What a terrible experience for Miss Ceeley, and the passengers and crew of the train. My heart goes out to them, and I can sympathise with their reaction to this distressing situation. However, I have lived in Ffynnongain Lane for 7 years, and have never heard of any problems with this crossing before. Indeed another local resident commenting in the Carmarthen Journal says he has not heard of problems in 20 years.
What I do find alarming is that Miss Ceeley was using this as a through route. People familiar with the crossing would recognise that its main purpose is to provide access to three local farms. I dont know what persuaded her to come this way, but I am aware that some SAT NAV systems direct tourists across this crossing when travelling from LLanboidy to our Craft Centre. Whilst I am greatful that they find us, I do wish that SAT NAV systems would give more indication of potential hazards. If Miss Ceeley was using SAT NAV or some other computerised mapping system then this incident illustrates what the future has in store.
Huw Jones

Having read the story, I would have though that common sense would have been used and opened both sets of gates before crossing. That way, the car can be moved across safely and then gates closed after successful crossing.
Perhaps one day all crossings will be barriered properly with flashing lights etc. Until then common sense should be used.

My girlfriend did indeed use a sat nav system and unfortunately it took her down this route. However with not being familiar with this type of crossing, the pitch dark with no artificial lighting at all, the pouring rain, not knowing where she was bar following a sat nav, nervous of being mugged or having her car stolen, no clear signs that it is a railway crossing, and instructions that inform u to open both gates then drive through, this then means that she would have to cross the track five times on foot or in car to cross the tracks. It would be far safer to have no barrier and just lights than a hindering gate. with regards to previous incidents the newspaper got this wrong what we do know however is that some residents of ffynongain lane have complained about the crossing. so with regards to common sense being used yes in broad daylight i would agree but given the circumstances some understanding needs to be taken regards Tom Finucane Boyfriend of Paula Ceely

Will a complaint be made to the designers/suppliers of the sat nav system. For it is a failure of that which ultimately lead to Paula driving down a lane, and across a railway - the location of she was unaware of.

It is irrespective that the incident happened in the dark, and that it was raining; for she would have still been in an unfamilar location in daylight.

As regards the solution to have no barrier; i am afraid that offers the worst kind of level crossing of them all. I was at Manorbier recently and saw for myself in a 15 minute spell, ten cars cross the Manorbier open level crossing without slowing down or without checking if a train was coming from either east or west.

There is however one solution, which applies to many road level crossings in rural areas and that is to close them all. For the sake of a few minutes diversion it must surely be worth it.

The accident was your fault paula. You do not park your car on railway lines for any reason whatsoever. Open both gates - drive across - close both gates. As far as sat nav goes - use a bit of common sense. They are not infallible

this was an accident waiting to happen. having reviewed the situation myself it is easy to blame paula however where on the road or sign did it indicate it was a train crossing!? if it was myself late at night being out in the country i would easily mistake it for a farmers gate, as this is what it appears possibly to prevent cattle/wildstock from wondering. the other thing to note is that the light was green indicating the line was clear. the trains network is commonly at fault with this weeks accident with the de-railing so maybe the railway system should start taking action to prevent serious and minor easily avoidable accidents occuring here again. let this be a warning to others!

Where on the road did it indicate it was a train crossing - what an incredible statement

In the picture to accompany this article, there is a red triangle sign with a black gate on a white background. Now according to the Highway Code, which any driver has to have a knowledge of, the red triangle denotes a warning and this case, it is to warn WARN WARN of a level crossing with barrier or gates ahead. In addition there are two blue information signs.

If people do not know the Highway Code, how is that the fault of the railway system?

People are often quick to criticise the railways, and whilst it would be wrong to prejudge the official inquiry about this incident, a large proportion of incidents at level crossings sadly are down to behaviour of the road user - such as a failure to observe, or lack of understanding of the Highway Code.

