UK Bus driver gets double decker school bus stuck between level crossing.

Run_to_da_hills

If I was driving that bus I would have crashed straight through the barrier rather than hang about for any length of time and risk a train collision. How much is an aluminium barrier worth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XlWXcgwKS4

A bus driver who had just dropped of schoolchildren risked his own life as he tried to squeeze his double decker vehicle through a level crossing and got stuck between the closing barriers.

Marcus Lamm, 21, tried to pass over the train tracks despite the lights flashing and the gates closing in Manningtree, Essex.

But he got stuck behind a slow agricultural vehicle and did not make it across before the barriers closed, trapping him on the tracks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225710/Horrifying-moment-school-bus-driver-gets-double-decker-trapped-level-crossing-train-approaches-caught-CCTV.html

corktina

still driving buses i see....

CIE

Inexcusable. Lights going and all. And the driver of the "agricultural vehicle" was no better.

FTR, in the USA, buses and lorries in just about all states are required to come to a complete stop at level crossings before even venturing onto the tracks.

(Is this a real occurrence, BTW? I cannot figure out this source.)

Run_to_da_hills

CIE wrote: »

Inexcusable. Lights going and all. And the driver of the "agricultural vehicle" was no better.

FTR, in the USA, buses and lorries in just about all states are required to come to a complete stop at level crossings before even venturing onto the tracks.

(Is this a real occurrence, BTW? I cannot figure out this source.)

You also notice that in the states there is far less time between when the gates drop and the train comes.

gbob

Thanks for posting OP, I seriously hope that's the last time he drives a bus.

wyndham

21 is very young to have that level of responibility. Surely more experience is required to drive double deckers full of children?

CIE

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You also notice that in the states there is far less time between when the gates drop and the train comes.

Either way, the flashing lights do mean "stop behind this line, and never mind what the gates are doing".

corktina

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You also notice that in the states there is far less time between when the gates drop and the train comes.

huh? in the states most crossings don't have barriers at all and people tend to stop and look before crossing...much more sensible*. Also the time in the UK before the train arrives can be as little as 20 seconds....I recommend reading the Hixon accident report.

* people assume that the train isn't signalled until the barriers are down and the crossing seen to be safe, in reality many crossings aren't linked to the signals at all and are triggered by the approach of the train. If there are no barriers, you don't make that assumption and treat the crossing like any other road intersection imho

Dravokivich

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If I was driving that bus I would have crashed straight through the barrier rather than hang about for any length of time and risk a train collision. How much is an aluminium barrier worth?

So why wouldn't you of stopped at the lights?

markpb

Dravokivich wrote: »

So why wouldn't you of stopped at the lights?

Did you deliberately misread his post!?

Dravokivich

markpb wrote: »

Did you deliberately misread his post!?

No, he's implying the driver did nothing wrong by being on the track in the first place.

markpb

Dravokivich wrote: »

No, he's implying the driver did nothing wrong by being on the track in the first place.

Unless I'm misreading it, he said if he got stuck between the gates, he would have kept going rather than risk being struck by a train. He didn't say the driver did the right thing by getting stuck there in the first place.

Dravokivich

markpb wrote: »

Unless I'm misreading it, he said if he got stuck between the gates, he would have kept going rather than risk being struck by a train. He didn't say the driver did the right thing by getting stuck there in the first place.

What I see is he doesn't see any fault in the driver being there in the first place.

If the driver wasn't paying proper attention which resulted in him being stuck between barriers, its not very likely he'd be able to think of driving through the barriers. Heck the article even said this guy sat in the bus waiting for the train. He never considered getting out of it.

Run_to_da_hills

Dravokivich wrote: »

No, he's implying the driver did nothing wrong by being on the track in the first place.

You are putting words into my mouth, I never said that.

I said that if I was stuck between two barriers of a level crossing I would not hang around.

Buffman

All I can imagine is that he was fixated on the tractor and didn't notice the lights. No excuse though, a lot of what if's in that situation. Fair play to the rail employee who was monitoring the CCTV.

The driver lost his job, got 9 points on his licence, and was fined. I reckon that's about right given the circumstances. However, if he had children on board or if a train had hit him, I'd expect much harsher sentencing.

