Children on railway lines

[RedgateModels]

When I was a kid (yes, there were dinosaurs) British Rail had a long standing trespass problem due to either bad planning or failure to agree when a housing estate was built on waste land close to where I lived.

 

 

 

The original footpath is the one that runs from left to right and was gated and fenced (those awful enclosed gates that were very difficult to get a bike through) All well and good. But when the housing estate was built a footpath - the one with the circular area next to it, was laid running right up to the fenced boundary. Clearly no-one had considered getting British Rail approval for a revised arrangement, so the path stopped at a wooden fence. Of course this was ripped down on a regular basis and folks just walked down the embankment to the crossing.

 

Eventually a corner of the garden where the two paths diverge was compulsorily purchased and a route through from one path to the other was created. Still didn't remove those awful gates though 😉

 

Moral of the story? if there is no convenient way people will make one until proper arrangements are made. If fences are regularly damaged to provide access then it's best to see why and try to find a more controlled solution.

Edited July 13, 2022 by RedgateModels

[RJS1977]

16 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

When I was a kid (yes, there were dinosaurs) British Rail had a long standing trespass problem due to either bad planning or failure to agree when a housing estate was built on waste land close to where I lived.

 

 

 

The original footpath is the one that runs from left to right and was gated and fenced (those awful enclosed gates that were very difficult to get a bike through)

 

.... maybe because it's a FOOTpath....

[Reorte]

13 hours ago, Pandora said:

I think it is not quite correct to use the world safe in the context such as travel by "X" is the safest form of travel, the word "safe" applies  when zero accidents/injuries etc,  surely we ought to say "least dangerous"

 

Nothing's "safe" by that definition though, which would make the word redundant. And "dangerous", even with a "least" in there, still implies dangerous, which in turn implies an unusually high level of risk and consequence.

[Reorte]

11 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

There is a general common law duty on the occupiers of land to take steps to secure 'man made' hazards such as ensuring buildings are properly shut up, holes fenced etc.  That duty extends to those who should not be there as well as those who should be

 

That's part of our problem alright.

[Jonboy]

If you replace “should not be” with “unexpectedly” ** does it still sound like the same problem with the law?

 

** e.g. firefighter accessing land to attack a fire on the/an adjoining premises, policeman pursuing someone, child retrieving ball from neighbours garden, fence repairer making reasonable access to effect repair to neighbours boundary, lost delivery driver turning round on forecourt etc. Etc. 

[Boris]

To be fair, the landowner is expected to take reasonable precautions to secure rather than just saying "they got in so you're liable".  What's interesting is a Google search of uk rail fatalities reveals a raft of articles starting from 2014 right up to July talking about increases in deaths and trespass incidents especially amongst those aged 12 up, this is not a new problem but rather has been brought back into focus by recent events.

[jim.snowdon]

However, the requirement to continuously fence does not apply to tramways  when operated under Line of Sight principles.

 

Jim

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

The perfect scenario I would think is to seperate and isolate rail traffic from any one crossing it, for example build a bridge at every location, Totally impractical as this may be people would still make a short cut through fences or whatever and rail fatalities wouldn't decrease to zero I would imagine.

It's ultimately down to individuals, something is missing, education, common sense etc seem to be badly lacking lacking in many situations in the world not just rail accidents.

 

Mike.

[jim.snowdon]

13 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

The perfect scenario I would think is to seperate and isolate rail traffic from any one crossing it, for example build a bridge at every location, Totally impractical as this may be people would still make a short cut through fences or whatever and rail fatalities wouldn't decrease to zero I would imagine.

It's ultimately down to individuals, something is missing, education, common sense etc seem to be badly lacking lacking in many situations in the world not just rail accidents.

 

Mike.

I'm more inclined to the favour the adoption of the European/Rest of the World model where it is the person who is responsible for their own actions, particularly when they have chosen to disobey what they have been told. Time we stopped protecting people from their own stupidity.

 

 The Health & Safety at Work Act has its place, but there needs to be a better definition of the duty of care to others. Hazards an average person would not be expected to see, yes, but not for hazards that you could reasonably be expected to see.

 

Jim

[caradoc]

56 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

I'm more inclined to the favour the adoption of the European/Rest of the World model where it is the person who is responsible for their own actions, particularly when they have chosen to disobey what they have been told. Time we stopped protecting people from their own stupidity.

 

 The Health & Safety at Work Act has its place, but there needs to be a better definition of the duty of care to others. Hazards an average person would not be expected to see, yes, but not for hazards that you could reasonably be expected to see.

 

Jim

 

I can't say I agree, but I would repeat what I said earlier; it would be interesting to know the comparative figures for death and injury on the various railways of Europe, and elsewhere, and what proportion is deliberate, ie suicide, and what is due to trespass and vandalism. I have tried to find such data on the internet but with little success. 

