Jump to content
 

Children on railway lines


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

 

 

As others have noted, the rest of Europe seems to be far more sensible when it comes to this aspect - it doesn’t take a genius to realise that railways are dangerous places to be.

 

Providing the public are suitably educated that they should not go there, then anyone deliberately passing through vandalised fences* should know that they are doing something wrong and in my the site owners do not owe the trespasser anything.

I thought that for years until I was on a train in France that ran over and killed  a woman at a place that many local people apparently used frequenty as an unofficial crossing. This was just outside Lourdes and, without going into the gory details, saw parts that were no longer attached to the rest of her. The law there is that lines (I think it's lines up to a certain speed) have to be fenced in towns and cities and over a defined distance from stations and level crossings but otherwise have tended to be completely open. Given the vast mileage of ralways and their relative lack of busyness that's probably made sense (though high speed lines are very thoroughly fenced off) In Britain, our remaining railways tend to be comparatively far busier.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that railways are dangerous but most people are unaware of just how dangerous. Most people learn the dangers on roads because, one way or another, they use them everyday. Railways though are not generally part of their everyday life and if they do encounter them it's normally from the relative safety  of a station platform. 

I remember how much driver education and additional signage was needed when trams started to reappear in some British cities after a generation or more without them (except in Blackpool)  In many other European countries they were just taken for granted.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Just stop and think when you last saw an adult engaging with a child when going to cross a road or using a crossing. In fact, an adult engaging with a child these days is conspicuous by its' absence, especially when the child is in a buggy. Mobile phones again...…..pah!

Then think how kids see their parents/adults when they are in a car or around traffic! Scary isn't it?

You may have worked in the field of road safely but you do like to tar us (parents) all with the same brush. Quite wrongly too IMHO.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unusual to notice there idiots and forget everyone else. For example you remember the buffoon in a BMW who cuts you up on the motorway, but the hundreds of other drivers (maybe even some in BMWs) who drive considerately don't make any impression. It'll be the same with parenting.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Some kids will always want to do stuff they're told is dangerous. Some adults, too. Accidents are things that happen to other people...

you are not wrong there last week whilst perusing a photographic model forum i use was a casting asking for two models to shoot on a section of the East Coast Mainline whilst it was closed for weekend engineering work ! luckily it was shortlived and taken down by site admins with the poster being banned from the site .i also come across shots taken on rail lines in the daily gallerys most apear to have been taken on out of use lines and sidings tho the odd one does appear with very shiney rails disapearing behind the model usualy this leads to a strong debate in the forums reminding everyone just how stupid such actions are 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, royaloak said:

But picking bits of Jemima and Timothy off the railway lines after they have been tw@ted by a train costs a lot more, but as that comes out of somebody elses budget it doesnt matter.

Many people visit schools on a voluntary basis talking about a diverse number of subjects ,I have seen the fire service  ambulance service and others .The RNLI do not charge for there visits having a resource of over 600 volunteres who do talks regularily and thoroughly enjoying it as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There was a tragedy some years ago at Ynyslas, between Machynlleth and Borth on the Cambrian, where a family who had taken another families children with them on a picnic decided on a spot on the shoreline of the Dyfi estuary, in a nature reserve.  The Cambrian crosses a creek on a timber bridge at the location, and the children were allowed to play on the railway line, with the inevitable result.  The kids were instructed to look out for trains, but did not have the attention span to continue to do this for a period as long as the 40 minutes or so they were playing on the bridge.  Basically, the people in charge of the situation had no understanding of the danger, that a train might approach almost silently from downwind at 70mph  The adults, who were incomers to the area, had eventually to move away because of local opinion, not to mention being of course grief stricken at the loss of their own children.

 

In another tragic incident which illustrates the general lack of awareness of the general public, back in the 80s at Pontyclun on the SWML, a young couple who were on their way home after celebrating their engagement party in the local rugby club were taking a short cut across the tracks.  Line speed here is 90mph.  Local people regularly crossed the line here to avoid a few hundred yards to a road overbridge, even at night.  They'd got away with it for years, but it was clearly an accident waiting to happen, and this young couple, popular in the village and at the start of their lives together, were run over and killed instantly by a down HST.