Regarding him working for another bus company now, I wonder will that change now that he's been through the court process? Even from an insurance point of view I'd say it's going to be expensive to have him as an employee.

All the talk of the US above reminds me of the time when a Detroit firefighter found out the hard way where not to park his fire truck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ji0bTmrspo

Pilotdude5

wyndham wrote: »

21 is very young to have that level of responibility. Surely more experience is required to drive double deckers full of children?

There's 20 year olds flying 737's around Europe.:eek:

C4Kid

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

There's 20 year olds flying 737's around Europe.:eek:

At least they are accompanied in the cockpit!:pac:

Run_to_da_hills

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

There's 20 year olds flying 737's around Europe.:eek:

At least a plane has an autopilot that will cover up for most of the mistakes.

A Double decker bus hasn't.

The_Wrecker

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

There's 20 year olds flying 737's around Europe.:eek:

I was carrying passengers on the water at 18.
Some are more mature than others regardless of job and this is an example of one.

CIE

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You are putting words into my mouth, I never said that.

I said that if I was stuck between two barriers of a level crossing I would not hang around

But theoretically, why would you be stuck between the barriers at all? The lights, when lit, clearly stay "stop here, in the safe area off the tracks, and never mind the gates" as I said in an earlier post. And the lights, as it appears in that vid, were lit while the tractor was going across the tracks, which puts the tractor driver at fault in his own case, never mind the complete folly of the bus driver.

Would normal red/amber/green traffic lights at a level crossing with automatic gates get the point across more clearly, or would the driver(s) in this case also ignore them? in which case, neither tractor driver nor bus driver belong on the road.

Run_to_da_hills

CIE wrote: »

But theoretically, why would you be stuck between the barriers at all? The lights, when lit, clearly stay "stop here, in the safe area off the tracks, and never mind the gates" as I said in an earlier post. And the lights, as it appears in that vid, were lit while the tractor was going across the tracks, which puts the tractor driver at fault in his own case, never mind the complete folly of the bus driver.

Would normal red/amber/green traffic lights at a level crossing with automatic gates get the point across more clearly, or would the driver(s) in this case also ignore them? in which case, neither tractor driver nor bus driver belong on the road.

There could be several reasons why a bus or any vehicle could be "lawfully" stuck between two gates at a level crossing.

A driver suffering a stroke or heart attack while crossing.

An intermittent fault such as a loose ignition wire or faulty fuel pump could cause a vehicle to stall momentary while making a crossing.

oppenheimer1

People are overlooking the why this incident happened. The reality is that level crossing gates come down far far too soon and don't rise fast enough. This leads to drivers taking a chance on ploughing on through the crossings with the lights flashing.

The gates should come down no more than 20 seconds before the train crosses and should rise immediately after it passes. If people knew that they weren't going to be unduly held up, it would reduce risk/reward ratio, and less drivers would take that chance.

gbob

I watched the barriers come down at a level crossing only a couple of weeks back and waited a full ten minutes before the train came.. would I have chanced it knowing I'd be there so long ? Seeing as I was driving a bus, no.. but in the car I probably would.

stoneill

He was a gobshíte.

Tried to get through the barriers and failed.
Then when the barriers came up again to let him through he didn't pull far enough forward to let them down again.

He has not shown any awareness of hazards, not anticipated what might happen, doesn't know the length of his vehicle.

He was a gobshíte and should not be in charge of a fare carrying bus.

CIE

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

People are overlooking the why this incident happened. The reality is that level crossing gates come down far far too soon and don't rise fast enough. This leads to drivers taking a chance on ploughing on through the crossings with the lights flashing.

The gates should come down no more than 20 seconds before the train crosses and should rise immediately after it passes. If people knew that they weren't going to be unduly held up, it would reduce risk/reward ratio, and less drivers would take that chance.

And you base this judgement call on what, exactly? "Far too soon" and "don't rise fast enough" are very arbitrary phrases. What are your reference points?—what are you comparing to?

Run_to_da_hills

gbob wrote: »

I watched the barriers come down at a level crossing only a couple of weeks back and waited a full ten minutes before the train came.. would I have chanced it knowing I'd be there so long ? Seeing as I was driving a bus, no.. but in the car I probably would.

