Anger at safety delay after OAP drives on to live high speed rail (From Daily Echo)

“At the moment there’s nothing to indicate that there’s a railway there,”

Apart from the barriers. And the signal box. And the warning lights. And the track.

The problem was a little old lady, who shouldn't have been driving anyway. She turned onto the track, panicked, and CARRIED ON DRIVING! Do you honestly think another sign would have stopped this happening?

sfby wrote:
“At the moment there’s nothing to indicate that there’s a railway there,” Apart from the barriers. And the signal box. And the warning lights. And the track. The problem was a little old lady, who shouldn't have been driving anyway. She turned onto the track, panicked, and CARRIED ON DRIVING! Do you honestly think another sign would have stopped this happening?

Exactly what I was about to say. If there's one thing I've learned in my life, it's that you can make things as idiot-proof as you like, there will always a bigger idiot than you've prepared for.

re-tests and assessments awareness tests for drivers 50 and over will also reduce traffic congestion as most will not pass a re-test

retry69 wrote:
re-tests and assessments awareness tests for drivers 50 and over will also reduce traffic congestion as most will not pass a re-test

I'd better enjoy my remaining driving years then - I guess I'll have to employ a chauffeur once I hit 50...

retry69 wrote:
re-tests and assessments awareness tests for drivers 50 and over will also reduce traffic congestion as most will not pass a re-test

Great idea, there's money to be made, and lets have capacity/power to weight graded licences for cagers as well as bikers...

85? Only a decade to old to still be driving then.

kingnotail wrote:
85? Only a decade to old to still be driving then.

DECADE three and a half decades!!!!!!!

retry69 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:
85? Only a decade to old to still be driving then.

DECADE three and a half decades!!!!!!!

Your remark is absolutely ageist. I am slightly over 60 years of age and can manage to drive extremely well, thank you. I have also had a 40 year period of clean licence and accident free driving. You need to revise your age prejudices, thank you.

sfby wrote:
“At the moment there’s nothing to indicate that there’s a railway there,”

Apart from the barriers. And the signal box. And the warning lights. And the track.

The problem was a little old lady, who shouldn't have been driving anyway. She turned onto the track, panicked, and CARRIED ON DRIVING! Do you honestly think another sign would have stopped this happening?

Agree completly, she is obviously not up to the required driving standard. People like this, irrespective of age, should not be on the road as they are a danger to others as well as themselves.

sfby wrote:
“At the moment there’s nothing to indicate that there’s a railway there,”

Apart from the barriers. And the signal box. And the warning lights. And the track.

The problem was a little old lady, who shouldn't have been driving anyway. She turned onto the track, panicked, and CARRIED ON DRIVING! Do you honestly think another sign would have stopped this happening?

What I love about these comments are that they are generally made by people who don't think they could ever make a mistake and that everybody else could make a mistake, so let's take the michael out of the poor unfortunates.

Everyone can make mistakes, so let's lighten up on the superiority complex folks!

Donald2000 wrote:

retry69 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:
85? Only a decade to old to still be driving then.

DECADE three and a half decades!!!!!!!

Your remark is absolutely ageist. I am slightly over 60 years of age and can manage to drive extremely well, thank you. I have also had a 40 year period of clean licence and accident free driving. You need to revise your age prejudices, thank you.

My father, who was driving until a brain tumour meant his licence was revoked at 77 would question your statement about 'accident free' driving, along the line's of, "but how many have you caused where others have had to avoid you? a lot of drivers are 'accident free', but leave a trail of destruction in their wake, are you one of those?".

I live in the house next to the level crossing and am still amazed by this incident.

The track is clearly visible for at least 150 yards in each direction from the middle of the crossing and I cant understand how it could possibly be mistaken for anything else. As for the grandson.........

Frankly I doubt it is worth spending money to prevent a re-occurance. If you did you might as well put barriers up on every cliff, at every quayside, by every river etc just on the off chance of a 1 in a million event.

If they want to prevent accidents, some cash spent installing number plate cameras to stop cars "running" the gates would be a good idea!

Niel wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

retry69 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:
85? Only a decade to old to still be driving then.

DECADE three and a half decades!!!!!!!

Your remark is absolutely ageist. I am slightly over 60 years of age and can manage to drive extremely well, thank you. I have also had a 40 year period of clean licence and accident free driving. You need to revise your age prejudices, thank you.

My father, who was driving until a brain tumour meant his licence was revoked at 77 would question your statement about 'accident free' driving, along the line's of, "but how many have you caused where others have had to avoid you? a lot of drivers are 'accident free', but leave a trail of destruction in their wake, are you one of those?".

A few hundred yards south of this crossing a motorcyclist riding a powerful machine chose to overtake at speed on a blind bend, and met an HGV on the other side of it. Unfortunately the driver could do nothing to avoid the collision.

Donald2000 wrote:

retry69 wrote:

kingnotail wrote:
85? Only a decade to old to still be driving then.

