BTP release video of near miss at Routs Xing near Ipswich

[LAX54]

http://media.btp.police.uk/r/15367/ipswich_driver_s_lucky_escape_from_1_600_tonne_tr

Giedrius Puisys, aged 38, of Camden Road, Ipswich, appeared before Ipswich Crown Court yesterday (13/04), where he was handed a 12 month prison sentence and a three year driving ban.

Shortly after 1.20pm on 2 February this year, Puisys was driving his Citroen Xsara towards Routs user worked level crossing on Felixstowe Road in Ipswich.

Puisys left his vehicle, approaching the closed gates and opened them, so he could drive over the crossing. Meanwhile, the level crossing alarms were activated, warning drivers of an approaching train.

Without following the correct process, the defendant drove onto the level crossing ...

There are no words that can be used really !

 

[Confused147]

As Albert Einstein once said, "the world will one day be populated by a generation of idiots"

 

[Macwomble]

One from Scotland

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/watch-crazy-coatbridge-driver-brazenly-12356862

Watch as crazy Coatbridge driver brazenly ignores level crossing barriers
Ross Foster, 38, has been fined £300 and banned from driving for 12 months after weaving through the barriers as they began to shut.

A Coatbridge man who endangered his own life as well as others by weaving in-and-out of closing level crossing barriers has been banned from the roads.

Ross Fraser, 38, will also cough up £300 after being sentenced at Airdrie Sheriff Court.

The Highcoats resident was caught on camera last May slaloming through the barriers at the town's greenfoot level crossing.

He will also have to resit an extended driving test before being able to drive again.

Alan Smith, Camera Enforcement Unit at BTP Scotland, said: “It is disappointing that people continue to misuse level crossings at put themselves and others in danger.

"A few minutes spent awaiting clearance at a level crossing is time well spent, the repercussions of failing to follow safety instructions can result in far more tragic consequences.”

 

[hexagon789]

http://media.btp.police.uk/r/15367/ipswich_driver_s_lucky_escape_from_1_600_tonne_tr

Hope the link works, if not its on the BTP website


There are no words that can be used really !

What an utter idiot, at that speed (guessing 70-75) I can't imagine there would've been much left of the vehicle if it was hit.

 

[jopsuk]

One from Scotland

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/watch-crazy-coatbridge-driver-brazenly-12356862

It's bad, but as that's a full barrier crossing he doesn't actually endanger himself or the trains...

 

[PHILIPE]

Good to see somebody being put away instead of the usual slap on the wrist and paltry fine

 

[johnnychips]

Good to see somebody being put away instead of the usual slap on the wrist and paltry fine

Twelve months - he'll do six with good behaviour - does seem a stiff sentence. I'm certainly not saying it's wrong as he could have endangered many lives, but when you consider what I would see as 'slap on the wrist' sentences, often not involving any detention, for violent acts, burglary etc. it seems a lot. Perhaps I'm turning into a grumpy old man.

 

[jopsuk]

a "12 month prison sentence" in England consists of a minimum of six months in custody followed by six months release on licence, followed by six months under supervision.

The structure is:
Under two years:
Half the sentence in prison, followed by 12 months consisting of the balance of the sentence plus post sentence supervision.
Over two years:
Half the sentence in prison, half the sentence on licence.

The period in custody may be extended up to the whole sentence if behaviour in prison warrants it.

In some cases (violent and sexual crimes) the minimum served in custody is 2/3 the total and the conditions can be set so that parole must be applied for, rather than automatic release on licence.

With a life sentence the minimum term set by the judge is exactly that.

 

[eastdyke]

What an utter idiot, at that speed (guessing 70-75) I can't imagine there would've been much left of the vehicle if it was hit.

According to the news report in the Ipswich Star it was 55mph.
The sentence probably has more to do with the individual's 'previous' than to this most recent offence.
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/g...afety-on-purdis-farm-level-crossing-1-5474308

The driver of the freight train, which was pulling 32 wagons and travelling at 55mph, was approaching Routs crossing at Purdis Farm, between Westerfield and Felixstowe, when he saw a car driven by Giedrius Puisys cross the line immediately in front of him, Ipswich Crown Court heard.
“It happened so fast and he was so close to the crossing that the driver didn’t have time to sound a warning,” said Michael Crimp, prosecuting.
Puisys, 38, of Camden Road, Ipswich, admitted endangering safety on a railway and driving while disqualified on February 2. He also admitted breaching a 12 week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, imposed last February for drink driving.

The pictures in the article show the crossing to be closed off. Is it still shut following on from a more recent incident when a car WAS hit and the driver significantly injured at the same crossing?
That incident happened 14th March and is covered by this thread:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...derby-road-and-trimley-stations-14-03.161947/

Now I know that the Power Operated Gate Opener Technology crossings are perfectly safe when used in compliance with the instructions on site. However, it seems that some users may be finding them counter intuitive when a crossing with powered gates can actually be open when a train is about to pass.
Does Network Rail need to take another look?