Mr youngman with the greatest respect to you, paula approached the crossing from the opposite direction to which her car is facing in the picture the recovery company removed her car and placed it in this location the sign, when approaching from the other side is 3/4 of a mile up the hill. and to you mr Gardner, paula was not aware she was parked on a train track, you may think how can this be so but when you think about her situation this becomes easier to understand. it was pitch black, no light whatsoever, torrential heavy rain, unfamiliar with location, unfamiliar with this type of railway crossing. you sir I am sure have been driving many more years than paula so you would have the experience to realise your predicament. We both went to the scene on monday morning and as we both stood there for a moment the green light went red and within 13 seconds a train sped past. With respect to everyone here no one was present at the time and you have all just read a newspaper article.

Mr Finucane - Can you remember what the sign on the road actually said or indicated? If it is the same as the one in the photograph; then there is perhaps a need for all car drivers to be educated, AGAIN, in the rules of the Highway Code

And what a Red Triangle Sign means!

Mr Youngman, just to clear things up - i can understand what you are saying as i would say exactly the same thing - "why was she on a rail track? Why did she not read the signs?" etc etc however, the picture you see is the oppostite side of the road to which i was travelling and therefore on the opposite side of the road which i came towards the rail track. When i approached the gates on the other side, there are 2 signs ONLY - one red one saying STOP and the other one being a blue one saying long vehicles to ring the opperator. Nowhere does it say that this is a rail crossing. There are no lights present around the signal post or around the gates. there is another sign post on the gate saying "£1000 fine if you do not close the gates" So,being unable to see very well in the rain and being given the green light to commence i opened the first gate - drove onto the track to see the gate ahead and allow myself to close the one behind - as i was on my own. However, i was unaware that this was a train crossing as there were no barriers, no red flashing lights and no sign to say it was a train crossing!

Ms Ceely, your boyfriend suggested that there was a another sign about 3/4 of a mile further back up the road. If this sign was one of a red triangle warning sign, surrounding a black gate on a white background - thats an indication of the highway code sign for a level crossing.

Irrespective of your inexperience, and i know from my own driving skills when its dark, and raining heavily that you take care, more care, and even more care!

On a general point about the signage on Britain's roads, i wonder how many people either ignore, or are ignorant of what the different signs mean. Not knowing could be the difference between life and death.

yeah the sign 3/4 of a mile up the hill is a picket fence triangle on a white background but to be honest as this track is the main line from pembroke to swansea one small sign isnt enough, it wouldn't take much to increase the safety at this crossing to erect a sign that says the words "caution Railway crossing" but paula driving in the dark and rain, following a sat nav it would be very easy to miss a sign. But all we are saying is the crossing needs to be made safer with artificial lighting, better signage, reflective signage, and a more effecient way of crossing as it is a main line. We a re not putting all the blame on network rail because its not entirely there fault paula can accept some responsibility but the fact of the matter is the crossing needs to be made safer.

I can see how people have come to the conclusions stated above,however I personally understand how Paula would be feeling alone in the dark, in unfamiliar surroundings.

Paula's comments on not knowing that it was a train crossing, would initially make people think 'how can you not tell it is a train track', however for anyone who has been on similar level crossings, the tracks are at the same level as the concrete surounding them, so quite clearly in the dark it is understandable for Paula to have not realised.

It hindsight it obviously wasn't a wise decision to stop in the middle of the two gates, however given that the incident was infact at night and the crossing is not a very well lit area, I can understand the logic in stopping the car between the two gates to be able to see to close the first gate and then opening the other!

In regards to having to open both gates, return to your car drive through and then in turn close both gates, surely this will infact increase the amount of time physically on the tracks!?!

All this being said none of these points would have been an issue providing the warning light was infact green when opening the first gate!!!

Light timing on this crossing should therefore be reviewed, giving more time for the slowest driver, in the worst conditions, to clear the track safely!

I have to say that i am not confident that the mere extra words "caution railway crossing" would have made that much difference, given the clear instruction given by a red triangle sign of WARNING - danger ahead.

It is perhaps a greater concern that people would take far much more notice of a sat nav system, than a universally defined set of road signs - with the red triangle used in countries such as France, Spain, Germany.........

Road travel will never be 100% safe; if existing warning signs are ignored or not understood.

