A £40 fine imposed on a motorist who collided with a train on a level crossing has been criticised by a group representing a railway.
Eileen Lawrence, 72, drove onto the crossing in Fairbourne, Gwynedd, colliding with a train moving at 20mph.
She later admitted careless driving. No-one was injured in the incident.
But members at the Cambrian Coast railway conference in Porthmadog said the low fine issued was sending out the wrong message.
Ms Lawrence admitted careless driving and was fined £40 with three penalty points, with £80 costs and £15 victim surcharge by magistrates in Dolgellau in September.
She had claimed to have been distracted when she collided with the Machynlleth to Pwllheli bound train on 14 May.
The court heard the red warning lights and the audible warning sounds were working correctly at the railway crossing, which does not have barriers.
British Transport Police officer Bob Newman told the conference that the normal fine for contravention of the red railway crossing lights was around £120.
"I have to admit that the £40 fine imposed was lenient and did not reflect the effect on the train driver, who needed time off work, or the inconvenience to the train passengers," he said adding that the motorist was very lucky that she was not seriously injured.
Conference chairman Councillor Trefor Roberts, Barmouth added: "Such a low fine is sending out the wrong message."
Ben Davies for Arriva Trains Wales said that he would be in favour of train operators and the British Transport Police holding talks with the North Wales magistrates court committees.
"Between January and August this year there were 40 near-miss incidents reported in Wales," said Mr Davies.
"The majority of them involved motorists who narrowly avoided a potential fatal collision with a train."
Pc Bob Newman said that since April there had been 15 incidents of vehicles using railway crossings when the lights were on red, which was a decrease of five from the summer of 2008.
Members have agreed to try to arrange a meeting with magistrates to complain about the fine.
This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that caused by teenage males though. If ever.
I've got a elderly relative who now refuses to drive as they don't feel they are good enough any more. (They handed their licence in and sold the car). However they seem to be the minority.
allanbonnetracy wrote: > Fines are pointless for this sort of thing.
> Make them resit the driving test and actually prove they're capable of > driving according to the highway code.
Given the number of people on the roads who drive irresponsibly, I'm firmly of the belief that drivers should have to pass a "psychological fitness to drive" test before being issued a licence.
If people subsequently prove by their actions that they cannot drive responsibly, then they should have their licence taken away until they have become more responsible.
Of course, infringing the rules at a level crossing would prove that someone is not responsible enough to be allowed to drive... -- Jeremy Double <jmd.nos...@btinternet.com> {real address, include nospam} Rail and transport photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/
> This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to > drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other > than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any > time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still > have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the > grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
> It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that > caused by teenage males though. If ever.
We have one apparently 'care in the community' prolific letter writer locally and his comments in the Evening Post on a crossing fatality (pedestrian) near Nottingham a few days ago are illuminating:
'Of three things we can be sure:
The train was allowed to travel at speed despite having no steering, and so no way of steering round any hazards, vulnerable victim, or other "object".
The driver was going too fast to be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
And, regardless of whether he was above or below the speed limit, the rail funded transport "safety" lobby won't be calling for the limit to be reduced to the level from which pedestrians could survive a, not accident, but colllision.'
Most of his rants are similar. But he has supporters.
In message <4af87343$0$16741$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au> Matthew Geier <matt...@no.sleeper.no.apana.no.org.no.au> wrote:
> This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to > drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other > than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any > time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still > have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the > grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
> It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that > caused by teenage males though. If ever.
Should take longer than ever[1] now. The last of the drivers who never took a test are just about gone.
> In message <4af87343$0$16741$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au> > Matthew Geier <matt...@no.sleeper.no.apana.no.org.no.au> wrote:
>> This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to >> drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other >> than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any >> time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still >> have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the >> grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
>> It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that >> caused by teenage males though. If ever.
> Should take longer than ever[1] now. The last of the drivers who never > took > a test are just about gone.
I didn't think he was talking about those who are old enough never to have taken a test, but rather those who are young enough to have assumed a car as a divine right.
The test was re-introduced in late 1946 so the youngest of the wartime generation of drivers must be over 80.
> I've got a elderly relative who now refuses to drive as they don't feel > they are good enough any more. (They handed their licence in and sold the > car). However they seem to be the minority.
My late father-in -law drove till he was 87 - perfectly safely. We used to lunch together once a week and yarn about our jobs (we were both engineers). We usually went in my car, but one day he said he'd drive. We had a nice lunch and at the end of it he slid his car keys across the table and said 'the car is yours now - I'm not driving any more - if I want to go anywhere you can take me, and I'll be paying the licence and insurance as I do now.' This is the kind of semsible behaviour we should all emulate. Alas so few of us do.