 

A petition was got up in the locality to have speed on the railway limited to 30mph in line with roads in the village.  This got nowhere of course, and wouldn't have made the situation any less dangerous, but the perception was that trains were travelling dangerously fast in proximity to the village, and the concept was that if a car travelling at 30 mph can pick up a pedestrian in it's headlights and stop before running him/her down, so can a train!  I doubt if perceptions such have this have disappeared in the last 4 decades...

 

Some of this can probably be accounted for by the fact that fewer people live close to railways than did 60 years ago pre-Beeching.  For example, back in the 70s in my time on the railway, the section between Kidwelly and Llanstephan further along the SWML, was crossed by several footpath crossings that connected a holiday caravan park to the rest of the world; it was notorious for near misses in the season because the holidaymakers were simply not familiar with railways.  On one occasion working a down oil train I saw a pair of parents involved in a panic stricken tug of war with a pram, in an attempt to get it out of our way; luckily the husband won, but it was very frightening!

 

 

Edited by The Johnster
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, admiles said:

You may have worked in the field of road safely but you do like to tar us (parents) all with the same brush. Quite wrongly too IMHO.

Oh come on. I think you know exactly the sort of 'parent' I am talking about. You are one of a small minority of folk that engage with their youngsters if you are telling me that you do the road safety thing with your children or grandchildren. 

Why are you having a dig anyway, please read exactly what I said.

Phil

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Oh come on. I think you know exactly the sort of 'parent' I am talking about. You are one of a small minority of folk that engage with their youngsters if you are telling me that you do the road safety thing with your children or grandchildren. 

Why are you having a dig anyway, please read exactly what I said.

Phil

 

I sometimes accompany my daughter when she's out and about with her young children and on rare occasions I get to do the school run by myself. The parents I see collecting their children these days seem to be just as attentive as they were when my children went to school and my beard wasn't grey. There's an argument that they're even more attentive than when I went to school in the sixties. For the first week I attended infant school my mum walked with me there and back, after that I was on my own. Two years later my brother followed the same pattern; in fact all the children did.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

 For the first week I attended infant school my mum walked with me there and back, after that I was on my own. Two years later my brother followed the same pattern; in fact all the children did.

 

This was so a long time ago.  Nowadays a changed society precludes this as parents are warier of letting the very young out of their sight which can lead to traffic congestion outside the school gates.  Here, children are bussed to the end of the road where parents congregate, waiting for their children to arrive and then are driven maybe only a few yards to their house.  And this is a pleasant and safe neighbourhood, which underlies the fear some have for their child's safety.  It would have been thought if the child is aware of all this parental protection, a lesson would have been learned which brings the subject back to the topic title, are the NR lectures or lessons, lost on the kids?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Neil said:

 

I sometimes accompany my daughter when she's out and about with her young children and on rare occasions I get to do the school run by myself. The parents I see collecting their children these days seem to be just as attentive as they were when my children went to school and my beard wasn't grey. There's an argument that they're even more attentive than when I went to school in the sixties. For the first week I attended infant school my mum walked with me there and back, after that I was on my own. Two years later my brother followed the same pattern; in fact all the children did.

Yea I agree that many adults are attentive. Attentive yes, but engaging the child at appropriate times? I would suggest however that if you look closely, they make most of the decisions for their children and these decisions are, of course, made with adult experience to guide them. By involving the children I mean they could actually work with the child to engage them in beginning to look and decide things and have their decisions confirmed. This would be as pedestrians as so many just go to and from wherever in cars. There are also many parents/adults who just walk along looking at their phones almost all the time...………………..or talk to the other adult(s) they may be walking with without including their offspring in anything.

However, it is great that you and your daughter are aware and thus the children should be more aware. What I am banging on about is the gaggle outside of schools that love their children dearly but are not interacting with their offspring in a positive road safety way as it takes time and so many seem to have no time and just don't realise that they could be helping their child to become more aware earlier.

