|
|
|
Tim
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2009, 15:43:42 » |
|
Good to see BTP▸ are taking this problem seriously by monitoring crossing. i can't say that the punishment looks fair though. ^195 isn't really a lot of money and if we assume that his licence was previously clean 3 points off a licence is fairly meaningless for a 68 year old because he only has a few years of his driving career left.
To my mind you ought to loose points for careless mistakes (on the basis that anyone can make a careless mistake and only repeated mistakes indicate a dangerous driver) but get a ban for doing anything dangerous deliberately.
By analogy, a train driver wouldn't neccessary loose his job after a SPAD▸ because mistakes can and do happen, but if he kept SPADDING he would be out. If he deliberately drove through a red signal, he would get more than a ^195 fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2009, 17:32:06 » |
|
would you just drive over a zebra crossing outside a school? 3 points is fair! they dont lose there license unless they are STUPID and commit more offences or have been so in the past
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
moonrakerz
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2009, 19:30:29 » |
|
A couple of weeks ago I had a while to wait at Exeter St Davids for my onward connection. As it was a nice sunny evening I walked well down the platform at the eastern end of the station. From here I was watching the "sentry" on the level crossing (just past the platform end). On several occasions after the barriers had fallen he was beckoning pedestrians across the tracks - now, this did appear to be perfectly safe as everyone was well clear by the time a train approached.
Was this an "approved" method of operating the crossing ? or was this man just using his initiative (common sense ?) to not cause needless delay.
I just wondered after reading the OP▸ how a defence of "your employee was letting us cross when the lights were red, the barriers were down and the lights were flashing" would go down in Court !
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 22:16:04 by moonrakerz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2009, 19:39:49 » |
|
Its common for pedestrians to cross at St Davids if the crossing keeper considers it safe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2009, 09:09:57 » |
|
Not sure a fine is appropriate in such cases but any deliberate traffic offense ought to result in loss of licence. You might not be a bad person but you have demonstarted that you cannot be trusted to drive responsibly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
moonrakerz
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2009, 11:09:49 » |
|
Its common for pedestrians to cross at St Davids if the crossing keeper considers it safe.
Agreed - but my point was: if the "crossing keeper" considers it safe , why shouldn't I or the gentleman in Paignton consider it safe to cross when the gates/lights/bells etc are trying to tell me it isn't ? Surely the point of having a "keeper" is to keep people OFF the crossing when the lights etc are saying a train is coming. I am not saying the keeper was acting irresponsibly, far from it, what he was doing was quite sensible; but it does seem to mix up the message somewhat. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2009, 14:36:27 » |
|
Paignton LC▸ has a footbridge.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rogerw
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2009, 22:04:11 » |
|
Quite simple really. The Paignton driver was only charge with failing to comply with a red traffic light = a fairly minor motoring offence. The Crawley driver was charged with dangerous driving - a very serious motoring offence. The difference is in the charges and not the sentence. There was another recent case north of Peterborough where the driver was also charged with dangerous driving and received a prison sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I like to travel. It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
|
|
|
|
moonrakerz
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2009, 22:46:08 » |
|
Paignton LC▸ has a footbridge.
For cars too ?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2009, 00:15:53 » |
|
im guessing the fact that the line speed isnt high enough to cause a major derailment as its just next to the station and every train stops,may be why the punishment aint so bad then again a car on the tracks could still derail a train and and cause major disruption
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
signalandtelegraph
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2009, 20:00:57 » |
|
BT police are actively targeting Red Cow at the moment. They were there yesterday afternoon and again today. Have seen them several times over the last couple of weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bring back BR▸
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2009, 23:42:05 » |
|
BT police are actively targeting Red Cow at the moment. They were there yesterday afternoon and again today. Have seen them several times over the last couple of weeks.
you think they would have done some research if they just wanted to see tornado  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2009, 13:50:57 » |
|
Quite simple really. The Paignton driver was only charge with failing to comply with a red traffic light = a fairly minor motoring offence. The Crawley driver was charged with dangerous driving - a very serious motoring offence. The difference is in the charges and not the sentence. There was another recent case north of Peterborough where the driver was also charged with dangerous driving and received a prison sentence.
Is there not a railway-specific offense that sometimes gets used "obstructing the path of an engine or carriage" or something? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
