Children on railway lines

[The Johnster]

The US legal system is based on ours, in case law, but there are significant differences.  'We hold these truths to be self evident' etc is the moral basis of it and was not a feature of British law in 1776; universal franchise even for non-property owners, no established nobility or church and consequent unelected upper chamber of Parliament, and the possibility of absolute ownership of property including mining rights below it all the way down to the centre of the Earth.  This latter cannot pertain in the UK where all land ownership is devolved from the Monarch and even freehold land ownership does not convey mining rights and is a privilege grantable, and removable, within the Monarch's remit.  Another point of US law is that, in situations where one is threatened with violence, one is legally entitled to 'stand one's ground', whereas here the obligation is to give ground and not respond unless one is 'backed into a corner' and there is no alternative,

 

This is the root of the classic High Noon type gunfight standoff, where nobody is categorised as the aggressor until a pistol is drawn, at which point you are entitled to clear your own weapon and kill him.  Apropos which brings us to another tenet of US law, the 'right to bear arms', though this has been subverted by gun owners and was originally intended as a means of preventing military takeovers of the government.  

 

Most European legal systems are based on the Roman Empire's inquistorial system; we have the Saxons, who saw things differently and were more prone to discussing things over mead in the Thane's banqueting hall, and Norman feudalism with it's obligations and duties, to thank for ours.  It has influenced the US and most of the former Empire's laws, as well as Eire's.  

[adb968008]

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. 

Its more contract law...

 

if your car breaks down in the desert and you liquidate yourself by drinking the water from the battery... its the car manufacturers fault and you sue them for letting you be able to do it... (it happened)

 

As did suing mcdonalds for serving hot coffee in a cup that didnt warn it had hot coffee in it. (It also happened).

But walking in front of an oncoming train because there was no fence is not, as you had no contract.. but if you had a ticket that might change things.

 

it works both ways, the woman who walked into the lion enclosure to wave at a lion is now being sued by the lion’s legal representatives for her breach of contract which was in the t&cs of the ticket. I would imagine her defence mitigation would include offsetting the damages, from the increased revenue from the publicity.. a good lawyer might even see her getting a portion of that extra revenue.

 

Personally I think the US law is not a bad way to do things.. it would force a massive tidy up of UK businesses and peoples personal liability and behaviours very quickly. Though some aspects would need reasonable consideration to circumstances applied..

right now pilots are suing Boeing for loss of earnings due to the 737-Max grounding.

Edited October 9, 2019 by adb968008

[RedgateModels]

Maybe an urban myth, but I heard that makers of alooominum (USA spelling)  ladders had to add warning notices about leaning them on overhead power lines due to some Darwin candidate actually doing it and successfully suing the manufacturer ....

 

There is no truth that milk bottles say "open other end" on the bottom 

[rockershovel]

The question of liability for the actions of lions, and those who gaze upon them, seems to be far from new..

http://monologues.co.uk/Albert-and-the-Lion.htm

 

One important point about Saxon law which was missed in the above post, is that of weregelt, or compensation as it is now termed. Actions incurred liability in proportion to the harm caused, as defined by a generally agreed scale, on the basis that simply hanging someone for murder offered no benefit to the bereaved dependants, and cutting off an arm or leg wasn’t much better. This isn’t to say that they DIDN’T execute murderers, they certainly did, but only when more pressing matters had been dealt with. 

 

The concept has rather been lost now, but “outlawry” - the withdrawal of the protection of the law - was regarded as a serious matter, because any man might kill or rob an outlaw without fear of punishment in return. I’d be curious to know whether the Americans actually operated the practice, as well as adopting the expression? Were wanted criminals REALLY “wanted, dead or alive”? Did a bounty hunter REALLY produce a corpse and receive a cash payment, then go on his way without further enquiry?

 

 

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

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

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

 

 

Different era.

 

And probably the daughter of a photographer with a lineside pass who is deemed sensible enough to be in that area. Possibly even an official photographer as most people didn't have cameras back then apart from maybe a simple Brownie.

 

Eric Treacy used to stand in the tunnels between Liverpool Lime Street and Edge Hill for example.

 

 

 

Jason

[DY444]

16 hours ago, RedgateModels said:

Maybe an urban myth, but I heard that makers of alooominum (USA spelling)  ladders had to add warning notices about leaning them on overhead power lines due to some Darwin candidate actually doing it and successfully suing the manufacturer ....

 

There is no truth that milk bottles say "open other end" on the bottom 

 

A few years ago I was waiting for a train in Portugal and watching three blokes on another platform doing some work using a long aluminium ladder.  I couldn't look each time they moved it as it was clearly heavy and awkward and they were struggling to keep control of it as it constantly threatened to overbalance a few feet away from the ole.    

