# m/home accident on level crossing



## tony50 (Oct 16, 2007)

In East Anglia m/home involved in accident on level crossing 2 people from m/home taken away by ambulance looked like Autotrail , I pray they are not seriously hurt .

Tony A.


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

Saw it on the news. Certainly looks like an Autotrail from the back. Damage didn't look too bad on the coachbuilt section. As that is the weakest part, hopefully they aren't too badly injured.
Gerry


----------



## SaddleTramp (Feb 15, 2007)

It appears they are seriously hurt << News >>


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Its on the bbc 10 o/c news in a minute...

Pete


----------



## cairnnut (Oct 23, 2009)

found a local newspaper link with a few pictures ,it was an unmanned crossing at littleport cambridgeshire. hope they are OK
pictures


----------



## bubble63 (Sep 30, 2009)

hi

reported as elderly people in their 70's, overtaking stationary traffic at a level crossing 8O 

lucky to be alive !...........
people on the train I mean.......

difficult to imagaine why some sane would do that !

still I am sure there will be an inquiry. 

neill
cambridge


----------



## Foghorn-Leghorn (Jul 10, 2010)

bubble63 said:


> hi
> 
> reported as elderly people in their 70's, overtaking stationary traffic at a level crossing 8O
> 
> ...


If its found that they ignored the crossing warnings and overtook waiting traffic I hope there prosecuted and the driver should be disqualified and made to re-take his test .
I seen the carnage first hand caused by impatient drivers who ignore railway crossings .
Perhaps it's about time that anyone over 70 should be retested for there ability to drive safely


----------



## 96299 (Sep 15, 2005)

Foghorn-Leghorn said:


> bubble63 said:
> 
> 
> > hi
> ...


And I agree.

Steve


----------



## Carl_n_Flo (May 10, 2005)

Not an Autotrail - possibly an Avondale Starspirit(?)....

The crossing might be unmanned (nearly all are) but it is not un-gated.........one photo shows half barriers.

I really think either the senility factor has crept in here, or complete impatience and the person driving did not realise that the queue was for a level crossing......

Probably the former I am sad to say...........

A sad episode....
Carl


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Foghorn-Leghorn said:


> bubble63 said:
> 
> 
> > hi
> ...


I know that crossing quite well and agree that if anybody overtook waiting traffic and hit a train they were either sui/homicidal or had suffered some sort of blackout.

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.466...=J2pbQVcBHq49letcTOBpYA&cbp=12,305.17,,0,3.59

At least good news that the dog in the van was OK.

PS I don't think the need for retests should only start at 70 - we should have continuous random tests and a need for regular eyetests for all drivers.


----------



## gj1023 (Feb 23, 2010)

The report I read , said he drove into the train. From the damage to the van, the front end, it makes sense. 

As to why , have to wait and see.

It had half barriers and looking on Google you can see the train coming from a very long way off, strange

Gary .


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

gj1023 said:


> The report I read , said he drove into the train. From the damage to the van, the front end, it makes sense.
> 
> As to why , have to wait and see.
> 
> ...


Exactly, it has to either be completely negligent disregard of the situation or a total blackout of some sort.


----------



## kaacee (Nov 29, 2008)

Chigman said:


> Foghorn-Leghorn said:
> 
> 
> > bubble63 said:
> ...


I don't agree...what are we saying that anyone over the age of say 50 should be made to retake a test just because one stupid idiot aged 52 decided to ignore the rules or even worse, decided they do not apply to them !!!!!

Keith


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Un ***** believable !!! after 30 years as a traffic cop I thought I had seen everything but this beats it all  

Blind ??

Stupid??

Careless??

or all three plus a few more ???


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Re the idea of a compulsory test at 70

I am 69 and for the last 8 years have been driving commercially on a variety of vehicles up to 7.5t and covering up to 50,000 miles a year.

Just over a year ago I completed an advanced Driver Awareness Course..

I would resist a blanket test requirement. I am sure there are other professional drivers who keep up their skills by practice who would also resist.

MrPlodd, don't know your age, but how would you feel about compulsory test at, say 70?

Geoff


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

nicholsong said:


> MrPlodd, don't know your age, but how would you feel about compulsory test at, say 70?
> 
> Geoff


It says 56 in his profile panel.

....and I shan't mention the need for regular eyetests again :wink:


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> Un ***** believable !!! after 30 years as a traffic cop I thought I had seen everything but this beats it all
> 
> Blind ??
> 
> ...


Mr Plod what if the poor man had a heart attack or was ill ----


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

Most RTA's are caused by men under 25. :wink:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

747 said:


> Most RTA's are caused by men under 25. :wink:


I think you might want to reconsider use of the word "men". :wink:


----------



## kaacee (Nov 29, 2008)

747 said:


> Most RTA's are caused by men under 25. :wink:


Perhaps all men under 25 should be retested then :lol: :lol:

Keith


----------



## PaulW2 (May 30, 2010)

I don't think there is any need to redo tests at any age.

