than the guy who hit a tree on a bend?

 

[Dolive22]

I don't think it's harsh at all. If it is decided that AHB's aren't fit for purpose (and there has certainly been talk of this over the past month or so) then thought needs to be given to how such a change should be paid for. It would seem counter-productive if funding, which had been set aside to improve railway services, had to be diverted to what are essentially road schemes, as this could effectively push people into road transport, which is itself a less safe environment than the railway to begin with.

That is the public policy considerations I was talking about.

Logically it seems like the roads should pay, but something just seems weird about that, and I can't put my finger on it. It might be that when Rail contractors put in Rail equipment on the Railway I just think of it as a Rail responsibility, but as I say if it is for the benefit of the road logically they should pay or do without.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thankfully policy is a tad more common sense than this. If we stopped every practice in the country that wasn't 100% safe with nil risk we'd all sit at home and never leave.

The lights flash. The barriers come down. Yes there are all manner of things that perhaps might maybe possibly happen but there comes a time when you have to realise that some things can never be 100% safe and instead we have to aim for a best effort situation.

Driving cars is dangerous, as the thousands of deaths on our roads every year demonstrate. Spending billions reconfiguring every AHB because 0.0000001% of cars which cross them might break down or crash and 1% of cars which cross them might be driven by people who think the law doesnt apply to them is wasteful - just think where else the same amount of money could be spent that would save even more lives?

Moving people around in self propelled metal boxes can never be 100% safe. That it's as safe as it is currently is testment to our already excellent levels of road safety.

Safe is relative. Rail and flights are held to a much higher standard, we don't accept even a tiny fraction of the risk accepted on the roads. It is odd, because as you say (and again it was considered at length in the Hixon report) there is in essence a set amount of money, and a crossing upgrade might cost as much as X speed cameras or corners cut off or metres of motorway, which would save Z lives.

A certain standard is set for safety on railways. If the options are to take a higher risk than is acceptable, to close it or to do an expensive upgrade, the only options are to close it or upgrade. The upgrade is for the benefit of the road, the railway will happily close the crossing. If a road there is desirable, the highway authority can pay.

 

[yorksrob]

Thankfully policy is a tad more common sense than this. If we stopped every practice in the country that wasn't 100% safe with nil risk we'd all sit at home and never leave.

The lights flash. The barriers come down. Yes there are all manner of things that perhaps might maybe possibly happen but there comes a time when you have to realise that some things can never be 100% safe and instead we have to aim for a best effort situation. The safety procedures in use at AHB's are exactly this. There are multiple warning signals and a physical obstruction which blocks traffic. Far, far more protection than is offered for drivers using a road junction onto a busy dual carriageway, for example.

Driving cars is dangerous, as the thousands of deaths on our roads every year demonstrate. Spending billions reconfiguring every AHB because 0.0000001% of cars which cross them might break down or crash and 1% of cars which cross them might be driven by people who think the law doesnt apply to them is wasteful - just think where else the same amount of money could be spent that would save even more lives?

Moving people around in self propelled metal boxes can never be 100% safe. That it's as safe as it is currently is testment to our already excellent levels of road safety.

The events yesterday were a tragic accident. But whatever the cause - its just that - an accident. Accidents will always happen. If something was obviously wrong - ie the barrier didnt function or the lights failed - then absolutely immediate action is required. But if it was just simple driver error then thats what it is - driver error. Like most of the other accidents on our roads every day.

Yesterday, multiple other people also died in road traffic accidents. If all the equipment was working correctly why is this one any more deserving of the idea of throwing billions at extra safety measures than the guy who hit a tree on a bend?

There is a lot of truth in your post. I just note that there does seem to be a bit of political momentum developing over these sorts of crossings and that doesn't always develop on a basis of logic, particularly where transport safety issues are concerned.

 

[Goatboy]

Safe is relative. Rail and flights are held to a much higher standard, we don't accept even a tiny fraction of the risk accepted on the roads. It is odd, because as you say (and again it was considered at length in the Hixon report) there is in essence a set amount of money, and a crossing upgrade might cost as much as X speed cameras or corners cut off or metres of motorway, which would save Z lives.

A certain standard is set for safety on railways.

And is met.

In almost all incidents of this type, there are zero injuries or deaths amongst rail passengers or staff. I beleive in this particular case even the loco is not more than superficially damaged. It is almost always the road user that is the casualy. Therefore these are road deaths and not rail passenger deaths.

If the options are to take a higher risk than is acceptable, to close it or to do an expensive upgrade, the only options are to close it or upgrade. The upgrade is for the benefit of the road, the railway will happily close the crossing. If a road there is desirable, the highway authority can pay.

