Level crossings

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:49:38 +0100 someone who may be Colin Blackburn <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I noticed today that there have been two cyclists killed on level crossings this week:

news.bbc.co.uk3177462.stmOpen ↗

I have not heard of this one before, but it is highly likely that he ignored the flashing red lights
and half-barriers.

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3169698.stmOpen ↗

I have heard of this one. Apparently the boy, ignoring the flashing red lights and lowered
half-barriers, zig-zagged around the barriers and was hit by the train.

Three things to note:

1) The barriers come down 10-12 seconds or so before the train passes. It is advisable to wait for
the few seconds it will take the train to pass.

2) Zig-zagging around the barriers means taking a less than ideal path across the rails, maximising
the chances of falling off.

3) The meaning of the flashing red lights is crystal clear. Anyone ignoring them is stupid.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I noticed today that there have been two cyclists killed on level crossings this week:

news.bbc.co.uk3177462.stmOpen ↗

news.bbc.co.uk3169698.stmOpen ↗

Here's a link to our deadly local one which has seen many injuries over the years:

thebikezone.org.ukspringbank.htmlOpen ↗

Simon

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I noticed today that there have been two cyclists killed on level crossings this week:

I saw them - the reports went to great pains to point out that nobody on board the trains was
injured. No [censored], Sherlock.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

David Hansen <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

3) The meaning of the flashing red lights is crystal clear. Anyone ignoring them is stupid.

ITYM 'suicidal'...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

In "]news:[email hidden], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I noticed today that there have been two cyclists killed on level crossings this week:

I saw them - the reports went to great pains to point out that nobody on board the trains was
injured. No [censored], Sherlock.

Well, not everyone knows that trains are safe. After all, you never hear about anyone getting
injured in a car crash, do you. But if there's a train crash, well, then you can't miss it.

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:49:38 +0100 someone who may be Colin Blackburn
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

3) The meaning of the flashing red lights is crystal clear. Anyone ignoring them is stupid.

absolutely!

Just zis Guy said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I noticed today that there have been two cyclists killed on level crossings this week:

I saw them - the reports went to great pains to point out that nobody on board the trains was
injured. No [censored], Sherlock.

And they weren't wearing h*lm*ts either (the train passengers that is)

John B

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I noticed today that there have been two cyclists killed on level crossings this week:

news.bbc.co.uk3177462.stmOpen ↗

news.bbc.co.uk3169698.stmOpen ↗

Here's a link to our deadly local one which has seen many injuries over

the

Quoted message said:

years:

thebikezone.org.ukspringbank.htmlOpen ↗

I read on this NG quite regularly the (correct IMHO) assertion that there are no dangerous roads,
only dangerous drivers. How is this different for cyclists?

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:37:00 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah Vecht <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) The meaning of the flashing red lights is crystal clear. Anyone ignoring them is stupid.

ITYM 'suicidal'...

That as well, though I suspect that few of these people wanted to kill themselves which is why I
used the word stupid.

Unfortunately it is not just a personal thing. They also affect the train driver that watched them
disappear under the front of their train and those that have to clear up afterwards.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a link to our deadly local one which has seen many injuries over

the

Quoted message said:

years:

thebikezone.org.ukspringbank.htmlOpen ↗

I read on this NG quite regularly the (correct IMHO) assertion that there are no dangerous roads,
only dangerous drivers. How is this different for cyclists?

Because of the angle of the rails. When they are wet your front wheel hits a rail, slides away and
you come off. This doesn't a happen in a car. Simon

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a link to our deadly local one which has seen many injuries

over

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

years:

thebikezone.org.ukspringbank.htmlOpen ↗

I read on this NG quite regularly the (correct IMHO) assertion that

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are no dangerous roads, only dangerous drivers. How is this different

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclists?

Because of the angle of the rails. When they are wet your front wheel

hits

Quoted message said:

a rail, slides away and you come off. This doesn't a happen in a car. Simon

Then surely you simply go slowly and carefully, perhaps getting off and pushing your bike over if
necessary?

Nathaniel Porter must be edykated coz e writed:

Quoted message said:

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>
> Here's a link to our deadly local one which has seen many injuries

over

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the
> years:
>
> thebikezone.org.ukspringbank.htmlOpen ↗
>

I read on this NG quite regularly the (correct IMHO) assertion that

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are no dangerous roads, only dangerous drivers. How is this different

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclists?