Ireland has perhaps one of the longest dwell time at level crossings more than any country in the world, some times its totally unnecessary and just pure ridiculous. An example of this is often having to wait for trains to depart from Bray Dart stations some that have been sitting idle for up to five minutes.

I have been to many countries including Italy where people including pedestrians, cyclists and bikers ignore the warnings and slip past the barriers.

markpb

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The gates should come down no more than 20 seconds before the train crosses and should rise immediately after it passes. If people knew that they weren't going to be unduly held up, it would reduce risk/reward ratio, and less drivers would take that chance.

If the gates had closed 20 seconds before the train arrived, in this case the train would have driven into the side of the bus because there'd be too little time to stop.

corktina

yeah but if the driver and everyone else KNEW a train was likely to pass in 20 seconds, everyone would be a hellova lot more careful on level crossings. Noone in their right mind would blindly drive through a cross-roads without making sure it was safe, and there are no gates to stop you. It's the provision of gates that leads people to rely on the safety devices rather than thinking for themselves.

OurLadyofKnock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

People are overlooking the why this incident happened. The reality is that level crossing gates come down far far too soon and don't rise fast enough. This leads to drivers taking a chance on ploughing on through the crossings with the lights flashing.

Let me guess. You are from Mayo?

Victor

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Let me guess. You are from Mayo?

Behave.

Perhaps you could explain the correct reason for the time delay to the user

Moderator

oppenheimer1

CIE wrote: »

And you base this judgement call on what, exactly? "Far too soon" and "don't rise fast enough" are very arbitrary phrases. What are your reference points?—what are you comparing to?

I am comparing them to traffic lights at junctions, which are just as dangerous. The psychology of driver behaviour is very important when designing road ways, junctions and other interactions. This video above is 1min 21secs long and no train has passed. Imagine if ordinary traffic lights were like that, that you had to wait such a length of time before the other cars started to cross the junction? Everyone would become the amber gambler. Level crossings should be no different to ordinary traffic lights, timing wise. If they were that responsive, then incidents like these would be much rarer.

As I said in my other post, if people weren't going to be unduly held up at these gates they would never break them, because the risk is too high, relative to the reward. However when the reward is greater, people will take a chance. This idiot would have gotten away with it if he hadn't misjudged the speed of the tractor in front.

Additionally, I think that the design of these gates should be changed such that should someone find themselves stuck in on the crossing they should be able to drive forward and snap a safety mechanism that causes the gate to collapse.

And no I'm not from Mayo

dowlingm

Isn't one of the issues with some signalling implementations at grade crossings that trains must receive a clearance to proceed indicating gates closed?

M three

Wheres hancock when you need him?

CIE

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I am comparing them to traffic lights at junctions, which are just as dangerous. The psychology of driver behaviour is very important when designing road ways, junctions and other interactions. This video above is 1min 21secs long and no train has passed. Imagine if ordinary traffic lights were like that, that you had to wait such a length of time before the other cars started to cross the junction? Everyone would become the amber gambler. Level crossings should be no different to ordinary traffic lights, timing wise. If they were that responsive, then incidents like these would be much rarer.

As I said in my other post, if people weren't going to be unduly held up at these gates they would never break them, because the risk is too high, relative to the reward. However when the reward is greater, people will take a chance. This idiot would have gotten away with it if he hadn't misjudged the speed of the tractor in front.

Additionally, I think that the design of these gates should be changed such that should someone find themselves stuck in on the crossing they should be able to drive forward and snap a safety mechanism that causes the gate to collapse

Comparing level crossings to road junctions is comparing apples with oranges. They are different and they will never be the same. Trains take far longer to stop than any road vehicle does. UIM, the train also always has the right of way at a level crossing. Road instructors used to make that clear; what kind of road instruction is being given now?

And there is still no excuse for what the bus driver did, or the tractor driver for that matter. You don't break the law merely because you are impatient and you feel that the delay you are experiencing is "undue". A red light is a red light, and at least that is where road junctions and level crossings have some commonality, because the red light means the same thing here and the gates mean nothing. Nobody should be stuck in a crossing—and this video demonstrates that only impatient lawbreakers find themselves in such a sticky situation. No "driver behaviour psychology" (is there such a discipline?) ought to be used to create excuses to baby those who should not be behind the wheel of a road vehicle in the first place. Driving is not a right.

