DEATH AT THE CROSSING

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 209, 23 November 1927, Page 8

DEATH AT THE CROSSING

WITH every desire not to place unnecessary blame upon the Railway Department, it must be said that fatal smashes at railway crossings are altogether too frequent. In fact, hardly a week passes without the crossing taking toll of life. It is all very well for the department to insist at every new fatality that drivers of road vehicles are negligent; but the “human factor” is ever present, even with the most careful, and circumstance often plays as large a part as want of caution in these accidents, many of which, unfortunately, cannot be satisfactorily explained owing to the death of the person most concerned. The smash at Buekland yesterday, whereby one man was killed and two injured, is a further tragic reminder of the daily risk to which drivers of vehicles who have to cross railway lines are exposed. It is stated by The Sun’s local correspondent that the Buekland crossing is “a particularly dangerous one, obscured on ttfe north by the station buildings and on the south by the cuttings.” While the authoi-ities admit that the view to the south is obscured, they contend that there is no obstruction to vision to the north, and that altogether the crossing is “not a bad one.” It may be taken for granted that if the crossing is “not a bad one,” it certainly cannot be termed a safe one, particularly when there is no warning bell to tell of the approach of a train which is out of sight. An express thundering along at forty miles an hour would come within a few seconds from behind the obstruction which is admitted by the department to exist. How is a driver to know of a train’s approach when he cannot see it, and there is no bell to warn him?

In this case the train came from the north, looking toward which, the department claims, there is a good view of the line, and the element of danger from this direction is one that has to be considered at the inquiry. But even if there should be safety from the north with the “reasonable care” which the department justly claims should be exercised by those crossing the line, that does not alter the fact that, there is an obstruction to vision on the other side, and also that there is no means of warning—a point which cannot be unduly stressed. So far there has been no evidence that the engine sounded its whistle when approaching Buekland. Are not engine-drivers required by the regulations to give this easy warning at every crossing? That is another point of vital importance. The Buekland Welfare League is reported to'have made several representations to the Railway Department for warning signals to be placed at the crossing, only to receive the reply that such warnings were not warranted. Will the department maintain this attitude in the face of yesterday’s tragedy? The department contends that there are worse crossings than that of Buekland now being attended to. and indicates that Buekland will receive attention in its turn. It should not require more than one death to emphasise that Buekland's turn is now due.