General Chat Thread, Somebody left their brain in bed that day.... in General; Edited due to inappropriate quoted post
yes but what about the poor driver they have done nothing to deserve that ...
3rd October 2013, 02:07 PM #16
yes but what about the poor driver they have done nothing to deserve that on their conscience i imagine quite a few will never work again (at least in that job) and will probably spend the rest of their lives wondering if there was anything they could of done
Edited due to inappropriate quoted post
Last edited by Dos_Box; 3rd October 2013 at 02:58 PM.
IDG Tech News
3rd October 2013, 02:09 PM #17
If the train had hit her, it would have been blamed on anyone else but the "happy woman, that was friends with everyone"...even though it would have been more a case of natural selection
3rd October 2013, 02:17 PM #18
I think it depends on how the crossing is controlled and monitored. They tend to use the half-barrier gates on automatic crossings where there is a possibility of the gates closing and trapping a vehicle between the gates. If it has somebody manually closing/monitoring the gates (from a nearby signalbox or remotely watching on CCTV) it's more likely to be a full barrier because they can take action if somebody does get stuck.
Originally Posted by unixman_again
3rd October 2013, 02:18 PM #19
Blimey you are hard, aren't you? All of you? We haven't even heard her side of it. OF COURSE she wasnt paying attention and being very stupid, but have you lot NEVER been distracted, thinking about something else, when you should have been concentrating?
You can't possibly say that a collision wouldnt have been blamed on her - she hasn't spoken yet.
You are all acting as if she has said that it "wasn't her fault" which just isn't the case
3rd October 2013, 02:21 PM #20
how distracted do you have to be to miss the barriers the flashing light and usually a siren and she had "presence of mind" enough to go on the wrong side of the road. If she had ridden into the barrier then fair enough accident but to go round it thats a choice
Originally Posted by witch
3rd October 2013, 02:22 PM #21
True we have not heard her side of it..but she must have made the decision to move to the wrong side of the road to go around the barrier, which is the far side of the lane to where the normal cycling position in the road is.
3rd October 2013, 02:23 PM #22
Yes, I know. She was stupid. But that doesn't mean she deserves to die, neither does it mean that she wouldn't have been blamed if she had.
3rd October 2013, 02:53 PM #23
You'd be surprised. Take this example: Rail Accident Investigation: Report 01/2013
Originally Posted by sted
A cyclist was struck and killed by a train travelling at 56mph. Irrespective of how many warning signs, safety procedures and gates placed in his way, the cyclist failed to adhere to any of them and was distracted by wearing earphones.
1) He ignored warnings at the crossing telling him to dismount (he even opened the gate mounted!).
2) He was listening to music hindering his awareness and preventing the safety procedure of the train sounding it's horn from working.
3) He had a hood up limiting peripheral vision to see on-coming trains.
4) He may have assumed the track was closed due to engineering work (it wasn't, and that doesn't mean all traffic is suspended since engineering trains and diversions may still use the line).
Because the cyclist was distracted and not paying attention, he paid for his actions with his life.
Have a browse through the rest of RAIB and you will be shocked to see some of the incidents that happen. From barrier dodgers to farming vehicles crossing long loads without permission. I'm amazed we don't see more deaths yet Network Rail typically get blamed for "dangerous crossings" because people don't respect how dangerous rail lines are.
3rd October 2013, 05:02 PM #24
Well done AMLightfoot - I knew somebody would try to turn it into a bl00dy cyclists thread.
3rd October 2013, 05:07 PM #25
A pet hate of mine is this. You need your ears to hear whats happening around you whilst on your bike IMO
cyclist failed to adhere to any of them and was distracted by wearing earphones
3rd October 2013, 05:32 PM #26
Idiot car drivers manage it too. A local publicans son did it by driving around a half barrier OUTSIDE HIS HOME where there had been several incidents in the past. He must have heard the crossing siren every day of his life that they lived in the pub, but he "thought he knew better" and went for it one day... Darwin Award WINNER!
3rd October 2013, 05:45 PM #27
Ahh the Darwin Awards. Now there's an excellent concept. *busily looks the website up again*
Originally Posted by Andrew_C
Silly woman on a bike. Stupid? Yes probably, she nearly got herself killed and gave the poor driver a right old scare! Will she do it again? Probably not but then you never know, she was silly enough to try it in the first place...
I just don't get why people would do this? Trains are Big, Very Very Big, there's no excuse for being 'distracted' and missing the crossing. It's beyond me...
3rd October 2013, 06:05 PM #28
My point is exactly that. I referred to those cyclists that choose not to adhere to road traffic signals. Not to all cyclists generally. Some do. Many do in fact, and I've noticed that the ones with the propensity to ignore traffic lights etc tend to be the ones that aren't wearing helmets and have no lights or reflective clothing - the ones that are wearing helmets and hi-vis vests and lights and stuff tend to be more responsible and so tend to pay attention to traffic lights. What winds me up is that I've NEVER EVER seen the Police admonish or fine a cyclist for either not wearing appropriate gear or for flouting traffic rules. A car goes through a red light and causes a hazard on a junction or crashes into someone and they get in trouble, a cyclist does it and.... nothing. If anything the driver that the cyclist fouled ends up worse off.
Originally Posted by Norphy
My point is ALL road users regardless of vehicle should adhere to the rules - if a traffic light is red, they should stop (for example). This applies to cyclists as much as it applies to motorbikes, cars, vans, lorries, horses (although as a living animal with its own free will sometimes it is difficult to ensure they stay put), mobility scooters, wingless jumpjets etc. If it's on the road, it is a 'vehicle'.
3rd October 2013, 06:21 PM #29
By SimpleSi in forum General Chat
Last Post: 12th January 2008, 03:21 PM
By john in forum Hardware
Last Post: 11th December 2007, 02:11 AM
By Jake in forum How do you do....it?
Last Post: 24th January 2006, 02:20 PM
By timbo343 in forum Windows
Last Post: 7th December 2005, 09:09 PM
By SteveT in forum General Chat
Last Post: 15th September 2005, 03:20 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)