Jump to content

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Boris said:

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

Where has ANYONE on this website, claimed that trespassing when FS is around is OK?

 

Fact is people will do stupid things endangering their own lives, even if not actually trespassing. I'm thinking of the photographer, who was leaning out whilst standing on a platform and came literally millimetres from being collected bt another train. The video was posted on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

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

 

Also not quite. The duty to fence appeared in the Railway Regulation Act 1944 and required fencing throughout "the whole of their respective lines" (paragraph 10). There is a similar if more complex provision in The act called Railway Clauses 1845 intended to protect railway lands from trespass, or cattle. It appears that the objective of this legislation was to insert appropriate clauses in individual railway enabling acts, perhaps where they had been omitted in the flurry of that legislation that was passed after the early 1830s.

 

As has been pointed out, nothing much was done about these provisions until the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 which places a duty on the person in control of any infrastructure of a transport system to prevent unauthorised access (so not specifically requiring fencing, although that is an obvious way of complying). The Regulation specifically provided that a breach of duty under the regulation does not confer a right of action in civil proceedings. Note, though, that while ti does not confer a right of action itself, it does set out "good practice", breach of which may give rise to liability in common law.

 

The leading case on railway liability to injured trespassers is from the House of Lords in BRB -v- Herrington (1972): until then the common law made restricted provision for any occupier's liability to trespassers (that is, not just those who accessed the railway). A six year old got access to the third rail single track electrified line near Mitcham and suffered serious burn injuries. The line was fenced but the fencing had been so damaged as to provide relatively easy access. The line separated two National Trust properties to which there was open public access. There was a footbridge not far from the damaged fencing. Although the judges were aware of the 1844 Act and its provisions, the decision is not based on the statutory duty to fence, but on common law duty of care. They were aware that children played in the adjacent area and must have been aware that access by a child was hazardous. "It would have been very easy for them to have and enforce a reasonable system of inspection and repair of their boundary fence." (Lord Reid).

 

So where you have an object on the land that is dangerous to some people there is a duty of care (to those people, I think). There had been reports of trespass on the line by children. I happen to have seen the trial bundle on the case. There are damning photos showing a clear pathway to the railway fence and a decidedly damaged fence which had obviously been in that state for some time. Quite clearly there was no adequate system of inspection as this problem had been long standing. BRB probably did not help themselves much by responding to the letter of claim by saying that the fence had been inspected on the morning of the accident and found to be in fit state, which was clearly misleading, at best.

 

So the statutory duty to fence, such as it was, is not the basis of the civil liability which is founded in the common law. That seems consistent with what seems to have occurred in the DB case, referred to above, but I am not privy to the detail.

 

Here is a summary from Lord Morris:

"The general law remains that one who trespasses does so at his peril. But in the present case there were a number of special circumstances—

(a) the place where the fence was faulty was near to a public path and public ground ;

(b) a child might easily pass through the fence ;

(c) if a child did pass through and go on to the track he would be in grave danger of death or serious bodily harm ;

(d) a child might not realise the risk involved in touching the live rail or being in a place where a train might pass at speed.

Because of these circumstances (all of them well known and obvious) there was, in my view, a duty which. while not amounting to the duty of care which an occupier owes to a visitor, would be a duty to take such steps as common sense or common humanity would dictate: they would be steps calculated to exclude or to warn or otherwise within reasonable and practicable limits to reduce or avert danger."

 

I hope that clarifies.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Where has ANYONE on this website, claimed that trespassing when FS is around is OK?

 

Fact is people will do stupid things endangering their own lives, even if not actually trespassing. I'm thinking of the photographer, who was leaning out whilst standing on a platform and came literally millimetres from being collected bt another train. The video was posted on here.

Nobody, however the numerous incidents of mass trespass coupled with the lack of prosecutions speak volumes.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
20 hours 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.

 

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.