When we did practical pedestrian training at schools in the early to mid 90s, it was frightening how little 5/6 year olds knew about the pavement and road environment when we first took them out and that was before everyone had a phone in their hands.  OK so children may not be that interested when mum or dad or whoever tries to get them to at least stop look and listen at the kerb and then actually look what traffic is doing, but it begins the habit that should become second nature much, much sooner.

Please just watch some adults with children when they get to a crossing or light controlled crossing or just at some place where they want to cross. At a Zebra the adult will almost exclusively make the decision without involving the child as that takes a few moments and isn't that easy, and then at a button pressing type of Xing the child will want to do the button and will probably press it and then just waits until they are hauled across, going when the green person shows and the beeping sound is heard.

Vert sadly even my own grandchildren when at Infant age were pretty hopeless at assessing a road situation and it used to exasperate me when I and my SWMBO took them out when 'child minding'. 

However it would seem that I do not know what I am talking about, all is fine everywhere and so I'll give up now and just let everyone get on with it.

Have a great weekend.

Phil

Edited by Mallard60022
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brianusa said:

This was so a long time ago.  Nowadays a changed society precludes this as parents are warier of letting the very young out of their sight which can lead to traffic congestion outside the school gates.

In general there is a lot more road traffic these days even compared to when I was at primary school in the 1980s. Some of that will be the school run, but even without that the risks (real and perceived) have changed, so parental behaviour will change too. Letting young kids walk to and from school unaccompanied is just not realistic in a lot of places now.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say when I was around 8 yrs of age myself and a group of friends used to go to the local station after school, with the express intention of spotting the loco on a specific freight train - used to often be a Brit. The station was only used by passenger trains in the peak periods - it closed in 1965. Traffic was quite sparse apart from the occassional freight so in between trains, we would certainly be trespassing - a favourite was placing coins on the track - in the winter when the freight arrived someone had to be on the platform at the last minute and put one of the gas lamps on to see the number...... And back off again before the station staff noticed - the train was between their office and the lamp. 

 

So there was significant trespass - and all was well - no one got killed (though some antics were definitely very dodgy) until we were spotted by one of our school teachers on the top deck of a bus travelling over the road bridge next to the station - we saw her as well.... and the following day were hauled into the head teachers office and parents informed. Well at least we weren't off breaking windows or some other mischief.... 

 

So i take a slightly more liberal view of this - but not of the seemingly epidemic level of trespass and mis-use of car spray can paint in the south east - some of this seems to be happening in depots even on the outside of units (I saw 377 163 with serious graffiti murals and tags on two carriages this week)..... or on walls with narrow clearance to live 3rd rail - not only the risk of being hit by a train but of slipping and getting lit up (three people did not that long ago near Loughborough Junction).  

Edited by MidlandRed
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Zomboid said:

In general there is a lot more road traffic these days even compared to when I was at primary school in the 1980s. Some of that will be the school run, but even without that the risks (real and perceived) have changed, so parental behaviour will change too. Letting young kids walk to and from school unaccompanied is just not realistic in a lot of places now.

 

It's a vicious circle though.  There is a big school about 1/3 mile from us and several parents in our road drive their children there.  This is Greater London not a rural area with narrow, unlit lanes.  The difference around here in the traffic levels between term time and school holidays is truly astonishing.  On term time afternoons the peak traffic starts to build around 3pm, in the holidays it doesn't start to build up until after 4pm.

 

In the railway context I don't really see what the ignorance concerning the legality of being on the railway has got to do with anything.  It should be obvious that it is stupid and the fact that seemingly more people than ever don't get that is the really alarming thing to me.  The stories reported from friends, family etc after serious incidents are time and time again tragic in their combinations of stupidity and pig ignorance:

 

- Girl hit whilst sitting on the line at a foot crossing in the dark with earphones in.  Friend: "We thought the train would see us and beep its horn or stop"

- Boy hit by a freight train near a station.  Father: "The board said the next train wasn't for another hour. Why did a train come that isn't on the board?"

