Another lorry through the barriers at Manningtree

[Jonny]

Would the LC datalogs be enough for a prosecution when the lights aren’t on the video?
The driver could insist the lights werent red and the datalogger And camera were out of sync.
I am pondering this thinking of the latest motorway variable speed cameras that have a separate camera that videos the whole scene, proving what the signs showed and when they changed.

I have two scenarios for what happened. The ‘nicer’ one is that the driver was so intent on watching and waiting for enough space on the other side to be clear that he forgot to recheck the lights and got caught out not expecting them to go red again so quickly. The worse version is that he was on his phone, suddenly realised the truck in front had gone and started off before checking the lights. Both still Involve him going “oh it’s red, stop, sod it - already across the line may as well go”

The problem is that all the lights are before the crossing proper. There may be a good reason for this; however most non-crossing traffic lights have repeaters just after the junction which is very helpful with visibility. Whilst it is not hard to take a bit of extra care and check the light again, it is an easy mistake to make especially if distracted and/or under pressure.

There is also the point of the datalogger; technically it is for the prosecution to prove that it is in sync with the cameras or provide other evidence that the red lights were flashing at the time. That is a whole different can of worms.

 

[Llanigraham]

The problem is that all the lights are before the crossing proper. There may be a good reason for this; however most non-crossing traffic lights have repeaters just after the junction which is very helpful with visibility. Whilst it is not hard to take a bit of extra care and check the light again, it is an easy mistake to make especially if distracted and/or under pressure.

Not according to Google Streetview, or my recollection. The lights in both directions are in the normal place just before the barriers. It looks earlier because the road isn't perfectly at right angles to the track, but the layout is quite normal.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

 

[Meerkat]

Not according to Google Streetview, or my recollection. The lights in both directions are in the normal place just before the barriers. It looks earlier because the road isn't perfectly at right angles to the track, but the layout is quite normal.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

I think Jonny means there are any lights the other side of the crossing - at a set of traffic lights there will be lights in line with the stop line and there will often be another set you can look at looking forward out of your windscreen.

 

[Llanigraham]

I think Jonny means there are any lights the other side of the crossing - at a set of traffic lights there will be lights in line with the stop line and there will often be another set you can look at looking forward out of your windscreen.

But there are no traffic lights anywhere near this crossing.
Immediately south there is a roundabout, and to the north there is nothing until the roundabout beyond the river bridges in Brantham village, about 3/4's of a mile away.

 

[Meerkat]

But there are no traffic lights anywhere near this crossing.
Immediately south there is a roundabout, and to the north there is nothing until the roundabout beyond the river bridges in Brantham village, about 3/4's of a mile away.

I don’t think he is referring to traffic lights, I think he is comparing LC lights to traffic lights.

 

[Llanigraham]

I don’t think he is referring to traffic lights, I think he is comparing LC lights to traffic lights.

Was he?
If he was I can see no comparison in any way, and especially not at that crossing.

 

[LAX54]

So... If ambers are on for 3 seconds, barriers start to descend after 4 seconds, and are at the point of touching a HGV on their way down after maybe 2 or 3 seconds, that's just 10 seconds.

From a total stop, do we think that's enough for a HGV to cross?

Presumably the Amber means the same thing legally as yellow traffic lights - if you've crossed the line already, or braking would put you over the line when you come to a stop, then you can continue?

He/She started to cross AFTER the amber light was lit. There are also additinoal digital cameras at this crossing which will be downloaded as well.
Dataloggers are accurate and checked frequently.

I am not sure why there is all this defence of the Lorry Driver ! He was at fault, no ifs, no buts ! If he loses his licence for a year or so, may teach him a lessson, we need to take the licence away of more drivers that think amber and red lights do not apply to them !

It is amazing how many do not know red flashing lights is a MANDATORY STOP that applies to ALL vehicles, with NO exception.

 

[dk1]

He/She started to cross AFTER the amber light was lit. There are also additinoal digital cameras at this crossing which will be downloaded as well.
Dataloggers are accurate and checked frequently.

I am not sure why there is all this defence of the Lorry Driver ! He was at fault, no ifs, no buts ! If he loses his licence for a year or so, may teach him a lessson, we need to take the licence away of more drivers that think amber and red lights do not apply to them !

It is amazing how many do not know red flashing lights is a MANDATORY STOP that applies to ALL vehicles, with NO exception.

Completely agree with you.

 

[Meerkat]

I am not sure why there is all this defence of the Lorry Driver !

Not sure that any one is defending the driver, just looking for reasons - which is what you need to do for prevention. If we just said ‘drivers should stop at red lights’ we wouldn’t bother with barriers.....

 

[O L Leigh]

Not sure that any one is defending the driver, just looking for reasons - which is what you need to do for prevention. If we just said ‘drivers should stop at red lights’ we wouldn’t bother with barriers.....