Run_to_da_hills

Lucky escape for these guys on Friday. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LBMsScR4Rs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/article-2227337/Wat-er-miracle-Terrifying-moment-tanker-driver-escapes-death-truck-hit-train-crossing-rails.html

CIE

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Lucky escape for these guys on Friday. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LBMsScR4Rs

Tanker driver escapes death after his truck is hit by train crossing rails – Daily Mail

Yet another person who should not have been behind the wheel of a road vehicle. The locomotive driver was even blowing his horn, doing the standard NORAC level-crossing warning! Lorry drivers are trained to recognise these horn signals! never mind also trained to bring their lorries to a complete stop at a railway crossing and observe the railway in either direction before even thinking of proceeding; this person (loosely speaking) driving the lorry just blundered onto the crossing utterly heedlessly. Not to mention that the railway even at the level crossing is considered railway property rather than public property, so while the lorry was in the crossing when he should not have been, he was technically trespassing.

The train crew is obliged to bring the train to a complete halt until the whole mess created by the errant (for want of a better word) lorry crew is sorted out. So that means the whole railway comes to a halt.

oppenheimer1

CIE wrote: »

Comparing level crossings to road junctions is comparing apples with oranges. They are different and they will never be the same. Trains take far longer to stop than any road vehicle does. UIM, the train also always has the right of way at a level crossing. Road instructors used to make that clear; what kind of road instruction is being given now?

And there is still no excuse for what the bus driver did, or the tractor driver for that matter. You don't break the law merely because you are impatient and you feel that the delay you are experiencing is "undue". A red light is a red light, and at least that is where road junctions and level crossings have some commonality, because the red light means the same thing here and the gates mean nothing. Nobody should be stuck in a crossing—and this video demonstrates that only impatient lawbreakers find themselves in such a sticky situation. No "driver behaviour psychology" (is there such a discipline?) ought to be used to create excuses to baby those who should not be behind the wheel of a road vehicle in the first place. Driving is not a right.

I'm not trying to excuse what the bus driver or tractor driver did. They were both clearly wrong to ignore the level crossing signals. I think you are missing my point though and that is why did these drivers choose to ignore the signal. I believe the reason was they thought they could make it through and knock several minutes off their journey time. In other words the reward tor their risky behaviour was time saved.

Now looking at the incident in isolation, this way of thinking seems crazy - that someone would potentially risk their life for the sake of a few minutes. However if you live near one of these things and interact with them daily, those few minutes can become a daily source of incredible frustration. Driver psychology (it is a real discipline) seems to have been ignored when it comes to designing these crossings. There is no point in putting up warnings if they are going to be ignored - warnings need to be accurate and meaningful to be successful. With this in mind, when the lights start to flash, it should mean that the train will be crossing the junction imminently not that it will be in several minutes time. The goal should be to make the crossings safer and this can be achieved by reducing the frustration drivers experience with them. Your idea that a red light is a red light and people should stop, is great in a perfect world - however unfortunately the world and its drivers are not perfect.

A good example of how drivers react to this kind of system can bee seen with the introduction of Luas to the streets of Dublin. The Luas signalling system for "level crossings" is quite like traffic lights, in other words the tram crosses the junction just after the lights change. When the trams first started operating, you had a number of collisions at junctions where drivers ignored the lights. The number of collisions has fallen dramatically as drivers got used to the signalling system. They know they cannot break the lights at a Luas junction because they know the tram is coming and it will hit them if they try to go through. They also know that once the tram has passed, the light will change and they will be on their way again.

Train Crossings should be like this as well

wyndham

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

There's 20 year olds flying 737's around Europe.:eek:

Seriously?

Vic_08

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm not trying to excuse what the bus driver or tractor driver did. They were both clearly wrong to ignore the level crossing signals. I think you are missing my point though and that is why did these drivers choose to ignore the signal. I believe the reason was they thought they could make it through and knock several minutes off their journey time. In other words the reward tor their risky behaviour was time saved.