However, regular medicals (including eye tests) are clearly desirable beyond a certain age. This will have a statistical/medical answer - the age at which degenerative physical conditions or senility increase from the very low baseline level.

I think the 'new' rules (i.e. the ones applicable to drivers who obtain C1/C entitlement after 1997) have it about right:

- A medical every 5 years after 45.
- An annual medical after 65.


----------



## kaacee (Nov 29, 2008)

PaulW2 said:


> I don't think there is any need to redo tests at any age.
> 
> However, regular medicals (including eye tests) are clearly desirable beyond a certain age. This will have a statistical/medical answer - the age at which degenerative physical conditions or senility increase from the very low baseline level.
> 
> ...


Agree with your thoughts Paul, but like all things, age can throw up different values for different scenarios, i.e. spectacles required for 25 year old driver, but not for 65 year old, so who gets tested then?

Some 65 year olds are far fitter than some 25 year olds, so generalisation is not always the answer.

Only sensible solution is to have a medical every 5 years irrespective of age.

Keith


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

Ahh trial by Internet, don't you just love it... of course nobody has have ever done anything stupid, or is it they/you got away with it...

What ever happened will be bottomed out in the professional enquiries into the incident, I suggest others think themselves fortunate and leave comments on the cause of the accident to one side, the couples family and the couple themselves will be in enough torment without folk having pops at them on a forum..


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

er, can we get back on topic here, please, or discuss the rights & wrongs of re-tests in another thread? 

as Mavis said, he (assuming it was him driving?) may have had a blackout / heart attack or similar......  


(with official mods hat on)


----------



## Invicta (Feb 9, 2006)

While I agree with regular medical checks for we 'mature drivers' what really concerns me are the people on certain medication who totally disregard the advice leaflets issued with their medication "may cause drowsiness".

I know of a person who was on large doses of morphia for pain who continue to drive. She did so until I pointed out that had she been involved in an accident where injuries were involved her medical records would certainly have been inspected. These would have shown that she had been prescribed morphia.

Insurance companies certainly use any factors to try to stop having to paying out. To identify that a person involved in an accident was taking morphia, regardless of who was to blame, would be a crucial factor no doubt in settling any claim.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Mavis

One of the earlier posts stated that the report was the driver had overtaken a row of stationary vehicles to get to the crossing !!!

That does not suggest to me a heart attack or similar. I HAVE had dealings with RTC's where drivers have had heart attacks and the common factor is that the vehicles veer off to one side or the other !! that does not appear to have happened in this case!

I would point out there have been instances of drivers following sat navs driving over cliffs, into rivers and even ALONG railway lines.

Geoff..

As a Class 1 Police car driver, police motorcycle rider and the holder of an HGV 1 and PSV licence I would welcome re-testing at very regular intervals. Most (if not all) drivers pass their test at say 20 and then never undertake any further driver training at all!!!

My personal view is that there should be re-testing every say 10 years and that test should get progressively harder  If you fail the test you get say three months to improve and re-take the same test. If you fail it again then you go back to being a provisional licence holder. L plates supervised etc. THAT would act as a fair incentive for people to keep their skills up to date wouldn't it?? Good drivers would have no problem or anything to fear from such a test but the bad/careless/inconsiderate or straight forward dangerous would be weeded out!

Remember a car (or any other vehicle) is a lethal weapon capable of killing many at a time, a driving licence should be looked on as a privilege NOT a right !!!


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> Mavis
> 
> One of the earlier posts stated that the report was the driver had overtaken a row of stationary vehicles to get to the crossing !!!
> 
> ...


I hate Sat/Navs at times and agree they can get you into trouble.
Thanks for the info on heart attacks though so maybe he thought the cars were just parked and over took but lights must have been flashing and a barrier down(if there was one) --we will just have to wait and see but the poor man has paid a big price now as his wife is so hurt.
I feel that retesting drivers is always needed right from the start as the way younger people drive and speed and intimidate other drivers by tail gating on our roads is a disgrace. I hate it when they swerve from the outside lane right in front of us to go on the slip road at the last moment -if it wasnt for the skill of my 72 year old husband we would have had an accident many a time 
Its not just us older retired drivers


----------



## Foghorn-Leghorn (Jul 10, 2010)

Must have hit a raw nerve with the mention of re-test's for the over 70's , of course if your health and vision are up to scratch and your reactions are quick enough you've nothing to worry about but then again if your failing a bit perhaps your ability to drive safely should be scrutinised .


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Foghorn-Leghorn said:


> Must have hit a raw nerve with the mention of re-test's for the over 70's , of course if your health and vision are up to scratch and your reactions are quick enough you've nothing to worry about but then again if your failing a bit perhaps your ability to drive safely should be scrutinised .


In that case no one of any age should be worried about getting tested - eyes and reactions don't suddenly fail at 70 - so why start (re)testing then


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

Stanner said:


> I think you might want to reconsider use of the word "men". :wink:


Actually Stanner, the way I understand it, there are statistics for men and different ones for women drivers. It seems that women are safer drivers.