[rockershovel]

49 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

A few years ago I was waiting for a train in Portugal and watching three blokes on another platform doing some work using a long aluminium ladder.  I couldn't look each time they moved it as it was clearly heavy and awkward and they were struggling to keep control of it as it constantly threatened to overbalance a few feet away from the ole.    

 

I’ve found that European notions of Elf’n’Safety are a long way behind ours, especially in the Latin countries - although the Dutch and Belgians can be pretty slack. France, I have no clue and Germany are about what you’d expect - strict observation of the letter of the regulations, while the east of the country tends to a certain Sovietesque insouciance..

[kevinlms]

18 hours ago, RedgateModels said:

Maybe an urban myth, but I heard that makers of alooominum (USA spelling)  ladders had to add warning notices about leaning them on overhead power lines due to some Darwin candidate actually doing it and successfully suing the manufacturer ....

 

There is no truth that milk bottles say "open other end" on the bottom 

Aluminium ladders in Australia, have to have a notice on them advising 'not to be used for electrical work'. Would have thought that is a worthwhile compromise!

[TheQ]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The US legal system is based on ours, in case law, but there are significant differences.  'We hold these truths to be self evident' etc is the moral basis of it and was not a feature of British law in 1776; universal franchise even for non-property owners, no established nobility or church and consequent unelected upper chamber of Parliament, and the possibility of absolute ownership of property including mining rights below it all the way down to the centre of the Earth.  This latter cannot pertain in the UK where all land ownership is devolved from the Monarch and even freehold land ownership does not convey mining rights and is a privilege grantable, and removable, within the Monarch's remit.  Another point of US law is that, in situations where one is threatened with violence, one is legally entitled to 'stand one's ground', whereas here the obligation is to give ground and not respond unless one is 'backed into a corner' and there is no alternative,

 

 

Actually the Government in Maggie Thatcher's time changed the law so oil, gas, coal, gold and silver, mineral rights belong to HMG. The rest is yours, you need to find a platinum deposit...

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html

Edited October 10, 2019 by TheQ

[eastglosmog]

3 hours ago, TheQ said:

Actually the Government in Maggie Thatcher's time changed the law so oil, gas, coal, gold and silver, mineral rights belong to HMG. The rest is yours, you need to find a platinum deposit...

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html

I believe Gold and Silver belonged to the crown since time immoral.  Coal was officially grabbed by Attlee's Government on vesting day, 1946 (but effectively a few years earlier).  Other minerals do not necessarily belong to the surface landowner, as mineral rights have often been separated from surface rights (check your title deeds).

[Derekl]

22 hours ago, adb968008 said:

As did suing mcdonalds for serving hot coffee in a cup that didnt warn it had hot coffee in it. (It also happened). 

 

This is trotted out regularly as an example of "law gone mad". The correct account is that the coffee was served excessively hot. McDonalds have a policy that requires hot drinks to be served at a certain temperature and dispensers are regulated to serve at that temperature. In this case the temperature regulator wasn't working and the staff knew that, but did nothing to alleviate the effects. So the coffee was hot, as one would expect, but hotter than might have been expected as a result of the errors of the McDonalds staff, thus founding primary liability. The wisdom of placing a cup of hot coffee between the legs before driving off is another matter.....

[TheQ]

41 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

I believe Gold and Silver belonged to the crown since time immoral.  Coal was officially grabbed by Attlee's Government on vesting day, 1946 (but effectively a few years earlier).  Other minerals do not necessarily belong to the surface landowner, as mineral rights have often been separated from surface rights (check your title deeds).

title deeds are no longer valid, if your house has been through the land registry.... Although I've still got mine, written on Velum and signed By John Maynard Keynes..

Edited October 10, 2019 by TheQ

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

I believe Gold and Silver belonged to the crown since time immoral.  Coal was officially grabbed by Attlee's Government on vesting day, 1946 (but effectively a few years earlier).  Other minerals do not necessarily belong to the surface landowner, as mineral rights have often been separated from surface rights (check your title deeds).

 

I’d question the use of the term “grabbed”. Nationalisation actually took the form of legislation vesting control of the components of the industry, in the National Coal Board. Compensation approaching £167m (1946 pounds!) was paid for various mining assets, along with another £80m for various surface assets including coking plants. The industry required a further £550m investment in the next decade to modernise and improve. 

 

There was a school of thought at the time and since, that the owners had actually done pretty well out of am industry which had been driven into the ground (so to speak) over the previous thirty years of war and depression. 

 

 

[eastglosmog]

22 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

I’d question the use of the term “grabbed”. Nationalisation actually took the form of legislation vesting control of the components of the industry, in the National Coal Board. Compensation approaching £167m (1946 pounds!) was paid for various mining assets, along with another £80m for various surface assets including coking plants. The industry required a further £550m investment in the next decade to modernise and improve. 

 

There was a school of thought at the time and since, that the owners had actually done pretty well out of am industry which had been driven into the ground (so to speak) over the previous thirty years of war and depression. 