DECADE three and a half decades!!!!!!!

Your remark is absolutely ageist. I am slightly over 60 years of age and can manage to drive extremely well, thank you. I have also had a 40 year period of clean licence and accident free driving. You need to revise your age prejudices, thank you.

No ageism about it i want to see safer roads i know of two regular drivers one who has been driving 25 years and admits to speeding another who boasts a 40 year driving career throughout europe HGV PSV and did not know the speed limits on the roads he was using,and as pointed out by someone else has pointed out you may have a clean licence but that may be down to other drivers awareness and not yours,thank you

Donald2000 wrote:

sfby wrote: “At the moment there’s nothing to indicate that there’s a railway there,” Apart from the barriers. And the signal box. And the warning lights. And the track. The problem was a little old lady, who shouldn't have been driving anyway. She turned onto the track, panicked, and CARRIED ON DRIVING! Do you honestly think another sign would have stopped this happening?

What I love about these comments are that they are generally made by people who don't think they could ever make a mistake and that everybody else could make a mistake, so let's take the michael out of the poor unfortunates. Everyone can make mistakes, so let's lighten up on the superiority complex folks!

No - I'm not saying I haven't / won't make mistakes - I'm saying another sign won't stop them happening. Gozza1 got it spot on - no matter how idiot-proof you make something, there's always a bigger idiot than you allowed for...

retry69 wrote:
re-tests and assessments awareness tests for drivers 50 and over will also reduce traffic congestion as most will not pass a re-test

That will definitely apply to the 18 to 50 year age group.

In the good old days when the crossings were manned, before the unemployment days, the gates when open to road traffic actually blocked off the railway. Wouldn't have stopped an errant locomotive driver but would have prevented this type of incident.

Inform Al wrote:

retry69 wrote:
re-tests and assessments awareness tests for drivers 50 and over will also reduce traffic congestion as most will not pass a re-test

That will definitely apply to the 18 to 50 year age group.

uh yep spot on Sr

If you want to reduce deaths and accidents on the roads, ban young men up to the age of 29. If you dont believe me, ask the insurance companies.l

I agree that 85 is to old to be driving for many age related reasons but to read some of these comments i am surprised we ever have any accidents as everybody claims to be the perfect road user, in truth everybody makes mistakes or errors of judgment and those errors are often age related i.e.the young who think they are the next Lewis Hamilton the slightly older ones that have the money to buy cars they can't handle etc you can put everybody into little boxes but at the end of the day a little less hast and a bit more tolerance would go a long way. But a test of some description at 75 and every 5 years after that would be a good idea.

There's no excuse for driving onto a railway line. Anybody who has trouble distinguishing a road from a railway is not fit to drive. It's not as if British level crossings aren't garish enough anyway.

miltonarcher wrote:
If you want to reduce deaths and accidents on the roads, ban young men up to the age of 29. If you dont believe me, ask the insurance companies.l

there are very few accidents on the roads and most of us know what a con insurances are so perhaps wrong on both accounts?

retry69 wrote:

miltonarcher wrote:
If you want to reduce deaths and accidents on the roads, ban young men up to the age of 29. If you dont believe me, ask the insurance companies.l

there are very few accidents on the roads and most of us know what a con insurances are so perhaps wrong on both accounts?

No, its a fact, you are more likely to be killed on the roads by a young driver. That is a fact, if you dont believe the insurance industry ask the police.

miltonarcher wrote:

retry69 wrote:

miltonarcher wrote:
If you want to reduce deaths and accidents on the roads, ban young men up to the age of 29. If you dont believe me, ask the insurance companies.l

there are very few accidents on the roads and most of us know what a con insurances are so perhaps wrong on both accounts?

No, its a fact, you are more likely to be killed on the roads by a young driver. That is a fact, if you dont believe the insurance industry ask the police.

Not arguing any fact the majority of incidents at junctions involve the over 50s any stats can be manipulated but you only have to read the boastful comments about so called experienced drivers to realise the main problem of non fatal incidents is their attitude

miltonarcher wrote:

retry69 wrote:

miltonarcher wrote:
If you want to reduce deaths and accidents on the roads, ban young men up to the age of 29. If you dont believe me, ask the insurance companies.l

there are very few accidents on the roads and most of us know what a con insurances are so perhaps wrong on both accounts?

No, its a fact, you are more likely to be killed on the roads by a young driver. That is a fact, if you dont believe the insurance industry ask the police.

Not arguing any fact the majority of incidents at junctions involve the over 50s any stats can be manipulated but you only have to read the boastful comments about so called experienced drivers to realise the main problem of non fatal incidents is their attitude

Try and engage your brain and check the FACTS. Most accidents involve young drivers. Why on earth dont you accept the truth. Now go away and investigate then come back and admit your posts are complete rubbish. Oh by the way, try posting in English with punctuation.