Where is the option to consider the current level of risk acceptable and retain the status quo? You will never eliminate every source of a car driver crashing into things, ever. Level crossings are many, many times safer than conventional road on road crossings. There are no barriers or sirens to prevent people in cars running red traffic lights and causing accidents. And indeed, each year, many drivers do just this. I see no call for the closure of traffic light controlled junctions or the installation of any sort of barrier system!

We do not lose thousands of people a year to level crossing accidents.

I would be absolutely amazed if there wasn't a project that could be undertaken for the same price of upgrading every AHB that would save tens or even hundreds of times more lives.

 

[jopsuk]

Unless there's a known trouble spot, it would be far more cost efficient (taking into account the costs that are assigned to lives in these assessments) to leave AHBs in place until other major projects occur- for instance upgrading the road could see a bridge installed, upgrading the signalling system on the line could see an improved crossing installed.

 

[DarloRich]

As some of you seem to have got all excited and blinkered about my comment earlier about the thought of AHB LCs not being fit for purpose let me explain a few facts.

They were introduced in the 60s and 70s as a way of cutting costs by removing the thousands of crossing keeper boxes and rationalising the other signal boxes. Previous to that, short of human error on the part of trained and skilled railway employee, the level crossing was very safe and fit for purpose. This responsibility was then shifted over to the general public on foot, bike or vehicle. However traffic conditions and train operation have changed a lot since their introduction and many are now having to be replaced by full CCTV monitored and interlocked barriers.
A case in point being my own LC at Brooke rd in Oakham This was converted in the 70s from a gated crossing keeper box to AHB.
For years, I said this was dangerous and contrary to the regulations, and after meeting the head of Rutland Highways, the relevant bodies were involved carried out an audit and found that AHBs were not suitable at this location now due to increase in rail and road traffic and the real risk of queuing traffic being trapped on the LC with a train approaching due to poor visibility of the exit with parked cars especially when moving in a long line of traffic over the LC. The crossing was changed to CCTV full barriers worked from Oakham box and although it has created a much greater delay to road users, it is now 100 % safe if there are no SPADS or errors or errors on the part of the Oakham signalman. (Oakham main LC was subject to a serous SPAD in the 90s with an HST going through on route training with barriers still up although sequence had just been started by the signalman fortunately,. (Which is why even on full barrier you stop on the yellow starting), The RAIB enquiry resulting in the protecting signal being moved and operational procedures changed.
It has even prevented a tragedy when recently a lorry caught and knocked off one barrier at the start of the sequence but the Oakham box got a barrier warning plus the CCTV and kept the protecting signal on
If anyone is in any doubt as to what is now expected of the rail industry , have a read here
You will see they also say what I was saying and no I have not quoted the rail regulator before
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2797
It doesn’t matter if it is public mistakes or misfortune, it is not acceptable to leave the status quo Period it has to change
It should also be remembered that CCTV was in its infancy in the 60s and technology allows much easier solutions today in place of AHB
In response to all the head in the sand blame the motorists, if you were unfortunate to skid off the LC onto the edge of the track or collide with another vehicle, and the sequence started at that moment, could you get everyone out in under 30 seconds, bearing in mind seat belts were not in use in the 60s nor central locking or airbags going off and stunning the driver. Especially if elderly or confused. I doubt it very much
Yep it will cost ultimately the British tax payer but safety is always about risk management and the scales have gone over now to sorting this out for good. There are a number of MPs demanding the removal of AHB now and this latest tragedy will only add to it especially if what I am hearing is true.
Cost in delays and railway time alone will be many thousands plus police etc not to mention a lost life .
Local locking slam door stock were fit for purpose when they were designed but you wouldn’t contemplate them today even though it is only misuse that creates an issue
Off my soap box now

All thoughts are my own

Wibble - Level crossings, unless they are faulty, are safe. 99 .9 times out of 100 it is the users who are not.

 

[Dolive22]

And is met.

In almost all incidents of this type, there are zero injuries or deaths amongst rail passengers or staff. I beleive in this particular case even the loco is not more than superficially damaged. It is almost always the road user that is the casualy. Therefore these are road deaths and not rail passenger deaths.



Where is the option to consider the current level of risk acceptable and retain the status quo? You will never eliminate every source of a car driver crashing into things, ever. Level crossings are many, many times safer than conventional road on road crossings. There are no barriers or sirens to prevent people in cars running red traffic lights and causing accidents. And indeed, each year, many drivers do just this. I see no call for the closure of traffic light controlled junctions or the installation of any sort of barrier system!

We do not lose thousands of people a year to level crossing accidents.

I would be absolutely amazed if there wasn't a project that could be undertaken for the same price of upgrading every AHB that would save tens or even hundreds of times more lives.