In reply to all of Mr Youngman's correspondence i would like to point out that the only real issue with Paula's accident and the reason it will happen again if not with a more tragic ending is the time factor. Paula may have set about crossing the railway differently to that intended by Network rail but the fact remains that however you execute it the time allowed from the light turning red to indicate an approaching train to the train arriving at the crossing is far too short. Paula ran all the time she was opening gates etc as there was heavy rain that night and she was dressed in decent unsuitable clothes for a haevy downpour. The time from hearing the train's horn until it hit her car was a matter of seconds! if she had in fact carried out the opperation as per instruction maybe the outcome could have been more deadly as she may well have been walking back accross the track to get her car or close the gate. Imagine if she had been disabled in some way perhaps deaf? she wouldn't have heard the train and there where no visible red lights once you passed the line of the gate the outcome doesn't dare be thought of. In 2007 if Rail track can't provide a safer crossing that doesn't entail crossing the track 5 times and manually opening gates without sufficient time, bells and flashing lights then it should be closed as this crossing will cause the death of someone and not for any other reason then it is dangerous. I would also add to Mr youngman that I sincerely hope that no member of your family ever has a fatal or near fatal accident only to be met with criticism by someone as judgemental as yourself. Hindsight is easy. I just thenk God thet Pauls was unhurt and hope we can all learn from this. Wendy Finucane Tom's mother.

Tom and Paula and Wendy you are very brave taking part in this conversation so soon after such a terrifying ordeal. Let us hope that some good will come of it!
I am not entirely convinced about the need for modifying the crossing though I fully understand your argument. Extra signs would probably not do any harm.
The crossing is a dingy place in bad weather, and if I had been in Paula's situation I would have turned round and found another route! Although I live within a few hundred yards I nearly always go round via St Clears rather then across the crossing. I will explain why:-
A look at Ordnance Survey Explorer 177 map shows quite clearly that Ffynnongain Lane north of the crossing is less then 4m wide. WHat the map does not show very well is that it is steep, winding and has grass growing in the middle. THere are few passing places. At this time of year it is not unusual to find stray sheep on it.In the weather conditions that Paula was experiencing she would not have been able go much faster then about 10 miles an hour for the next mile or so. 20 miles an hour is quite fast enough for most more experienced drivers in daylight! (Alright, I was a member of my college motor club, and know the attraction of pushing on through lanes, but believe me this lane would be getting too exciting at higher speeds.)
Ffynnongain Lane is quite narrow and also unlit where it joins the main road between St Clears and Llangynin. This road is also quite narrow, but traffic using it (including heavy lorries) is travelling at up to 60 mi/hr at this point. The railway crossing is perhaps not the most dangerous part of Ffynnongain Lane. However the lane is a vital thoroughfare for several farms. It is also a useful local by-pass for road works etc on the main road. But not suitable as a 'rat run'.
One can always find fault with any road/rail junction, as also one can find fault with our own behaviour for example as car drivers or as those commenting on accidents. (I am struggling here, and may soon become an accident myself!)However, as I see it the main culprit here is the person who authorised a route without having personally checked it first! By that I mean the sales director (probably) of the company that sold Paula's Sat Nav
While it is quite true that all advice (i.e. by Sat Nav) should be taken cautiously one should be able to rely on a recommended route being "suitable for motor vehicles". Although Ffynnongain lane north of the crossing is quite suitable for local access, I have found several better roads signposted as 'unsuitable'. It is certainly too narrow to encourage through traffic to use as a normal activity.
If the conclusion of this discussion is to ask for a modification to the crossing, then the most likely result is that the crossing will be closed - as the volume of traffic safely accomodated by the lane would not justify the cost.THe local people who need the crossing will lose vital access, and emergency services will be faced with a detour.
If signs are asked for, then the chances are they will be installed, but with the risk that (depending where sited) they could attract attention to the crossing and thereby increase the opportunity for accidents to occurr. BUT more explicit signing at the crossing itself would certainly have helped Paula and may well help others.
Getting the Sat Nav companies to improve their software - and take responsibility for their clearly dodgy advice would prevent this sort of accident happening. Or at least return the situation to 'normal'.
Incidentally I looked up the route from St Clears to Hebron on a well known internet routfinder and while it did suggest one of my favoured routes (via Narbeth) it also took me twice round the St Clears roundabout (flagging the Little Chef twice) using several (?non existent?)unclassifed roads. (I have reported this to the compny concerned.) So I suspect that Paula's accident may be the result of a generic software error which may affect more then one electronic system.
Anyway best wishes to all
Huw