 

[hexagon789]

Does Network Rail need to take another look?

Couldn't hurt to do so.

 

[LAX54]

According to the news report in the Ipswich Star it was 55mph.
The sentence probably has more to do with the individual's 'previous' than to this most recent offence.
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/g...afety-on-purdis-farm-level-crossing-1-5474308


The pictures in the article show the crossing to be closed off. Is it still shut following on from a more recent incident when a car WAS hit and the driver significantly injured at the same crossing?
That incident happened 14th March and is covered by this thread:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...derby-road-and-trimley-stations-14-03.161947/

Now I know that the Power Operated Gate Opener Technology crossings are perfectly safe when used in compliance with the instructions on site. However, it seems that some users may be finding them counter intuitive when a crossing with powered gates can actually be open when a train is about to pass.
Does Network Rail need to take another look?

Although no different to any other crossing that has Red / Green lights, not that they take much notice of those either ! As stated the crossing is currently closed pending repair etc, but there is a local woman that used the crossing who it said on the news is seeking legal action against Net Rail for closing the crossing for so long !

 

[Bald Rick]

What with two serious incidents at the same crossing, one imagines that the authorised user (who has responsibility to make sure all users of the crossing know how to do it) is twitching a little.

 

[LAX54]

What with two serious incidents at the same crossing, one imagines that the authorised user (who has responsibility to make sure all users of the crossing know how to do it) is twitching a little.

Of course the crossing is 'open to all' unlike some 'authorised user' crossings that are locked up, this one not, if you look at Google maps, it looks like you can access the truckers cafe on the A14 via this route without going around the houses.

 

[Essexman]

I suspect the fact he was driving while disqualified tipped it to being a custodial sentence but hopefully the sentence might deter others.

 

[eastdyke]

What with two serious incidents at the same crossing, one imagines that the authorised user (who has responsibility to make sure all users of the crossing know how to do it) is twitching a little.

The concept of 'authorised user' in relation to that crossing is somewhat oxymoronic!
It looks like the former pig farm (Routs - we once bought a suckling pig there in the '70's) is now a collection of car 'repairers', along with a number of residential units and of course the track extends to the back of the truck stop on the A14.
It is simply not reasonable or even possible for one user to control use of that crossing no matter what he or she agreed with Network Rail.
I think that the user will not be the only twitcher on the case.

 

[eastdyke]

I suspect the fact he was driving while disqualified tipped it to being a custodial sentence but hopefully the sentence might deter others.

From the newspaper piece:

He also admitted breaching a 12 week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months

Having been caught driving, a custodial sentence was inevitable without the crossing abuse. The press release put out ny BTP fails to mention the full circumstances of the individual's misdemeanors, leaving the impression that the crossing abuse and the crossing abuse alone led to the sentence.
The BBC have merely used the BTP release without further research. (The BBC are very good at that on some even more important matters).

 

[LAX54]

From the newspaper piece:

Having been caught driving, a custodial sentence was inevitable without the crossing abuse. The press release put out ny BTP fails to mention the full circumstances of the individual's misdemeanors, leaving the impression that the crossing abuse and the crossing abuse alone led to the sentence.
The BBC have merely used the BTP release without further research. (The BBC are very good at that on some even more important matters).

But if that slightly incorrect report, makes others think about their actions, and stops even a few doing it, then its' worthwhile, not telling the 'whole' truth, and as you say its a bit more than a UWC bearing in mind it seems a heavily used short cut !

 

[greyman42]

You would of thought that he will never be allowed to drive again, but l will bet he is.

 

[Chris M]

A lifetime driving ban is not a sentence that the courts can impose, and there are far more dangerous drivers out there.

It is likely that he will have to take (and pass) an extended test before he can (legally) drive again once the three years are up. Insurance will not be cheap either.

The technology does not exist currently to physically prevent someone from driving illegally, but if court penalties will be increasingly severe.

 

[greyman42]

Then perhaps the courts should be allowed to impose it in certain situations?

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[randyrippley]

report of the original offence: https://www.nickfreemansolicitors.c...aking-a-delivery-and-found-to-be-blind-drunk/

A Dominos Pizza delivery driver, who crashed into another vehicle during his delivery, has now been banned from the roads for drink driving.
After the crash, police attended the scene and the Dominos Driver, Giedrius Puisys, was given a roadside breathtest, which he failed by giving a reading of 102 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, almost 3 times over the legal limit.
Puisys then complained of having chest pains and he was transported to hospital. There a blood sample was taken which showed he had 245 milligrammes of alcohol per 100ml of blood, the legal limit in blood being 80 milligrammes.
South East Suffolk Magistrates’ Court heard how Puisys had been working in the UK for 12 years and had been convicted of another drink driving offence in 2008. He was also prosecuted for driving whilst disqualified, during the current of that driving ban.
In sentencing, District Judge Brown stated that Puisys was “…blind drunk, working as a driver, putting other people’s lives at risk and his.”
Puisys was disqualified from driving for 42 months and ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work.

his Facebook page shows him as a would-be racing driver
https://www.facebook.com/people/Giedrius-Puisys/100006450104899

 

[Llanigraham]

Well he certainly wouldn't get an British MSA Competition Licence with that history.

