*Emergency Situation, Very Near-Miss* Holt Fen Level Crossing, Cambridgeshire 

Why not both? A near miss caused by a crossing misuse.

I was thinking crossing miss use too.

Agreed, its laziness

Bingo!

Yup the equivalent of someone at regular crossings rushing through when the gates and lights activate

Exactly and that’s why!

Yes. But doing that would have mean't getting out and walking.

@@p.istaker8862 yes walking is such hard work for modern humans.

Also in that situation. Pulling back would also have been an option. There was no car behind him.

Shut up you old farts like you've never taken a risk.

You have plenty of time IF you follow the rules and operate the crossing correctly. Read The signs, they are not there for decorative purposes

But then he would have had to wait for the train

@@warweezil2802 And the telephones are there to find out from the signaller when the next trains are due.

@@insylem but on the upside, if he got hit by the train his funeral could be a whole lot sooner than he expected

@@gregkiteos1936 technically you don’t need to call the signalling centre unless you are crossing with a large and/or slow moving load or the lights are not functioning, in which case the phone should always be used to allow for trains to be stopped before entering the section where the crossing is sited. Normally the crossing when used according to the clearly signposted steps operates safely without any interaction with the signalling centra.

More than just one. Could you imagine what would've happened if the Stadler had gone into it? 😱

Because he hasnt got the IQ to do that

He drives a van for a living.

at first the crossing when it was red I could understand as it literally turned red as he drove through but to not reverse out of danger? Yeah he's special

@@georgedowns4034 I think maybe you need to educate yourself better about this. There is a sign that clearly states check for green light, then open BOTH gates, then recheck the light and then cross quickly, finally close both gates He failed at the second step because he is clearly too stupid to consider the hazard his vehicle presents parked on a crossing while he faffs around with the second gate that he should have opened BEFORE driving onto the crossing, operated correctly there is no problem with the warning sequence activating as the diver would have a clear exit. Crossings are safe when they are used correctly, the problem is idiots like this who are too lazy (or stupid) to follow the instructions and by that place themselves and rail users & train crews at risk.

Because the video was faked. Good amount of likes though so fair play to the content provider. He’s won, you muggy viewers are the losers falling for this fake shit.

Sod the driver. That’s a Darwin Award right there. Hitting a car could easily derail the train and kill a lot more people. Upton nevitt springs to mind

@@highdownmartin The guy was suicidal though in Ufton, a bit different. Most of this is just terminal stupidity.

@@alastairfulbrook1285 agree Alastair, hence Darwin Award ref. Occupation and foot crossings are really dangerous for the reason you mentioned. I was a driver 30 years and the scant regard some people gave me bearing down on them at 90 was unbelievable. I can’t walk over a level crossing with the gates up without looking both ways.

​@@highdownmartini think that with modern train types that's less likely, and that the train would have just snowploughed straight into the van like nothing. The shape of the front of the class 43 has a nasty tendency to launch the train up if it hits something

Don't you know rules of the road don't apply to van drivers 🙄

@@nleak92 haha very true! I think what tops it off is the cheek when he asks the guy to close the other side for him!

1. Ignore lights 2. Open 1 gate 3. Ignore red light 4. Cross slowly and get out and then back in 5. Get someone else to close the gates

VERY SIMPLE AND EASY CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOWS.

@@stephenrozario5742 whatever you do, don't open only 1 gate, because by the time you've crossed over to the other gate, that light may have gone red and your vehicle will then be in the firing line of whatever's coming at you at about 100mph...

▪Expand the instructions. ▪Clearly state if you open only the nearest gate, then drive in to the farther gate, you will be trapped in the path of any train coming by. ▪An illustration couldn't hurt, if it energises one's emotions without making one ill. ▪Then test the new instructions on several dozen villagers, farmers, travelers, and schoolchildren with bicycles, to ensure the message is received with an adequate punch. This ought to be done with any design in any industry if it will affect people other than yourself. 🇨🇦

Hardly anybody who drives, reads signs anymore, they just want to get from point A to B ASAP -- you're lucky if they look beyond their bonnets half the time.

@@mortxiii no, you’re wrong.

@@hythekent how is that comment wrong? - do you drive? ... I didn't say "nobody..." I said hardly anybody... a lot of people rely soley on in car information these days and don't read signs!

@@mortxiii I don't disagree. The ability - or willingness - to read and obey signs has seemingly diminished. Very easy example: a bus lane near my home with morning and evening restrictions, Mon-Fri: the number of people who cannot process the information even in stop-start traffic. Also, where I live (s.London) a restricted road which says for "emergency vehicles only" but some cars continue to drive thru (the fine may deter them).

@@hythekent nope you're wrong.

Yeah, was not far off from a crash.

