Driver blames colour blindness for smash

thisisoxfordshire: Philip koomen Philip koomen

A motorist who was colour blind failed to spot red flashing lights at a level crossing just moments before his car was wrecked by an oncoming train, magistrates heard yesterday.

Furniture designer Philip Koomen drove on to the level crossing and was pushed along the track for 30ft by the slow moving train.

The 59-year-old’s Peugeot was crushed in the impact, but he escaped with a broken arm.

Koomen said that he had not seen the warning lights as he drove up to the crossing, which had no barriers at the time. London Mayor Boris Johnson highlighted the crossing as a safety concern as far back as 2006, when he was Henley MP.

Safety barriers have now been installed.

The court heard Koomen had to be cut free from the wreckage by firefighters.

None of the 20 passengers on board the train were harmed.

Yesterday Koomen admitted a charge of dangerous driving following the collision close to Shiplake railway station on the outskirts of Henley-on-Thames.

The accident happened just days after British Transport Police officers had been giving safety advice to motorists as they negotiated the same crossing.

The car was hit by First Great Western ’s 18.17 Henley to Twyford service, which was travelling at about 20mph at the time of the impact.

Julian Lynch, prosecuting, said: “As he approached the level crossing the light to indicate the train was approaching was on. “However, Dr Koomen failed to stop and after 37 seconds of the lights flashing he crossed the level crossing.

“At the same moment the train struck Dr Koomen’s vehicle.”

It was estimated that the crash caused more than £80,000 of damage and brought that stretch of the rail network to a standstill.

Some 16 trains were cancelled, four were partly cancelled and more trains were delayed, with the track having to be closed for 11 hours while repair work was carried out.

Train driver Paul Conduit said that he had slowed the train down from 50mph as he approached the station, but had not seen Koomen’s car as it had been in his blind spot.

“As I was going over the crossing I heard a big bang,” he said in a statement.

“I immediately put on my brakes. I looked out of the window and saw a silver estate car dragged 10 to 15 metres.”

In his police interview Koomen, who has a PhD in design, said that he had known that there was a level crossing in the area and had been expecting to see signs warning him.

He had slowed down to less than 15mph in preparation, and although he had seen a single “pulsating” light, he did not think this was the warning light on the crossing.

Magistrates sitting in Oxford heard that he was colour blind and had difficulty differentiating between red and amber coloured lights.

Presiding magistrate Claire McGlashan said Koomen, of Burcot, near Clifton Hampden, had been lucky not to have been killed in the crash.

She said: “You caused major disruption to passenger services and extensive damage.

“However, no one else was injured and your action was not deliberate.”

Koomen was fined £1,500, as well as £775 in costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge.

He was also banned from driving for a year and told that he would have to sit an extended test before being allowed a new licence.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:10am Fri 10 Aug 12

Mark L. says...

Did he inform the DVLA previously that he was colour blind, as he is obviously not fit to drive. What about when he took his driving test?. What does he do at traffic lights?.
Did he inform the DVLA previously that he was colour blind, as he is obviously not fit to drive. What about when he took his driving test?. What does he do at traffic lights?. Mark L.

11:10am Fri 10 Aug 12

sparro says...

He should be banned for life, next it will be red traffic light`s & he might kill someone.
He should be banned for life, next it will be red traffic light`s & he might kill someone. sparro

11:57am Fri 10 Aug 12

Dilligaf2010 says...

I think he's spinning a yarn.
If I'm not mistaken, the only flashing lights you'd get at a crossing would be red, something that he'd be aware of.
I agree he should be banned for life.
I think he's spinning a yarn. If I'm not mistaken, the only flashing lights you'd get at a crossing would be red, something that he'd be aware of. I agree he should be banned for life. Dilligaf2010

1:25pm Fri 10 Aug 12

King Joke says...

I think you get a single yellow flashing before the double reds start flashing. However ANY light at a LC indicates a train is coming so you should stop immediately. He is chancing it but let's hope he gets a ban.
I think you get a single yellow flashing before the double reds start flashing. However ANY light at a LC indicates a train is coming so you should stop immediately. He is chancing it but let's hope he gets a ban. King Joke

1:29pm Fri 10 Aug 12

Bartsimpson_uk says...