I've just had a reply from the internet routefinder about the problem with the route at ST Clears roundabout. They have tested it, agree there is an error and are trying to fix it. It may not fix the problem with your Sat Nav but those using that particular website should be a bit safer!
Huw

To Wendy Finucane, on reflection there is a fine line between someone offering judgement and criticism, to a person being objective. It is the latter i have tried to portrary in my posts; nothing more.

(Although for the record, there are sadly a great number of people who do misuse level crossings throughout the UK, putting not only themselves at danger but the driver and passengers on a train.)

Paula's experience will hopefully be investigated thoroughly, but as Huw Jones as outlined I hope it does not focus on just the railway crossing itself, but on our reliance on sat-nav systems, our understanding of hazards on the highway, our knowledge of road signs, etc.

I wish you and your family well, and am glad that no real harm came of any of you.

When it comes down to it, this lady was, at best, stupid, and at worst criminally negligent. That anyone could possibly park & leave a vehicle on a crossing beggars belief. Even if there was not a sign for 10 miles surley the presence of two gates & some shiny rails running between said gates might just have been a clue? She is very lucky to have got away with it so lightly - if it had been a packed train & either rail staff of passengers had been injured, she would most certainly have faced prosecution. It really is time she took responsibility for her actions - presumably as she is at university she should be bright enough to realise that there are NO excuses for her actions!

Lesley Watson I would agree with your comments, except that we have had visitors who have found us via the famous crossing using SAt Nav. Many of these people live in cities, and have never seen a small rural crossing before, and assume that it is a siding. THey have reported dawdling across the line, and then turn white when I tell them about the 2,700 tonne oil trains that pass at 75 miles an hour. The crossing is not a problem for local people who are used to this type of crossing. Paula's problem was that she had never seen anything like it before, but felt reassured by the information the sat nav had given her. THe weather was dreadful, and would definitely have contributed to her confusion. (I know, when my son reported that the fire engines had passed him, I walked about a mile to check on our elderly neighbours - and got thorougly soaked through my previously faultless heavy weather cloths)
I am convinced that the problem is that Sat Nav gives the impression that someone has checked the route, when they haven't. SAt nav tells you how to find your way along a line that is marked on a map. It does not warn you about the difficulties of the route. SAt Nav does not tell you anything about an actual road.
When criticising Paula, or the people who visited us you must remember that many people are worried about driving in big cities, or on new junctions such as The Magic Roundabout in Hemel Hempstead. Some perfectly normal people even succede in driving up motorway slip roads in the wrong direction. (My own father - an anaesthetist in the days when anaesthetists were called out in the middle of the night to rescue victims of road accidents, and therefore an exemplary driver - once towed a caravan half way round the Exeter ring road in the wrong direction, and was let off by the police because he was still alive! People do get confused or do strange things, that in the cold light of day they would not do. Paula very bravely admits that she made mistakes.
However, the fact is that had it not been for Sat Nav, Paula would never have been anywhere near that crossing. In fact the only people who would use that crossing would have been local people who would know of the dangers, and would have no trouble.

Mr. Huw Jones - i just wanted to say thank you for your support and understanding of my unfortunate experience. i received a lot of critismn from many people which i could understand to a certain extent, however, to be called stupid, at best, and criminally negligent portrays a very judgemental attitude, a lack of understanding and an insensitivity towards my situation. i would like to take this opportunity to thank you personally for firstly taking the time to research the situation before you made your comments and then furthermore you were very helpful in your efforts to produce a fair and unbiased opinion. i would also like to thank the residents of Ffynongain lane for all the help and support. Kind Regards, Paula

Paula - At some point in our lives we all have to take responsibility for our errors.

