"Bump bump, I went across the level crossing - and do you know, the train hooted at me! I didn't see any lights."

It might be funny. Save that it isn't at all.

Might she have failed to see the flashing lights?

Possibly. What is certain is that an accident was just missed. We can be sure that, if there had been proper barriers on the level crossing, then she would never have got onto or across the line.

We know that too many people have died tragically at level crossings without barriers in Scotland - and this would almost certainly not have happened if these crossings had had barriers.

So we need to have barriers at these crossings. Before someone else gets killed or injured.

The meeting between a cross-party group of MSPs and the railway police and Network Rail in Holyrood last month was far from satisfactory.

Could barriers be installed at the 23 crossing in Scotland which do not have barriers? The sucking of teeth was almost audible. Ooh, now that was an expensive one, probably a million quid a throw. Better to talk of dangerous and reckless driving and drivers bringing it on themselves.

Network Rail and the railway police nodded in agreement with each other when they rolled up their sleeves and talked about all aspects of the problem, bar installing barriers. Which would reduce to almost nil the possibility of these tragedies happening.

I have absolutely no other gripe with the railway police and Network Rail.

For years I have had no problem with either. But I find this "anything but barriers" argument too much. A bit like people falling overboard and drowning at sea, and the ship's captain saying, "Well, they know that we don't have safety rails - and so they shouldn't have gone so close to the edge."

A couple of weeks ago I used the crossing at Delny (the scene of two tragic deaths in 2007) on my way back from Invergordon to Tain.

Despite the fact that there were no flashing lights, I paused and looked left and right, up and down the line, before I crossed over. It was shortly after this that I thought "enough is enough".

Last Thursday I tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament. This is how it reads in the Business Bulletin.

"S3M-05995 Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (Scottish Liberal Democrats): Continuing Loss of Life at Railway Level Crossings - That the Parliament regrets the continuing loss of life at railway level crossings, most recently at Halkirk in Caithness and, in January 2009, at Gatehead in Kilmarnock and Loudoun; notes that there are 23 crossings in Scotland that are automatic open crossings, of which 21 are in the Highlands and two in Ardrossan; believes that crossings without barriers are intrinsically dangerous and inadequate for the task at hand; further believes that there can be no justification for not taking urgent action to stop further fatalities and injuries at rail crossings, and calls on the Scottish Government to work in conjunction with the many organisations and agencies involved in rail safety and direct Network Rail to install barriers at all 23 open crossings in Scotland."

The point about this motion is that I am deliberately "upping the ante".

We have done plenty of talking about barriers to constituents and all and sundry, plenty of hand-wringing about the tragic deaths - and I felt that it was time to make the first move towards action, towards the day when the first barriers are installed.

The language of the motion is specific and deliberate. The last part is the most important, "... and calls on the Scottish Government to work in conjunction with the many organisations and agencies involved in rail safety and direct Network Rail to install barriers at all 23 open crossings in Scotland".

This is about the Scottish Parliament telling the Scottish Government to instruct Network Rail to get on with the work.

I very much hope that MSPs of all parties will feel able to support this motion and formally add their names to it. Put it this way, given what has already been said by many MSPs about the dangers associated with crossings without barriers, anyone flatly refusing to support the motion might have trouble explaining his or her position.

We must see those barriers installed.

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---