Level crossings

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

Quoted message said:

"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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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? ;-)

What about the train users who have "their" railway line dug up? Or residence who have to put up
with the noise from the roadworks?

It's a relatively small problem with a simple workaround. There are more important things to
deal with.

Tony Raven said:

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? ;-^)

And when the signals broke down on the Tube this morning, why couldn't the drivers just stop if they
saw another train ahead? Works on the road ;-)

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

has

Quoted message said:

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.

If the cyclists worked around the problem, no money would be spent on NHS treatment of said
cyclists. Perhaps signs should be put up to warn cyclists new to the area of the problem and suggest
a workaround, but there's no excuse for anyone who knows the crossing and it's problems.

Nathaniel Porter 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?

If you have to leave your vehicle then you are no longer talking about a valid route.

The difference between this & the case of car users complaining about dangerous roads is that they
are really asking for *faster* roads. NP is merely asking for *usable* roads.

When was the last time drivers were expected to 'get out and push' (or whatever the car equiv of
'cyclists dismount' is) rather than make a safety improvement to the road.

Actually, I *can* think of an example - pedestrianisation.

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >
> > Here's a link to our deadly local one which has seen many injuries

over

Quoted message said:

> the
> > years:
> >
> >

thebikezone.org.ukspringbank.htmlOpen ↗

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:

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

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?

If you have to leave your vehicle then you are no longer talking about a valid route.

Then go around the hazard by another route.

Quoted message said:

The difference between this & the case of car users complaining about dangerous roads is that they
are really asking for *faster* roads.

Granted.

Quoted message said:

NP is merely asking for *usable* roads.

But the level crossing is usable.

Quoted message said:

When was the last time drivers were expected to 'get out and push' (or whatever the car equiv of
'cyclists dismount' is) rather than make a safety improvement to the road.

Actually, I *can* think of an example - pedestrianisation.

Prohibited right turns, low and narrow bridges, some one way streets all involve at least some
drivers having to take an alternative route as well.

Anyway, is it *really* too much trouble to walk 20 yards?

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

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 ↗

Surely they need some sort of sign to tell cyclists that they must cross the rails at 90 degrees
(with a little diagram), and another sign to warn motorists to look out for cyclists pulling out to
cross rails! I know it's just stating the obvious but it might help.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

If it's true that both riders ignored the red lights and barriers, my 'sympathy' reading is nil.

Hmm, lets see. The barriers are down. Shall I play with a 100ton vehicle which has right of way,
just to save two minutes of my very important time.....I think the phrase is 'Darwinism' :-P

Regards,

Pete.

Nathaniel Porter said:

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

SNIP

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

If you have to leave your vehicle then you are no longer talking about a valid route.

Then go around the hazard by another route.

Quoted message said:

The difference between this & the case of car users complaining about dangerous roads is that
they are really asking for *faster* roads.

Granted.

Quoted message said:

NP is merely asking for *usable* roads.

But the level crossing is usable.

Quoted message said:

When was the last time drivers were expected to 'get out and push' (or whatever the car equiv of
'cyclists dismount' is) rather than make a safety improvement to the road.

Actually, I *can* think of an example - pedestrianisation.

Prohibited right turns, low and narrow bridges, some one way streets all involve at least some
drivers having to take an alternative route as well.

Anyway, is it *really* too much trouble to walk 20 yards?

If you're cycling for the sake of cycling then of course not.

If you're cycling as transport and weighing up speed & ease on a bike vs the same journey by car -
then it matters very much.

Particularly if your trip has another point where you are expected to get off and push 'just for 20
yards' half a mile further on. Oh, and the 'cyclists dismount' you've just passed. etc.

A certain David Hansen, of uk.rec.cycling "fame", writes :

Quoted message 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.

I can't understand how this can happen. There are always big signs leading up to the crossing "do
not attempt to cross while the lights are flashing". I always hear about motorists trying to chance
their arm, I don't hear much about cyclists doing it.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:27:02 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Prohibited right turns, low and narrow bridges, some one way streets all involve at least some
drivers having to take an alternative route as

well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, is it *really* too much trouble to walk 20 yards?

If you're cycling for the sake of cycling then of course not.

If you're cycling as transport and weighing up speed & ease on a bike vs the same journey by car -
then it matters very much.

Over 20 yards? That seems as stupid as the several idiots who thought it necessary to overtake a
cyclist (who was doing at least 25 MPH by my speedo) 50 yds before a red signal. The gain in both
instances is pathetically small.

Quoted message said:

Particularly if your trip has another point where you are expected to get off and push 'just for
20 yards' half a mile further on.

That's fair comment, I certainly wouldn't advocate an attitude which would allow the situation you
just described. However, I believe the situation the OP was referring too was somewhat of a one-off.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and the 'cyclists dismount' you've just passed. etc.

AFAIK, "Cyclists Dismount" signs are only used at the end of shared-use and divided foot/cycle
paths, and never apply to the main carriageway. That seems reasonable to me.

David Hansen said:

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.