> This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to > drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other > than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any > time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still > have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the > grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
Being of that generation you might be surprised to hear that I'm inclined to agree with you. But there's a further issue and that is the state of public transport (and other services) in this country. Where I live we get one bus per hour (sometimes 2 hours) about 200 yards away and only between about 0800 and 1800 and nothing on Sundays. Now you can argue I should move somewhere where the service is better, and when the time comes I probably will, but I like my house and I will do so reluctantly and while I accept you can't serve every house all the time I reckon that many elderly continue to drive because they have no faith in the public transport system to meet their needs. And, it's not just when and where the service runs but whether I can carry all my shopping and it doesn't take me to the dump and anyway, how many stories have we seen recently about pedestrians not being allowed onto dumps? It's not so much a "freedom" (although I agree that many will argue that point) but a need.
>"Matthew Geier" <matt...@no.sleeper.no.apana.no.org.no.au> wrote in message >news:4af87343$0$16741$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to >> drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other >> than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any >> time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still >> have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the >> grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
>> It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that >> caused by teenage males though. If ever.
>We have one apparently 'care in the community' prolific letter writer >locally and his comments in the Evening Post on a crossing fatality >(pedestrian) near Nottingham a few days ago are illuminating:
>'Of three things we can be sure:
>The train was allowed to travel at speed despite having no steering, and so >no way of steering round any hazards, vulnerable victim, or other "object".
>The driver was going too fast to be able to stop in the distance he could >see to be clear.
>And, regardless of whether he was above or below the speed limit, the rail >funded transport "safety" lobby won't be calling for the limit to be reduced >to the level from which pedestrians could survive a, not accident, but >colllision.'
>Most of his rants are similar. But he has supporters.
> "Graeme" <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:63cfa7b750%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk... > > In message <4af87343$0$16741$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au> > > Matthew Geier <matt...@no.sleeper.no.apana.no.org.no.au> wrote:
> >> This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to > >> drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other > >> than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any > >> time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still > >> have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the > >> grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
> >> It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that > >> caused by teenage males though. If ever.
> > Should take longer than ever[1] now. The last of the drivers who never > > took > > a test are just about gone.
> I didn't think he was talking about those who are old enough never to have > taken a test, but rather those who are young enough to have assumed a car > as a divine right.
I was referring to the 'aged driver carnage'.
> The test was re-introduced in late 1946 so the youngest of the wartime > generation of drivers must be over 80.
allanbonnetracy wrote: > Fines are pointless for this sort of thing.
> Make them resit the driving test and actually prove they're capable of > driving according to the highway code.
The current driving test does not include anything about level crossings (except, by random chance, in the theory test). So how would it improve the behaviour of drivers at level crossings?
On 9 Nov, 20:08, Graeme <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4af87343$0$16741$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au> > Matthew Geier <matt...@no.sleeper.no.apana.no.org.no.au> wrote:
> > This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able to > > drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing other > > than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at any > > time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they still > > have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted on the > > grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
> > It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that > > caused by teenage males though. If ever.
> Should take longer than ever[1] now. The last of the drivers who never took > a test are just about gone.
I'm intrigued by the general assumption that only those people with licences actually drive.
I get the impression that licences are seen as optional by a significant minority of drivers nowadays - see, for example, the RAIB report on a fatal accident in Cumbria where the driver had been banned for quite a time but was still driving on a daily basis.
And that's where the whole idea of retesting and taking people's licences off them falls down: if those people consider that they have a right to drive (as so many people do) and that they have "no other way to get there" (equally prevalent, whether true or not), then they'll drive regardless of whether or not they have a bit of plastic saying they can.
> On 9 Nov, 20:08, Graeme <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > In message <4af87343$0$16741$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au> > > Matthew Geier <matt...@no.sleeper.no.apana.no.org.no.au> wrote:
> > > This is going to get worse, as the generations who grew up being able > > > to drive every where start to age and slow down. As they know nothing > > > other than being able to hop in a car and drive any where they want at > > > any time, any attempt to make them take stricter tests to ensure they > > > still have the reaction time to drive a car will be vigorously resisted > > > on the grounds 'you can't take away our freedom'.
> > > It might take a while before the aged driver carnage overtakes that > > > caused by teenage males though. If ever.
> > Should take longer than ever[1] now. The last of the drivers who never > > took a test are just about gone.
> I'm intrigued by the general assumption that only those people with > licences actually drive.
|