Now looking at the incident in isolation, this way of thinking seems crazy - that someone would potentially risk their life for the sake of a few minutes. However if you live near one of these things and interact with them daily, those few minutes can become a daily source of incredible frustration. Driver psychology (it is a real discipline) seems to have been ignored when it comes to designing these crossings. There is no point in putting up warnings if they are going to be ignored - warnings need to be accurate and meaningful to be successful. With this in mind, when the lights start to flash, it should mean that the train will be crossing the junction imminently not that it will be in several minutes time. The goal should be to make the crossings safer and this can be achieved by reducing the frustration drivers experience with them. Your idea that a red light is a red light and people should stop, is great in a perfect world - however unfortunately the world and its drivers are not perfect.

A good example of how drivers react to this kind of system can bee seen with the introduction of Luas to the streets of Dublin. The Luas signalling system for "level crossings" is quite like traffic lights, in other words the tram crosses the junction just after the lights change. When the trams first started operating, you had a number of collisions at junctions where drivers ignored the lights. The number of collisions has fallen dramatically as drivers got used to the signalling system. They know they cannot break the lights at a Luas junction because they know the tram is coming and it will hit them if they try to go through. They also know that once the tram has passed, the light will change and they will be on their way again.

Train Crossings should be like this as well

Total utter rubbish.

All you have proved is that you have no idea how railway signalling works.

You say that drivers are not perfect, you are right. In the case of CCTV controlled full barrier level crossings (such as the one above) they don't have to be because the railway is designed with multiple safeguards to ensure safe operation.

The railways are as close to 100% safe land transportation as we have ever seen, your suggestion is to throw away all of the measures that have been put in place over the last 150 years and rely on idiot motorists not to break red lights "because they know a train is coming".

The fact is that in the situation above the idiot bus driver was protected from being hit by a train due to the manner in which the level crossing is operated. Even after the barriers come down a signaller would have to check a live image of the crossing on a monitor before clearing the approaching signals for the crossing, the bus could have been there for an hour and no train would have hit it.

The reason for long delays at level crossings is simple; that is the length needed to allow the line to be cleared of traffic and the gates closed plus the amount of time needed for a train at full line speed not to be checked by signals on approach to the level crossing.

If the crossing approach time is reduced then either trains will have to be slowed down (for a 20 second sequence they would have to be brought to almost a standstill) or left as is and we can all cross our fingers and hope that no motorist will ever break the lights.

oppenheimer1

Vic_08 wrote: »

Total utter rubbish.

All you have proved is that you have no idea how railway signalling works.

You say that drivers are not perfect, you are right. In the case of CCTV controlled full barrier level crossings (such as the one above) they don't have to be because the railway is designed with multiple safeguards to ensure safe operation.

The railways are as close to 100% safe land transportation as we have ever seen, your suggestion is to throw away all of the measures that have been put in place over the last 150 years and rely on idiot motorists not to break red lights "because they know a train is coming".

The fact is that in the situation above the idiot bus driver was protected from being hit by a train due to the manner in which the level crossing is operated. Even after the barriers come down a signaller would have to check a live image of the crossing on a monitor before clearing the approaching signals for the crossing, the bus could have been there for an hour and no train would have hit it.

The reason for long delays at level crossings is simple; that is the length needed to allow the line to be cleared of traffic and the gates closed plus the amount of time needed for a train at full line speed not to be checked by signals on approach to the level crossing.

If the crossing approach time is reduced then either trains will have to be slowed down (for a 20 second sequence they would have to be brought to almost a standstill) or left as is and we can all cross our fingers and hope that no motorist will ever break the lights.

I'm not saying throw away 150 years of railway safety, what I'm saying that there has been little improvement in level crossing design in the past 150 years, beyond automation. What happened here was another person rang the control centre and then they lifted the barriers - you can see him getting out of his car to go to the emergency phone. This is all beside the point.

My main argument is that the barriers come down too soon and that this encourages risky driver behaviour. I don't believe that the dropping of the barriers has much to do with train stopping distances because by the time the driver observes a car stranded on the tracks, its too late anyway. What I believe has happened in many instances is that the crossings have been linked to the signal sectors and the and all barriers are lowered in that and sometimes adjoining sectors (depending on their position). This leads to the barriers being dropped when the train could be several kilometres away (in the video in question, the train was at least 1.5km away when the barriers dropped in my estimation and most likely further). The idea that 5 mins is required (I have waited that length of time, sometimes longer) to do all these checks is ridiculous.