I don't know about the particular ones in this case but sometimes there can be a delay of several
minutes after level crossing barriers have come down with no trains in sight. That is why people get
impatient. Getting the timings right might help a little.

Quoted message said:

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

They are but it doesn't make these incidents any less sad and doesn't mean better crossings
shouldn't be designed where possible. Children do stupid things and need to be protected.

~PB

Peter Connolly said:

Hmm, lets see. The barriers are down. Shall I play with a 100ton vehicle which has right of way,
just to save two minutes of my very important time.....I think the phrase is 'Darwinism' :-P

I find the logical inconsistencies curious here. If its a 100 ton vehicle on rails its Darwinism and
their own fault for getting it wrong. In other threads, if its a 1 ton vehicle on the road its the
vehicle driver's fault for not anticipating they might get it wrong. Which is it to be?

Tony

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

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't know about the particular ones in this case but sometimes there can be a delay of several
minutes after level crossing barriers have come down with no trains in sight. That is why people
get impatient. Getting the timings right might help a little.

Timings are tricky on automated crossings. The trigger has to be at a point far enough from the
crossing for there to be a safe amount of time plus a healthy safety margin, for a train travelling
at maximum speed for that line. So when a much slower train comes along (for whatever reason) the
time delay can seem vast.

Colin Blackburn 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 ↗

Two possibilities:

(1) People competing for Darwin awards

(2) Faulty lights and/or barriers, which given the state of our failways isn't impossible

If the second I have some sympathy.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

Not Responding said:

When was the last time drivers were expected to 'get out and push' (or whatever the car equiv of
'cyclists dismount' is) rather than make a safety improvement to the road.

Every time someone trots out " Then you should have been going slower" Mr Porter was IMHO both right
and wrong , the same standards should apply to all road users, either blame the road or not but you
can't blame it for cyclists and then tell car drivers that there are no "unsafe roads" without
tarring every cyclist that has had a one vehicle accident as an "unsafe road user" . IMHO there are
roads which are unsafe for different types of vehicles used under the prevailing conditions. These
roads vary depending on vehcile and conditions.

--
Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
types jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗ Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
and dealers.

Nathaniel Porter said:

Anyway, is it *really* too much trouble to walk 20 yards?

Yes, quite often it is - at least one or my pairs of cycling shoes are extremely uncomfortable to
walk in, and also give very little traction so on slippery surfaces are quite hazardous to walk in.
'Cyclists dismount' is the _most_ _offensive_ roadsign I've ever seen, and underlines the fact that,
as far as the creators of farcilities are concerned, we're scum.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Connolly said:

Hmm, lets see. The barriers are down. Shall I play with a 100ton vehicle which has right of way,
just to save two minutes of my very important time.....I think the phrase is 'Darwinism' :-P

I find the logical inconsistencies curious here. If its a 100 ton vehicle on rails its Darwinism
and their own fault for getting it wrong. In other threads, if its a 1 ton vehicle on the road its
the vehicle driver's fault for not anticipating they might get it wrong. Which is it to be?

No logical inconsistency, just different rules for different modes.

Or, put another way, any perceived logical inconsitency is as a result of linking two
unrelated things.

I can explain further if you wish, but I suspect you know the answer.

clive

Tony Raven said:

Peter Connolly said:

Hmm, lets see. The barriers are down. Shall I play with a 100ton vehicle which has right of way,
just to save two minutes of my very important time.....I think the phrase is 'Darwinism' :-P

I find the logical inconsistencies curious here. If its a 100 ton vehicle on rails its Darwinism
and their own fault for getting it wrong. In other threads, if its a 1 ton vehicle on the road its
the vehicle driver's fault for not anticipating they might get it wrong. Which is it to be?

The driver of a train cannot swerve and cannot stop quickly. (S)he is running on a track which he
quite explicitly does not share with *anyone*, and there is a complicated system of signals and
points in place to guarantee that there is never more tha one train on the same set of rails at the
same time. Anything else on his bit of track should not be there.

By contrast, a car driver can swerve and can stop quickly. (S)he is driving on a road which is
shared with a wide range of other vehicles of different types, with widely varying weight, speed,
manouverability and acceleration. There is no system guaranteeing the exclusive use of any part of
the roadt to any one vehicle. Anything else on the same bit of road has an equal right to be there.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Iraq war: it's time for regime change... ... go now, Tony, while you can still go
with dignity.

A certain Pete Biggs, of uk.rec.cycling "fame", writes :

Quoted message said:

I don't know about the particular ones in this case but sometimes there can be a delay of several
minutes after level crossing barriers have come down with no trains in sight. That is why people
get impatient. Getting the timings right might help a little.

Impatience isn't an excuse in these situations though. When we're dealing with hundreds of tonnes of
steel flying along at speeds in excess of 70mph, I'd much rather have a decent margin of error.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

David Hansen said:

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

Perhaps not if you're from "up north" this reminded me of an urban legend I'd read about somewhere.
A quick google produced this:

tinyurl.comqhm5Open ↗

CD