 

I was responsible for parking up a pair of class 70s in bescot yard a couple of years back that within 30 mins had 2 kids climb on the roof and get electrocuted one of them receiving life changing injuries, I had to do a report and speak to BTP etc

 

did I feel guilty at all about what had happened, no, not in the slightest, still don’t now, to be honest I’d forgotten all about it until about 10 minutes ago, it may look like an uncaring callous view but they shouldn’t have been there, shouldn’t have trespassed, shouldn’t have climbed on the top of my engine, had they not then they wouldn’t have got injured

 

i remember another incident back in the early 2000s where a kid fell between some wagons in Northwich station trying to train surf, surviving but losing both of his legs, the previous week the police had been round the local schools warning children of the dangers of hanging around the railway and treating it as a playground, after the incident the child’s mother said “he wouldn’t have had the idea to play on the tracks if the police hadn’t have been to the school” 

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, big jim said:

 

I was responsible for parking up a pair of class 70s in bescot yard a couple of years back that within 30 mins had 2 kids climb on the roof and get electrocuted one of them receiving life changing injuries, I had to do a report and speak to BTP etc

 

did I feel guilty at all about what had happened, no, not in the slightest, still don’t now, to be honest I’d forgotten all about it until about 10 minutes ago, it may look like an uncaring callous view but they shouldn’t have been there, shouldn’t have trespassed, shouldn’t have climbed on the top of my engine, had they not then they wouldn’t have got injured

 

i remember another incident back in the early 2000s where a kid fell between some wagons in Northwich station trying to train surf, surviving but losing both of his legs, the previous week the police had been round the local schools warning children of the dangers of hanging around the railway and treating it as a playground, after the incident the child’s mother said “he wouldn’t have had the idea to play on the tracks if the police hadn’t have been to the school” 

 

 

Couldn't agree more.  It is almost a given that family and friends will claim it is someone else's fault in the aftermath of these incidents.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Oh it was, the railways fault for the hole in the fence, that in fact was continually repaired on a weekly basis but constantly vandalised as in the words of a resident on TV being interviewed the day after “the locals have used it as a short cut for years” I must admit though in the 10 years I’ve been going to bescot I’ve never ever seen anyone trespassing there!

 

TBH I was half expecting the class 70s to have a number of the ‘grab handles’ removed from the body side after the incident as it is very easy to climb up the body side onto the roof using them 

Edited by big jim
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2019 at 14:42, Neil said:

 

I think it's entirely fair.

 

A:- You would if you had an involvement in a similar incident.

B:- If you allow gaps then why bother with fencing at all?

C:- A comparison between road and rail is like comparing cheese with apples. Speed limit on the estate surrounding Neville Hill 30mph, line speed through Neville Hill not known but I'd assume a good deal more. Huge difference in braking distance between car and train. Road vehicles can take avoiding action.

 

 

But 30 mph can kill a child.......this is my personal experience.

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

I'm very sorry to hear this. Locally many schools on main roads now have 20mph restrictions (though the number of drivers who stick to this is shamefully low) and those on more residential streets have traffic calming measures in place so there seems to be recognition that measures to curb speeds to below 30mph is a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

 

Just as a discussion point, how much of this "infallibilty" that the younger members of society have is related to, 1, The computer games they play where pain and death are on a screen and not directly experienced, 2, the amount of H&S nannying that goes on nowadays and, 3. the different environment which children are brought up in which creates very little in the way of situations to learn from?

 

Mike.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, big jim said:

 

I was responsible for parking up a pair of class 70s in bescot yard a couple of years back that within 30 mins had 2 kids climb on the roof and get electrocuted one of them receiving life changing injuries, I had to do a report and speak to BTP etc

 

 

I find the situation bizarre that as the driver who stabled the locos, you were implicated in the situation and interviewed by BTP, if you had been the driver who had stabled the 70s as   say,  stored out-of-service two months earlier, would the BTP still require your evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pandora said:

I find the situation bizarre that as the driver who stabled the locos, you were implicated in the situation and interviewed by BTP, if you had been the driver who had stabled the 70s as   say,  stored out-of-service two months earlier, would the BTP still require your evidence?