What I'm proposing is using existing commercial technology and modern psychology to make crossings safer. There is absolutely no reason why barriers should drop and strand someone in the junction. The use of simple motion detection sensors (like the ones found in floodlights) could be used to keep at least one barrier up until the junction is clear. Secondly, the gates should not be lowered so soon. If risk is not rewarded then people will not take it.

Del2005

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm not saying throw away 150 years of railway safety, what I'm saying that there has been little improvement in level crossing design in the past 150 years, beyond automation. What happened here was another person rang the control centre and then they lifted the barriers - you can see him getting out of his car to go to the emergency phone. This is all beside the point.

My main argument is that the barriers come down too soon and that this encourages risky driver behaviour. I don't believe that the dropping of the barriers has much to do with train stopping distances because by the time the driver observes a car stranded on the tracks, its too late anyway. What I believe has happened in many instances is that the crossings have been linked to the signal sectors and the and all barriers are lowered in that and sometimes adjoining sectors (depending on their position). This leads to the barriers being dropped when the train could be several kilometres away (in the video in question, the train was at least 1.5km away when the barriers dropped in my estimation and most likely further). The idea that 5 mins is required (I have waited that length of time, sometimes longer) to do all these checks is ridiculous.

What I'm proposing is using existing commercial technology and modern psychology to make crossings safer. There is absolutely no reason why barriers should drop and strand someone in the junction. The use of simple motion detection sensors (like the ones found in floodlights) could be used to keep at least one barrier up until the junction is clear. Secondly, the gates should not be lowered so soon. If risk is not rewarded then people will not take it.

An easier and safer solution would be mandatory bans for anyone breaking red lights at a railway crossing, they have CCTV on them. Maybe give a month for a 1st offence and then permanently off the road. IMO it's more dangerous breaking reds on a rail road crossing than DUI, as there is the potential for more carnage.

SeanW

Dravokivich wrote: »

No, he's implying the driver did nothing wrong by being on the track in the first place.

Dravokivich wrote: »

So why wouldn't you of stopped at the lights?

Could you please point out where the OP said either of those things? If however, as I suspect you are simply putting words in RTDHs mouth, I would have to wonder why?

BTW I agree that bus driver is a tool, should be off the road for a long time to consider what a dangerous thing he did and what could theoretically have happened.

corktina

wyndham wrote: »

Seriously?

damn joyriders....

Dravokivich

SeanW wrote: »

Could you please point out where the OP said either of those things? If however, as I suspect you are simply putting words in RTDHs mouth, I would have to wonder why?

No motive behind it, he opened up the post with "If I was driving that bus I would have crashed straight through the barrier rather than hang about," which says to me he saw no fault there and would have no problem with ignoring the lights himself. All I did was question it.

SeanW

Dravokivich wrote: »

No motive behind it, he opened up the post with "If I was driving that bus I would have crashed straight through the barrier rather than hang about," which says to me he saw no fault there and would have no problem with ignoring the lights himself. All I did was question it.

That's not good enough. He was saying that if he got into that situation, he would have made an exit his top priority. Nowhere in that post was the OP suggesting that he thought it was ok to run crossing lights and get stuck like that in the firstplace.

Furthermore your "questioning it" came in the form of a loaded question. "Why would you not have stopped at the lights?" is a question that he could never answer without admitting that he would have run the lights. It's the equivalent of asking "Is your brother Joe still in the army?" (assumes the questionee has a brother named Joe, who is in the army) or "Do you still beat your wife?" (assumes that the questionee has a wife, whom he has been violent with in the past).

It would have been less abrasive and more informative to ask something like this:

whatYouCouldHaveSaid wrote:

Are you suggesting that it was OK for the driver to run the lights? Because you weren't clear about that. Would you run L.C. lights yourself?

CIE

SeanW wrote: »

That's not good enough. He was saying that if he got into that situation, he would have made an exit his top priority. Nowhere in that post was the OP suggesting that he thought it was ok to run crossing lights and get stuck like that in the firstplace.