A couple of points to add.

If I am the last vehicle in a queue, I always keep my foot on the brake pedal, even though I might have the handbrake on. This lets the driver coming up behind know that I am not a parked up vehicle. Once a vehicle has stopped behind me, my foot comes off the pedal. It is possible that this m/home driver thought he was just passing a few parked cars.

As for eyesight. It is normal for longsighted people to undergo a rapid change in eye sight in their 40's. The lens hardens (I believe), this happened to me and my Optician had said it would. I have known plenty of men who badly needed specs and would not get any out of sheer vanity. One bloke I worked with kept asking me to tell him the sizes printed on an Engineering drawing as his arms were not long enough for him to focus. :lol: I told him to stop driving and get some specs before he killed somebody. :lol: Oh dear, another friend lost. :lol:


----------



## camper69 (Aug 30, 2007)

If driving is so bad in this country why are we not hitting each other every day. Personally I find it amazing that millions of cars drive towards, across and round without even a hint of hitting each other.  

Anyway off topic. I hope the couple are ok

Derek


----------



## stevec195 (Jul 1, 2007)

Mr Plod, while I bow down to your experience and opinion, I feel that your suggestion to retest drivers at such intervals would dramatically increase the amount of unlicenced, and therefore uninsured drivers on the road, which is already at ridiculous figures. I am afraid that I dont have a better suggestion on how to deal with the worstening standard of driving on British roads though......... Maybe stiffer penalties for prosecuted driveds might help.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

747 said:


> Stanner said:
> 
> 
> > I think you might want to reconsider use of the word "men". :wink:
> ...


Did I make ANY reference to women?

I referred to "men" under 25 and suggested another description might be more appropriate when referring to their driving.

Don't read more into things than is actually there.

PS judging by the driving I have personally observed by younger members of the fairer sex recently, they are catching up rapidly (and in real terms) with the "boy racers".


----------



## loobyloo59 (Aug 30, 2010)

I live near the crossing, only about 3 miles away, and use the bypass daily - all I can think of is that the driver saw the stationary cars and decided to pass them, not realising that the barriers are half barriers, not crossing the whole width of the road, so he didnt see the barrier on the other side, there may of not been cars coming the other way. How he didn't hit the oncoming train a second earlier I don't know !!!
The driver suffered severe ankle injuries and it took a couple of hours to get them cut out!


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

stevec195 said:


> Mr Plod, while I bow down to your experience and opinion, I feel that your suggestion to retest drivers at such intervals would dramatically increase the amount of unlicenced, and therefore uninsured drivers on the road, which is already at ridiculous figures. I am afraid that I dont have a better suggestion on how to deal with the worstening standard of driving on British roads though......... Maybe stiffer penalties for prosecuted driveds might help.


All the training and retesting in the world will not stop certain drivers taking risks. If older drivers were considered a great risk then their insurance premiums would be much higher and loaded against them rather than the way they are now.

This driver killed someone whilst driving:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/police-driver-fatal-crash-court

As did this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8326133.stm


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

747 said:


> As for eyesight. It is normal for longsighted people to undergo a rapid change in eye sight in their 40's. The lens hardens (I believe), this happened to me and my Optician had said it would. I have known plenty of men who badly needed specs and would not get any out of sheer vanity. One bloke I worked with kept asking me to tell him the sizes printed on an Engineering drawing as his arms were not long enough for him to focus. :lol: I told him to stop driving and get some specs before he killed somebody. :lol: Oh dear, another friend lost. :lol:


Like him I need specs to read small print close up, BUT that doesn't mean I need any prescription of specs to drive, long-sighted people rarely do and according to my optician I don't.

Confusing long-sight and short-sight and the relative shortcomings of each, doesn't help this discussion very much.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

stevec195 said:


> Mr Plod, while I bow down to your experience and opinion, I feel that your suggestion to retest drivers at such intervals would dramatically increase the amount of unlicenced, and therefore uninsured drivers on the road, which is already at ridiculous figures. I am afraid that I dont have a better suggestion on how to deal with the worstening standard of driving on British roads though......... Maybe stiffer penalties for prosecuted driveds might help.


I thought that the authorities were proud of the UK Road safety Statistics. Things can always be improved of course but let's get things in perspective.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208


----------



## nipperdin (Oct 28, 2007)

The name on the side graphics looks like Starquest which would make it an Autocruise


----------



## spatz1 (May 19, 2011)

There s a time for everyone of age to stop driving determined by the individuals state of mind and health ...

Unfortunatly , he's not/wont be alone in doing something which to the rest seems so utterly reckless and unexplainable...


----------



## xgx (Oct 14, 2005)

:!: unbelievable speculation... it wouldn't do to let the truth get in the way...