Fair enough. But the most obvious reason is that he saw the warning lights and, for reasons that we shall never know, elected to gun it rather than stop and wait.

There's only so much that the railways can conceivably do to prevent this sort of incident. Personally I find the flashing lights, klaxons and the brightly coloured barriers coming down more than adequate warning to stop. If the lights ran on for longer before the barriers lowered it would not reduce the incidence of people running them because they would soon learn that there's still time to nip across before the barriers come down.

 

[Meerkat]

But the most obvious reason is that he saw the warning lights and, for reasons that we shall never know, elected to gun it rather than stop and wait.

I actually think he saw the lights late - reacted to the vehicle in front then saw the lights (like train driver starting on red) then had a no-yes fluster and picked wrong.
I am sure most of us have done this at traffic lights, but without a bloody long trailer on the back or the barriers......

 

[O L Leigh]

Perhaps. But in that scenario the right answer is always "no".

 

[LAX54]

I actually think he saw the lights late - reacted to the vehicle in front then saw the lights (like train driver starting on red) then had a no-yes fluster and picked wrong.
I am sure most of us have done this at traffic lights, but without a bloody long trailer on the back or the barriers......

He did not need a trailer on his lorry, the front of the cab hit the barrier !

 

[BrianW]

Any report of an apology or response from Mammoet, whose truck it is?
I imagine the driver was keen to reach Harwich urgently.

A Forum thread in 2015 had this in relation to an M8 bridge:

I imagine the transporters will have been controlled and watched over by staff of the specialist subcontractor Mammoet. They seem to be one of two firms who run such transporters, the other one being Abnormal Load Engineering (ALE). I've watched three or four of these jobs and seen videos of several others and it always seems to be one of those two firms.

This job is the biggest one I've seen. How many transporters were used, and how many wheels?

I'm hoping that Mammoet may be off tender lists until they account for themselves. I emailed them for comment- nothing.

 

[leananger]

It looks like it happens every day!

 

[Llanigraham]

It looks like it happens every day!

Our Box overlooked the level crossing and I estimate that on average the red lights were ignored atleast once a day.

 

[offtherails1]

Any report of an apology or response from Mammoet, whose truck it is?
I imagine the driver was keen to reach Harwich urgently.

A Forum thread in 2015 had this in relation to an M8 bridge:

I imagine the transporters will have been controlled and watched over by staff of the specialist subcontractor Mammoet. They seem to be one of two firms who run such transporters, the other one being Abnormal Load Engineering (ALE). I've watched three or four of these jobs and seen videos of several others and it always seems to be one of those two firms.

This job is the biggest one I've seen. How many transporters were used, and how many wheels?

I'm hoping that Mammoet may be off tender lists until they account for themselves. I emailed them for comment- nothing.

It was a Mammoet trailer but it was not being hauled by a Mammoet tractor unit or driver. As is very common on RORO work the trailer was being hauled by a sub contractor, in this case a very local haulier and driver.

 

[Nottingham59]

It is amazing how many do not know red flashing lights is a MANDATORY STOP

A pity then that Network Rail's own video uses the words "When the lights are flashing, you should stop". The Highway Code uses the words Must/Must Not to signify legal requirements, and the words Should/Should not to signify advice that is not a legal requirement. I'm not surprised by how many drivers get confused.

 

[Bald Rick]

A pity then that Network Rail's own video uses the words "When the lights are flashing, you should stop". The Highway Code uses the words Must/Must Not to signify legal requirements, and the words Should/Should not to signify advice that is not a legal requirement. I'm not surprised by how many drivers get confused.

What proportion of drivers will have read the Highway Code compared to have watched a Network Rail level crossing video?

I’d suggest about about 80% vs 0.1%.

 

[BrianW]

A pity then that Network Rail's own video uses the words "When the lights are flashing, you should stop". The Highway Code uses the words Must/Must Not to signify legal requirements, and the words Should/Should not to signify advice that is not a legal requirement. I'm not surprised by how many drivers get confused.

I'm with you. Unfortunately a lot of Government advice/ guidance around Covid is expressed similarly; I think they think it avoids culpabliity when things go wrong- 'we didnt say do or don't ... like when going too fast to stop?

It was a Mammoet trailer but it was not being hauled by a Mammoet tractor unit or driver. As is very common on RORO work the trailer was being hauled by a sub contractor, in this case a very local haulier and driver.

I would have expected Mammoet to not be associated with this dangerous and irresponsible act. Indeed I would go further in suggesting this journey is being made on their behalf under some kind of contract and that they have therefore a liability in both tort and contract. I referred to this thread in my email to Mammoet. They have opportunity to respond and they should, to clear up their position on this.

