Near miss at half-barrier crossing

A recent occurrence not far from me. Could have turned out very differently.

Clearly , the guy is confused, it's quite sad to watch. Maybe it was confusion that lead him to ignore the warning lights he passed when starting to cross.

I don't know the area, nor criteria for installing half barriers, but it does look wide enough and busy enough for full barriers I'd have thought.

Well done to the bloke for helping him.

Not changing the point of the video, but (referring to text near the start) I understand Network Rail does not make any revenue from successful prosecutions. The fine money goes elsewhere (don't know where off hand).

Thought that all the UK Court Fines went to the Treasury/Government.

ajs said:

Thought that all the UK Court Fines went to the Treasury/Government.

Click to expand...

correct to all intents and purposes.

I'm genuinely surprised that there are any AHB on Merseyrail - surely they are for quiet branch lines on rural roads?

There is a very large population of elderly people around Southport - the big houses lend themselves well to conversion to homes - so particularly around there it seems ill advised.

Not my video, so the comments therein belong to the person who put it on YouTube. From my research it appears that this has been an automatic half-barrier crossing since about 1981. Before that from 1967 it was a manually controlled barrier crossing, and before that gated with control from the crossing signal-box (by means of a wheel), which closed in 1967.

The crossing warnings (lights, barriers and alarms) are all working as intended, and he looked to me as if he did it every day (if he was that confused, why didn't he push up against the lowered barrier?). Don't wish to sound negative, but adding the other "half" of the barriers will just lead to people climbing them or trying to duck under them, if there was a gate box its windows would just get bricked.

And why did the biker think it OK to pass the line of obviously queuing cars and push in at the front?

Despite all appearances the Railway is not a nanny-agency, funded to prevent the Great British Public from committing each and every act of madness in the book. We (the rail industry) would love to close every level crossing on the system, as it would remove the last major cause of deaths on the line. The but is that to do it would cost many billions and cause some local residents to be inconvenienced*. It will, therefore, never happen.




* I am sure that they would eventually find somewhere to live, though.

Joseph_Locke said:

And why did the biker think it OK to pass the line of obviously queuing cars and push in at the front?

Click to expand...

And what is your problem with that, what about a cyclist, is that the same or should they all stay at the back of the queue?
It's not doing any harm or delaying anyone. It just annoys people like you!

Need2 said:

And what is your problem with that, what about a cyclist, is that the same or should they all stay at the back of the queue?
It's not doing any harm or delaying anyone. It just annoys people like you!

Click to expand...

If you want to get technical (and the law is the law, afterall) the motorcyclist passed (overtook) traffic on a double solid white line and came to stop on a yellow box - both of which are eligible for enforcement action.

Speaking, non technically, thank goodness that it all turned out well on this occasion.

800002 said:

If you want to get technical (and the law is the law, afterall) the motorcyclist passed (overtook) traffic on a double solid white line and came to stop on a yellow box - both of which are eligible for enforcement action.

Speaking, non technically, thank goodness that it all turned out well on this occasion.

Click to expand...

Overtaking on a solid white line is allowed if what you are overtaking is travelling at less than 10mph, so in this case that wasn't illegal (Highway Code 129).

Richard Ingram said:

Overtaking on a solid white line is allowed if what you are overtaking is travelling at less than 10mph, so in this case that wasn't illegal (Highway Code 129).

Click to expand...

Okay - you quote some truth, so here is the whole rule:-
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hig...-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158

I saw no horses or road maintenance vehicles or pedal cycles (as none was travelling at 10 mph or less).
So, we are left with: was it 'necessary' to pass a stationary vehicle? I think this would be difficult to prove.

I'm most surprised that it was more than 90 seconds from barrier down to the first train arriving, in fact by the number of cars already queueing must have been well over 2 minutes. Isn't there a stipulated maximum time that an AHB should be down before a normal speed train arrives.

800002 said:

Okay - you quote some truth, so here is the whole rule:-
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hig...-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158

I saw no horses or road maintenance vehicles or pedal cycles (as none was travelling at 10 mph or less).
So, we are left with: was it 'necessary' to pass a stationary vehicle? I think this would be difficult to prove.

Click to expand...

I think the word necessary here might be ambiguous, I read it as 'You may cross the line if crossing the line is necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, provided the road is clear.' I think that is a fair reading, since trying to define in court if a maneuver was necessary or not would be troublesome.