He must be a cyclist!!
He must be a cyclist!! Bartsimpson_uk

1:49pm Fri 10 Aug 12

Darkforbid says...

Wow next time I'm nicked ill try "And the road moved officer"
Wow next time I'm nicked ill try "And the road moved officer" Darkforbid

6:44pm Fri 10 Aug 12

Diddy OX says...

What a complete ****! How on earth did he get a Phd in design?
What a complete ****! How on earth did he get a Phd in design? Diddy OX

12:05am Sat 11 Aug 12

John Lamb says...

Reminds me of when Dr Steele gave Richard Madeley his 'more absent-minded than the average man' excuse for shoplifting.
Did any body think to test for colour blindness?
Reminds me of when Dr Steele gave Richard Madeley his 'more absent-minded than the average man' excuse for shoplifting. Did any body think to test for colour blindness? John Lamb

2:52am Sat 11 Aug 12

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St says...

Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.
Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit. Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St

3:36am Sat 11 Aug 12

Dilligaf2010 says...

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.
Common sense, and good observation, trumps health & safety.
I sincerely doubt that the train was in stealth mode, and making no noise, as it approached the crossing, he took a gamble, and lost.
Health & Safety was bought in to prevent stupid people, doing stupid things, but unfortunately in some cases it's proved pointless, because there are still plenty of people who lack common sense.
[quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.[/p][/quote]Common sense, and good observation, trumps health & safety. I sincerely doubt that the train was in stealth mode, and making no noise, as it approached the crossing, he took a gamble, and lost. Health & Safety was bought in to prevent stupid people, doing stupid things, but unfortunately in some cases it's proved pointless, because there are still plenty of people who lack common sense. Dilligaf2010

3:05am Sun 12 Aug 12

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St says...

Dilligaf2010 wrote:
Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.
Common sense, and good observation, trumps health & safety.
I sincerely doubt that the train was in stealth mode, and making no noise, as it approached the crossing, he took a gamble, and lost.
Health & Safety was bought in to prevent stupid people, doing stupid things, but unfortunately in some cases it's proved pointless, because there are still plenty of people who lack common sense.
Exactly. Network rail have admitted that they were wrong by installing barriers there. He should appeal, because he was not protected from the danger by a physical barrier. As much as I hate H & S they can't have it both ways. It is one law for all, and not selective law to save cash.
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.[/p][/quote]Common sense, and good observation, trumps health & safety. I sincerely doubt that the train was in stealth mode, and making no noise, as it approached the crossing, he took a gamble, and lost. Health & Safety was bought in to prevent stupid people, doing stupid things, but unfortunately in some cases it's proved pointless, because there are still plenty of people who lack common sense.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Network rail have admitted that they were wrong by installing barriers there. He should appeal, because he was not protected from the danger by a physical barrier. As much as I hate H & S they can't have it both ways. It is one law for all, and not selective law to save cash. Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St

3:18pm Sun 12 Aug 12

John Lamb says...

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.
I'm glad Health and Safety is so stringent, for the same reasons Environmental Health keep their eyes on food shops who may wish to sell 'lukewarm burgers that have been sat for a while.'
[quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.[/p][/quote]I'm glad Health and Safety is so stringent, for the same reasons Environmental Health keep their eyes on food shops who may wish to sell 'lukewarm burgers that have been sat for a while.' John Lamb

9:39pm Sun 12 Aug 12

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St says...

John Lamb wrote:
Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.
I'm glad Health and Safety is so stringent, for the same reasons Environmental Health keep their eyes on food shops who may wish to sell 'lukewarm burgers that have been sat for a while.'
But like I said they ARE NOT. They will hit a business hard, but allow councils and government bodies to get away with MURDER (fact) But as we live in a corrupt society where money and fame talks the poor man just has to put up with it and claw it back elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]John Lamb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: Firstly that punishment is well over the top and I expect it to be massively reduced on appeal. Secondly in these days of elf and safety there should be barriers at the crossing (and the fact that there are now proves it) and I am surprised that he did not sue Network Rail for endangering his life. I cannot serve somebody a lukewarm burger that has been sat for a while because it might give them a dicky tummy, but I can drive unimpeded onto a railway track that might kill hundreds of people. It is all down to money not safety. If I (the business) have to pay H & S goes into overdrive, if it has to come out of the public budget then the H & S goes asleep. This man has been made an example of, and I hope he wins his appeal, and lawsuit.[/p][/quote]I'm glad Health and Safety is so stringent, for the same reasons Environmental Health keep their eyes on food shops who may wish to sell 'lukewarm burgers that have been sat for a while.'[/p][/quote]But like I said they ARE NOT. They will hit a business hard, but allow councils and government bodies to get away with MURDER (fact) But as we live in a corrupt society where money and fame talks the poor man just has to put up with it and claw it back elsewhere. Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St