 

[Meole]

Network rail just have to take these on the chin, pursuing Mammoet when an unidentified sub contractor was involved is expensive and unlikely to succeed, its a natural part of running a railway with level crossings.

 

[BrianW]

I'm with you. Unfortunately a lot of Government advice/ guidance around Covid is expressed similarly; I think they think it avoids culpabliity when things go wrong- 'we didnt say do or don't ... like when going too fast to stop?

I would have expected Mammoet to not be associated with this dangerous and irresponsible act. Indeed I would go further in suggesting this journey is being made on their behalf under some kind of contract and that they have therefore a liability in both tort and contract. I referred to this thread in my email to Mammoet. They have opportunity to respond and they should, to clear up their position on this.

Network rail just have to take these on the chin, pursuing Mammoet when an unidentified sub contractor was involved is expensive and unlikely to succeed, its a natural part of running a railway with level crossings.

Should none of these be tracked down and spoken to at least?

SHOCKING: Bikes left on mainline as public urged to use East Yorkshire level crossings safely

Cyclists are being urged by Network Rail along with pedestrians to use level crossings safely, after shocking CCTV footage was released showing misuse in East Yorkshire.

www.railadvent.co.uk

 

[offtherails1]

Network rail just have to take these on the chin, pursuing Mammoet when an unidentified sub contractor was involved is expensive and unlikely to succeed, its a natural part of running a railway with level crossings.

Why would Network Rail need to pursue Mammoet? They have all the details of the sub contractor haulier involved and the driver, who did not leave the scene but waited until the Police arrived.

 

[LAX54]

Network rail just have to take these on the chin, pursuing Mammoet when an unidentified sub contractor was involved is expensive and unlikely to succeed, its a natural part of running a railway with level crossings.

Why ? lets just let everyone 'get away with it' boy, would that promote level crossing misuse ! The Driver did stop, so no chasing, plus there are additional cameras there, so would have been easy to trace, and the way he hiot the Up side boom, would leave damage to his cab as well. As for watching a NR video, how many would know of such a thing? @Bald Rick says 0.1% I would say even lower ! 80% of drivers do not stop at red traffic lights !

 

[O L Leigh]

A pity then that Network Rail's own video uses the words "When the lights are flashing, you should stop". The Highway Code uses the words Must/Must Not to signify legal requirements, and the words Should/Should not to signify advice that is not a legal requirement. I'm not surprised by how many drivers get confused.

I find no confusion when faced with flashing red lights, klaxons, falling barriers and the prospect of an oncoming train, and that's without making a point of watching Nitwit Rail videos of crossing misuse or reading the Highway Code anytime in the last 10 years (at least). I presume that I am not in a minority here.

 

[HSP 2]

Why would Network Rail need to pursue Mammoet? They have all the details of the sub contractor haulier involved and the driver, who did not leave the scene but waited until the Police arrived.

What a shame that this post was not posted a lot earlier in this thread.

The Driver did stop, so no chasing, plus there are additional cameras there, so would have been easy to trace, and the way he hiot the Up side boom, would leave damage to his cab as well.

If you knew the driver stopped and had reported him self a lot earlier in the thread why did you not say so?

 

[Llanigraham]

Network rail just have to take these on the chin, pursuing Mammoet when an unidentified sub contractor was involved is expensive and unlikely to succeed, its a natural part of running a railway with level crossings.

It has nothing to do with Mammoet! Any claim for damages will be directly against the employer of the driver of the tractor unit.

 

[LAX54]

What a shame that this post was not posted a lot earlier in this thread.



If you knew the driver stopped and had reported him self a lot earlier in the thread why did you not say so?

Think it was mentioned earlier in the thread somewhere ! but of course there are many posts trying to deflect the blame away from the Driver

 

[Meerkat]

Think it was mentioned earlier in the thread somewhere ! but of course there are many posts trying to deflect the blame away from the Driver

I am not sure anyone is deflecting the blame, rather they are trying to explain how he managed it.
If a train driver drops one (ie Tonbridge) do the railway and unions just say ’driver went through a red, case closed’, or do they they look for contributory factors that might need to be addressed?

 

[Tomnick]

I am not sure anyone is deflecting the blame, rather they are trying to explain how he managed it.
If a train driver drops one (ie Tonbridge) do the railway and unions just say ’driver went through a red, case closed’, or do they they look for contributory factors that might need to be addressed?

This, exactly. If a lorry driver has stopped close to the stop line, perhaps realising at the last moment that there's no room on the other side of the crossing to get clear, then the red road signals might not be clearly visible. It's not really an excuse, but it is a defence of sorts and it ought to be looked at as a possible contributory factor. I doubt it's valid in this case, though, as the lorry appears to be quite a way behind the stop line still at the time that the crossing sequence would've started.