Level crossing stupidity...

[laurenceb]

52 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

You can always get another phone!  

 

However this is lost on most people!

You can buy a hell of a lot of phones for the price of a funeral!

[laurenceb]

59 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by laurenceb
Duplicate

[Wickham Green]

13 hours ago, cctransuk said:

........ Since the invention of railways, humans have managed to stand on platforms, (mostly) without falling off, whilst trains arrived and departed. So what has changed? ...........

 

Even the ENDS of platforms seem to have been deemed unsafe nowadays so barriers and spikey-things are installed at the top of the old ramp ( or a new precipice ) - though it's rare to see a set which any able-bodied ( Are we allowed to use that phrase nowadays ? ) person couldn't negotiate with relative ease.

[Coryton]

4 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Even the ENDS of platforms seem to have been deemed unsafe nowadays so barriers and spikey-things are installed at the top of the old ramp ( or a new precipice ) - though it's rare to see a set which any able-bodied ( Are we allowed to use that phrase nowadays ? ) person couldn't negotiate with relative ease.

 

Although there must be a lot more people living in the UK now compared with, say, 20 years ago who come from countries where wandering across railway lines is considered quite normal even where not officially permitted.

[Fat Controller]

4 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Even the ENDS of platforms seem to have been deemed unsafe nowadays so barriers and spikey-things are installed at the top of the old ramp ( or a new precipice ) - though it's rare to see a set which any able-bodied ( Are we allowed to use that phrase nowadays ? ) person couldn't negotiate with relative ease.

I think the rationale for these is to stop people wandering off along the track; there've been at least two fatalities attributed to this in the last couple of years in East Kent. One ended with the person stepping on the live rail, the other with a 'one under'

[Wickham Green]

6 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

I think the rationale for these is to stop people wandering off along the track; there've been at least two fatalities attributed to this in the last couple of years in East Kent. One ended with the person stepping on the live rail, the other with a 'one under'

Might stop someone accidentally wandering - but few of these installations would prevent anyone 'escaping' from the platform if they wanted to ........... and where those barriers ARE an effective block, the simplest way out would be by jumping down onto the track - which is probably not what the authorities desire.

[cctransuk]

46 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

I think the rationale for these is to stop people wandering off along the track; there've been at least two fatalities attributed to this in the last couple of years in East Kent. One ended with the person stepping on the live rail, the other with a 'one under'

 

...... but by what rationale do we presume the public to be more prone to act in such a way than they were, say, seventy-five years ago?

 

Trains may travel faster and without as much noise nowadays, but the likely consequences were equally gruesome.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[martin_wynne]

5 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

...... but by what rationale do we presume the public to be more prone to act in such a way than they were, say, seventy-five years ago?

 

Tetraethyl lead in petrol when they were kids?

 

From https://www.britannica.com/science/tetraethyl-lead :

 

"Studies of the prevalence of lead poisoning continued, however, and resulted in reports by geochemist Clair Patterson in the 1960s on the accumulation of lead in industrial nations and by pediatrician Herbert Needleman in the 1970s on lead poisoning and intellectual development in children. Finally, in 1972 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that leaded gasoline would be phased out—not specifically to combat lead poisoning but because lead was known to interfere with new smog-reducing catalytic converters that from 1975 would be built into new cars. Use of TEL declined markedly from 1975 to 1985, and since 1995 no leaded gasoline has been available for use in passenger automobiles in the United States. (The use of TEL continued for many years in aviation gasoline and racing fuel, however.) The use of leaded gasoline in cars was banned in Canada in 1990 and in the European Union in 2002."

[cctransuk]

14 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

John - it is more the threat of getting sued and the cost, time and trouble of defending oneself rather than H&S as such, that is the deterrent. As Mozzer noted upthread, Network Rail were cleared in the Hipperholme case.  From personal experience in these matters, I know that Network Rail will not get back their full costs and little if any compensation for the time and worry staff will have had over it.  All to often, it is cheaper to pay the Danegeld.

 

Then I can only assume that the judiciary nowadays lack the same concept of justice as their predecessors.

 

If there is an increased tendency to sue, even after an incident which was patently the consequence of idiotic behaviour, one can only assume a fair number of claims have been settled by the innocent party.

 

I'm afraid that the current culture of 'sue irrespective of culpability', one can only blame those bodies who have prioritised adverse publicity over the justice of their position as the innocent party.