8:34am Mon 13 Aug 12

King Joke says...

How was this the railway's fault? An idiot breaks the very, very clear rules because he thinks he can get away with it, and then uses a pretty lame excuse to try and wriggle out of his sanction.

There is every difference between a business knowingly selling unsafe food, and another business taking reasonable steps to prevent accidents which a tiny minority of the public then choose to ignore.

The barriers have probably gone up now to prevent any further idiocy, not because the crossing was unsafe. It won't be too long however before another idiot snaps a barrier, trying to get through in a 4x4 while the barrier is coming down. I give it a year, tops.
How was this the railway's fault? An idiot breaks the very, very clear rules because he thinks he can get away with it, and then uses a pretty lame excuse to try and wriggle out of his sanction. There is every difference between a business knowingly selling unsafe food, and another business taking reasonable steps to prevent accidents which a tiny minority of the public then choose to ignore. The barriers have probably gone up now to prevent any further idiocy, not because the crossing was unsafe. It won't be too long however before another idiot snaps a barrier, trying to get through in a 4x4 while the barrier is coming down. I give it a year, tops. King Joke

6:04pm Mon 13 Aug 12

sparky123456 says...

to be fair it's not really his fault. Rail warning lights use the same lights to flash between amber and red. he can't tell the difference. don't believe him, give him a colour blindness test. I don't believe being colour blind makes you ineledgible for driving. Secondly the issue of not having gates was raised 7 years ago and in installing gates since the accident that's as good as admitting liability. Thirdly traffic lights are ordered Red (top) amber (middle) Green (bottom) I believe that is so people with colour blindness can tell what to do so that's not an example of him causing potential danger in the future. Finally trains travel fast, very fast, if they approach from behind cover and you're in a car with the windows closed how will you hear it? It's not the days of steam. I hope he appeals and wins too.
to be fair it's not really his fault. Rail warning lights use the same lights to flash between amber and red. he can't tell the difference. don't believe him, give him a colour blindness test. I don't believe being colour blind makes you ineledgible for driving. Secondly the issue of not having gates was raised 7 years ago and in installing gates since the accident that's as good as admitting liability. Thirdly traffic lights are ordered Red (top) amber (middle) Green (bottom) I believe that is so people with colour blindness can tell what to do so that's not an example of him causing potential danger in the future. Finally trains travel fast, very fast, if they approach from behind cover and you're in a car with the windows closed how will you hear it? It's not the days of steam. I hope he appeals and wins too. sparky123456

6:06pm Mon 13 Aug 12

sparky123456 says...

Mark L. wrote:
Did he inform the DVLA previously that he was colour blind, as he is obviously not fit to drive. What about when he took his driving test?. What does he do at traffic lights?.
i guess this.... Usually, the red light contains some orange in its hue, and the green light contains some blue, for the benefit of people with red-green color blindness, and "green" lights in many areas are in fact blue lenses on a yellow light (which together appear green). taken from a wikipedia. more can be found in a brief history of traffic signals.
[quote][p][bold]Mark L.[/bold] wrote: Did he inform the DVLA previously that he was colour blind, as he is obviously not fit to drive. What about when he took his driving test?. What does he do at traffic lights?.[/p][/quote]i guess this.... Usually, the red light contains some orange in its hue, and the green light contains some blue, for the benefit of people with red-green color blindness, and "green" lights in many areas are in fact blue lenses on a yellow light (which together appear green). taken from a wikipedia. more can be found in a brief history of traffic signals. sparky123456

6:07pm Mon 13 Aug 12

King Joke says...