 

[twpsaesneg]

A lifetime driving ban is not a sentence that the courts can impose, and there are far more dangerous drivers out there.

A court most certainly can impose a lifetime driving ban.

However, this gentleman was already driving whilst disqualified so it's unlikely that this would have any affect on his behaviour.

Edited to add:-

Recent example below -
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/student-banned-roads-eighty-years-11217928
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...l-with-276-previous-convictions-30878521.html

 

[eastdyke]

A court most certainly can impose a lifetime driving ban.

However, this gentleman was already driving whilst disqualified so it's unlikely that this would have any affect on his behaviour.

Edited to add:-
Recent example below -
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/student-banned-roads-eighty-years-11217928
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...l-with-276-previous-convictions-30878521.html

The Mirror example was false, based on 'fake claims' put out by the Police (just who should you believe?).
The individual in that case was banned for 2 years and ordered to take an extended re-test.
The BBC originally carried the same story but after checking put this piece out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-41362923

Bumbling traffic police were forced to backtrack after wrongly claiming a dangerous driver was banned for 80 years.

Mohammed Ahsan, 20, of Hibbert Street, Manchester, was actually disqualified for two years after pleading guilty at Manchester Magistrates' Court.
The GMP Traffic Twitter account announced the inflated ban along with a video of Ahsan's crash.
It then posted: "It wasn't a typo! He is actually banned for 80 years!"

The mistake was only exposed when the BBC checked it with the Crown Prosecution Service who confirmed Ahsan was disqualified for two years and ordered to take an extended re-test.

GMP later apologised for the "confusion" but did not clarify how the error had been made.

I think that mega-misdemeanors are more usually penalised with a custodial sentence.

 

[tony_mac]

I think that mega-misdemeanors are more usually penalised with a custodial sentence.

For example, Dennis Putz was widely reported to have received a lifetime ban as well as a custodial sentence.

 

[eastdyke]

For example, Dennis Putz was widely reported to have received a lifetime ban as well as a custodial sentence.

Sure, but from that article:

Putz has a series of criminal convictions for offences including drink-driving and has been caught 20 times driving an HGV while disqualified.

A lifetime ban may not help this individual (and any future victims), the custodial sentence will at least keep him out of a driving cab for a few years.

 

[Chris M]

OK, I'm mistaken - lifetime bans are very rare but are actually possible.

 

[twpsaesneg]

The Mirror example was false, based on 'fake claims' put out by the Police (just who should you believe?)

Apologies, I should have checked that better. IIRC the ban was put on the PNC wrong by the courts, wasn't it tweeted by their roads policing team?

However, my point was that they do happen, but unforunately aren't effective on some people. In a previous life I've personally dealt with such lovely people...

 

[eastdyke]

Reference to this (Routs) crossing in the recent RAIB Rail Accident Report 'Collision at Frognal Farm User Worked Crossing 23 October 2017' made me refer back to this thread.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/735874/R122018_180823_Frognal_Farm.pdf
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-level-crossing-at-teynham-kent-23-10.156116/

It seems that Routs crossing remains closed. Going forward there is good news/bad news for NR here.
Good news:
All of the land served by the level crossing (and the nearby public footpath crossing) now has Outline Planning Permission for Class B8 Storage and Distribution and Ancillary Class B1 Office Uses including associated infrastructure, car and lorry parking. The main road access will be from the A14.
Bad news:
Condition 12 of the Permission granted 28th June 2018:

Before the each phase of the development as agreed in the phasing plan required under condition 7 is commenced, details of the roads and footways within the site, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that roads/footways are arranged and constructed to an acceptable standard so users of the site can access areas within the site from the level crossing access

Network Rail showed itself as a total dinosaur in dealing with the statutory consultation, both as to time taken to reply (around 5 months) and its content (heavy on waffle). NR was last by some way in providing a response which was from Eversholt Street.
Now of course I cannot see what else is going on, I sincerely hope that there was/is much more dialogue going on between the NR, the Applicant and Suffolk Coastal Council.

More links for those with interest (and too much time on their hands!):
Application:
DC/17/4257/OUT | Class B8 Storage and Distribution and Ancillary Class B1 Office Uses including associated infrastructure, car and lorry parking. Orwell Crossing Service Area A14 Nacton East Bound Nacton Suffolk.
Paste DC/17/4257/OUT into the search box for this link:
https://publicaccess.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/online-applications/
NR Consultation Response:
http://publicaccessdocuments.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01385434.pdf
Outline Planning Approval:
http://publicaccessdocuments.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01405323.pdf