Another level crossing collision between car and train near Cambridge (29/03)

[Steptoe]

Fortunately for the driver this AHBC level crossing is adjacent to a station, just before the platform, so the train was already almost at a stop. Very little damage to the train and minor injuries to the driver. As the crossing was reopened fairly quickly, presumably it was determined that it was working correctly at the time of the incident?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/train-hits-car-waterbeach-cambridgeshire-1-5457227

Train operator Greater Anglia said the vehicle was struck at Waterbeach on the edge of the Fens in Cambridgeshire at 5.45pm today.

The company said services between Cambridge and Ely, King’s Lynn and Norwich are disrupted.

It is understood that the driver of the car escaped with minor injuries...

 

[Spartacus]

From what I've read the driver may not consider it fortunate, or at least she may not have done at the time.

 

[HughT]

Certainly looks as though the crossing was working just fine (I doubt Network Rail would brief the media if they weren't quite certain).

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/waterbeach-level-crossing-train-car-14475041

A British Transport Police investigation into the incident is carrying on over the Easter weekend.

But a spokesman for Network Rail said today (Friday, March 30) that its engineers had established there was nothing wrong with the level crossing's gates and that the crossing was safe to use.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-43595854

A level crossing where a car was hit by a train was working correctly at the time, Network Rail has said.

A woman, believed to be the car driver, escaped with minor injuries in the collision near Waterbeach station in Cambridgeshire.

Network Rail said it had carried out its own tests following the incident at 17:40 BST on Thursday.

British Transport Police was focussing how the car came to be on the crossing, it added

 

[xotGD]

'Motorist drives into the path of oncoming train' might be a better headline.

 

[GB]

She purposely stopped on the crossing and was purportedly drunk.

 

[HughT]

She purposely stopped on the crossing and was purportedly drunk.

The BBC reports:

She has been arrested on suspicion of causing an unlawful act with intent to endanger safety on railway and driver failure to provide a specimen.

 

[racyrich]

I hope she's liable for all of NR's delay repayments then. And since insurance doesn't cover deliberate acts, it'll be personally liable.

 

[backontrack]

I hope she's liable for all of NR's delay repayments then. And since insurance doesn't cover deliberate acts, it'll be personally liable.

Hold your horses. It might have been a suicide attempt in which case it wouldn't do any help to publicly blame the driver.

Could they be charged for driving under intoxication?

 

[GB]

I don't think she provided a sample so will be charged with failing to provide a sample which can amount to the same punishment as a drink drive conviction.

 

[bspahh]

Fortunately for the driver this AHBC level crossing is adjacent to a station, just before the platform, so the train was already almost at a stop.

I don't know how fast it was going. However, that train wasn't scheduled to stop at Waterbeach
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G72681/2018/03/29/advanced

 

[philthetube]

I hope she's liable for all of NR's delay repayments then. And since insurance doesn't cover deliberate acts, it'll be personally liable.

I think it will cover third party issues only.

 

[dk1]

I don't know how fast it was going. However, that train wasn't scheduled to stop at Waterbeach
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G72681/2018/03/29/advanced

75mph line speed both roads through Waterbeach assuming clear signals.

 

[Steptoe]

I don't know how fast it was going. However, that train wasn't scheduled to stop at Waterbeach
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G72681/2018/03/29/advanced

The damage to train and car suggests a low speed collision so all credit to the driver in reacting to the obstruction. From the circumstances reported concerning the car driver's condition it may well have been 'parked' on the crossing rather than driven across just before the barriers came down

 

[Wivenswold]

Tis true, third party liabilities are covered by law in the UK. That's why there's a legal requirement to have insurance. The Insurer may reserve the right to seek recovery of its losses from the driver if it's a deliberate act. That is assuming the car was insured. If not the driver will likely be heading to the Big House to serve some time at her Maj's pleasure.