 

 

But I think you will agree that it was not done by Mrs Thatcher, which is the claim I was responding to!

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

But I think you will agree that it was not done by Mrs Thatcher, which is the claim I was responding to!

 

oh. agreed. Mrs T also introduced the modern refinement that they were the property of HMG, not of The Crown. 

[keefer]

12-yr-old has died in Bootle after 2 youngsters had been spotted walking on the line:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/child-12-dies-railway-tracks-17085837

[jim.snowdon]

And inevitably, the presumption will be that it is the railway 's fault, with the parents probably absolving themselves of any responsibility to teach their offspring that the railway is a place where they should not be.

 

Jim

[lmsforever]

I have met some dedicated people who go into schools teaching rail safety think parents should be there as well  ,just when will people stop trespassing .

[MarkC]

On 15/10/2019 at 10:25, keefer said:

12-yr-old has died in Bootle after 2 youngsters had been spotted walking on the line:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/child-12-dies-railway-tracks-17085837

Sad news indeed - 3rd rails are not to be treated with disdain.

 

Hopefully some good will come of it though - I would imagine that many local schools will have mentioned it today, and reminded their pupils of the dangers of the railway.

[96701]

3 hours ago, MarkC said:

Sad news indeed - 3rd rails are not to be treated with disdain.

 

Hopefully some good will come of it though - I would imagine that many local schools will have mentioned it today, and reminded their pupils of the dangers of the railway.

Wouldn't it be good  if the general public actually gave a toss? Some of them do not seem to see a connection between their own behaviour and the effect it has on younger and more impressionable people. There are loads of adults who will try and absolve themselves of any responsibility, then blame everybody else for their own shortcomings.

[keefer]

Indeed, this case of a 28-yr-old woman killed when leaning out of a window: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-50067073

 

While this is a tragic event, this is an intelligent, grown adult doing something that I'd  have thought most people would realise is dangerous.

But the report and argument leading up to it seems to be trying to nail 'the railway' for failing to prevent this happening i.e. overhanging branches not inspected or maintained, warning notices in yellow instead of red, use of the word 'caution' instead of 'danger', the fact that windows open at all etc. etc.

Makes you wonder how the railway ever managed to run at all before all of the 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' approach came in, indeed how the average public managed to travel without there being thousands of casualties every day - just because something was not explicitly defined to the nth degree?

[RJS1977]

The report says that use of 'Caution' was incorrect as it implies that sticking ones head out through the window can be done safely if you are careful.

 

In actual fact of course, sticking your head out of the window can be done safely if you are careful (i.e. keep a lookout for oncoming objects), but part of that being careful is not to stick your head out when it's too dark to see anything!

[laurenceb]

It seems that RAIB will go to any length avoid saying that it was the casualtys fault

[jim.snowdon]

33 minutes ago, keefer said:

Indeed, this case of a 28-yr-old woman killed when leaning out of a window: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-50067073

 

While this is a tragic event, this is an intelligent, grown adult doing something that I'd  have thought most people would realise is dangerous.

But the report and argument leading up to it seems to be trying to nail 'the railway' for failing to prevent this happening i.e. overhanging branches not inspected or maintained, warning notices in yellow instead of red, use of the word 'caution' instead of 'danger', the fact that windows open at all etc. etc.

Makes you wonder how the railway ever managed to run at all before all of the 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' approach came in, indeed how the average public managed to travel without there being thousands of casualties every day - just because something was not explicitly defined to the nth degree?

That's because the RAIB's remit is not to take a pragmatic view but simply to find causes, irrespective of significance. The decisions as to any actions lie with the ORR, but they do not make news, and the TOCs will simply take the course of least risk, with some being rather more risk-averse than others. 

And in the midst of it all, common sense and personal responsibility gets ever more diminished.

 

But, it does have to be said that there is little excuse for lineside vegetation getting that close to the train. The problem there is, I think, largely down to past economies letting lineside management getting out of control.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

 

2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

That's because the RAIB's remit is not to take a pragmatic view but simply to find causes, irrespective of significance. The decisions as to any actions lie with the ORR, but they do not make news, and the TOCs will simply take the course of least risk, with some being rather more risk-averse than others. 

And in the midst of it all, common sense and personal responsibility gets ever more diminished.

 

The cause was that someone failed in very basic responsibilty towards themselves. Nothing more. Not having signs saying "danger" rather than "caution" shouldn't rationally be considered a cause at all, any more than a bucket full of water shouldn't require a sign saying "danger - don't stick your head in here" to avoid being the cause of someone drowning themselves in it.

 

Quote

But, it does have to be said that there is little excuse for lineside vegetation getting that close to the train. The problem there is, I think, largely down to past economies letting lineside management getting out of control.

Sure, but it could've happened with all sorts of things that are exactly where they're supposed to be, like bridges.