In these modern times, it was obviously too far to walk.

@@UKLevelCrossingsTrains a double crash if the second EMU didn't have ample warning. That could've been a nasty mess..

It might be that he didn't understand English

@@alejandrayalanbowman367 He spoke clear English with his question at 1:07 'are you ok to close the other gate as well?'

Yes, in block capital letters, with the word "Complete" in front of it!

Sometimes it's the phrase 'imprisoned for causing the deaths of several rail users'. Lucky man.

Yeah, would have been much easier if both were opened as it says on the instruction sign. I reckon if I hadn’t have opened that gate for the driver, the train could’ve collided with the van. As they’d have to open the gate, hook it then get back in and shut it.

We had an idiot driving a truck loaded with Hay that did this, wrote off his HGV and closed the line for a couple of days, the train that hit him was quite a mess too. He Got a nice driving ban for his troubles

That's what the sign says. Big bold letters as well.

Yep, he said out of all the times he’s used the crossing it’s never actually activated but I suppose this was his unlucky day.

A normal person would simply have reversed upon realising their mistake. But then again, I suppose that same normal person would've opened both gates first - like the signs say. lol!

And if he's a regular user, then definitely should've known better too.

🤭😬 - ⚰️

They were already reported

@@UKLevelCrossingsTrains Good to hear 👍

Agreed. Or you could have constructed the gates further from the tracks so you can fit a vehicle safely between the two... Actually the number of crossings required is 5, including driving the vehicle across! 😉

All of the above have been thought of, and have their own downsides: "leave the barriers out and rely on the warning lights" - the whole point of the barriers is to force people to stop and actually check that it's safe to cross, the miniature lights being too small to notice from a distance (yes, really!) They also keep animals out, especially important on farms! "put proper gates in" - define proper gates? If you mean ones that have power but are controlled by a button/remote control, you get DPD drivers and tractors driving right into the path of a train without checking the lights/phoning for permission and [probably] assuming that "the barriers opened, it must be safe", or seeing the light green before opening, but not noticing they've changed once the gates fully open (see RAIB report 12/2018 and 07/2016). If they become interlocked with the lights (and you actually want to do it safely), that's further cost and complication, that would lead to the only real option being to... "just close the crossing for motor traffic" - ...which wouldn't have you very popular when that's the only road to your house (and any bridge may not take into account abnormal loads you may need to get to your farm/house/premises). "Or you could have constructed the gates further from the tracks so you can fit a vehicle safely between the two" - that would very likely be more complicated (you'd need to leave your car at least 4 times and walk the length of your car twice)... and that assumes you have a car to start off with, and not a lorry/tractor and trailer/anything that would be too long without getting ridiculous. (See RAIB 13/2009, these ideas are explored there.) Worth noting that the report 13/2009 is a class investigation into user worked crossings and acknowledges that you need to make 5 crossings just to get a car across!

@@fetchstixRHD ​ You can also keep animals off the track with a cattle grid. This is not great for the mobility impaired, but the current setup is equally terrible. Drivers can indeed ignore lights, sirens, and an oncoming train, just like the guy in the video did. At least they wouldn't be stuck in the middle. You could put some obstacles on the road that drivers have to navigate before they can enter the crossing to force them to pay attention. And of course the warning lights should be full size. Proper gates in my opinion is not a push button that opens the gate even while a train is crossing. Of course this is confusing. People will assume they are REQUESTING the gates to open, just like with pedestrian lights, not commanding them. The gates should be protected, but don't need to be connected to the signal. You just take the track limit, calculate how long it takes for the fastest train to get to the crossing, add just a few seconds (10 or so) margin, and you know where to put your detector for the crossing. This won't eliminate the risk of a train colliding with a very slow moving vehicle that hasn't checked with the railway if they are clear to cross, but neither do these fences. Unless that road is a dead end, they can exit on the other side. Over here, closure of level crossings sometimes does indeed involve some road construction, which can be quite costly. Vehicles crossing here must fit between the gates (width) and fit under the overhead wires. If they can fit through here, they'll fit on the bridge. If the bridge can't support their weight, they'll just need to make more trips. Agreed that moving the fences is not a solution, but primarily because it invites (car) drivers to stop between the barriers, which is what we are trying to avoid. Browsing through the report, they mention a Westex level crossing predictor, which closes the barriers based on the train's ETA, rather than tying in with the signals and stopping traffic for a long time. I think this is a very viable option to control the gates. Looking a bit further into user worked crossings, I understand that you need to phone for permission to cross with a vehicle, which this driver did not do. The instructions on the sign are actually only for pedestrians. Looking into this particular crossing, it appears they have already fixed it: www.google.nl/maps/@52.3600532,0.2521027,3a,75y,109.06h,80.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHi-asMuezpA2BScH99ZE_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 This is indeed just a connection to one house (and some moorings on the river Great Ouse). edit: that actually makes it worse because the guy probably lives there and should by now know how to use the crossing. But hey.