Furthermore your "questioning it" came in the form of a loaded question. "Why would you not have stopped at the lights?" is a question that he could never answer without admitting that he would have run the lights. It's the equivalent of asking "Is your brother Joe still in the army?" (assumes the questionee has a brother named Joe, who is in the army) or "Do you still beat your wife?" (assumes that the questionee has a wife, whom he has been violent with in the past)

It's not a loaded question because the questionee already confessed to being inclined to put himself in such a situation (which is in effect trespassing on a railway) and feeling the need to damage railway property to "get out" of it, and the only way to get into such a situation in the first place is by passing the lights illegally. It's right to question why one would pass the lights in the first place in that context and it is not abrasive in the least. Loaded questions presume guilt without such admissions having been made.

Del2005

Dravokivich wrote: »

No motive behind it, he opened up the post with "If I was driving that bus I would have crashed straight through the barrier rather than hang about," which says to me he saw no fault there and would have no problem with ignoring the lights himself. All I did was question it.

I'm merrily driving my bus down the road and come across a LC. The way is clear and I start to cross. In the middle of the crossing my bus stalls. As I'm trying to restart my bus the barriers drop.

Do I

1) Sit and wait for the train to hit me?
2) Restart and drive through the barriers?

SeanW

CIE wrote: »

It's not a loaded question because the questionee already confessed to being inclined to put himself in such a situation

Or so it seems to you: I read that same post and read the comments about how "I wouldn't hang around" as little more than off the cuff armchair guesswork about a bizarre hypothetical situation.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask "how would you have got into that situation?" this doesn't imply anything.

Hypothetically it could for example happen to the OP by means of a stalled engine on the crossing, this being the most likely alternative scenario.

CIE

SeanW wrote: »

Or so it seems to you: I read that same post and read the comments about how "I wouldn't hang around" as little more than off the cuff armchair guesswork about a bizarre hypothetical situation.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask "how would you have got into that situation?" this doesn't imply anything.

Hypothetically it could for example happen to the OP by means of a stalled engine on the crossing, this being the most likely alternative scenario.

The driver is caught dead to rights running the crossing with the lights flashing. We all saw the video. That's called incontrovertible evidence, i.e. barring the video being doctored (but what with the timing of the gates coming down, doctoring is unlikely). This is not armchair guesswork here (which is what non-witnesses engage in). Nor is the situation hypothetical.

Dravokivich

Del2005 wrote: »

I'm merrily driving my bus down the road and come across a LC. The way is clear and I start to cross. In the middle of the crossing my bus stalls. As I'm trying to restart my bus the barriers drop.

Do I

1) Sit and wait for the train to hit me?
2) Restart and drive through the barriers?

That isn't what happened in the video in the op...

SeanW wrote: »

That's not good enough. He was saying that if he got into that situation, he would have made an exit his top priority. Nowhere in that post was the OP suggesting that he thought it was ok to run crossing lights and get stuck like that in the firstplace.

Furthermore your "questioning it" came in the form of a loaded question. "Why would you not have stopped at the lights?" is a question that he could never answer without admitting that he would have run the lights. It's the equivalent of asking "Is your brother Joe still in the army?" (assumes the questionee has a brother named Joe, who is in the army) or "Do you still beat your wife?" (assumes that the questionee has a wife, whom he has been violent with in the past).

It would have been less abrasive and more informative to ask something like this:

Not good enough? I've explained there was no motive behind it other than he seemed to give the impression that the drivers negligence wasn't an issue. That's it. There's no need to drag it out any more.

CIE

Dravokivich wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

I'm merrily driving my bus down the road and come across a LC. The way is clear and I start to cross. In the middle of the crossing my bus stalls. As I'm trying to restart my bus the barriers drop.

Do I

1. Sit and wait for the train to hit me?
2. Restart and drive through the barriers?

That isn't what happened in the video in the op...

And if the bus engine does stop running, you try and coast through, anyhow, presuming you were in the right when entering the crossing, but if the gates are coming down, the most likely scenario is that you entered the crossing with the lights flashing and you were not in the right. You never, ever enter the crossing when the lights are flashing; that's a violation—you are supposed to come to a complete stop at the line, in front of the lights.