 

If the figures for countries which do not fence off railways are significantly worse than ours in the UK, our practice would be justified. If, on the other hand, their figures are better, it would beg the question why people abroad have so much more respect for the dangers posed by railways than people here, and why we bother fencing lines.

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

Just now, caradoc said:

If the figures for countries which do not fence off railways are significantly worse than ours in the UK, our practice would be justified. If, on the other hand, their figures are better, it would beg the question why people abroad have so much more respect for the dangers posed by railways than people here, and why we bother fencing lines.

 

 

In other countries defence, there is a far less concentration of railway installation per square mile, apart around the few big cities, and therefore fewer people have a railway line at the bottom of their garden so to speak, so the number of people in direct risk is somewhat lower. In my case, the nearest main railway line of any consequence is some 25 miles away. None of which alters the argument of personal responsibility though.

 

Mike.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I can't say I agree, but I would repeat what I said earlier; it would be interesting to know the comparative figures for death and injury on the various railways of Europe, and elsewhere, and what proportion is deliberate, ie suicide, and what is due to trespass and vandalism. I have tried to find such data on the internet but with little success. 

 

If the figures for countries which do not fence off railways are significantly worse than ours in the UK, our practice would be justified. If, on the other hand, their figures are better, it would beg the question why people abroad have so much more respect for the dangers posed by railways than people here, and why we bother fencing lines.

 

Then of course there are places, such as India, where the railways have given up on any sort of public railway safety. A quick search on Google, will reveal clips of many people hanging on to the outside of each and every door way.

[Fat Controller]

11 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I can't say I agree, but I would repeat what I said earlier; it would be interesting to know the comparative figures for death and injury on the various railways of Europe, and elsewhere, and what proportion is deliberate, ie suicide, and what is due to trespass and vandalism. I have tried to find such data on the internet but with little success. 

 

If the figures for countries which do not fence off railways are significantly worse than ours in the UK, our practice would be justified. If, on the other hand, their figures are better, it would beg the question why people abroad have so much more respect for the dangers posed by railways than people here, and why we bother fencing lines.

 

My wife's being doing some work on trespass; I'll ask if she knows where to find comparative figures from other European countries. I saw some a couple of years ago that suggested that the incidence of non-suicide fatalities was much higher in mainland Europe. It's not true that European railways have no fences; SNCF install them wherever there's a perceived problem, and have been doing so for at least a decade.

[jim.snowdon]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Then of course there are places, such as India, where the railways have given up on any sort of public railway safety. A quick search on Google, will reveal clips of many people hanging on to the outside of each and every door way.

Or simply taken the pragmatic approach of accepting that when you do something daft, it is your responsibility. Of course, there is an element of just having to accept that the overcrowding is a situation that is beyond your control.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

My wife's being doing some work on trespass; I'll ask if she knows where to find comparative figures from other European countries. I saw some a couple of years ago that suggested that the incidence of non-suicide fatalities was much higher in mainland Europe. It's not true that European railways have no fences; SNCF install them wherever there's a perceived problem, and have been doing so for at least a decade.

I found some figures a while back which indicated that non-suicide trespass fatalities on quite a few mainland European railways are considerably more than the number in the UK.  alas I didn't keep the link

[caradoc]

5 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Or simply taken the pragmatic approach of accepting that when you do something daft, it is your responsibility. Of course, there is an element of just having to accept that the overcrowding is a situation that is beyond your control.

 

Jim

 

Even if the rail industry in the UK ceased to have any responsibility for the safety of persons on its property, delay and disruption would result every time anybody was struck by a train. My own opinion, as a former rail employee who had to deal with more fatalites than I care to recall, (thankfully from the safety of an office rather than out on the line), is that every reasonable effort must be made to prevent anyone, be they young, ignorant, stupid, drunk, mentally unwell or simply bent on vandalism, from placing themself in danger.

 

[rockershovel]

One very important aspect of the law in this sceptr’d isle, is its “common law” nature. This means that (1) anything is legal unless stated or established otherwise (2) this establishment takes place in court, by bringing a charge or accusation, and then debating the value of that. 

 

This differs from European and other Roman Law systems, in which things are illegal unless demonstrably legal, and an Instructing Magistrate first investigates any accusation to determine its validity before passing it for trial. 

 

America has a legal system based upon ours, but contains the important proviso that the law has little patience with obvious stupidity. 

[rockershovel]

There was a time when it wasn’t apparently regarded as a problem

 

[mikejames]

On 19/09/2019 at 14:32, caradoc said:

My own opinion, as a former rail employee who had to deal with more fatalites than I care to recall, (thankfully from the safety of an office rather than out on the line), is that every reasonable effort must be made to prevent anyone, be they young, ignorant, stupid, drunk, mentally unwell or simply bent on vandalism, from placing themself in danger.