It IS his fault because the light colour is irrelevant; if ANY of the lights are flashing you are supposed to stop, not chance it. If LC lights are 'unsafe' how come this has never come out before? This is a case of pure idiocy.
It IS his fault because the light colour is irrelevant; if ANY of the lights are flashing you are supposed to stop, not chance it. If LC lights are 'unsafe' how come this has never come out before? This is a case of pure idiocy. King Joke

6:09pm Mon 13 Aug 12

King Joke says...

PS... Sparky may be wrong in his assessment of responsiblity, but he is right that you won't hear trains coming. Modern trains are pretty quiet. All the more reason to treat LCs with the utmost caution, not as an inconvenience to be dodged around.
PS... Sparky may be wrong in his assessment of responsiblity, but he is right that you won't hear trains coming. Modern trains are pretty quiet. All the more reason to treat LCs with the utmost caution, not as an inconvenience to be dodged around. King Joke

9:22am Thu 16 Aug 12

steve1955 says...

Would there have been support and excuse for him on here if 20 passengers on the train died a flashing light means something could he see indicators on cars or emergency services blue lights dont defend someone who could have killed
Would there have been support and excuse for him on here if 20 passengers on the train died a flashing light means something could he see indicators on cars or emergency services blue lights dont defend someone who could have killed steve1955

4:28pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St says...

steve1955 wrote:
Would there have been support and excuse for him on here if 20 passengers on the train died a flashing light means something could he see indicators on cars or emergency services blue lights dont defend someone who could have killed
Exactly Steve, that is why we are NOT defending network rail and their penny pinching that keeps on endangering peoples lives, and are defending the driver endangered by it, why install gates now if the crossing is safe?
[quote][p][bold]steve1955[/bold] wrote: Would there have been support and excuse for him on here if 20 passengers on the train died a flashing light means something could he see indicators on cars or emergency services blue lights dont defend someone who could have killed[/p][/quote]Exactly Steve, that is why we are NOT defending network rail and their penny pinching that keeps on endangering peoples lives, and are defending the driver endangered by it, why install gates now if the crossing is safe? Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St

4:44pm Thu 16 Aug 12

King Joke says...

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
steve1955 wrote: Would there have been support and excuse for him on here if 20 passengers on the train died a flashing light means something could he see indicators on cars or emergency services blue lights dont defend someone who could have killed
Exactly Steve, that is why we are NOT defending network rail and their penny pinching that keeps on endangering peoples lives, and are defending the driver endangered by it, why install gates now if the crossing is safe?
He endangered himself by jumping the lights! It's nobody's fault but his own.
[quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]steve1955[/bold] wrote: Would there have been support and excuse for him on here if 20 passengers on the train died a flashing light means something could he see indicators on cars or emergency services blue lights dont defend someone who could have killed[/p][/quote]Exactly Steve, that is why we are NOT defending network rail and their penny pinching that keeps on endangering peoples lives, and are defending the driver endangered by it, why install gates now if the crossing is safe?[/p][/quote]He endangered himself by jumping the lights! It's nobody's fault but his own. King Joke

5:03pm Thu 16 Aug 12

steve1955 says...

Whopper ,
Why should network rail put gates so that people like him potential killers are colur blind shoul all pedestrian crossings with coloured lights have gates on so he can comtinue drivingbeing a DR one would say hes educated enough to know when hes a danger to himself and others
Whopper , Why should network rail put gates so that people like him potential killers are colur blind shoul all pedestrian crossings with coloured lights have gates on so he can comtinue drivingbeing a DR one would say hes educated enough to know when hes a danger to himself and others steve1955

5:16pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Dilligaf2010 says...

If I'm not mistaken, train drivers are obliged to sound their horn when approaching unmanned crossings, so this bloke is certainly at fault on all counts, no ifs buts or maybes.
If I'm not mistaken, train drivers are obliged to sound their horn when approaching unmanned crossings, so this bloke is certainly at fault on all counts, no ifs buts or maybes. Dilligaf2010

5:51pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Justyouraveragejoe says...