(and for those who aren't sure, _speculation_ has nowt to do with eyesight )


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

loobyloo59 said:


> I live near the crossing, only about 3 miles away, and use the bypass daily - all I can think of is that the driver saw the stationary cars and decided to pass them, not realising that the barriers are half barriers, not crossing the whole width of the road, so he didnt see the barrier on the other side, there may of not been cars coming the other way. How he didn't hit the oncoming train a second earlier I don't know !!!
> The driver suffered severe ankle injuries and it took a couple of hours to get them cut out!


To do all of that, except by dint of having a blackout of some kind, he must have ignored/not seen/whatever a whole host of road signs and road markings. Unless he was ill, unconcious or having some other breakdown, he deserves to have several books thrown at him.

He didn't hit the earlier train was because it was long past - he drove into the side of the train he hit - it didn't hit him.


----------



## G7UXG (Feb 14, 2011)

Oh, how quick we all are to judge!

I, like Mr. Plodd, have 30 years police experience, mostly on traffic (23 years). For the last 9 years of my service I was a Collision Investigator; that is going out to investigate and reconstruct fatal and serious collisions.

I wouldn't even begin to try and judge the circumstances of this (or any other) collision until I was in possession of the full facts.

Without getting into the details of any particular incident, why re-test drivers based purely on age? In my vast experience it is not the old people who cause the most accidents. It's mostly the young men (boys?), and in about a third of all fatalities (from personal experience) the offender/fatality is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both. 

Attitude to risk is the biggest factor involved in road safety; that's why more young men are involved in collisions than any other group. Education is the key to safer roads.

None of us are perfect and the law as it stands is able to deal with anyone who commits a serious enough offence in such a way as to be able to require them to take another test at any age. I wish I had a few quid for every time I'd been to a fatal collision where the offender had taken a test within the past 12 months. Like an MOT, even a driving test is no guarantee of road worthiness.

Whatever the circumstances I hope that the couple involved make a full recovery.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

G7UXG said:


> Oh, how quick we all are to judge!
> 
> I, like Mr. Plodd, have 30 years police experience, mostly on traffic (23 years). For the last 9 years of my service I was a Collision Investigator; that is going out to investigate and reconstruct fatal and serious collisions.
> 
> ...


Common sense at last. Many thanks for your balanced and informative post.


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

Getting back on track and away from the speculators, the news of the couple involved is not as bad as feared.
According to tonights news, the man had a broken bone in his hand and the woman had torn tendons, plus they both suffered cuts.
Gerry


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

And not one bad driver among us. :roll:


----------



## Brownfools (Sep 15, 2008)

Waited to see that this couple were not seriously hurt before commenting. Glad that the injuries seem to be less serious than first thought. Shame about the van though.
A thought. A10 - Major road - (Newish) Bypass - Level crossing!!!??? The Secretary of State that approved these plans should hang his head in shame!
Note to Government: Ever heard of a BRIDGE?
Strange that as a nation we cannot afford transport infrastructure - but we can afford to spend an obscene amount on a three week jamboree for athletes.


----------



## SaddleTramp (Feb 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> My personal view is that there should be re-testing every say 10 years and that test should get progressively harder  If you fail the test you get say three months to improve and re-take the same test. If you fail it again then you go back to being a provisional licence holder. L plates supervised etc. THAT would act as a fair incentive for people to keep their skills up to date wouldn't it?? Good drivers would have no problem or anything to fear from such a test but the bad/careless/inconsiderate or straight forward dangerous would be weeded out!
> 
> Remember a car (or any other vehicle) is a lethal weapon capable of killing many at a time, a driving licence should be looked on as a privilege NOT a right !!!


My question would be this, How long would one have to await a test as the waiting list now with just new applicants is very excessive.

Let's also note the number of Police drivers who have serious accidents and sometimes Kill.

Also surely the TESTERS would also have to renew driving skills VERY regularly to enable them to pass others with some authority.

Whilst I agree that some form of redress should be held I would not suggest a retest as the implementation of such would create astronomical problems which would also have a serious knock on effect.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Brownfools said:


> Waited to see that this couple were not seriously hurt before commenting. Glad that the injuries seem to be less serious than first thought. Shame about the van though.
> A thought. A10 - Major road - (Newish) Bypass - Level crossing!!!??? The Secretary of State that approved these plans should hang his head in shame!
> Note to Government: Ever heard of a BRIDGE?
> Strange that as a nation we cannot afford transport infrastructure - but we can afford to spend an obscene amount on a three week jamboree for athletes.


I think it would be true to say that the A10 Cambridge to Kings Lynn has a terrible accident history. I spent many months travelling up and down it daily whilst working on the railway communications in 2004. 
There are several unmanned half barrier level crossings on the route. One of our radio sites was at St Germans LC and I saw many drivers take a chance and none of them was over 70. You can see the radio cabin and antenna down towards Kings Lynn just along the track from the crossing.
St Germans LC


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

SaddleTramp said:


> Let's also note the number of Police drivers who have serious accidents and sometimes Kill


Really? Show us, please - definitively.