You were lucky on two counts.

First to keep your life; second - misuse of a level crossing, under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act can be punishable by a fine, points on your license, or in the most extreme of cases - imprisonment.

Let your experience be a lesson to others!

The law is judgemental: Read the Highway Code - quite clearly states how to use such crossings. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

tom finucane, boyfriend of paula ceely wrote:
My girlfriend did indeed use a sat nav system and unfortunately it took her down this route. However with not being familiar with this type of crossing, the pitch dark with no artificial lighting at all, the pouring rain, not knowing where she was bar following a sat nav, nervous of being mugged or having her car stolen, no clear signs that it is a railway crossing, and instructions that inform u to open both gates then drive through, this then means that she would have to cross the track five times on foot or in car to cross the tracks. It would be far safer to have no barrier and just lights than a hindering gate. with regards to previous incidents the newspaper got this wrong what we do know however is that some residents of ffynongain lane have complained about the crossing. so with regards to common sense being used yes in broad daylight i would agree but given the circumstances some understanding needs to be taken regards Tom Finucane Boyfriend of Paula Ceely

nervous of being mugged or having her car stolen,

Because this is a common occurrence in Wales, obviously.

no clear signs that it is a railway crossing,

She's a student, not that old, can't be too long since she had to read the highway code. You know that sign right by the track? The one that looks like a gate? That's the clear sign that it's a railway crossing.

I'm very sorry she had a bad experience, and I'm very relieved that no-one was killed. However, maybe she needs to take a few more driving lessons, just as a refresher, before she goes back out on the roads.

And maybe, just maybe, she needs to actually learn to read a map instead of blindly following a sat-nav, especially after all the many, many incidents where they direct people in very stupid ways. Get an idea of the route first, then use the sat-nav to keep you on it. Sat-navs don't have a brain: humans are supposed to.

Ellen Phillips - long time car driver and daily train commuter.

I regularly use this crossing and have never had a problem with it.

How did she get her license? Dumb people shouldnt be allowed driving cars!

Paula - Consider yourself extremely lucky to not be hurt nor anyone else hurt.

Rather amazed how such drivers can get away from the consequences of their own reckless actions by ignoring a sign (weather conditions is not an excuse to ignore a sign that was 3/4 of mile away from the railway crossing!), not using any common sense whatsoever and trying to assign blame on Sat Nav information/directions.

Paula - i saw your pic on the BBC website and thought you looked really cute and wondered if you fancied going out on a date sometime ------------- er..... i'll drive

Latest Score:

Trains 1 Cars 0

Stacey Stewart wrote:
I can see how people have come to the conclusions stated above,however I personally understand how Paula would be feeling alone in the dark, in unfamiliar surroundings. Paula\'s comments on not knowing that it was a train crossing, would initially make people think \'how can you not tell it is a train track\', however for anyone who has been on similar level crossings, the tracks are at the same level as the concrete surounding them, so quite clearly in the dark it is understandable for Paula to have not realised. It hindsight it obviously wasn\'t a wise decision to stop in the middle of the two gates, however given that the incident was infact at night and the crossing is not a very well lit area, I can understand the logic in stopping the car between the two gates to be able to see to close the first gate and then opening the other! In regards to having to open both gates, return to your car drive through and then in turn close both gates, surely this will infact increase the amount of time physically on the tracks!?! All this being said none of these points would have been an issue providing the warning light was infact green when opening the first gate!!! Light timing on this crossing should therefore be reviewed, giving more time for the slowest driver, in the worst conditions, to clear the track safely!

Despite more overall time being spent on the crossing opening both gates, the point is that you will be on foot - better able to see up and down the line plus hear the approach of a train. Obviously on foot you will be more easily able to get out of the way and your time actually on the track would be brief.

We have a local busy two line express track which carries the 125mph Intercity traffic. There are a number of gated foot traffic crossings of that track, no lights to indicate when it is clear to cross, only the warning signs at the gates. I never had any difficulties with those crossing, even taking two youngsters across with me.