It seems entirely reasonable to ask someone who was in the area immediately before an incident if they know anything about what happened. Doesn't imply any fault, just a potential witness to something.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTP need to establish as many of the verifiable facts as they can for their investigation, and it seems reasonable for them to ask for information from someone who was present 30 minutes before, who for all BTP know may have seen them and observed their behaviour.  As Zomboid (all glory to the hypnotoad) says, no blame is attached to big Jim.

 

Railways are a very dangerous environment indeed, and consist of a plethora of devices that can and will kill you if you do not respect them.  They are also attractive to children and teenagers, as adventure playgrounds and places where you can get up to mischief unobserved.  Adults who trespass on them because they've 'used this as a short cut for years', or who zig zag around half barrier crossing gates, or jump off platforms to get to the other side because they cant be *rsed using the footbridge or the subway, or want the perfect shot of FS, or who indulge in scofflaw activity in general on or off the railway, actively encourage this sort of activity in those that they should be setting a better example to.  The result is a large number of people for whom the presence of a railway turns them into Darwin Award contenders, improving the quality of the general DNA of the human race by removing themselves from the gene pool, which is a gene puddle in some places.

 

I really don't think that video gaming (which, btw, is a mostly adult activity) or the nanny state have much of an impact on this, as it's been going on since there were railways.  Charles Dickens was injured in a crash caused by vandals obstructing the track with a sleeper for fun!  The isolated way in which modern children are brought up, which is down to their parents' joint fear of traffic and molesters, may have some part to play but IMHO probably not the major part.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Pandora said:

I find the situation bizarre that as the driver who stabled the locos, you were implicated in the situation and interviewed by BTP, if you had been the driver who had stabled the 70s as   say,  stored out-of-service two months earlier, would the BTP still require your evidence?

 

 

I agree, when my then boss phoned me and said “there are no allegations against you” my reply was “I should bloody hope not either” 

 

it wasnt an an interview by BTP but they wanted my company report and a quick chat as to whether I’d seen anyone knocking about when I stabled the locos 

 

from my point of view my report was pretty much accurate to the minute as I’m always taking photos for my thread on here so could go back And pinpoint the exact minute i left the locos there, the time I left the yard etc. 

 

the only “what if” that crossed my mind afterward was as per disposal I locked all the doors on both locos (to prevent vandalism), “what if” I’d have left them unlocked would they have just ventured into the cab and done something in there for a bit, got bored then gone home?

 

i’ll never Know but I don’t have sleepless nights thinking about it 

  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Just as a discussion point, how much of this "infallibilty" that the younger members of society have is related to, 1, The computer games they play where pain and death are on a screen and not directly experienced, 2, the amount of H&S nannying that goes on nowadays and, 3. the different environment which children are brought up in which creates very little in the way of situations to learn from?

 

Doubt the games make much difference, how many children from earlier generations watched films with people getting killed and ran around playing games pretending to shoot at each other? Is that much different?

 

I find all the nannying very depressing and I'd be very sceptical if anyone claims it doesn't have negative results on behaviour - it contradicts the basic in-built learning mechanisms by which we develop the instincts to try to avoid putting ourselves in harm's way, but despite that the net result is fewer people getting hurt. I think 3 goes along with that. We need to get hurt from time to time to learn, and it's nigh upon impossible to reliably create the situations where that happens but no serious consequences are guaranteed, although some object to even the getting hurt part.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how far railway/railroad companies have to go to protect the public from the publics lack of personal responsibility / ignorance by children & adults.

Level crossings of rail & road are good examples - nothing stopping the public from accessing rail lines at those points especially where there are boom gates to stop ( ? ) road traffic but don't stop pedestrians.

I may seem callous/cold but if anyone trespasses on other peoples property & are injured or worse, my sympathy level is real low for the victim & very high for a train driver for example.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Foot crossings are the anomaly,  there are thousands of them,  the safety relies on the whistleboard for the driver to blow up with the horn  and the vigilamce and capability of the crossing user  to check for trains  running at potentially 3-figure speeds, accidents can be where the user stops on the crossing and is bowled over, an incident near Bessacarrr Doncaster where  a family hesitated on a crossing to retrieve their  child's bicycle  stuck fast in the crossing, being  bowled over by an HST, comes to mind  and,  users crossing  behind a train bowled over by a second train travelling in the opposite direction

Edited by Pandora
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sol said:

I wonder how far railway/railroad companies have to go to protect the public from the publics lack of personal responsibility / ignorance by children & adults.