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St going by your stupid comments every set of traffic lights in the UK should have barriers. Do the flashing lights at some fire stations and ambulance stations on main roads have barriers? From the high way code:-
"Flashing red lights
Alternately flashing red lights mean YOU MUST STOP
At level crossings, lifting bridges, airfields, fire stations, etc."
Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St going by your stupid comments every set of traffic lights in the UK should have barriers. Do the flashing lights at some fire stations and ambulance stations on main roads have barriers? From the high way code:- "Flashing red lights Alternately flashing red lights mean YOU MUST STOP At level crossings, lifting bridges, airfields, fire stations, etc." Justyouraveragejoe

6:09pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St says...

Justyouraveragejoe wrote:
Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St going by your stupid comments every set of traffic lights in the UK should have barriers. Do the flashing lights at some fire stations and ambulance stations on main roads have barriers? From the high way code:-
"Flashing red lights
Alternately flashing red lights mean YOU MUST STOP
At level crossings, lifting bridges, airfields, fire stations, etc."
I think you will find that railways are different from the kind of instances that you mentioned, I.E. You do not find Fire engines rushing out of fire stations at a hundred miles an hour, they have a driver that looks before pulling out, and they have a very LOUD audible warning device continually blaring, same for ambulances. check the highway code there are different regulations for Emergency vehicles, although I am lead to believe that Trains are not covered by that book and will not get a ticket for driving at 50mph up the Woodstock Rd. My Comment is not stupid, but your reply is. I will tell you why, because you have a basic knowledge of the highway code (emergency vehicles must give way if other traffic is there and it is not safe for them to progress IE over a Red Light) and that in the case above, Network Rail have admitted that it is unsafe for this crossing to be uncontrolled, by installing barriers. You obviously do not like this man so you are calling for the death penalty. thank the lord we do not all subscribe to your kind of justice.
[quote][p][bold]Justyouraveragejoe[/bold] wrote: Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St going by your stupid comments every set of traffic lights in the UK should have barriers. Do the flashing lights at some fire stations and ambulance stations on main roads have barriers? From the high way code:- "Flashing red lights Alternately flashing red lights mean YOU MUST STOP At level crossings, lifting bridges, airfields, fire stations, etc."[/p][/quote]I think you will find that railways are different from the kind of instances that you mentioned, I.E. You do not find Fire engines rushing out of fire stations at a hundred miles an hour, they have a driver that looks before pulling out, and they have a very LOUD audible warning device continually blaring, same for ambulances. check the highway code there are different regulations for Emergency vehicles, although I am lead to believe that Trains are not covered by that book and will not get a ticket for driving at 50mph up the Woodstock Rd. My Comment is not stupid, but your reply is. I will tell you why, because you have a basic knowledge of the highway code (emergency vehicles must give way if other traffic is there and it is not safe for them to progress IE over a Red Light) and that in the case above, Network Rail have admitted that it is unsafe for this crossing to be uncontrolled, by installing barriers. You obviously do not like this man so you are calling for the death penalty. thank the lord we do not all subscribe to your kind of justice. Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St

6:13pm Thu 16 Aug 12

King Joke says...

We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.
We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more. King Joke

6:17pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St says...

King Joke wrote:
We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.
it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.[/p][/quote]it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail. Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St

6:24pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Justyouraveragejoe says...

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
Justyouraveragejoe wrote:
Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St going by your stupid comments every set of traffic lights in the UK should have barriers. Do the flashing lights at some fire stations and ambulance stations on main roads have barriers? From the high way code:-
"Flashing red lights
Alternately flashing red lights mean YOU MUST STOP
At level crossings, lifting bridges, airfields, fire stations, etc."
I think you will find that railways are different from the kind of instances that you mentioned, I.E. You do not find Fire engines rushing out of fire stations at a hundred miles an hour, they have a driver that looks before pulling out, and they have a very LOUD audible warning device continually blaring, same for ambulances. check the highway code there are different regulations for Emergency vehicles, although I am lead to believe that Trains are not covered by that book and will not get a ticket for driving at 50mph up the Woodstock Rd. My Comment is not stupid, but your reply is. I will tell you why, because you have a basic knowledge of the highway code (emergency vehicles must give way if other traffic is there and it is not safe for them to progress IE over a Red Light) and that in the case above, Network Rail have admitted that it is unsafe for this crossing to be uncontrolled, by installing barriers. You obviously do not like this man so you are calling for the death penalty. thank the lord we do not all subscribe to your kind of justice.
I think you'll find by your comments that you have no clue what so ever.By quoting parts not central to the point. the red flashing lights would be letting the fire engine out. If a fire engine is responding to a shout and you jump red flashing lights and get hit you will get done. if you jump red flashing lights at a railway if you survive you will get done. it is the law! level crossings are safe if used properly. or are you saying your stupid enough to pass a red flashing light on to a level crossing if there is no barrier?

