Car hit by train at Athelney Level Crossing - man killed - 21 March 2013

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Somerset rail crash driver 'thought crossing failed'

Athelney crossing is an automatic half barrier type

A man who was killed when he drove around a level crossing in Somerset may have "believed the crossing had failed", a report has found.

Dennis France, 65, died when his car was hit by a train at Athelney crossing, near Taunton, in March 2013.

Engineering work meant the half-barrier was held down for longer than usual.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch has made recommendations to Network Rail to reduce the risk of extended operating times at level crossings.

Mr France, who was due to retire from his job at Debenhams in Taunton a week later, decided to drive round the automatic half-barrier shortly before 06:30 GMT.

'Regular user'

His car was hit by a high speed train travelling from Exeter St David's to London Paddington at about 100mph.

Engineering work had affected the timing sequence of the level crossing which was regularly used by Mr France.

The RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report stated: "Since the motorist was a regular user of Athelney level crossing, he may have believed the crossing had failed when a train had not passed the crossing within the normal period within which a train would arrive."

The report said Mr France, from Curload near Stoke St Gregory, had initially waited at the crossing but two witnesses said they then saw the car "roll back" from the lowered barrier and drive around it.

The report found the level crossing was lowered for between 75 and 103 seconds, instead of the 'normal' period of around 29 seconds before the train arrived.

It added that he may have believed that he would be able to see the train and stop in time or else that he had sufficient time to cross before it arrived.

The report also stated that Mr France had not contacted the signaller by telephone before he drove around the barriers.

Recommendations made by the RAIB included asking Network Rail to reduce the risk resulting from extended operating times of automatic level crossings and modifying the location of the pedestrian stop lines at Athelney.

It also recommended that consideration should be given to improving the signage and positioning of telephones at automatic level crossings for non-emergency use.

Forgive the comment on a news item I've posted myself, but I always suspected that this incident was due to a local person, perhaps used to a particular time and sequence for that crossing, making an assumption that it was safe to cross despite the barriers being down.

This incident cannot highlight more starkly that, if a level crossing is closed to road traffic, then road users must assume a train is coming. If they are unsure, or believe the closed crossing may have failed, then they MUST use the telephone provided and not weave around the barriers. AHB crossings do occasionally fail, but almost always, they fail 'safe'. That's what they are designed to do. 'Wrong side' failures are extremely rare events. Lights flashing and/or barriers down = train coming. Don't ignore.

[bobm]

I can only echo bignosemac's comments.

Just to add, I was told last month that the train driver involved has yet to return to full driving duties nearly a year after the accident.  While I have sympathy for the family of the man who died, my heart goes out to the train driver who was "only doing his job".

[TonyK]

Hear hear! The train driver can do nothing but slam on the brakes and sound his horn, knowing he will never stop in time.

[Cynthia]

I could not agree more with the last two postings.  Whenever there is news of an accident at a barrier/level crossing, there never seems to be any mention of the poor train driver.  I can only imagine what a horrible experience this sort of occurrence must be.  Even if it's 'only' a near miss, like the woman on a bicycle recently who leapt out of the way of an oncoming train.  I imagine, under those circumstances that the driver probably doesn't even see a pedestrian near the line, until it's too late?  Perhaps even worse is the selfishness of people wanting to take their own lives by throwing themselves in front of an oncoming train.  How is a train driver supposed to live with a memory like that for the rest of his or her life?

[bobm]

I understand since my last posting that the train driver concerned has now returned to work.

[ChrisB]

Perhaps even worse is the selfishness of people wanting to take their own lives by throwing themselves in front of an oncoming train. 

Hmmm - if your mind is sufficiently disturbed in order to do this, I'm absolutely sure that it is also too disturbed to think of others. Mental illness isn't nice, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

[Cynthia]

I'm not denying mental health is a serious issue.  I'm not sure there's any difference between the person throwing himself in front of a train, or someone equally disturbed who hides himself away to 'do the deed'.  However ill someone may be, there are still facets of his personality that will affect his choice about the methodology.  The consequences are the same for all the witnesses concerned, however.