I think the safety standards we apply extend to 'deaths caused by the railway', in the sense of connected with their being a railway there, not just staff and passengers. If a train hits someone I would put that under 'Railway Safety'.

You do have a point about level crossings in general, and more widely about how safe the railway is and how expensive it is. When railway accidents kill about as many people as pedal cyclists colliding with pedestrians but is too expensive for many people, there is an argument for a railway with 10 times as many accidents but more passengers pulled of the far more dangerous roads by lower fares. That isn't going to happen though.

This particular crossing seems to be very poorly layed out as regards the approach, and should probably be closed, or the layout modified, possibly with an upgrade to the crossing itself.

 

[FGW_DID]

My wife and I used this crossing on New Year's Eve, travelling from Kidlington to Yarnton, in front of us was a Nissan Micra being driven by a very elderly lady, as she approached the crossing she indicated to turn right and for one heart-stopping moment we both thought she was going to turn onto the tracks! Thankfully she was only signalling to go round the 90 degree bend straight after the crossing, gave us both a fright though!

 

[jon0844]

Many people will freeze in that situation, i have seen it time and again in accident situations, many folks panic and don’t act rationally add in some old age and you need at least 3 minutes to comprehend what has happened

It's going to happen to all of us, but when I am at the point that I am so easily confused when driving and can need three minutes to fully understand what is going on, please come and take away my driving licence and by all means show this post as my permission when I'm in a fit state.

We're all going to get old, but I really think some people have to accept they'll not be driving until the day they die - if not for their own safety, but for others.

This is a comment to the above, not any statement about whether age was a factor in this incident.

 

[andyfrommk]

Someone mentioned on here that NR wanted to give running an LC the same legal weight as running a red traffic light, anyone heard anymore of that idea?

 

[Dolive22]

Someone mentioned on here that NR wanted to give running an LC the same legal weight as running a red traffic light, anyone heard anymore of that idea?

The flashing lights are a traffic sign, which I think is what traffic lights are. To pass one when the lights are flashing is to contravene a traffic sign.

Jumping a crossing is charged as either trespass or contravening a traffic sign. I would charge it as dangerous driving, but I've always been aggressive when it comes to selection of charges.

 

[matchmaker]

Personally, I think that if the majority of AHB accidents are found to be a result of driver error, then that would be a sensible solution.

Virtually all AHB accidents are as a result of driver error! I can't at the moment think of one caused by equipment failure.

It might also be worth mentioning that the two worst level crossing accidents (in terms of death toll) occurred at traditional gated crossings. One was caused by vehicle driver error, the other by vehicle brake failure.

 

[Zoidberg]

The flashing lights are a traffic sign, which I think is what traffic lights are. To pass one when the lights are flashing is to contravene a traffic sign.

...

And while a driver of a vehicle being driven under blue lights has discretion to go against a solid red traffic light when he/she considers it safe to do so, they do not have such discretion in respect of level crossing flashing red lights.

EDIT: The authority of the flashing red lights is set out in the RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 40 according to the Highway Code.

 

[Dolive22]

And while a driver of a vehicle being driven under blue lights has discretion to go against a solid red traffic light when he/she considers it safe to do so, they do not have such discretion in respect of level crossing flashing red lights.

EDIT: The authority of the flashing red lights is set out in the RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 40 according to the Highway Code.

Yes. S. 36 provides that some signs have force without the requirement for a pre-existing requirement or restriction, para. 10 applies s. 36 to particular signs and para. 40 what the para. 39 sign means.

 

[Tomnick]

They were introduced in the 60s and 70s as a way of cutting costs by removing the thousands of crossing keeper boxes and rationalising the other signal boxes.

Bear in mind that this rationalisation saved a good few lines from closure. Boston - Skegness was down to being open for a single shift each day, almost certainly heading towards complete closure, before the introduction of AHBs which cut staffing requirements to the point where the opening hours could be increased to something more useful. Sleaford - Spalding is in a similar situation currently, and I doubt that'd still be with us if it wasn't part of a strategically important through route.

A case in point being my own LC at Brooke rd in Oakham This was converted in the 70s from a gated crossing keeper box to AHB.
For years, I said this was dangerous and contrary to the regulations, and after meeting the head of Rutland Highways, the relevant bodies were involved carried out an audit and found that AHBs were not suitable at this location now due to increase in rail and road traffic and the real risk of queuing traffic being trapped on the LC with a train approaching due to poor visibility of the exit with parked cars especially when moving in a long line of traffic over the LC. The crossing was changed to CCTV full barriers worked from Oakham box and although it has created a much greater delay to road users, it is now 100 % safe if there are no SPADS or errors or errors on the part of the Oakham signalman.

Brooke Road is, I agree, an excellent example of a location unsuitable for an AHB - whether that was the case when first converted, I couldn't say, but nowadays it's not uncommon to see traffic queuing over the crossing (which they shouldn't be doing, obviously!).

