• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Probe into rail crossing claims

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <c5ied4l97990gn723o77602mot4oqougl1@4ax.com>, at 08:36:39 on
> Mon, 22 Sep 2008, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> remarked:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7625223.stm
>>>
>>> Theres a photo of a train running through the crossing with no warning
>>> lights flashing on the website link above.
>>
>> Should be very easy to see what happened, by interrogating the data
>> recorder.
>
> Isn't the misunderstanding here that the crossing can still be used by
> trains if the lights are defective, but the trains have to stop at the
> crossing and then proceed on sight. A photo such as the one above does
> not either prove of disprove that the train did this (even if it may
> show the lights out of action).


IMHO the issue is
"If the lights aren't flashing does that mean clear to go or give way to
trains".  It is traditional for no lights to mean cars can proceed merrily with
the guarantee of safety (all that expensive and much praised safety culture of
the railways don't you know).  However that appears not to be the case here
where faulty operation does appear to have been observed over time.  This
reduces the crossing with no lights to a 'give way to trains at all times' (as
you can't trust the lights - and trains can't stop on the spot).  So regardless
of NR saying the procedure for operating the crossing is 'safe' even when the
lights are defective it means the whole nature of motorist's use of the crossing
is changed - from certainty to complete uncertainty - "Fail vague" you might
call it.


--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

Antworten