Because of the angle of the rails. When they are wet your front wheel

hits

Quoted message said:

a rail, slides away and you come off. This doesn't a happen in a car. Simon

Then surely you simply go slowly and carefully, perhaps getting off and pushing your bike over if
necessary?

Strange, I don't fall off, another reason to buy a trike.

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

David Hansen said:

I have heard of this one. Apparently the boy, ignoring the flashing red lights and lowered
half-barriers, zig-zagged around the barriers and was hit by the train.

Three things to note:

1) The barriers come down 10-12 seconds or so before the train passes. It is advisable to wait for
the few seconds it will take the train to pass.

2) Zig-zagging around the barriers means taking a less than ideal path across the rails,
maximising the chances of falling off.

3) The meaning of the flashing red lights is crystal clear. Anyone ignoring them is stupid.

But shouldn't the driver of a hundred tons of metal doing 70mph be responsible for the safety of
more vulnerable (or even venerable) crossing users? ;-^)

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I read on this NG quite regularly the (correct IMHO) assertion that

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are no dangerous roads, only dangerous drivers. How is this different

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclists?

Because of the angle of the rails. When they are wet your front wheel

hits

Quoted message said:

a rail, slides away and you come off. This doesn't a happen in a car. Simon

Then surely you simply go slowly and carefully, perhaps getting off and pushing your bike over if
necessary?

Rather than Railtrack or whoever it is this week fixing the problem for good so it presents no
danger to any road vehicle you mean? Yes, I can see the logic in that; it's much cheaper and you
can always blame the silly cyclist for not getting off and pushing their bike across.

Simon

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because of the angle of the rails. When they are wet your front wheel

hits

Quoted message said:

a rail, slides away and you come off. This doesn't a happen in a car. Simon

Then surely you simply go slowly and carefully, perhaps getting off and pushing your bike over if
necessary?

No, this is usenet, and that would be too simple.It is going to take another 200 posts on this
subject before everyone agrees to disagree on the subject. Alan.

--
Change the 'minus' to 'plus' to reply by mail. dvatc.co.ukdvatc.co.ukOpen ↗ off-road cycling in the
North Midlands.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:55:01 +0100 someone who may be "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Rather than Railtrack or whoever it is this week fixing the problem for good so it presents no
danger to any road vehicle you mean?

To quote from the web page, "The problem at this crossing was really created a number of years ago
(c1991) when the road was realigned so that the angle at which the lines had to be crossed was
increased. "

I somehow doubt that the railways realigned the road, or wanted it realigned. Perhaps you could
indicate how they did?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> I read on this NG quite regularly the (correct IMHO) assertion that

there

Quoted message said:

> are no dangerous roads, only dangerous drivers. How is this

different

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for

Quoted message said:

> cyclists?

Because of the angle of the rails. When they are wet your front wheel

hits

Quoted message said:

a rail, slides away and you come off. This doesn't a happen in a car. Simon

Then surely you simply go slowly and carefully, perhaps getting off and pushing your bike over
if necessary?

Rather than Railtrack or whoever it is this week fixing the problem for
good so it presents no danger to any road vehicle you mean? Yes, I can

see

Quoted message said:

the logic in that; it's much cheaper and you can always blame the silly cyclist for not getting
off and pushing their bike across.

Well, yes actually. Given the state of the railways, any problem that has an easy workaround has too
be pushed down the todo list in order for more serious problems to be rectified.

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:55:01 +0100 someone who may be "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Rather than Railtrack or whoever it is this week fixing the problem for good so it presents no
danger to any road vehicle you mean?

To quote from the web page, "The problem at this crossing was really created a number of years ago
(c1991) when the road was realigned so that the angle at which the lines had to be crossed was
increased. "

I somehow doubt that the railways realigned the road, or wanted it realigned. Perhaps you could
indicate how they did?

I can't remember that far back, or why it was realigned in 1991 - I'll try and find out. Anyhow
David, what's going on? Here's me sticking up for the poor cyclist and you're defending the car
driving lobby so that they don't get inconvenienced by digging up "their road" for a few biker's
safety. What's happened? ;-)

Simon

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Well, yes actually. Given the state of the railways, any problem that has

an

Quoted message said:

easy workaround has too be pushed down the todo list in order for more serious problems to be
rectified.

I would have thought that years and years of NHS treatment of injured cyclists would end up costing
a few bob as well. Simon