It was not a necessary manoeuvre, but one taken out of a willingness to be at the head of the queue of traffic.

Back on topic, I'm also surprised the crossing is AHB - not really suitable on a busy-ish road in a town with regular trains.

Richard Ingram said:

I think the word necessary here might be ambiguous, I read it as 'You may cross the line if crossing the line is necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, provided the road is clear.' I think that is a fair reading, since trying to define in court if a maneuver was necessary or not would be troublesome.

Click to expand...

Many such laws are ambiguous.
It's not overly troublesome to define nessessity.
Prosecution: why did you cross the white line?
Defendant: to overtake the stationary vehicles.

Prosecution: why did you need to overtake the stationary vehicles?
Defendant: to get to the front of the queue.

Not sure that would be a suitable excuse or impress the judge.

Anyway, were not here to discuss the ambiguities of law.
I agree your reading is a suitable reading of the law, as written.

Richard Ingram said:

Overtaking on a solid white line is allowed if what you are overtaking is travelling at less than 10mph, so in this case that wasn't illegal (Highway Code 129).

Click to expand...

What about Rule 167... (my emphasis)

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
• where the road narrows
• when approaching a school crossing patrol
• between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
• **where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works**
• when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
• **at a level crossing**

Click to expand...

AlterEgo said:

Back on topic, I'm also surprised the crossing is AHB - not really suitable on a busy-ish road in a town with regular trains.

Click to expand...

There would surely be a cost / benefit ratio to concider, with regard to upgrading the crossing.
Without knowledge of the crossings history and it's safety record (incl. Reported near misses) it's nigh on impossible to conclude a potential outcome, but I'm sure it's been considered previously.

Surely, though, in today's safety improvement environment, there is a NR plan to upgrade all such crossings?

Ianno87 said:

What about Rule 167... (my emphasis)

Click to expand...

But in this case, despite the examples being appropriate, the overtaking would not cause conflict, as the opposing traffic is behind the barriers. The examples are to draw attention to the fact that in roadworks, opposing traffic may not be as stationary as your queue, and at level crossings, you often can't see over the crossing well, and when the barriers are up a conflict could result in both vehicles stopped on the crossing.

I just think that what he did wasn't dangerous, and there is enough flexibility in the rules to allow that, while still pointing out that what he did would not be acceptable in other circumstances. I tend to accept that a motorcycle overtaking me in a queue is the advantage they get from being less protected. And as a pedal cyclist some of the time, I wouldn't have thought twice about doing the same thing carefully.

Rule 293 for controlled crossing includes: You MUST stop behind the white line across the road. That line was crossed.

Ediswan said:

Rule 293 for controlled crossing includes: You MUST stop behind the white line across the road. That line was crossed.

Click to expand...

It wasn't the only line crossed either

How much would the yellow cameras cost?

800002 said:

There would surely be a cost / benefit ratio to concider, with regard to upgrading the crossing.
Without knowledge of the crossings history and it's safety record (incl. Reported near misses) it's nigh on impossible to conclude a potential outcome, but I'm sure it's been considered previously.

Surely, though, in today's safety improvement environment, there is a NR plan to upgrade all such crossings?

Click to expand...

The crossing in question (Crescent Road) is in line for an upgrade, I don't think there's a clear date lined up yet though.

jamesst said:

The crossing in question (Crescent Road) is in line for an upgrade, I don't think there's a clear date lined up yet though.

Click to expand...

I figured there was. Just needs to be timely. (as emphasied by your 'clear date line up'). One can imagine sometime within CP6.

Joseph_Locke said:

The crossing warnings (lights, barriers and alarms) are all working as intended, and he looked to me as if he did it every day (if he was that confused, why didn't he push up against the lowered barrier?).

Despite all appearances the Railway is not a nanny-agency, funded to prevent the Great British Public from committing each and every act of madness in the book. We (the rail industry) would love to close every level crossing on the system, as it would remove the last major cause of deaths on the line. The but is that to do it would cost many billions and cause some local residents to be inconvenienced*. It will, therefore, never happen.

Click to expand...

Maybe the man has dementia, or something of that nature and perhaps the Railway does need to take some responsibility to protect certain vulnerable people.

Also worrying was the woman standing near to the barrier seemingly oblivious to the situation....