If everyone obeyed teh lights as they should there would be no need for barriers at any level crossing.
[quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Justyouraveragejoe[/bold] wrote: Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St going by your stupid comments every set of traffic lights in the UK should have barriers. Do the flashing lights at some fire stations and ambulance stations on main roads have barriers? From the high way code:- "Flashing red lights Alternately flashing red lights mean YOU MUST STOP At level crossings, lifting bridges, airfields, fire stations, etc."[/p][/quote]I think you will find that railways are different from the kind of instances that you mentioned, I.E. You do not find Fire engines rushing out of fire stations at a hundred miles an hour, they have a driver that looks before pulling out, and they have a very LOUD audible warning device continually blaring, same for ambulances. check the highway code there are different regulations for Emergency vehicles, although I am lead to believe that Trains are not covered by that book and will not get a ticket for driving at 50mph up the Woodstock Rd. My Comment is not stupid, but your reply is. I will tell you why, because you have a basic knowledge of the highway code (emergency vehicles must give way if other traffic is there and it is not safe for them to progress IE over a Red Light) and that in the case above, Network Rail have admitted that it is unsafe for this crossing to be uncontrolled, by installing barriers. You obviously do not like this man so you are calling for the death penalty. thank the lord we do not all subscribe to your kind of justice.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find by your comments that you have no clue what so ever.By quoting parts not central to the point. the red flashing lights would be letting the fire engine out. If a fire engine is responding to a shout and you jump red flashing lights and get hit you will get done. if you jump red flashing lights at a railway if you survive you will get done. it is the law! level crossings are safe if used properly. or are you saying your stupid enough to pass a red flashing light on to a level crossing if there is no barrier? If everyone obeyed teh lights as they should there would be no need for barriers at any level crossing. Justyouraveragejoe

6:32pm Thu 16 Aug 12

King Joke says...

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
King Joke wrote: We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.
it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail.
Ahem, it was red, and it lit up. Ergo, it is a red light. It means EXACTLY the same as a red traffic light, ie STOP.

Do you stop at red traffic lights, when the other road is lightly trafficked? Yes? In that case you should also stop at level crossings.
[quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.[/p][/quote]it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail.[/p][/quote]Ahem, it was red, and it lit up. Ergo, it is a red light. It means EXACTLY the same as a red traffic light, ie STOP. Do you stop at red traffic lights, when the other road is lightly trafficked? Yes? In that case you should also stop at level crossings. King Joke

6:38pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St says...

King Joke wrote:
Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
King Joke wrote: We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.
it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail.
Ahem, it was red, and it lit up. Ergo, it is a red light. It means EXACTLY the same as a red traffic light, ie STOP.

Do you stop at red traffic lights, when the other road is lightly trafficked? Yes? In that case you should also stop at level crossings.
ERR KINGY, it is not lit up the same as a red traffic light, that is why he rightly defended himself, do you think that if it was like you said he would be so stoopid to risk the high penalty he received. READ SPARKY'S post it will explain it to you.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.[/p][/quote]it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail.[/p][/quote]Ahem, it was red, and it lit up. Ergo, it is a red light. It means EXACTLY the same as a red traffic light, ie STOP. Do you stop at red traffic lights, when the other road is lightly trafficked? Yes? In that case you should also stop at level crossings.[/p][/quote]ERR KINGY, it is not lit up the same as a red traffic light, that is why he rightly defended himself, do you think that if it was like you said he would be so stoopid to risk the high penalty he received. READ SPARKY'S post it will explain it to you. Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St

6:45pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Justyouraveragejoe says...

Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
King Joke wrote:
Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St wrote:
King Joke wrote: We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.
it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail.
Ahem, it was red, and it lit up. Ergo, it is a red light. It means EXACTLY the same as a red traffic light, ie STOP.