- Boy electrocuted by third rail.  Mother:  "They always used to turn the electric off when there was no train coming.  It's a disgrace they changed it because it's very dangerous for kids"

etc etc etc

 

Trouble is you can't legislate for stupidity

 

 

Edited by DY444
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

It's a vicious circle though.  There is a big school about 1/3 mile from us and several parents in our road drive their children there.  This is Greater London not a rural area with narrow, unlit lanes.  The difference around here in the traffic levels between term time and school holidays is truly astonishing.  On term time afternoons the peak traffic starts to build around 3pm, in the holidays it doesn't start to build up until after 4pm.

 

In the railway context I don't really see what the ignorance concerning the legality of being on the railway has got to do with anything.  It should be obvious that it is stupid and the fact that seemingly more people than ever don't get that is the really alarming thing to me.  The stories reported from friends, family etc after serious incidents are time and time again tragic in their combinations of stupidity and pig ignorance:

 

- Girl sitting on the line at a foot crossing in the dark with earphones in.  Friend: "We thought the train would see us and beep its horn or stop"

- Boy hit by a freight train near a station.  Father: "The board said the next train wasn't for another hour. Why did a train come that isn't on the board?"

- Boy electrocuted by third rail.  Mother:  "They always used to turn the electric off when there was no train coming.  It's a disgrace they changed it because it's very dangerous for kids"

etc etc etc

 

Trouble is you can't legislate for stupidity

 

 

 

I agree that you cannot legislate for stupidity (and that certainly applies to the three examples above), but that does not mean that organisations whose operations pose a known risk to the careless and idiotic should not take reasonable measures to prevent people from coming to harm; That was why DBS were fined for the Tyne Yard incident.

 

I also agree that the primary responsibility for educating children on road, and indeed rail, safety, rests with parents, but when you see adults behaving with utter recklessness, for example when Flying Scotsman runs, what hope is there ?

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

I agree that you cannot legislate for stupidity (and that certainly applies to the three examples above), but that does not mean that organisations whose operations pose a known risk to the careless and idiotic should not take reasonable measures to prevent people from coming to harm; That was why DBS were fined for the Tyne Yard incident.

 

I also agree that the primary responsibility for educating children on road, and indeed rail, safety, rests with parents, but when you see adults behaving with utter recklessness, for example when Flying Scotsman runs, what hope is there ?

 

 

I accept that organisations should take reasonable measures however I may be in a minority of one but I don't agree with the DB case at all.  Had the trespassers been struck by moving trains then I think there is culpability but they were not.  They entered the site and then climbed up onto a stabled vehicle and got too close to the live ole.  Had they merely confined themselves to trespass by breaching the inadequate fence they would have survived.  They added stupidity to trespass.

 

PS.  I can think of at least two cases where people climbed onto the roof of passenger trains in stations and were electrocuted.  No-one was held to be culpable in those cases except the individuals concerned and I see no difference between them and the DB case.

Edited by DY444
  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

I accept that organisations should take reasonable measures however I may be in a minority of one but I don't agree with the DB case at all.  Had the trespassers been struck by moving trains then I think there is culpability but they were not.  They entered the site and then climbed up onto a stabled vehicle and got too close to the live ole.  Had they merely confined themselves to trespass by breaching the inadequate fence they would have survived.  They added stupidity to trespass.

 

Again, I agree absolutely that both trespass and stupidity were major factors, however the location was well-known to be used by local children but proper security measures were not in place. And the boy (13 years old) has paid an extremely heavy price for his actions, having lost both his legs and most of his fingers; He will be severely affected for the rest of his life by that moment of stupidity, which might have been prevented.

 

Hopefully however some good will come out of it, with the news of the incident perhaps deterring others from similar actions, and by making organisations aware of their responsibilities.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Neil said:

 

For the first week I attended infant school my mum walked with me there and back, after that I was on my own. Two years later my brother followed the same pattern; in fact all the children did.