Thats just round the corner from my Dad`s that level crossing.
Cars have been welded to the live rail before because a driver obeyed a sat nav to turn left , so they did straight onto the live 3rd rail.
The passenger fared better than the car...

For example
Man escapes injury as Merseyrail train hits car
Collision at level crossing on Northern Line at Hillside

A man escaped serious injury after his car was struck by a train on a Merseyside level crossing.

The crash happened at the Crescent Road crossing between Birkdale and Hillside stations just before 9.30pm.

Emergency services raced to the scene and trains on the Northern line between Formby and Southport were suspended.

Merseyrail said that they were not expecting services to run again this evening as work continued to clear the track.

Witnesses at the scene said that the train was stopped on the level crossing and the damaged car could be seen at the back of the train.


A Merseyrail train has collided with a car on a level crossing on Crescent Road,Southport.
It is not yet known exactly how the crash happened. British Transport Police said that a statement would be issued.

Steven Duffy said he was driving behind the car. He said: “It turned right across the tracks and then the gates came down. The driver must have realised because the car stopped and the driver jumped out. Then the train hit and pushed the car about 30metres along the track. Thankfully the driver was out of the way.”

Passengers were allowed to leave the train and Merseyrail was providing taxis for people who couldn’t get lifts to continue their journey towards Liverpool.

The area around the level crossing was packed with police vehicles, fire engines and ambulances.


A Merseyrail train has collided with a car on a level crossing on Crescent Road,Southport.The Emergency Services at the scene.
However, it emerged that the driver had not been seriously injured.

A tweet from Merseyrail said ‘following tonight’s incident at Crescent Road Crossing, initial reports from site say that no body has been hurt.’

The ECHO was later told that the man was being being treated for shock by paramedics at the scene.

Passengers on the train described feeling “a little jolt.” One woman said: “There was just like a little bump. People started asking what was going. Then someone came on over the tannoy and said to stay seated.”

Another woman said: “My grandson was on the train too. He started crying when he heard the noise and said he wasn’t getting on a train again.”
Source : Liverpool Echo 25 August 2016
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/man-escapes-injury-merseyrail-train-11802368

Bletchleyite said:

I'm genuinely surprised that there are any AHB on Merseyrail - surely they are for quiet branch lines on rural roads?

Click to expand...

Automatic crossings were initially installed on quiet country roads, where they allowed closure of an isolated signalbox provided purely for the level crossing. However, once the concept was proven, they were installed much more widely.

The risk of someone jumping the red lights reduces as the road traffic levels rise, as the chances increase that you will be stopped by there being a car in front that stops.

Half barrier crossings allow you unobstructed exit from the crossing, whereas a full barrier crossing could trap you on the crossing. For this reason, full barrier crossings have traditionally required someone to check that the crossing is clear (which can be done by CCTV) before a train is signalled over. This means that full barrier crossings not only cost significantly more to instal, but require on-going additional man-power. It also means that full barrier crossings are closed to road traffic for significantly longer, often a couple of minutes per train, as opposed to about half a minute per train for a half barrier crossing. I wonder if that youtuber would be quite so keen about a 4 barrier crossing if he knew the traffic congestion and tailbacks it would be likely to cause!

I understand that half barrier crossings are statistically safer than full barrier crossings. For example, with the full barrier crossings, there is a real risk that the person checking that the crossing is clear misses someone. In the last few years, LIDAR technology has been developed that can automatically check that a full barrier crossing is clear, which removes the need to provide a CCTV system and person watching it, but unfortunately does nothing to reduce the delays to road traffic compared to a half barrier crosssing (if anything, making the road closure time longer).

bluenoxid said:

How much would the yellow cameras cost?

Click to expand...

Considerably less than upgrading the crossing I'd wager.

AntoniC said:

Thats just round the corner from my Dad`s that level crossing.
Cars have been welded to the live rail before because a driver obeyed a sat nav to turn left , so they did straight onto the live 3rd rail.
The passenger fared better than the car...

Click to expand...

The passenger was sitting inside a nice Faraday cage (the metal car body).

robert7111a said:

Maybe the man has dementia, or something of that nature and perhaps the Railway does need to take some responsibility to protect certain vulnerable people.

Click to expand...

So should we also provide barriers at pelican crossings and the like, in case someone with dementia ignores the warnings there?