'Death crossing' to be shut down

[Darandio]

Just noticed this earlier, may make for interesting discussion...

http://www.brighouseecho.co.uk/news/local/death-crossing-to-be-shut-down-1-7200194

A railway crossing will be closed under plans by Network Rail after a dog walker was killed by a train.

Network Rail says it is conducting a review into the site where William David Roberts was hit by a train at the crossing near Lightcliffe Golf Club in September last year.

At the inquest of the Lightcliffe man, Calderdale Coroners’ Court heard from Chris Jackson, head of Northern Rail operations in the North and East, who said a full investigation was conducted by the rail franchise and it is working closely with Network Rail in reducing risks at crossings, in particular the one at Lightcliffe.

In light of the incident involving the 67-year-old from Lydgate Park, Lightcliffe, the railway crossing is set to be closed.

A Network Rail spokesperson said: “We are actively seeking closure of the crossing in Lightcliffe by diverting the right of way.

“We are working with Calderdale Council and Lightcliffe Golf Club to agree a solution.”

No timescale has been set for how long the review will take or when the right of way will be closed.

Proposals are also being explored between Network Rail, Calderdale Council’s rights of way officer and landowners with a view to diverting the public footpath, which currently crosses over the rail line at Lower Brear, Hipperholme.

Concerns were raised after 39-year-old Kimberley Needham, from Halifax, was hit by the 6.15pm Manchester to Leeds Northern Rail service close to Hipperholme Tunnel, near Halifax, on Monday, December 29, 2014.

Two weeks earlier teenager Milena Gagic was hit by a train while sitting in between the tracks with a friend at 12.30am on December 13, at the crossing, off Halifax Road.

At her inquest, where a verdict of accidental death was recorded, Coroner Oliver Longstaff said that no further report would be sent to the railway authorities to look at the safety of the line.

He said that crossings are a dangerous place but there are enough warning signs in place.

 

[jon0844]

I can't see how crossings are considered so dangerous. Obviously potentially dangerous, but if used properly not unduly so.

 

[alexl92]

I can't see how crossings are considered so dangerous. Obviously potentially dangerous, but if used properly not unduly so.

I've thought this myself, but the last time I saw a bloke say as much on a thread he got shot down hard - and yet to me half the reasons given for disagreeing with him were pretty poor.

 

[185]

So many factors in why foot crossings have been percieved to be more dangerous, people on phones, people using the same crossing everyday becoming complacent, drivers either not ..or.. being banned from sounding horns, higher linespeeds....

I think the bigger picture is we hear about these accidents more often nowadays, RAIB investigates each one, the press across the UK report virtually every one - the impression given is a massive rise, when it probably is a small rise in relation to the number of crossings left.

 

[Spamcan81]

So many factors in why foot crossings have been percieved to be more dangerous, people on phones, people using the same crossing everyday becoming complacent, drivers either not ..or.. being banned from sounding horns, higher linespeeds....

I think the bigger picture is we hear about these accidents more often nowadays, RAIB investigates each one, the press across the UK report virtually every one - the impression given is a massive rise, when it probably is a small rise in relation to the number of crossings left.

Less coverage is given to pedestrian road deaths of course. IMO a crossing is only as dangerous as the user makes it.

 

[Tomnick]

I'd certainly argue that some crossings - a very small minority - are undoubtedly 'dangerous' in as much as that a user following the instructions correctly can't be certain that it's safe to cross - user-worked or footpath crossings with insufficient sighting distance, for example (I can't think of any others!). Much has been made, in the media, of the apparent failings in the risk assessment process following the fatalities at Elsenham, and I'm sure that the tightening up of this process accounts for some crossing closures and improvements (cutting back vegetation, providing phones etc.) at many others.

Taking a wider view, though, if a crossing is judged as 'dangerous' on the basis of an unacceptably high risk to users, it seems inevitable that crossing misuse will push that risk ranking upwards - and surely rightly so, even if only on the basis of the cost to the railway of a 'user error' fatality?

 

[DownSouth]

I think the bigger picture is we hear about these accidents more often nowadays, RAIB investigates each one, the press across the UK report virtually every one - the impression given is a massive rise, when it probably is a small rise in relation to the number of crossings left.

And of course the biggest changes are that the 'press' doesn't need to worry about their websites having a set number of column inches to be dealt out to the different stories, and the deluge of 'news' comes to you thick and fast when you can get it on your computer, tablet or smartphone.

It has been comprehensively demonstrated that this causes a perception of increasing crime rates where in fact they are steadily dropping. The numbers are probably not as comprehensively documented for level crossing incidents, but a similar effect is probably at work.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I'd certainly argue that some crossings - a very small minority - are undoubtedly 'dangerous' in as much as that a user following the instructions correctly can't be certain that it's safe to cross - user-worked or footpath crossings with insufficient sighting distance, for example (I can't think of any others!). Much has been made, in the media, of the apparent failings in the risk assessment process following the fatalities at Elsenham, and I'm sure that the tightening up of this process accounts for some crossing closures and improvements (cutting back vegetation, providing phones etc.) at many others.

Taking a wider view, though, if a crossing is judged as 'dangerous' on the basis of an unacceptably high risk to users, it seems inevitable that crossing misuse will push that risk ranking upwards - and surely rightly so, even if only on the basis of the cost to the railway of a 'user error' fatality?

(the following comments are mine and mine alone and do not represent formal or informal policy in any way)

It really does astound me that 1000s of users, every day, pass a sign that says "Stop, Look and Listen" without pausing, glancing sideways or removing their earphones. When such users are removed from the gene pool by a few 100 tons of karma, it is the railway's fault for not protecting them on the "Crossing of Death".

If the public is going to insist that even the most drunk, least aware, most careless and heavily distracted user should be protected from trains AT ALL COSTS, then they will also have to accept that this will mean removing all level crossings (of every shade), providing platform edge doors at every station and 4m high pallisade fences along every mile of railway - anyone fancy that bill?

 

[ian959]

(the following comments are mine and mine alone and do not represent formal or informal policy in any way)

It really does astound me that 1000s of users, every day, pass a sign that says "Stop, Look and Listen" without pausing, glancing sideways or removing their earphones. When such users are removed from the gene pool by a few 100 tons of karma, it is the railway's fault for not protecting them on the "Crossing of Death".

If the public is going to insist that even the most drunk, least aware, most careless and heavily distracted user should be protected from trains AT ALL COSTS, then they will also have to accept that this will mean removing all level crossings (of every shade), providing platform edge doors at every station and 4m high pallisade fences along every mile of railway - anyone fancy that bill?

Absolutely 100% agree

 

[Wolf]

Agree that people should take a lot more self responsibility but there was issued with th location of the whistle board at lightcliff crossing. Trains travelling in the down direction were sounding their horns but because of the bend before the crossing it was hard or impossible to here them from the crossing. Notice went up to drivers to sound Their horn twice at lightcliff , before it was decided to close it.

 

[jopsuk]

Try telling the driver of a train that's just hit someone that it would all be OK "if people took more responsibility"