When I clicked on the link Jonboy posted, I got this
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by British Broadcasting Corporation
which is why I made that statement…
Simon:
When I clicked on the link Jonboy posted, I got thisThis video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by British Broadcasting Corporation
which is why I made that statement…
maybe it was something to do with THIS
seems to be working now 
The entire programme is available for download from any of the P2P or Torrent sites. Or so I’m told. 
Simon:
When I clicked on the link Jonboy posted, I got thisThis video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by British Broadcasting Corporation
which is why I made that statement…
Yes, just before reading this post I realised that you were referring to it being pulled from YouTube, as opposed to the BBC choosing to screen a different episode of TG on Thursday night.
My bad.
I think the issue here isn’t that the driver in question was being a reckless driver, he was being as realistic as the next man or woman. To me, the emphasis in this country seems more and more into the catching and prosecution for very minor offences, rather than preventing them. All it would take for things like this and decent drivers to avoid being penalised is to increase the time that the warning lights are active, giving drivers the time to brake safely, or, if they are too far gone, proceed through without fear of petty minded prosecution. As for the photos of vehicles crushed by trains etc, they are not relivent to this driver passing the crossing less than 5 seconds after the lights flashed so please dont try to imply he’s a reckless moron. I think its about time the VOSA clone ‘truck drivers’ of this forum re-charged their batteries, got a grip of reality and realised we’re humans, not robots and as such will always have margins of error, more so than a quick five second or less change of lights allows for.
Then again, of course, we could always just start driving properly and assuming that lights are going to change as we approach them, not the other way around. Increasing the flashing time would just increase the number of people who had time in which to “risk it”. 
I’m as guilty as everyone else here, by the way - I’m certainly no angel, being paid mileage and all. But I wouldn’t dream of coming up with weak and poxy excuses when I get caught out. I take the risk knowing that is what I am doing. If that risk backfires, it’s no-one’s fault but my own.
eldor:
All it would take for things like this and decent drivers to avoid being penalised is to increase the time that the warning lights are active, giving drivers the time to brake safely, or, if they are too far gone, proceed through without fear of petty minded prosecution. As for the photos of vehicles crushed by trains etc, they are not relivent to this driver passing the crossing less than 5 seconds after the lights flashed so please dont try to imply he’s a reckless moron.
And how long would you set the lights flashing for ?
Just long enough for people to get bored and decide to risk it ? Enough time so that you can safely cross even when they are flashing red ?
Kind of takes the ■■■■ out of having any rules at all doesn’t it.
As for the photos not being relevant - well next time maybe those 5 seconds will be the difference between life and death - not just his death, but the train driver and possibly passengers too.
I don’t know whether you remember passing your car test, but part of the training was that when approaching any traffic lights, you should be in a control gear, prepared for the lights to change. Which means being prepared to stop. Would you say that pedestrian lights should flash longer too before they go red, or are we allowed to risk them too ?
The lights are there for own own benefit, obeying them prevents us dying, and prevents us getting a ticket - win win. Disobeying them means possibly losing out - full stop. A ticket is nothing after getting away with your life.
Lucy:
Then again, of course, we could always just start driving properly and assuming that lights are going to change as we approach them, not the other way around. Increasing the flashing time would just increase the number of people who had time in which to “risk it”.I’m as guilty as everyone else here, by the way - I’m certainly no angel, being paid mileage and all. But I wouldn’t dream of coming up with weak and poxy excuses when I get caught out. I take the risk knowing that is what I am doing. If that risk backfires, it’s no-one’s fault but my own.
All I’m saying is. If you had a longer warning time, a driver wouldn’t be faced with the split second decision of braking hard, at whatever speed or carrying on, only seconds away from the crossing. If you give a driver a longer length of time, more suitable to the human mind, rather than mathmatically calculated stopping distances/times, we’d all be much happier and normal drivers such as you and me, who like you say, are not perfect, would not be penalised. Ofcourse some people will be reckless whatever the situation, but atleast give people a REALISTIC chance of stopping without fear of jacknifing, or stopping beyond the line and actually on the track, which is surely more dangerous than proceeding though…or proceeding through if they’re already too far gone.
smoker:
And how long would you set the lights flashing for ?
Just long enough for people to get bored and decide to risk it ? Enough time so that you can safely cross even when they are flashing red ?
Kind of takes the [zb] out of having any rules at all doesn’t it.
I’d have the lights flashing long enough before hand to give people a chance to brake safely at a speed of 40mph. Having cameras on crossings/traffic lights etc in my opinion takes drivers concentration away from assessing the situation in a safe manner, to making them panic and either slam the brakes on, which may well be fine, or it may end up causing a needless accident by way of not stopping until actually on the railway track, or by causing other motorists to crash into the back of your vehicle. Lets not forget that I’m not perfect, nor are you. Its no use going on about theory and what we should do, all that matters is what we actually do do and as such there should be a bit more leeway to allow normal drivers to excorsise common sense over sudden panic and then prosecute drivers who are reckless. As my final word, I dont believe for one second that increasing the time a light flashes from say 5 seconds, to 10 seconds will make vast swathes of the driving population become even more reckless, I think it will give people time to evaluate whats going on, and then safely stop. If people still go through, then they should be done for it and it would be no more dangerous than now for the train, because the flashing light would start 5 seconds sooner, rather than end five seconds later towards the time the train comes to pass. How exactly is that taking the urine out of having laws I have no idea.
eldor:
Lucy:
Then again, of course, we could always just start driving properly and assuming that lights are going to change as we approach them, not the other way around. Increasing the flashing time would just increase the number of people who had time in which to “risk it”.I’m as guilty as everyone else here, by the way - I’m certainly no angel, being paid mileage and all. But I wouldn’t dream of coming up with weak and poxy excuses when I get caught out. I take the risk knowing that is what I am doing. If that risk backfires, it’s no-one’s fault but my own.
All I’m saying is. If you had a longer warning time, a driver wouldn’t be faced with the split second decision of braking hard, at whatever speed or carrying on, only seconds away from the crossing. If you give a driver a longer length of time, more suitable to the human mind, rather than mathmatically calculated stopping distances/times, we’d all be much happier and normal drivers such as you and me, who like you say, are not perfect, would not be penalised. Ofcourse some people will be reckless whatever the situation, but atleast give people a REALISTIC chance of stopping without fear of jacknifing, or stopping beyond the line and actually on the track, which is surely more dangerous than proceeding though…or proceeding through if they’re already too far gone.
But if the driver was driving properly he’d be assuming the lights were going to change and would have slowed down accordlingly already…so no split second decision to be made.
It’s like the speed limit. If it says 40 we all do 50…if it says 50 we all do 60…and so on. No matter how big the gap between signals people woulod still chance it - more so, if anything.
It’s like argueing that REALISTICALLY, junkies are going to rob people to pay for their habits, therefore we should allow for that in the law. Actually, junkies are putting themselves in that position by choosing a course of action which makes it difficult for them, and that’s their look out. An extreme example, I know, but boils down to the same thing. Do the crime take the fine. Your (and my) choice.
I’ve just had a thought. I wonder how many of the HGV drivers who end up failing to stop at rural crossings (and lights of any description for that matter) are doing so because instead of travelling at 40 they’re doing something more in the region of 56? Hmmm?