It should also be remembered that CCTV was in its infancy in the 60s and technology allows much easier solutions today in place of AHB

...

Yep it will cost ultimately the British tax payer but safety is always about risk management and the scales have gone over now to sorting this out for good. There are a number of MPs demanding the removal of AHB now and this latest tragedy will only add to it especially if what I am hearing is true.

I still maintain that AHBs are entirely appropriate in many cases, provided that traffic levels (rail and, more importantly, road) aren't too heavy and the road layout is suitable (no risk of vehicles blocking back over the crossing). Although MCB-OD crossings are starting to become available as an option without the need for close supervision, it'd cost many, many millions of pounds to convert every AHB (as each needs protecting signals, whereas AHBs don't, meaning lots of changes to the existing signalling installation), and I don't think there's anything like sufficient justification for that sort of spending.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The flashing lights are a traffic sign, which I think is what traffic lights are. To pass one when the lights are flashing is to contravene a traffic sign.

Jumping a crossing is charged as either trespass or contravening a traffic sign. I would charge it as dangerous driving, but I've always been aggressive when it comes to selection of charges.

I understand, from a chat with a BTP officer, that the usual charge is something like contravening a traffic sign (not sure of the exact wording), but careless driving or dangerous driving are possible charges if the evidence supports it.

 

[Dolive22]

Bear in mind that this rationalisation saved a good few lines from closure. Boston - Skegness was down to being open for a single shift each day, almost certainly heading towards complete closure, before the introduction of AHBs which cut staffing requirements to the point where the opening hours could be increased to something more useful. Sleaford - Spalding is in a similar situation currently, and I doubt that'd still be with us if it wasn't part of a strategically important through route.

Brooke Road is, I agree, an excellent example of a location unsuitable for an AHB - whether that was the case when first converted, I couldn't say, but nowadays it's not uncommon to see traffic queuing over the crossing (which they shouldn't be doing, obviously!).

I still maintain that AHBs are entirely appropriate in many cases, provided that traffic levels (rail and, more importantly, road) aren't too heavy and the road layout is suitable (no risk of vehicles blocking back over the crossing). Although MCB-OD crossings are starting to become available as an option without the need for close supervision, it'd cost many, many millions of pounds to convert every AHB (as each needs protecting signals, whereas AHBs don't, meaning lots of changes to the existing signalling installation), and I don't think there's anything like sufficient justification for that sort of spending.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I understand, from a chat with a BTP officer, that the usual charge is something like contravening a traffic sign (not sure of the exact wording), but careless driving or dangerous driving are possible charges if the evidence supports it.

I think I got 'either trespass or contravening a traffic sign' from someone on here but contravening a traffic sign is the better fit.

 

[Tomnick]

I'll have a look later - as I'm sure fsmr knows, the local newspaper for Oakham regularly carries details of court appearances for such offences!

 

[Sidious]

The flashing lights are a traffic sign, which I think is what traffic lights are. To pass one when the lights are flashing is to contravene a traffic sign.

Jumping a crossing is charged as either trespass or contravening a traffic sign. I would charge it as dangerous driving, but I've always been aggressive when it comes to selection of charges.

Failing to conform to red flashing lights at a level crossing is the same offence as failing to conform to a traffic light, which is eligible for a fixed penalty ticket £60 fine and 3 points. Upon conviction at magistrates court, it has a maximum fine of £1000 and 3 points.

There are other offences which could be charged, and in reality only an 'early red' would probably qualify for a fixed penalty - zigzag around the barriers would almost certainly attract a Drive without Due Care and Attention or Dangerous Driving charge. There is also the offences of obstructing the railway, cause danger of injury to person upon the railway or trespass which could be considered but in most cases if a motoring offence is committed, then it would be most appropriate to deal with the prosecution as a motoring offence.

Also the Police can issue a s.172 notice for the registered keeper of the vehicle to tell them who was driving in respect of motoring offences, but not for other offences.

 

[aylesbury]

I have used this crossing many times in the last twenty five years ,its well marked and aproaching from Kidlington you have to slow down quickly.From the other direction its a slight bend but once again you have to slow down,sadly this idiotdid not seem to have even tried going slowly.BBC Oxford had a reporter on site and in the background you could see a class 66 untouched by damage.As usual the tone of report was the railways at fault,its about time the media started reporting these incedents truthfully ,the motorist chose to ignore a red light.

 

[Sidious]

the motorist chose to ignore a red light.

That's by no means certain.

The vehicle could have stalled on the crossing, or the motorist could have inadvertently driven off the crossing and onto the tracks which also can happen.

However for whatever reason driver error and not railway error appears to be the cause.