News2 mins ago
Level Crossings
16 Answers
http://
Network Rail are embarking on a safety programme costing £130m. But at the end of the day, is it really the responsibility of Network Rail to protect the public from their own stupidity?
Network Rail are embarking on a safety programme costing £130m. But at the end of the day, is it really the responsibility of Network Rail to protect the public from their own stupidity?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
£130million is not very much money to them. And if it saves a few lives it is worth it, even if they are trying to stop the stupidity of others.
On a more basic level, if a train hits a person or a car then that is going to cause delays and disruption across the network, so anything that alleviate that is worth it.
On a more basic level, if a train hits a person or a car then that is going to cause delays and disruption across the network, so anything that alleviate that is worth it.
-- answer removed --
// Isn't it time considering how long we have had railways in this country, that there should not be such a thing as rail lines crossing roads, one never sees this type of thing happening across motorways. //
I totally agree AOG. It is a fact that roads & rail tracks should never mix & should be totally segregated.
WR.
I totally agree AOG. It is a fact that roads & rail tracks should never mix & should be totally segregated.
WR.
They are usually segregated (on public roads, anyway) by gates or barriers.
The vast majority of incidents (they are seldom accidents) on level crossings in the UK are the fault of either motorists or pedestrians failing to adhere to what are fairly simple rules.
My answer to this much earlier question explains my views.
http://
Of course anything that can be done to protect people from their own stupidity is welcome but too little emphasis is placed on the fact that if the rules are adhered to then such incidents would be greatly reduced.
The vast majority of incidents (they are seldom accidents) on level crossings in the UK are the fault of either motorists or pedestrians failing to adhere to what are fairly simple rules.
My answer to this much earlier question explains my views.
http://
Of course anything that can be done to protect people from their own stupidity is welcome but too little emphasis is placed on the fact that if the rules are adhered to then such incidents would be greatly reduced.
// if the rules are adhered to then such incidents would be greatly reduced. //
this includes Network Rail, who are woefully inept when it comes to assessing risk :- http://
this includes Network Rail, who are woefully inept when it comes to assessing risk :- http://
Yes mush, all parties must adhere to the rules, and there will always be rare instances where the motorist is not to blame.
The occurrence at in Suffolk occurred on an “occupational crossing”. These are crossings on private land and are operated by the landowner. This type of crossing is not accessible to the general public and they outnumber public crossings in the UK by about six to one.
More than 95% (RoSPA figures) of incidents at public level crossings occur because of motorist or pedestrian abuse. It is probably true to say that about the same proportion of incidents at traffic light controlled major road junctions (especially those where minor road cross major ones) are due to the same cause. Bearing in mind that almost all public level crossings are also protected by some sort of physical barrier, it is no more reasonable to suggest that level crossing are “inherently unsafe” as it is to suggest that light controlled road junctions are. Few motorists would attempt to dodge barriers if they protected the minor road on which they were travelling from a major dual carriageway carrying heavy fast moving traffic. If and when they did nobody would suggest that such crossings were unsafe when collisions or near misses occurred and there would not be calls for their abolition. Quite why the safety of level crossings is called into question when the vast majority of incidents are caused by abuse is not quite clear to me.
The occurrence at in Suffolk occurred on an “occupational crossing”. These are crossings on private land and are operated by the landowner. This type of crossing is not accessible to the general public and they outnumber public crossings in the UK by about six to one.
More than 95% (RoSPA figures) of incidents at public level crossings occur because of motorist or pedestrian abuse. It is probably true to say that about the same proportion of incidents at traffic light controlled major road junctions (especially those where minor road cross major ones) are due to the same cause. Bearing in mind that almost all public level crossings are also protected by some sort of physical barrier, it is no more reasonable to suggest that level crossing are “inherently unsafe” as it is to suggest that light controlled road junctions are. Few motorists would attempt to dodge barriers if they protected the minor road on which they were travelling from a major dual carriageway carrying heavy fast moving traffic. If and when they did nobody would suggest that such crossings were unsafe when collisions or near misses occurred and there would not be calls for their abolition. Quite why the safety of level crossings is called into question when the vast majority of incidents are caused by abuse is not quite clear to me.
It's the responsibility of Rail, too, to ensure as safe as possible an environment for their employees, i.e. the train drivers. The trauma to the driver of hitting a person or vehicle stupid enough to be on the crossing (for whatever reason) must be awful - this is their workplace and presumably H&S rules of some sort apply equally for them.
1 to 16 of 16