Dougie.


----------



## bubble63 (Sep 30, 2009)

hi

I don't have any compassion for the camper driver,

The people on the train had no choice in this, they have to suffer the actions of the person on the level crossing.

The question of re testing people on a rolling basis, say every five years is perfect, nothing to fear if you are capable and able, I would happily do one tomorrow, might learn something!

When I have'nt sailed for a while, I take a couple of hours with an instructor, same with flying, out of currency, fly with an instructor.

My father is 75, now would he pass a retest ? , not sure, but some refresher lessons would be invaluable.

Have'nt had an accident yet he says, but I have seen a few!!!

neill 
cambridge


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

asprn said:


> SaddleTramp said:
> 
> 
> > Let's also note the number of Police drivers who have serious accidents and sometimes Kill
> ...


http://www.car-accidents.com/police-car-accidents-crash.html :wink: :wink:


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

asprn said:


> SaddleTramp said:
> 
> 
> > Let's also note the number of Police drivers who have serious accidents and sometimes Kill
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/police-driver-fatal-crash-court

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8326133.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...ns-Death-In-Newcastle/Article/200809415109344

The Officers concerned were 24, 28 & 41 so perhaps it would be best to target training and testing at professional drivers of that age group.


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

Of the 7,370 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2009: 11% were aged 17 to 19; 27% were aged 20 to 29; 43% were aged 30 to 59; 8% were aged 60 to 69; and, 10% were over 70. Although the legal minimum age for car drivers is seventeen, 14 young people aged under 17 were killed or seriously injured ‘behind the wheel’ during 2009 (Table 5).

I know this is casualties but it does show the older person isnt always involved

I cant find the statistics for the age of who causes the accident,s
But suspect the figure will be very similer.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

So we have two experienced Police Traffic officers commenting on compulsory re-testing- one for and one against, so it seems the debate is open re therir opinions.

Still maintain that professional drivers who are subject to the '30 hours training in 5 years' rule do not need further training/testing. I suspect this could be 500,000+ drivers, maybe even 1million.

As has been alluded to, testing could be an administrative/logistical nightmare. 

Foreign drivers would not be subject to the tests. Would drivers on British licences living abroad be required to take tests? If not there could be breaches of EU law regarding emploment rights. Even a private driver living in Australia might find his licence invalid if he did not fly back for the test.

And so, 'BORINGLY ' on and on!

Geoff


----------



## SaddleTramp (Feb 15, 2007)

This is NOT a knock the Police post, I made my OP to point out that even "Advanced" drivers CAN have accidents and it is NOT just the over 70's that are responsible BUT here is a news item :- < Police Accidents >

And < Here > is an over 70 that is the victim of a Police Car accident.


----------



## duxdeluxe (Sep 2, 2007)

I think that any comments re police accidents have to be put into context with the a) number of miles driven and b) the nature of the job - a lot of which is hardly going to Tesco's is it?

They have a hard enough job as it is without us lot knocking them.

Back to subject, it will be interesting to see precisely why this gentleman decided to overtake a line of stationary vehicles towards a (half) barrier with red flashing lights and run into the side of a train. Bizarre to say the least....... Let's see what the court says in its judgement


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

A civilian driving badly is a common sight but some police forget they are in a high profile public service vehicle and that their driving should be an example not a disgrace 8O


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

Mods post - 

It looks like this is going completely off topic - it was supposed to be about an accident at a level crossing involving a motorhome, not a discussion about police driving.

And as others have said, there's a lot of speculation about what the driver did or didn't do, and why - this will come out in due course.

Also they may be members on here - to see some things written about them would be very distressing, especially as they would have no recourse if legal action is being taken. 



Mike


----------



## SaddleTramp (Feb 15, 2007)

duxdeluxe said:


> I think that any comments re police accidents have to be put into context with the a) number of miles driven and b) the nature of the job - a lot of which is hardly going to Tesco's is it?
> 
> They have a hard enough job as it is without us lot knocking them.


I couldn't agree more, But surely the same argument could be used for many of the Public drivers, I know some that regularly do over 3000 miles a week and have been driving for many years without an accident and are either over or close to 70.

I also think that ANY driving job is hard on today's roads.

As stated I am NOT knocking them, My post was in reply to a post which was by a Police Officer Quote " As a Class 1 Police car driver, police motorcycle rider and the holder of an HGV 1 and PSV licence I would welcome re-testing at very regular intervals. Most (if not all) drivers pass their test at say 20 and then never undertake any further driver training at all!!! " now whilst I agree in context to his point I made the comment to show that not even Police drivers are accident nor blame free.
Now I hold an Advanced drivers licence, HGV Class 1, and PSV licence and I have been accident blame free my whole life, BUT that is not to say that I will never have an accident, as a Taxi driver I used to drive over 2500 miles a week all hours of the day and night, There are many many drivers who have far more hands on experience than some Police Officers.
I suppose to put it bluntly it matters not the age nor experience a split second and a slight mistake CAN and DOES cause accidents, who knows what this particular driver thought at the time of his passing the line of cars, I feel sure he did not do it on purpose, I know that a couple of years ago I went to overtake what I thought was a line of "Parked" cars and I suddenly saw they were stood at some temporary traffic lights I then had to reverse some 20 - 30 yards to get in queue, I saw no indication whatsoever that they were in a traffic queue waiting for lights changing, let's wait and see what transpires instead of apportioning blame right away.