Crossings aren’t dangerous, people are

Its disappointing that the stupidity, impatience and entitlement of a few morons causes so much of a problem. Fact is all crossings are abused by the same type of people who feel they are too important to follow rules and obey signals. Crossing abuse should carry an automatic 12 month driving ban plus require an extended test to regain a licence, crossing abuse is just a symptom of a greater problem of especially poor driving standards by those offenders.

Thats why the number olate is hidden to the public

Proboably not often

Mind you, these crossings are supposed to be such that only authorised users make use of them, and anybody who's visiting or otherwise invited will be informed by the authorised user about the crossing. Of course, that isn't exactly always reasonable to do, and it has been noted that UWC signage hasn't been great. Case in point: in the Highway Code, there's only mention that you MUST (legally) follow signs that instruct you to phone before crossing, and in the case of "User-operated gates or barriers", NOT cross when the red light is on, which are legal instructions, but unlike in other places, doesn't do a great job at emphasising the importance of opening BOTH gates (which could be in capitals, other places which use DO or DO NOT do so in places where not following such advice is likely to contravene another law, and here a good case that bolding and capitalising BOTH, and adding a note that trains won't be able to stop for you, is a good idea (as this is enough of a foreseeable risk to have been noted in one Railtrack level crossing video, and appear as a note in the RAIB's user worked crossing class investigation.)

Oh but he did have time to stop and ask him to close the other gate for him, you can hear him asking in the background. Thanks for saving my dumb ass now can you do my work for me I guess is all you get from pricks like that.

I think the driver HAS learnt by his mistake, involving the police and paying a fine will just rub salt into the wound and the only benefit will be the government coffers.

No. Letting this driver off when he could have killed so many people on that train is unacceptable.

@@TheByard , what a stupid comment , it’s hardly surprising that you hide under a pseudonym , dick head !

Apparently the British Transport Police were made aware of this incident, and the driver involved got into trouble

@@pineappleroad yep cctv is present at that crossing so there is clear evidence.

2814 user worked crossings, in 2007 (1). (I can't seem to get the correct April 2021 numbers from Network Rail's LC spreadsheet (3)!) The idea of them being safe is that only authorised users would have the crossing, although in the modern world of home deliveries etc you're very likely to have someone with no idea about how these crossings work needing to use one. To quote the RAIB (2), "It is no longer reasonable (if it ever was) to expect authorised users to provide information to everyone who may approach a private level crossing about how to use it safely.". Sources: (1) assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c904640f0b6024100019f/R132009_090603_UWCs.pdf - RAIB User worked Crossing Report 13/2009 (2) assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b7ea7abe5274a44bdd0822a/R122018_180823_Frognal_Farm.pdf - RAIB Frognal Farm report 12/2018, para 88 for the quote (3) See www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/level-crossing-safety/

It's a waste of money to make automatic crossing in a 1 laned road in a unpopulated area, automatic crossings are found on proper roads with 2 lanes and road markings

These type of crossing are also to prevent animals from getting on the line, something that automatic barriers wouldn't protect against

@@theaeroflyexperience2233 Waste of money? Look at all the infrastructure currently there - signals, gates, land line, tons of signage. A simple automatic gate mechanism looks efficient compared to this poorly thought out mess.

@@codelyokop In first world countries animal farms are fenced in so we don't have to worry about them wandering into high speed railway crossings.

Good point. The irony is that the relatively small number of dangerous crossings like this mean that the law now says you can't make any more level crossings - which is really not in people's interest

That's why it has audible and visual warning lights. It's perfectly safe IF people follow the instructions.

@@buseswithsam3280 IF ....... and they clearly do not as is demonstrated. What is the alternative to make it safer?

Oh well.

You can do that here, just pause the video and use . and , to step back and forward one frame at a time.

The Class 755 Can Only Go Up To 100MPH

Yeah this kind of crossing is rare and you only find them in the middle of nowhere

This type of crossing is found in rural areas, and is principally to stop farm animals getting on the tracks, which automatic barriers will not prevent.

At least it prevents people from flooring it without even looking.

Surely network rail would have considered this before the crossing was installed?

@@andyhollerman4473 I doubt it !

@@andyhollerman4473 The crossing was probably built decades before Network Rail.

Or do what the US does and put automatic crossing arms.

@@TransitAndTeslas Cost too much money !!!

I think he needs to be A LOT safer!

yeah maybe I should rephrase that, that would have been a serious accident if not for his good thinking. Well done again!

