You Could Have Protected Her....
News0 min ago
Level Crossings
9 Answers
In the wake of yesterday's incident at a level crossing in Suffolk, questions have been asked about the safety of road - rail user interfaces.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11009227
The Law Commission have stated that the law on level crossings is "complex, outdated and difficult to access, creating problems for regulators, owners and operators and increasing the safety risk for users".
It further states that "it was time bring level crossing law into line with modern legislation, rather than the current 19th century private legislation it was based on".
Short of eliminating crossings - which Network Rail would like to do but cannot afford - how can level crossings be made safer for all users? Clearly it is no longer acceptable to expect users to be responsible for their own safety.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11009227
The Law Commission have stated that the law on level crossings is "complex, outdated and difficult to access, creating problems for regulators, owners and operators and increasing the safety risk for users".
It further states that "it was time bring level crossing law into line with modern legislation, rather than the current 19th century private legislation it was based on".
Short of eliminating crossings - which Network Rail would like to do but cannot afford - how can level crossings be made safer for all users? Clearly it is no longer acceptable to expect users to be responsible for their own safety.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
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.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
// Clearly it is no longer acceptable to expect users to be responsible for their own safety //
And why not? There is no difference between being reckless at a level crossing and being reckless on a motorway. You do not hear calls for motorways to be shut after a pileup caused by bad driving. This crossing had a phone to find out if the line was clear. The driver for whatever reason did not use it, and caused the crash. At the end of the day, just poor driving, happens all the time.
And why not? There is no difference between being reckless at a level crossing and being reckless on a motorway. You do not hear calls for motorways to be shut after a pileup caused by bad driving. This crossing had a phone to find out if the line was clear. The driver for whatever reason did not use it, and caused the crash. At the end of the day, just poor driving, happens all the time.
Quite so Gromit.
The vast majority of “accidents” involving level crossings are the fault of the motorist or pedestrian. As far as signalled or gated crossings are concerned only very rarely is any sort of mechanical malfunction of the crossing or its signalling system to blame.
The UK has the lowest rate of deaths (per head of the population) than any other European country and by that measure is twice as safe as the next best (Spain) and fifty times as safe as the worst (Hungary, where 118 people were killed in level crossing incidents in 2008).
The cause of almost all the incidents in the UK is drivers or pedestrians ignoring the appropriate procedures for crossing the line. If a pedestrian or motorist caused an incident by disregarding the potential for a collision when crossing a busy dual carriageway there would be no question who was to blame and no call for such crossings to be replaced by separation.
I take issue with the Law Commission’s comments. The law on level crossings is quite straightforward and clear and is covered both in the Highway Code and in the Road Traffic Act. If drivers and pedestrians cannot obey the law and exhibit common sense and good practice it is they who should be brought to book.
The vast majority of “accidents” involving level crossings are the fault of the motorist or pedestrian. As far as signalled or gated crossings are concerned only very rarely is any sort of mechanical malfunction of the crossing or its signalling system to blame.
The UK has the lowest rate of deaths (per head of the population) than any other European country and by that measure is twice as safe as the next best (Spain) and fifty times as safe as the worst (Hungary, where 118 people were killed in level crossing incidents in 2008).
The cause of almost all the incidents in the UK is drivers or pedestrians ignoring the appropriate procedures for crossing the line. If a pedestrian or motorist caused an incident by disregarding the potential for a collision when crossing a busy dual carriageway there would be no question who was to blame and no call for such crossings to be replaced by separation.
I take issue with the Law Commission’s comments. The law on level crossings is quite straightforward and clear and is covered both in the Highway Code and in the Road Traffic Act. If drivers and pedestrians cannot obey the law and exhibit common sense and good practice it is they who should be brought to book.
They are as safe as they can be, there will always be numpties on the road. I got castigated by some on here when I suggested dodging in and out of traffic to cross a dual carraigway was dangerous and unncecessary when there was a nearby sub way! People often think the rules are unnecessary or don't apply to them. 99% of accidents on level crossings are caused by idiots, some would argue the gene pool is healthier for that!
1 to 9 of 9