----------



## tony50 (Oct 16, 2007)

locovan said:


> Of the 7,370 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2009: 11% were aged 17 to 19; 27% were aged 20 to 29; 43% were aged 30 to 59; 8% were aged 60 to 69; and, 10% were over 70. Although the legal minimum age for car drivers is seventeen, 14 young people aged under 17 were killed or seriously injured 'behind the wheel' during 2009 (Table 5).
> 
> I know this is casualties but it does show the older person isnt always involved
> 
> ...


Having started this post I'm am amazed at some of the comments, I think Locoman has got it about right .

Tony A.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

SaddleTramp said:


> , who knows what this particular driver thought at the time of his passing the line of cars, I feel sure he did not do it on purpose, I know that a couple of years ago I went to overtake what I thought was a line of "Parked" cars and I suddenly saw they were stood at some temporary traffic lights I then had to reverse some 20 - 30 yards to get in queue, I saw no indication whatsoever that they were in a traffic queue waiting for lights changing, let's wait and see what transpires instead of apportioning blame right away.


For anyone to do that at this location would (as I said earlier) involve total disregard of plenty of road signs, a lot of lines painted on the road and a suspension of a lot of common sense.

Just look at the aerial view on Google maps and then "drive" the approach to each side of the crossing in Streetview - from what I can see they appear to have been heading North towards the Kings Lynn direction.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Lit...51,-4.064941&sspn=14.30596,39.506836&t=k&z=17

At that location if you can't see why the traffic on a trunk road is stopped................................ :roll:

<Edit> changed direction of travel after studying pictures again.


----------



## Rockerboots (Jun 15, 2008)

*Update on Motorhome accident On crossing near Ely*

Hi all,

With reguard to the accident on the rail crossing at Littleport near Ely involving a Motorhome, the latest news is as follows:-

The daughter of the Motorhome owner told local radio that the brakes had failed and her father swerved so as not to crash into the last car waiting at the crosing , then tried to use the barrier to slow the vehicle so as not to get into the path of the train.

Maybe his quick thinking saved a few lives as it could have been a lot worse than the injuries he and his wife sustained.

Hero or what?

What would you have done?

Andy


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

*Re: Update on Motorhome accident On crossing near Ely*



Rockerboots said:


> Hi all,
> 
> With reguard to the accident on the rail crossing at Littleport near Ely involving a Motorhome, the latest news is as follows:-
> 
> ...


He He.

If this is true there are a lot on here with egg on their face. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Update on Motorhome accident On crossing near Ely*



rayrecrok said:


> Rockerboots said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...


The most sensible post on the original topic was by G7UXG who said :

"Oh, how quick we all are to judge!

I, like Mr. Plodd, have 30 years police experience, mostly on traffic (23 years). For the last 9 years of my service I was a Collision Investigator; that is going out to investigate and reconstruct fatal and serious collisions.

I wouldn't even begin to try and judge the circumstances of this (or any other) collision until I was in possession of the full facts.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Andy, if true that brakes failed, the corrct action is to dropdown the gears ( OK SLAM it into 2nd) and pull like billy-oh on the handbrake!

Then cross everything.

Geoff


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks for letting us know.

It's all very well knowing what should be done under such circumstances. It just might be a different thing remembering to do it in the few seconds available to you, Alan.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi all

I thought it would be more appropriate for this new topic to continue where the original topic ended so I have now merged the two topics.


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

Modern brakes just don't fail suddenly and completely like this.


----------



## Philippft (Feb 16, 2008)

rayrecrok said:


> Ahh trial by Internet, don't you just love it... of course nobody has have ever done anything stupid, or is it they/you got away with it...
> 
> What ever happened will be bottomed out in the professional enquiries into the incident, I suggest others think themselves fortunate and leave comments on the cause of the accident to one side, the couples family and the couple themselves will be in enough torment without folk having pops at them on a forum..


Coomon sense at last!


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

> then tried to use the barrier to slow the vehicle so as not to get into the path of the train.


Hmmmm............... it's a half barrier crossing and the only barrier on the wrong side of the road is also on the wrong side of the train.


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/littleport_motorhome_train_crash_driver_hailed_a_hero_1_959163

The story is here !!


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

I'm not judging but I'll be very surprised if the police investigation confirms that both brake circuits failed just like that 8O .


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

Techno100 said:


> I'm not judging but I'll be very surprised if the police investigation confirms that both brake circuits failed just like that 8O .