I think Paula was extremely foolish in her actions.

a. Not knowing the meanings of the signs.
b. Not seeming to even guess at the danger she was in on seeing those signs, even if uncertain of their meaning.
c. Failing to bother to explore the area on foot first if she had any doubts at all.

The correct logical sequence would have been to check the light was green and keep on checking whilst recrossing on foot, with a final check before driving the car over. The 15 seconds is long enough for the slowest of drivers to move a car over the track. Too long on red might increase the risk in that impatient drivers might be tempted to risk crossing against a red.

Last year I used that very same crossing in the middle of the night, in pouring rain and it was the first time for me too. I was driving a large car with a large caravan on the back. I saw the signs on the approach and appreciated their meaning - had I had any doubt I would have been very wary of proceeding. Signs are there for a purpose, ignore them at your peril.

I too make good and heavy use of satnav, but you are the driver in charge of the vehicle not the satnav. The satnav may well direct you down that road, but that doesn't mean you can afford to ignore the signage. Would you drive off a cliff if the satnav directed you to?

Sorry Paula.. Not much sympathy there, but your ignorance of all of the signs plus other clues put your life at risk, plus that of the driver and the passengers on the train.

Hopefully now you will carefully study the Highway Code and perhaps carry a copy with you - just in case you come across any more such signs which you do not understand the meaning of.

Huw Llewelyn Jones wrote-

'However, the fact is that had it not been for Sat Nav, Paula would never have been anywhere near that crossing. In fact the only people who would use that crossing would have been local people who would know of the dangers, and would have no trouble.'

The Satnav is just a tool, like a paper map. Would Paula (and your visitors) have blamed her paper map for directing her down that road? Road signs have to meet certain standards and no doubt the signs on that crossing met those standards.

A railway crossing is a railway crossing, you assume when crossing it that the rail traffic will be going through at top speed. You make sure when driving across one that it is clear to do so and that you have enough speed to carry you across even if you suffer a complete engine failure.

You narrowly avoided collecting your Darwin Award.

Complete ignorance of the Highway Code and lack of common sense aside, what boggles me is how you didn't realize it was a railway crossing. If it was really that dark, how did you avoid crashing into the gates? How did you see to open the first one, or read the signs? How did you even drive that far without plunging off the road into darkness and a field full of startled sheep?

In the incredibly unlikely event that your headlights WEREN'T pointing directly at the crossing as you opened the gate, surely your luminous orange skin would have been bathing everything in a 200 yard radius with bright light.

It's hard not to be 'judgemental' when someone does something incredibly stupid and dangerous and then tries to make themselves out to be the victim. The real victim here is Arriva, who've had yet another train smashed up through the thoughtless acts of yet another person with the intellect of an onion bhaji. If these crossings really are 'deaths waiting to happen', why aren't there 6500 deaths every single day on every unmanned rural road and foot crossing in the UK?

Please be more careful.

While we're on the subject, can anyone see the case here AGAINST banning the sounding of train horns at night? Had that train not sounded its horn, Paula would have been in her car and have been crushed.

1. The highway code tells you step by step what to do at such a crossing (step by step).
2. Below the highway code it tells you which sections of the Road Traffic Act that connects with.
3. Defying instructions as per the RTA is an offence.
4. I expect to see her in court, charged with endangering the life of the train driver and his passengers. Her insurance company should be given the bill for track, repairs, train repairs, and alternative transport that had to be arranged while the line was closed.
5. She should be made to re-take the theory test again.

I assume her MAP marked the railway.. so when she got to a gate she would have known where she was. Also, if she thought it was just a farm gate, did she not notice another gate just across from it and some funny metal strips in between the gates, about 4-feet apart going off into the distance in either direction?

A definite Darwin award candidate, shame she failed.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/26.htm#269 says:

Some crossings have 'Stop' signs and small red and green lights.
You MUST NOT cross when the red light is showing, only cross if the green light
is on. If crossing with a vehicle, you should

* open the gates or barriers on both sides of the crossing
* check that the green light is still on and cross quickly
* close the gates or barriers when you are clear of the crossing.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10 & 52(2)

270: If there are no lights, follow the procedure in Rule 269 above. Stop, look
both ways and listen before you cross. If there is a railway telephone, always
use it to contact the signal operator to make sure it is safe to cross. Inform
the signal operator again when you are clear of the crossing.