I was panicking, that was the last thing i was thinking about

And then you get the over height HGV/vans crashing into the bridges instead

"Close the other one for you? Bitch, get back on that crossing and stay there, if it weren't for me you'd be deceased" - what I would have to try very hard to resist saying if it were me, certainly!

I agree, but its probably a better idea to let him get off and get that moron as far away from the crossing as possible

On Most crossings there are crossing arms here but its only some older crossings that don't or on a track or closed road that doesn't have arms

There are lifting barriers, on public road crossings that are busy enough to warrant them. This is a private road crossing with relatively few users, so it wouldn't be economical to have them here.

The BTP were made aware of this, as I’ve seen a Twitter post relating to it. The driver has been interviewed about this incident and is guilty for his actions, which I’m glad to hear.

@@FlashingRedProductions oh that’s great! Hopefully that will result in less people doing this stupid act

@@FlashingRedProductions Yeah, I just noticed that lol.

The video uploader decided they didn't want to name and shame the driver and I have no problem with that.

I suggest you do not go on Google Street view then.

And if he sells the vehicle do we want the next owner getting harassment about something they didn’t do?

@Blue What for?

Anyone using the crossing has to check the signal, open BOTH the gates, check the signal again then drive across returning to close the gates. The Road crosses railway property.

@@warweezil2802 That is so weird! The driver has to get out of his vehicle and open the gates manually??!!! We have automatic barriers wich close automatically every time a train passes. After it's gone they open automatically and the cars can continue. Where do you live?

@@reaper.- West Wales near Milford Haven. The line west of Carmarthen has several of these types of crossings, normally on farm access roads where there is little traffic and the cost of automatic barriers isn’t viable. The crossings are safe if used correctly. The automatic crossing at Manorbier has resulted in a couple of prosecutions where a vehicle has ignored the lights etc despite a train approaching., and despite the fact that the service only operates a 2 car train making around 8 return trips a day.Some drivers are too impatient and lack basic common sense.

@@warweezil2802 allright, thanks :)

Yes, that's criminal putting others in danger.

And to think those working on the track only have to be in a position of safety for just 10 secconds

Crossings aren’t dangerous, people are

@@longpier350 crossings ARE dangerous. if you dont think so you are an idiot. we are talking about something that can weigh over 1 million pounds and still be a lightweight. the issue in this video its that there is no one operating the crossing as there is supposed to be with these types of crossings. so the people have to stop at the crossing, open it uip, drive thru and then close the crossing again. the only thing this guy should have done differently is he should have opened the far end before driving his van across.

@@teacher555555 the loud bells, that sound well before a train, would notify any foot pedestrian to quickly move or if used properly in this case then the van would be able to reverse or go through the opened gate, this crossing is as safe as network rail can make it

​@@longpier350if that was true then this video would not have been made. the driver did screw up the directions on that he was supposed to open both gates before crossing. i have seen other videos on here where the gates switch from closing off the rails for road traffic to closing off the road for the trains. these gates were manually operated by 1 person at the signal house who had to switch these gates and if they were properly open or not was solely on how fast he did it. it caused many accidents which is why not many of them exist any more,. not to mention the manpower you have to have to operate all those crossings.

@@teacher555555 if you ran on modern tech, eg: when a train enters a certain signal block the bells sound and lights flash red, that could be done automatically instead of having a person do it and that system is used in other countries or furthermore use a system like that With the gates, but automatic

As far as i am aware trains aren’t required to sound their horn on approach to a crossing in the UK, athough i think if no warning devices are fitted at the crossing then it is a requirement for the train to sound the horn

@@pineappleroad Used to be mandatory at one time with "Whistle" boards either side of the crossing. Certainly at my local road crossing they usually give a blast. I would have thought that foot crossing it would be even more important. Perhaps a real UK driver can help us out.

@@andyknott8148 I think this crossing should be closed, or upgraded. Whistleboards are needed.

Yes . That seems a bit of a fault to be honest. If it was an automated gate crossing, it would have stayed closed until both ways had cleared. What if you decided to start crossing on that green light only for it to change moments later back to red! They need to address that. Doesn't stop the van driver from being a bit of a dick though!

About 9 seconds that it was green for, i would imagine it would be about enough time for 1 person to cross on foot using the pedestrian gates (perhaps with the light turning red as the person reaches the other side)

If the light stays red for too long with no train there is a risk that people may assume it's a malfunction and try their luck. They have to balance that against having a short green period.

Yes, seems it could have stayed red as close as the second train was!

The reason for the brief period of green is due to the warning distance, when the first train was clear the second train wasn't close enough to trigger the light to turn red. This is most likely done using a treddle fitted to the track on either side and often less than a mile away. On normal crossings the barriers tend to be lowered while the train is several miles away