Don't fall into the same trap as others on this thread. :lol:

I have heard of total brake failure (or as good as) on so-called dual circuit systems.

I shall withhold judgement here (says he with smug expression on his face). :wink:


----------



## The-Cookies (Nov 28, 2010)

i hope both of them make a full recovery, but i also hope that he hadn't blacked out or suchlike and tales are being told as he would lose his license if he had.


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Accident*

Well as a previous rail employee, I can assure you that thorough testing of the motorhome etc etc will take place. The safety of the line is crucial.

I read the news link and noted the comment re the passenger/injuring/no airbag going off. I am amazed a vehicle of that age had a passenger airbag. Side impacts though often do not set off an airbag.

I did not actually think a passenger airbag could be fitted to the passenger side of a Sevel Group (Fiat/Peugeot/Citroen) vehicle in the 2003 era, but I could be wrong.

The technical investigation will reveal all - I am certain of that.

Russell


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Alan

My previous post, re action that could have been taken if the brakes failed, was in response to Andy's Q "What would you have done?'

As to reaction time, I was fortunate that in my job I was tested every six months for just such emergencies, so am lucky to have some confidence of my own abilities. Also, I occasionally simulate a break failure to test my ability to do what I said. [Makes mental note to do it again soon]

Geoff


----------



## spatz1 (May 19, 2011)

So what is the probability of you re brakes failing at the very moment you aproach a level crossing and need them in earnest ?
In what manner did they fail,burst pipe?, seized ?,loss of a pad due to excessive wear?
begs the question were there signs of failure before the accident ?

Even if there was a brake failure, who approaches a stationary car at a level crossing at a speed unable to stop with a tug on the handbrake ...
why was the damage so bad as to have compromised the integrity of the cab as it hit the side of a moving train ?


----------



## Carl_n_Flo (May 10, 2005)

Sorry.............I dont buy the brake failure argument........so rare as to be un-statistical...

My money is on lack of concentration and forward looking - noticed stationary vehicles too late to stop.

Investigation of 'van will 'truth out' = lets hope we get to hear about it.....
C


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-a-Car-with-No-Brakes

Thought I would Google and then looked at this --did he really have time to do all this.????


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

747 said:


> Techno100 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not judging but I'll be very surprised if the police investigation confirms that both brake circuits failed just like that 8O .
> ...


Hi,
I thought brake failure was impossible on a vehicle fitted with dual circuits but I'm afraid it is.
A colleague of mine was driving his Ford Escort MK111 to work and ran over a large rag on the road. The rag wrapped round his drive shaft and proceeded to rip off his front brake pipe and the result was NO brakes. He was lucky as it was a quiet road and he was able to stop on the handbrake.
It's a few years ago but I don't think brake design has changed much since.


----------



## Carl_n_Flo (May 10, 2005)

Brake failure is not impossible - but on modern systems, the dual circuit system provides for a measure of emergency braking should a failure occur....

There are 2 systems: either front and rear on seperate circuits or, more commonally, a diagonal split where (say) the front left brake is in the same circuit as the rear right brake (reduces pulling to one side under load).

If there is a failure in one circuit (burst hose / disconnected line / other catastrophy) then the other circuit will still be effective as it is a _completely_ seperate circuit.

You would need a major failure of the brake master cylinder - and I mean something like it falling off!!! - for the brakes to not work _at all._

If one circuit fails, the force to stop the car would be greater than normal.............but there would still be braking force available.

I realise this is off the original topic...........sorry - just trying to clear up a couple of misconceptions......

Carl


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

The next time that you are out in your van, try coasting and yank on the handbrake. You might be surprised at the lack of power.

Mine has a 5 ton MAM and the handbrake operates 2 sets of brake pads (its a Tag axle with discs all round). The result? Not much at all. 8O


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

Handbrake is really nothing but a parking brake.


----------



## sparky20006 (Apr 18, 2011)

His fault..............the brakes fault........ it doesn't matter.

It's still a bloody shame and the poor devils are probably shaken up like hell from the terrible incident.
We've ALL made silly mistakes, clipped signs, hedges, drifted slightly across a lane when tired. Judging by all the scrapes I see on other motorhomes when I'm on site I guess none of us are perfect. 
I am just pleased they're both OK and I hope they aren't shaken too much by it all to stop doing something they (like us ) probably love doing.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

What about the poor old dog that was was in with them - how is it?


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

I wonder if it was an automatic ????

Wrong pedal used in an emergency???? 

Not an unheard of scenario and one I have dealt with as the result of an RTC in the past

As far as dual circuit brakes are concerned I had a rear wheel cylinder fail completely on me in a Fiat based Hymer a few years ago. The "remaining" brakes were virtually zero effective as in less than applying the handbrake, VERY scary  and did nothing to inspire my confidence in dual circuit brakes !!!