[ChrisB]

I was tackling your use of "selfishness". The mentally ill do not comprehend this, and thus it is difficult to attach the word to their actions.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Dennis France inquest: Car engine 'flew through air' after crash


Athelney crossing is an automatic half barrier type

A car's engine was ripped out and threw through the air as the vehicle was struck by a train at 100mph (161km/h), an inquest has heard.

Dennis France, 65, died when his car was hit by the Exeter to London train at Athelney crossing, near Taunton, in March 2013.

Mr France "rolled back" and drove over the crossing having waited between 30 and 60 seconds, the inquest heard.

A previous report said Mr France may have thought the crossing had failed.

Engineering work had affected the timing sequence of the level crossing which was regularly used by Mr France.

The driver of the train told the inquest in Taunton that "he couldn't believe what had happened". William Ashton said: "There was a very loud bang. I was immediately in shock."

He added he had not seen if anyone was inside the car and was also worried the train, which travelled three-quarters-of-a-mile following the impact, would derail.

Another witness, a cyclist, told the coroner she had been at the barrier earlier that morning. She said the barrier was down and felt she had been waiting for between five and 10 minutes. Gemma Miller said: "I walked up my bike and round the barrier [and] looked both ways, it was eerily quiet."

She added that she felt the crossing was safer with a bike as she could see and hear more clearly than being in a car.

Mr France had worked as a security guard for Debenhams in Taunton for 23 years, and was due to retire the following week.

One of Mr France's friends, Alison Chedham described him as "reliable, supportive, kind and lots of fun".

The inquest at Taunton continues.

[JayMac]

Disappointing to read that a witness at the inquest also made what could have been a fatal error. Another road user, this time a cyclist, ignoring the flashing red lights and barriers. Again, not bothering to to use the phone provided.

If the barriers are down and the lights are flashing you must assume a train is coming. If you believe they've failed then you must not assume it is safe to cross. Use the phone provided.

On a legal point, can someone called as a witness to an inquest be prosecuted after giving evidence which includes them admitting a summary offence?

[ellendune]

On a legal point, can someone called as a witness to an inquest be prosecuted after giving evidence which includes them admitting a summary offence?

I hope not otherwise inquests, which are supposed to find out what happened partly so that future occurrences are avoided, would not be able to do their job.

[broadgage]

Disappointing to read that a witness at the inquest also made what could have been a fatal error. Another road user, this time a cyclist, ignoring the flashing red lights and barriers. Again, not bothering to to use the phone provided.

If the barriers are down and the lights are flashing you must assume a train is coming. If you believe they've failed then you must not assume it is safe to cross. Use the phone provided.

On a legal point, can someone called as a witness to an inquest be prosecuted after giving evidence which includes them admitting a summary offence?

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know), a witness CAN in theory be prosecuted if in the evidence that they give, they admit to breaking the law themselves. However there seems to be an un written rule not to prosecute witnesses except in the most extreme circumstances. In my view this is correct, many people including myself, would be very reluctant to give evidence in court if the likely result was being prosecuted themselves.
The actions of the cyclist certainly seem to have been both unwise and illegal, but in this particular case I do not feel that prosecution would be appropriate.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Dennis France inquest: 'Error of judgement' led to level crossing death


Dennis France was a stickler for time and was proud of never being late for work as a security guard

A man who was killed driving through a closed level crossing when he was late for work made an "error of judgement", an inquest heard.

David France died when his car was hit by an oncoming train at a half-barrier crossing near Taunton in March 2013.

Coroner Michael Rose told Taunton Shire Hall Mr France was "influenced by his desire not to be late for work," because he was a stickler for time.

The inquest jury ruled the security guard's death was accidental.

Mr France, who was just a week away from retirement, was stuck at the crossing at Athelney by barriers that were down for longer than usual, although they were not faulty.

In what the coroner described as "a tragic accident" the inquest heard how Mr France decided to drive around the barriers - which only covered half of the road.