Do you stop at red traffic lights, when the other road is lightly trafficked? Yes? In that case you should also stop at level crossings.
ERR KINGY, it is not lit up the same as a red traffic light, that is why he rightly defended himself, do you think that if it was like you said he would be so stoopid to risk the high penalty he received. READ SPARKY'S post it will explain it to you.
You really are daft aren't you.?

red flashing lights means stop. even emergency vehicles on a 999 shout can not pass red flashing lights.
[quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whopper w/o Pickle Cornmarket St[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: We've never met this man. He might be a nice guy most of the time, but when he gets in his car he clearly thinks he is above the law. The law is you stop at red lights, end of story. He did not and so he should face the penalty, which is a driving ban for a few years, nothing more.[/p][/quote]it was not a red light, it was something entirely different, read the above posts regarding the difference between traffic lights and crossing lights. Why not have both the same and then no confusion would arise. Again I support the victim in his action against either the Government or Network Rail.[/p][/quote]Ahem, it was red, and it lit up. Ergo, it is a red light. It means EXACTLY the same as a red traffic light, ie STOP. Do you stop at red traffic lights, when the other road is lightly trafficked? Yes? In that case you should also stop at level crossings.[/p][/quote]ERR KINGY, it is not lit up the same as a red traffic light, that is why he rightly defended himself, do you think that if it was like you said he would be so stoopid to risk the high penalty he received. READ SPARKY'S post it will explain it to you.[/p][/quote]You really are daft aren't you.? red flashing lights means stop. even emergency vehicles on a 999 shout can not pass red flashing lights. Justyouraveragejoe

7:25pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Justyouraveragejoe says...

Just for those ie Sparky who clearly don't understand these traffic signals with regards to level crossings. there are 3 lights arranged with two on top and one at the bottom. the bottom one is the amber. when the crossing is activated the amber will show steady for 2 seconds. the red lights will then show steady for 2 seconds along with the amber. then the amber light will extinguish and the two reds will flash alternate leaving one lit at all times. so no you cant mistake an amber for a red. at the same time as the crossing is not barried there would be a constant alarm sounding.

something a lot of people don't realise also is that railways have right of way over level crossings and are owned by the railways. that's why cars stop for trains not trains stop for cars.
Just for those ie Sparky who clearly don't understand these traffic signals with regards to level crossings. there are 3 lights arranged with two on top and one at the bottom. the bottom one is the amber. when the crossing is activated the amber will show steady for 2 seconds. the red lights will then show steady for 2 seconds along with the amber. then the amber light will extinguish and the two reds will flash alternate leaving one lit at all times. so no you cant mistake an amber for a red. at the same time as the crossing is not barried there would be a constant alarm sounding. something a lot of people don't realise also is that railways have right of way over level crossings and are owned by the railways. that's why cars stop for trains not trains stop for cars. Justyouraveragejoe

8:50pm Thu 16 Aug 12

steve1955 says...

I think Mr whopper your losing with some of you remarks for all our sakes please dont drive on the roads justyouraveragejoe is spot on trains have right of way lastly as your so defensive of the doctor is he your friend or do you condone bad driving
I think Mr whopper your losing with some of you remarks for all our sakes please dont drive on the roads justyouraveragejoe is spot on trains have right of way lastly as your so defensive of the doctor is he your friend or do you condone bad driving steve1955

12:31pm Sun 19 Aug 12

DeathStar Canteen says...

The flashing red lights are deliberately arranged to flash side to side to mimic the shaking of the head - an international meaning of "NO". This is to alert everyone (including colourblind people) - "NO, do not pass. STOP."
It's very clear. Try watching a video of a level crossing on YouTube with your colour turned down to Black & White.

"But... But, I'm not sure what shade of grey those lights are!"
But they are clearly telling you "NO!" right?
The flashing red lights are deliberately arranged to flash side to side to mimic the shaking of the head - an international meaning of "NO". This is to alert everyone (including colourblind people) - "NO, do not pass. STOP." It's very clear. Try watching a video of a level crossing on YouTube with your colour turned down to Black & White. "But... But, I'm not sure what shade of grey those lights are!" But they are clearly telling you "NO!" right? DeathStar Canteen

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree