Hi everybody.
I would not disagree with the comments already posted in this thread regarding the responsibility of the truck driver for safely negotiating the junction and crossing. However, I also feel there are a number of hazardous features at this site which substantially increase the possibility of an accident which should have been cited in any site specific risk assessment carried out.
If anyone just assesses what can be seen from the video they can witness that any vehicle approaching the junction/rail crossing from an east to west direction (as looking at the video) with the intention of turning left will have their concentration drawn primarily to the oncoming road traffic towards their vehicle. The foregoing would be especially prevalent if the driver of a vehicle making the left-hand turn was unfamiliar with the junction/rail crossing, being that the rail crossing hazard lights would be at an increasing acute angle to the drivers forward eye line as they approached.
For drivers approaching the junction/crossing from West to East (as looking at the video) with the intention of turning to the right at the junction, would find that the crossing hazard lights would be at ninety degrees to their forward eye line before they could even see the status of the signals in regard to proceeding over the crossing. The foregoing hazard could also be added to by the fact that the drivers primary attention could be drawn to traffic coming across the junction from the left and passing in front of them, further diverting concentration away from the rail crossing and its signals.
In the above, anyone involved in road traffic safety would have to wonder why the above hazards were not recognised as substantial in any site specific risk assessment carried out. Just based on what can be seen from the video, any numeric risk assessment of the junction and crossing would place just the two hazards noted above and beyond the minimum safety rating allowed for in any 6 x 6 numeric assessment.
The foregoing, certainly leaves me feeling that it is possible that no risk assessment has ever been carried out at this site, or that it has been included in a generic assessment drawn up to cover a number of rail crossing sites operating without barriers. Certainly in the United Kingdom to have a generic risk assessment covering this site (if that is the case) would be illegal under industrial duty of care regulations.
As stated, the truck driver certainly holds primary responsibility in this incident. However, having worked in industrial safety for over 25 years with a large percentage of that work involving heavy vehicle road transport, I can certainly think of any number of defence solicitors who would have a “field day” in court with the authorities responsible for safety at this junction, and I would expect the driver to emerge from that court hearing with a very light penalty.
I would not mind doing the investigation into this incident myself (LOL)
Bill