'Death crossing' to be shut down

Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by Darandio, 11 Apr 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darandio

    Darandio Established Member

    Messages:
    5,301
    Joined:
    24 Feb 2007
    Location:
    Redcar
    Just noticed this earlier, may make for interesting discussion...

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

     
    Last edited: 11 Apr 2015
  2. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,296
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    I can't see how crossings are considered so dangerous. Obviously potentially dangerous, but if used properly not unduly so.
     
  3. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,318
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    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.
     
  4. 185

    185 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,391
    Joined:
    29 Aug 2010
    Location:
    On a PNB
    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.
     
  5. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Member

    Messages:
    307
    Joined:
    12 Sep 2011
    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    Less coverage is given to pedestrian road deaths of course. IMO a crossing is only as dangerous as the user makes it.
     
  6. Tomnick

    Tomnick Established Member

    Messages:
    4,422
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2005
    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?
     
  7. DownSouth

    DownSouth Established Member

    Messages:
    1,545
    Joined:
    10 Dec 2011
    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.
     
  8. Joseph_Locke

    Joseph_Locke Established Member

    Messages:
    1,356
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2012
    Location:
    Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
    (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?
     
  9. ian959

    ian959 Member

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    9 May 2009
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia

    Absolutely 100% agree
     
  10. Wolf

    Wolf Member

    Messages:
    109
    Joined:
    9 Jan 2014
    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.
     
  11. jopsuk

    jopsuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,142
    Joined:
    13 May 2008
    Try telling the driver of a train that's just hit someone that it would all be OK "if people took more responsibility"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page