 

What a Mummies boy, I just got shown the way to school on the first morning, then had to find my own way home and go on my own from then on.

 

I also feel that the idea that there is now heavier traffic makes it more dangerous is also a bit suspect. As the more cars there are in a urban area the slower they tend to go and that a constant stream of traffic is a more obvious hazard and reason to be careful than a quieter road with intermittent traffic. There are also a lot more zebra and pelican crossings than there used to be.

 

As for getting juiced climbing on top of railway wagons, anyone too young or stupid not to realise that keeping well clear of wires suspended from insulators a foot long is a good idea, should not be allowed out on their own.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

“The whole original legal intention of fencing etc on British railways has been completely altered by the courts with no change to the legislation.”

 

Wrong, I’m afraid.

 

The H&SAWA 1974 isn’t just about controlling risks to people at work, it covers risks to others arising from the “undertaking”.

 

And, despite what certain lazy journalists imply, it is very well drafted, in terms of reasonable practicability.

 

I don’t know the detail of the case that kicked this discussion off, but the whole question of what is termed “niaive trespass” on railways, trespass by people too young or daft to recognise the dangers properly, has been well-rehearsed in courts and HSE guidance, so it’s unlikely that the court made a ‘random’ decision.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

“The whole original legal intention of fencing etc on British railways has been completely altered by the courts with no change to the legislation.”

 

Wrong, I’m afraid.

 

The H&SAWA 1974 isn’t just about controlling risks to people at work, it covers risks to others arising from the “undertaking”.

 

And, despite what certain lazy journalists imply, it is very well drafted, in terms of reasonable practicability.

 

I don’t know the detail of the case that kicked this discussion off, but the whole question of what is termed “niaive trespass” on railways, trespass by people too young or daft to recognise the dangers properly, has been well-rehearsed in courts and HSE guidance, so it’s unlikely that the court made a ‘random’ decision.

 

However you cannot ignore the basic fact that the likes of Germany and France - both of whom have their own equivalents of the 1974 H&SWA legislation, do not demand the fencing in of railways (including marshalling yards!)  to prevent trespass and death / injury.

 

If the ned to prevent trespass in case injury was such a fundamental human right so to speak then you would expect the British approach to be standard across the developed world - but it isn't!

 

Yes other counties do fence in certain bits of their railways, but that has more to do with protecting railway users from theft, rolling stock damage or obstructions being placed on the line (i.e. the railway owners protecting their own interests) - rather than protecting idiots or other 3rd parties from their own stupidity.

 

UK laws may be well intended - but that doesn't stop them from creating harmful side effects and the more they protect the stupid, the more stupid the population becomes.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents are responsible for their children, end.  Parents should be proscecuted for their children's crimes.

Don't want the responsibility, give the children up for adoption.

 

Hard line, possibly.  Not much crime in old eastern bloc where parents were held responsible.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil and Duncan

 

Think what you will, and I have my own opinions too, all I’m doing is pointing out the law.

 

Of course, the law can be changed, it wasn’t always as it is now, and it could be something different in the future, but, right now, it is what it is.

 

Kevin

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

“The whole original legal intention of fencing etc on British railways has been completely altered by the courts with no change to the legislation.”

 

Wrong, I’m afraid.

Not exactly.

 

The legal intention for the provision of fencing has been changed by the way in which the interpretation of the Health & Safety at Work Act has took precedence over the original intentions of the 1842 Regulation of Railways Act, which still applied at the time.

 

The Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 effectively cancelled the original 1842 requirements and replaced them with a duty on Network Rail to provide and maintain fencing so as to keep people off the railway, consistent with the requirements of the H&SaW Act.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the fencing is enough to discourage the casual halfwit, but the real bellend will climb anything "for the lols".  But then if Flying Shitbag is around then mass trespass is ok apparently. 

 

People are weird, I'm off back to my cupboard

Edited by Boris
To add my rude works because shitbag and bollucks
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...