Level crossings of rail & road are good examples - nothing stopping the public from accessing rail lines at those points especially where there are boom gates to stop ( ? ) road traffic but don't stop pedestrians.

I may seem callous/cold but if anyone trespasses on other peoples property & are injured or worse, my sympathy level is real low for the victim & very high for a train driver for example.

Then you get drunken idiots like this one. Although she wasn't injured, except for her bank balance!

 

From Brighton, a Melbourne, Australia suburb.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/woman-who-fled-car-stuck-on-railway-tracks-was-over-blood-alcohol-limit-20190915-p52rei.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pandora said:

Foot crossings are the anomaly,  there are thousands of them,  the safety relies on the whistleboard for the driver to blow up with the horn  and the vigilamce and capability of the crossing user  to check for trains  running at potentially 3-figure speeds, accidents can be where the user stops on the crossing and is bowled over, an incident near Bessacarrr Doncaster where  a family hesitated on a crossing to retrieve their  child's bicycle  stuck fast in the crossing, being  bowled over by an HST, comes to mind  and,  users crossing  behind a train bowled over by a second train travelling in the opposite direction

Probably more of a legacy than an anomaly. I'm happy enough using some of them - a few on my nearest line which I don't think has a line speed faster than 40 mph but I really wouldn't want to use one on a 100 mph+ line, any more than I'd want to use a nearby foot crossing across a dual carriageway.

 

I've heard a few stories about people being caught out by another train in the opposite direction, maybe that's a key point that needs to be put out somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/09/2019 at 10:10, Neil said:

I'm very sorry to hear this. Locally many schools on main roads now have 20mph restrictions (though the number of drivers who stick to this is shamefully low) and those on more residential streets have traffic calming measures in place so there seems to be recognition that measures to curb speeds to below 30mph is a good idea.

Hi

 

That's because in most places its an advisory limit not legally binding. 

Capture.JPG.af297ad23df835bc37ba00140c599cc0.JPG

This is the sign at our local school. Why it is an advisory I don't know but I feel that should be changed.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

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

Certainly round here the 20mph signs are red, not green, and often lit so they only come on around school start and finish times. In fact I have never seen a green sign. A question for your local councillor would not go amiss.

People can be equally stupid on roads. Between my house and the centre of Newtown there is a bridge over the River Severn. It is wide enough for two vehicles to pass, though one often sees drivers wait until it is clear if something such as a van is coming the other way. There are walkways protected by bollards but they are too narrow for two people to pass comfortably. Frequently - and I don't mean once or twice a month, when I am crossing on the right hand side - facing on-coming traffic - someone coming the other way will step out into the road to pass me without any thought of looking behind them. More Darwin award contenders than I like to think.

Oh, and I stopped having driving lessons because my instructor wanted me to drive at 30mph through residential areas where there were parked card#s and children p;laying.

And please din't ask me to comment on the chaos caused by parents in cars - often "Chelsea Tractors" - on roads outside one school at the end of the school day when I lived in the Home Counties.

Are these people likely to give their children any sensible training in road or rail safety?

Back on railways, I was brought up in south Wales. There were numerous places where fences had been damaged to allow unauthorised access. Usually if they were repaired it was about 24 hours before they were damaged again. Iron fences would be bent with steel bars to allow access. At what point would the railway company's responsibility to prevent access end? I suspect that at least one poster on this thread will have come across this in his railway career.

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, caradoc said:

Are foot crossings with no warning apparatus even allowed on 100mph plus lines ?

Yes,  and a number of foot crossings are having the whistle boards removed,  (probably noise abatement action) ,  plus the rulebook entry for horn use seems to change issue by issue sometimes by several hours as if  no one can make up their mind,   current rule book is 0600 to 2359 for sounding the horn for a whistleboard , not sounding the horn outside the hours.

Edited by Pandora
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.