Pretty clear I would say.

Also, Paula you didn;t have an ordeal here, think of the poor train driver, who comes across a car, hits it (assumes he has killed someone, is worried about his own train staying upright, worried he may be about to die, and is concerned for his passengers. You haven't even publicly given a thought to the man you nearly killed. Driving is a privilege not a right, and one you should be deprived of soon.

Paula, thankfully you were Ok. Don't take to heart all the nasty comments you have heard here. I wouldn't have known what to do if I came across such a crossing either and I have been driving a lot of years (and live in rural Wales). That sort of crossing should have gone years ago. It's nothing to do with satnav ... anyone can make a wrong turn and get lost. It really is Network Rail's sloppiness that is the problem, but spare a thought for the poor train driver and passengers. And because of you we all know how to cross this type of crossing now.
Most of all this is a lesson for everyone who ends up in the public eye: It doesn't pay to respond to criticism. (Least said soonest mended.) Take care and be thankful. Marlene J

How is it Network Rail's fault?

Many local people have said that the crossing is designed to access several local farms, it is not designed for cross country jaunts where someone is not willing to put in the time too look at a map, work out the best route, and follow it.

Sorry, Paula, but I agree with all those comments above which are critical of your driving skills and your judgement. How could you not know it was a railway crossing? Did you have your headlights switched off? A vehicle's headlights do a pretty good job of illuminating the road for a good few yards in front of the car, so how did you not see through past the railway lines to the other gate? And are you really saying that the side of the crossing from which you approached didn't have the standard sign (familiar to all competent drivers) which signifies the presence of a level crossing? The white sign in the photo, if you look closely at it, very clearly says that you should open *both* gates before attempting to cross the crossing. A satnav device is only a navigation aid - nothing more. *You*, not the satnav, are in command of the vehicle - it goes where *you* tell it to. It wasn't the satnav that stopped your car on the railway tracks - it was you.It wasn't the satnav that endangered the lives of every single person travelling on that train - it was you. Dangerous driving is a criminal offence. And someone also mentioned the driver of the train - have you given a moment's thought to how he/she must have felt, and how they must be feeling after the incident? To be driving the train along as they have done countless times before, and to suddenly see, in the beam of the train's headlights, a car that some idiot has parked in the middle of the tracks! I'm sure their life flashed before their eyes at that point - but you don't seem to care one jot about how they, or any of their passengers, must surely have felt.

Paula, who was left shaken by the crash, says that it's only a matter of time before a tragedy occurs at this location.

Surely not. Surely you'll go a different route next time ?

Hang on, you're saying it was pitch black? What, you were driving without headlights on? Another notch in the criminally negligent belt there. How on earth did you pass your test?

I've got to drop my dad off at Heathrow Airport later on and I'm worried the sat nav might force me to park on the runway.

Someone please help me.

Paula Ceely wrote:
Mr Youngman, just to clear things up - i can understand what you are saying as i would say exactly the same thing - "why was she on a rail track? Why did she not read the signs?" etc etc however, the picture you see is the oppostite side of the road to which i was travelling and therefore on the opposite side of the road which i came towards the rail track. When i approached the gates on the other side, there are 2 signs ONLY - one red one saying STOP and the other one being a blue one saying long vehicles to ring the opperator. Nowhere does it say that this is a rail crossing. There are no lights present around the signal post or around the gates. there is another sign post on the gate saying "£1000 fine if you do not close the gates" So,being unable to see very well in the rain and being given the green light to commence i opened the first gate - drove onto the track to see the gate ahead and allow myself to close the one behind - as i was on my own. However, i was unaware that this was a train crossing as there were no barriers, no red flashing lights and no sign to say it was a train crossing!

That bit at the end of your post doesn't quite add up, Ms Ceely. You say that you opened the gates yet further on you s