 

Business has no b*lls any more, and so the general public adopts the attitude that idiotic behaviour often results in lucrative 'compo'.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Reorte]

16 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

...... but by what rationale do we presume the public to be more prone to act in such a way than they were, say, seventy-five years ago?

 

Trains may travel faster and without as much noise nowadays, but the likely consequences were equally gruesome.

I don't think we do presume the public to be more prone to act stupidly, rather there's an attitude that it's someone else's responsibility to protect them from themselves (which I don't like in itself, nor do I like in the slightest the presence of all the measures to stop them), and that others would prefer not to deal with the results of said stupid behaviour (a very much more reasonable motivation).

Edited April 26, 2019 by Reorte

[Coryton]

24 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

...... but by what rationale do we presume the public to be more prone to act in such a way than they were, say, seventy-five years ago?

 

Trains may travel faster and without as much noise nowadays, but the likely consequences were equally gruesome.

 

 

Mains powered portable electrical equipment is likely to be a lot safer now than 75 years ago.

 

But 75 years ago in the workplace I don't think that it had to be repeatedly checked for safety and little green stickers put on.

 

Some organisations insist that brand new equipment must not be plugged in without a PATT test though I suspect that goes beyond the legal requirements.

 

As life has become safer, attitude to the remaining risk has changed. Maybe that's not surprising.

[kevinlms]

8 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Then I can only assume that the judiciary nowadays lack the same concept of justice as their predecessors.

 

If there is an increased tendency to sue, even after an incident which was patently the consequence of idiotic behaviour, one can only assume a fair number of claims have been settled by the innocent party.

 

I'm afraid that the current culture of 'sue irrespective of culpability', one can only blame those bodies who have prioritised adverse publicity over the justice of their position as the innocent party.

 

Business has no b*lls any more, and so the general public adopts the attitude that idiotic behaviour often results in lucrative 'compo'.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

But weren't far more people killed by trains 75 years ago than today?

 

I'm not sure I believe that people are more stupid now, than at earlier times regarding railway safety.

 

Reading some posts in the last couple of days, suggest that some people were very lucky in their school days!!

 

The distractions might be different (mobiles etc), but many people took risks, perhaps crossing multiple tracks. Many locations, used to have 4 or more tracks, whereas today there is only 2 or even 1,

[stewartingram]

Whilst I was still working on the Underground, I had finished a job at Hounslow Central, and was waiting on the inbound platform for a Picc line train back to central London. I saw these 2 (or was it 3?) girlies (late teen/young  adults) come up the stairs & out on to the platform opposite. After a minute or so of giggles, they realised they were on the wrong platform. Guess what happened?

Without even looking either way for trains, they stepped down off the centre of the platform (quite low on the tube), and dashed across the two tracks to my platform, each one following the other. How they missed the 4 live rails heaven knows. And just as they clambered on to the platform a Heathrow bound train came round the curve into the opposite platform....they laughed.

 

Stewart

 

[corneliuslundie]

Going back a few posts, I suspect that those drafting the original legislation regarding fencing of railways assumed that humans are capable of rational thinking whereas animals are not. Perhaps in view of some recent books on animal behaviour and the evidence of human activities in the modern world, they had it the wrong way round.

What has certainly changed in recent years is the way people behave when travelling by train or bus or even walking down the street. I am often the only passenger on the train looking out of the window; the rest are immersed in virtual worlds on screen, on their phones etc. The real world seems to be a distraction from important things. Hence you get people walking in front of cars while on the phone etc, because that virtual world is more real than the physical one.

Let's hope that recent recommendations on limiting use of electronic communication devices is listened to.

Also, I wonder if the amount of bloodshed on electronic media - computer games, films etc - has had an effect on attitudes to personal safety. On screen you just get a new life if you get zapped. It doesn't quite work like that in the real world.

Jonathan

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

The distractions might be different (mobiles etc),

 

I was one of those who posted who you regard as "lucky", I'm sorry but I'd dispute that, we were made aware of the dangers and as we had no distractions like mobiles/headphones, etc., we were more aware of our surroundings and their dangers, that's not being lucky, it's having  common sense and treating our surroundings with some respect...

 

So what were these distractions we had back then you mentioned, Please tell me...

