Another level crossing crash

[John]

just have to rewrite this post - watched film footage on the bcc website and the police are pretty certain the lights were working

they just don't know why the car was on the level crossing, however the words '17', 'male' and 'mates in car' suggests only one thing really...

and seriously, the local councellors are complaining there should be a barriers - the last fatality was 15 years ago, the last major injury was 11...
(although i suspect road usage has increased since then, and rare deaths doesn't exactly justify little investment)

and Bob Crowe?
I think he needs to go on some management training course or something - how about we 'fix' the railway system first before spending billions (and i mean billions) changing all the level crossings to tunnels/bridges (not to mention that in some cases there is no alternative).

hmm, 30% of railway crashes include vehicles...

[orudge]

Leave the crossing as they are, we may get rid of a few more stupid people this way... natural selection and all that.

[John]

Leave the crossing as they are, we may get rid of a few more stupid people this way... natural selection and all that.

i was tempted to write that, but i thought someone might get offended...

[Train-a-Mania]

The train was 2H61 Inverness-Wick. As the article said, left at 0714. It was probably a 158, but I can't find a picture of the train anywhere. The Sky article does say they're 2 carriaged so it's probably a 156 or 158.

Look at the news clip. It shows the train, stopped.

Reminds me of a TV show I saw. This man's son or daughter tried to beat an Amtrak train to a railroad crossing - and lost. His response was that the crossing should've had barriers.

[Dave]

Was a 158.

A sad story, compounded by the reporter - and I admit that this doesn't stop a family mourning. But I'll say it again - "when flashing lights show YOU MUST STOP".

It explicitly says that in the Highway Code.

[WWTBAM]

I agree to the bridge thing if people want a bridge or better crossings the road company should have to pay or pay partially in the case of a crossing.

However, most roads are owned by the authorities (being local authority, national authority or something in between). If a level crossing would be replaced by a bridge, then the people themselves have to pay (by taxes).

It may be cheaper to pay for the accidents (once every few years) than to construct a bridge or a tunnel (and to maintain it).
No matter how much money you will put into something to get it safe, it will never be 100% safe. So I guess that such level crossing accidents will just happen from time to time.

yeah. That does make a difference but then ofcourse if its despirately need its a different case. In some places here in Aus if they are widening or doing road works they will either totaly bypass the old crossing or half bypass it so only one direction has to cross it Ie the older section of road.