Mr Rose used a Network Rail estimate of 103 seconds of how long Mr France waited before crossing. He then asked jurors to sit in silence for that period of time to give them Mr France's perspective.

The coroner will now write to Network Rail to recommend installing a full barrier crossing and moving signal boxes to improve visibility.

Mr France worked at Debenhams head office in Taunton for 23 years and had always arrived on time for work.

His friend Alison Chedham, said: "He didn't want to let his workmates down he always said to me if he was late for work then the person who had been working all night was late home."

Speaking of the inquest conclusion she added: "Clearly Dennis made a mistake, made an error of judgement which we all do at times, fortunately it doesn't always cost us so dearly."

A Network Rail spokesman, said it was determined to close as many level crossings as possible and has pledged to shut a further 500 crossings by 2019.

[TonyK]

On a legal point, can someone called as a witness to an inquest be prosecuted after giving evidence which includes them admitting a summary offence?

The short answer is yes. If the evidence is given under oath, an attempt to deny it under oath in another forum could give rise to a charge of perjury, maximum sentence 7 years, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly). At no time in any legal proceedings can you be compelled to give evidence that could incriminate you, something enshrined in US law in the 5th Amendment to their constitution, and a tenet of judicial procedure in England and Wales for many a long year.

Common sense sometimes prevails. In a serious incident resulting from outside influence, a criminal investigation will take place alongside the Coroner's investigation, and in this case the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)'s own work. Often, the agencies will share information, to avoid duplication, but each has its own distinct purpose in looking at the incident.  The Crown Prosecution Service may indicate before the inquest that no charges will be brought, or they may indicate that they will not use the defendant's evidence to the inquest at the trial, usually where they are satisfied that a conviction can be secured without it. That would not preclude the prosecution asking the same questions in court - it would be a matter for the defendant to decide whether or not to answer.

Coroners' Inquests are a vital part of the legal system, and often lead to recommendations for improving safety. In railway terms, this has been an incremental process from the time the first train ran, and it is likely that without it, our railways would be some years behind the current standard of safety. Hence why witnesses are encouraged to speak openly, so far as they can. A lot of the law relating to negligence, personal injury, and duty of care grew from some rather gruesome rail accidents in Victorian times, doing away with the attitude of "They bought their ticket, they knew the risks" at an early stage.

[ellendune]

On a legal point, can someone called as a witness to an inquest be prosecuted after giving evidence which includes them admitting a summary offence?

The short answer is yes. If the evidence is given under oath, an attempt to deny it under oath in another forum could give rise to a charge of perjury, maximum sentence 7 years, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly). At no time in any legal proceedings can you be compelled to give evidence that r other authorised officercould incriminate you, something enshrined in US law in the 5th Amendment to their constitution, and a tenet of judicial procedure in England and Wales for many a long year.

Common sense sometimes prevails. In a serious incident resulting from outside influence, a criminal investigation will take place alongside the Coroner's investigation, and in this case the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)'s own work. Often, the agencies will share information, to avoid duplication, but each has its own distinct purpose in looking at the incident.  The Crown Prosecution Service may indicate before the inquest that no charges will be brought, or they may indicate that they will not use the defendant's evidence to the inquest at the trial, usually where they are satisfied that a conviction can be secured without it. That would not preclude the prosecution asking the same questions in court - it would be a matter for the defendant to decide whether or not to answer.

Coroners' Inquests are a vital part of the legal system, and often lead to recommendations for improving safety. In railway terms, this has been an incremental process from the time the first train ran, and it is likely that without it, our railways would be some years behind the current standard of safety. Hence why witnesses are encouraged to speak openly, so far as they can. A lot of the law relating to negligence, personal injury, and duty of care grew from some rather gruesome rail accidents in Victorian times, doing away with the attitude of "They bought their ticket, they knew the risks" at an early stage.

I am glad the crown prosecution service sometimes takes the view that a prosecution would not be in the public interest in such cases.

Evidence to the RAIB though is that not protected?