[Reorte]

43 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Going back a few posts, I suspect that those drafting the original legislation regarding fencing of railways assumed that humans are capable of rational thinking whereas animals are not. Perhaps in view of some recent books on animal behaviour and the evidence of human activities in the modern world, they had it the wrong way round.

What has certainly changed in recent years is the way people behave when travelling by train or bus or even walking down the street. I am often the only passenger on the train looking out of the window; the rest are immersed in virtual worlds on screen, on their phones etc. The real world seems to be a distraction from important things. Hence you get people walking in front of cars while on the phone etc, because that virtual world is more real than the physical one.

Let's hope that recent recommendations on limiting use of electronic communication devices is listened to.

Also, I wonder if the amount of bloodshed on electronic media - computer games, films etc - has had an effect on attitudes to personal safety. On screen you just get a new life if you get zapped. It doesn't quite work like that in the real world.

 

Certainly people are far more distracted these days (can't blame them when you look around, might explain why most of them seem far less miserable than me). That'll definitely play a role. Are they overall more or less likely to act stupidly? You'll always have some fools around no matter what, and there are more people, and more visibility of everything going on, so even if individuals don't change we're all more likely to see and hear of daft behaviour. Whilst people seem to pay less attention than ever I'd hazard that there's also more of a "be careful of everything" attitude too (sometimes to the absurd), which plays against that. It's not the same in everyone of course.

 

I really have my doubts that computer games and films have much of an effect though (playing games on their phone instead of looking where they're going notwithstanding). I doubt many people, if any, would react in the same way to having a gun pointed at them in real life for example. Whilst I strongly believe there's a lot to be said about the negatives of being brought up consequence-free I do believe almost all of us distinguish fiction and reality adequately enough.

[caradoc]

19 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

If you google platform safety barriers you will see a very - very long list - I'm not bothered enough to copy it here, you might chose to look for it yourself.  

 

As for your square circle, that has never bothered our Gov't {nor other foreign ones either, it seems} when they see a need.{often referred to as "Biting the Bullet"}.  Automatic barriers have been available for over 40 years, manual / physical ones for way longer than railways.  Bigger decisions have been made in very much shorter times than either of those.  My point is that there has not been much [repeat "much"] will in the UK for platform safety barriers.  There are some {repeat some}, but few in comparison to platforms without.  To repeat {again} the original point, fences along all lines, to prevent animals getting to the lines,  but few for humans at the points of direct interface with the trains {platforms}.

 

I have not made any recommendation for barriers, or no barriers, simply observed how their application, or not, in the Uk, has compared to their diligence over fencing the lines beyond the platforms.

 

I hope this clarifies the discussion for you.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

I did exactly what you were suggested and Googled 'Platform Safety Barriers'. There is indeed a very long list covering very many countries, however almost without exception the railways concerned are metros, and even in countries whose railways are frequently held up as superior to our own, such as Germany, there are actually very few examples.

 

Regarding the point made about different train types. take Motherwell Platforms 1 and 2 (WCML) as an example. Were Platform Edge Doors to be installed, they would need to cope with the following train types; 2-car Class 156; 3-car Class 185, 318, 320, 334 and 380; 4-car Class 220, 350 and 380; 5-car Class 221; 9 and 11-car Class 390; and lastly 7 coach loco-hauled sleeper services. Of course, as eastglosmog suggested, barriers could be set back from the platform edge and only opened to allow people on and off trains, however this would increase the dwell time of every single train, and there would need to be staff on site to remove anyone who was inside the barrier but did not join a train !

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree that the lack of platform edge doors, or barriers, is in any way a major safety issue, or a failing of either the rail industry or government, and the absence in (any party's) election manifestos of any commitment to provide such will not stop me voting. And fencing is installed at places where people, and animals, should not access the railway, which is not the case at stations.

 

 

 

 

[jcredfer]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I did exactly what you were suggested and Googled 'Platform Safety Barriers'. There is indeed a very long list covering very many countries, however almost without exception the railways concerned are metros, and even in countries whose railways are frequently held up as superior to our own, such as Germany, there are actually very few examples.