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Carl_n_Flo said:


> Brake failure is not impossible - but on modern systems, the dual circuit system provides for a measure of emergency braking should a failure occur....
> 
> There are 2 systems: either front and rear on seperate circuits or, more commonally, a diagonal split where (say) the front left brake is in the same circuit as the rear right brake (reduces pulling to one side under load).
> 
> ...


Hi,
I thought ,like you, that you retained some braking in the event of most brake component failure,

This is a description of the mk3 Escort braking system :-

"The Escort uses a pretty standard set up of discs at the front and drums at the rear. It uses a dual circuit hydraulic system which is diagonally split across the wheels so that each part of the system operates one front calliper on one side of the car and a rear drum on the opposite. This is a safety feature so that if one system fails you still have braking on both sides of the car. This is achieved by using a dual master cylinder. This is basically two master cylinders sat in line in one body with each of the two parts plumbed into one front calliper and one rear drum."

Believe me, because I tested it, when he came into work there were NO brakes when he lost one front brake pipe.


----------



## WildThingsKev (Dec 29, 2009)

I was driving a 15 year old Mitsubishi panel van to an MOT and, as it hadn't been used for a while, decided to clean up the brakes a bit by stamping on them whilst on a back road. Well that was the end of the brakes! Limped the 400yds to the garage and scrapped it.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

BillCreer said:


> Believe me, because I tested it, when he came into work there were NO brakes when he lost one front brake pipe.


Perhaps one circuit wasn't working in the first place, all the rag did was wipe out the other good one.


----------



## robinpompey (May 7, 2011)

*Motorhome accident*

Reading the various comments from, it is remakable that anybody not there could make any judgement about what happened. Some of the comment are both ignorant and blatantly just conjecture. The use of this forum to spread rumours that maybe miles off the truth must be distressing to the accident victims family members who might read it. If you do not know what actually happened, just shut up.


----------



## Carl_n_Flo (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Motorhome accident*



robinpompey said:


> Reading the various comments from, it is remakable that anybody not there could make any judgement about what happened. Some of the comment are both ignorant and blatantly just conjecture. The use of this forum to spread rumours that maybe miles off the truth must be distressing to the accident victims family members who might read it. If you do not know what actually happened, just shut up.


If you bothered to read ALL the thread, I think you will find that MOST of the comments lately have been a discussion on dual braking circuits and NOT speculation / rumor / conjecture about the accident.

I agree, it has gone a bit 'off topic' - but I suspect that is BECAUSE participants have not wanted to 'get involved' with the causes (or otherwise) of the accident........

Carl


----------



## robinpompey (May 7, 2011)

*motorhome accident*

I said those that made up the reason for the accident should shut up, the technical discussions about dual braking is not talking about the reason for the crash.


----------



## Carl_n_Flo (May 10, 2005)

Fair enough - I withdraw my critisism........
C


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Motorhome accident*



robinpompey said:


> Reading the various comments from, it is remakable that anybody not there could make any judgement about what happened. Some of the comment are both ignorant and blatantly just conjecture. The use of this forum to spread rumours that maybe miles off the truth must be distressing to the accident victims family members who might read it. If you do not know what actually happened, just shut up.


as you say, it's all speculation and until the facts of the happenings that day become known we should not go into all sorts of arguments about what might or might not have happened.

And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the couple involved may be members on here, and would not appreciate all sorts of theories being bandied around about what happened. He / she would obviously not be able to comment because of legal / insurance constraints, so please, no more theories!

Mike
Mods team


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

*Re: Motorhome accident*



bognormike said:


> robinpompey said:
> 
> 
> > Reading the various comments from, it is remakable that anybody not there could make any judgement about what happened. Some of the comment are both ignorant and blatantly just conjecture. The use of this forum to spread rumours that maybe miles off the truth must be distressing to the accident victims family members who might read it. If you do not know what actually happened, just shut up.
> ...


But this would get in the way of the trial by Internet, even though a plausible reason was published of why it happened, its still not good enough.. :roll: .. What satisfaction is there in anybody saying it was his fault or not, brakes don't fail (cough) it is an impossibility (cough) I suppose that is why Lorry's have air brakes, so when they fail they fail "on"..


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

*Re: Motorhome accident*



bognormike said:


> He / she would obviously not be able to comment because of legal / insurance constraints,
> 
> Mike
> Mods team


Doesn't seem to have prevented them from providing their side of the story in a local newspaper though :wink: (or at least via their family).

I agree that we should await the results of the investigation.


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Stanner said:


> BillCreer said:
> 
> 
> > Believe me, because I tested it, when he came into work there were NO brakes when he lost one front brake pipe.
> ...


If one wasn't working that would have meant that he was driving with only one front brake and one back one. I think he would have noticed.

This was a nearly new XR3i that maintained regardless of cost and he was told by the Ford Dealer, who repaired it for him, that the system worked as it should have done.


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Motorhome accident*



rayrecrok said:


> bognormike said:
> 
> 
> > robinpompey said:
> ...


yep, we're all spoilsports :roll: 

and nobody has suggested an alien abduction, but that's not very likely is it


----------