 

it's difficult

I would agree that the young should be protected - I'm less clear about drunks. (the two extremes in my view)

But if you protect the young then you probably protect the others at no extra expense.

So if we accept the young should/must be protected the rest follows even if it places serious expense on the railways.

why this doesn't follow for roads I don't know!

 

regards

mike james

[96701]

29 minutes ago, mikejames said:

it's difficult

I would agree that the young should be protected - I'm less clear about drunks. (the two extremes in my view)

But if you protect the young then you probably protect the others at no extra expense.

So if we accept the young should/must be protected the rest follows even if it places serious expense on the railways.

why this doesn't follow for roads I don't know!

 

regards

mike james

It does apply to roads in certain cases, for example if someone threatens to throw themselves off an overbridge. Rail and road are both stopped until the person has either fallen or jumped or talked back.

[rockershovel]

A Road is a public place, upon which anyone who sees fit can travel, in their own time to any destination or none, and at their own cost and in their own vehicle. The state licences anyone who sees fit to apply to do so, subject only to the passing of a fairly simple assessment. Some categories of user require no licensing. The upkeep of said road is funded from general taxation, although a (long since spurious) dedicated tax for the purpose is levied upon any user. 

 

The state exercises overall control within fairly broad limits, and a significant proportion of those users hold said Laws in low esteem, breaking or disregarding them when they think it feasible. 

 

Liability arising from the conduct of a vehicle upon public roads is dealt with through a mechanism of individual insurance policies, applied to individual users and vehicles. Fencing of roads, where required (and the great majority of roads are fenced) falls for the most part upon the local or national public bodies which maintain those roads. 

 

A railway is, typically, a quasi-public place, much of which is not accessible to members of the public. It is ultimately controlled by the state, and operated to a complex and fixed timetable by operating companies, constituted under a sort of franchising system of apparently incomprehensible complexity. Various quasi-public bodies supposedly regulate its activities. Its operating costs apparently defy analysis, as evidenced by the various alarums and excursions  which attend the activities of the said operators, as they pursue their alleged business of selling tickets for travel to said public, and deriving a profit thereby. 

 

In short, roads have very little in common with railways .

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by rockershovel

[The Stationmaster]

On 06/10/2019 at 22:57, rockershovel said:

A Road is a public place, upon which anyone who sees fit can travel, in their own time to any destination or none, and at their own cost and in their own vehicle. The state licences anyone who sees fit to apply to do so, subject only to the passing of a fairly simple assessment. Some categories of user require no licensing. The upkeep of said road is funded from general taxation, although a (long since spurious) dedicated tax for the purpose is levied upon any user. 

 

The state exercises overall control within fairly broad limits, and a significant proportion of those users hold said Laws in low esteem, breaking or disregarding them when they think it feasible. 

 

Liability arising from the conduct of a vehicle upon public roads is dealt with through a mechanism of individual insurance policies, applied to individual users and vehicles. Fencing of roads, where required (and the great majority of roads are fenced) falls for the most part upon the local or national public bodies which maintain those roads. 

 

A railway is, typically, a quasi-public place, much of which is not accessible to members of the public. It is ultimately controlled by the state, and operated to a complex and fixed timetable by operating companies, constituted under a sort of franchising system of apparently incomprehensible complexity. Various quasi-public bodies supposedly regulate its activities. Its operating costs apparently defy analysis, as evidenced by the various alarums and excursions  which attend the activities of the said operators, as they pursue their alleged business of selling tickets for travel to said public, and deriving a profit thereby. 

 

In short, roads have very little in common with railways .

 

Sorry but it is the landowners responsibility to fence their property alongside a highway.  And I can confirm that after nearly two years of arguing the point with the Dept of Transport in respect of the conversion of a former railway line (which the railway fenced) to a trunk road (where I became responsible for the fence).    The landowner is liable if something from their land leads to any sort of incident or damage on the highway.

[Classsix T]

On 06/10/2019 at 20:07, rockershovel said:

There was a time when it wasn’t apparently regarded as a problem

 

"Oi! Mate!" 

As the much missed Stoatface Fotopic site subfolder was called when random normals would get in your killer 'phot.

 

[Whether it's the necessary B&W contrast of the child's appearance (Japanese culture is full of dark haired (duh) waifs in wispy dresses) I can't say, but I find that image rather haunting...I'm tempted to "like" the post, but it's an uncomfortable like.] 

 

(that is an ex-GCR A5?) C6T. 

[Classsix T]

On 06/10/2019 at 20:00, rockershovel said:

America has a legal system based upon ours, but contains the important proviso that the law has little patience with obvious stupidity. 

...erm...

 

Nah, I ain't even going there...just watch this golf swing...C6T. 

[rockershovel]

I’m not sure that I understand any part of either of the previous two posts, but FWIW that photo is credited as follows https://www.lner.info/locos/A/a5.php