 

Regarding the point made about different train types. take Motherwell Platforms 1 and 2 (WCML) as an example. Were Platform Edge Doors to be installed, they would need to cope with the following train types; 2-car Class 156; 3-car Class 185, 318, 320, 334 and 380; 4-car Class 220, 350 and 380; 5-car Class 221; 9 and 11-car Class 390; and lastly 7 coach loco-hauled sleeper services. Of course, as eastglosmog suggested, barriers could be set back from the platform edge and only opened to allow people on and off trains, however this would increase the dwell time of every single train, and there would need to be staff on site to remove anyone who was inside the barrier but did not join a train !

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree that the lack of platform edge doors, or barriers, is in any way a major safety issue, or a failing of either the rail industry or government, and the absence in (any party's) election manifestos of any commitment to provide such will not stop me voting. And fencing is installed at places where people, and animals, should not access the railway, which is not the case at stations.

 

 

 

 

 

I will state for the 4th time, "I am NOT {REPEAT _ NOT!!!!} advocating the use of platform safety barriers {OR OTHERWISE}!!!!!  My original comment was to OBSERVE on past Gov decisions and the priorities they chose to make decisions on railway barriers.....  {of one type, or others!!!}

 

I wonder at the reading abilities of some posters......

 

Apologies to caradoc, for using this post to make the point, it is certainly not aimed at any single individual.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by jcredfer

[big jim]

A sensible judgement in the case of the mum attempting to sue network rail after her daughter was killed sitting on a crossing that I mentioned a few pages back

 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/mum-loses-court-case-over-16177911?fbclid=IwAR3qxdmV07zjoRvva2JwgV09ztLd1FSyBIiQzHaYjl6vK4CZ7-aa-hBd7gA

 

[PatB]

9 hours ago, big jim said:

A sensible judgement in the case of the mum attempting to sue network rail after her daughter was killed sitting on a crossing that I mentioned a few pages back

 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/mum-loses-court-case-over-16177911?fbclid=IwAR3qxdmV07zjoRvva2JwgV09ztLd1FSyBIiQzHaYjl6vK4CZ7-aa-hBd7gA

 

 

The right finding, IMHO, but still a horrible (though, sadly, by no means unique) case. One kid dead, another who'll probably be having nightmares for the rest of her life, trauma for the train crew and emergency services, and a family who'll never recover. All because a couple of apparently bright 16 year olds didn't know that a railway is always a dangerous place. Maybe The Finishing Line needs a rerun around Britain's schools.

[corneliuslundie]

On a more general level but related to safety, and I wonder if it has wider implications: today half the people walking the street seem to be wearing high-vis jackets. They seem to be compulsory for some schools when the children leave the premises as a group - though not all.

But does the fact that they have become so common reduce their effectiveness as one no longer notices them as something to be especially aware of? I am not talking about the "I am wearing a high-vis jacket so I can come to no harm" syndrome. I don't know but I do wonder. And is there the same effect in other areas?

Discuss - probably for at least ten pages!

Also, I remember some years ago while driving with a colleague in Germany - she was German - her commenting that there were so many road signs that it was not possible to read and take notice of them all.

Jonathan

[melmerby]

22 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Also, I remember some years ago while driving with a colleague in Germany - she was German - her commenting that there were so many road signs that it was not possible to read and take notice of them all.

Jonathan

That also applies to some places in the UK

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, PatB said:

 

The right finding, IMHO, but still a horrible (though, sadly, by no means unique) case. One kid dead, another who'll probably be having nightmares for the rest of her life, trauma for the train crew and emergency services, and a family who'll never recover. All because a couple of apparently bright 16 year olds didn't know that a railway is always a dangerous place. Maybe The Finishing Line needs a rerun around Britain's schools.

What do you do about it though? It's all very well trying to close all crossings, stick up mile after mile of palisade fencing etc., but do we really want to live in that sort of overprotected (not to mention downright ugly) world, where we all get treated like potential idiots because a few are? I appreciate how much of a tragedy it is when something awful like this happens.

[Hobby]

You can't cover every eventuality, that's for certain, at some point you have to say "enough's enough" and that people have to take responsibility for their own actions, I'd say that in cases surrounding (mis)use of railway land we've already reached that level. Trouble is with the "blame" culture we have that won't happen any time soon...

 

 

Going back to the HV vests, for a class of young schoolkids it's quite a good idea, at least they are not only visible but can be easily seen by the teachers if they try to do a runner!

Edited April 27, 2019 by Hobby

[kevinlms]

21 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I was one of those who posted who you regard as "lucky", I'm sorry but I'd dispute that, we were made aware of the dangers and as we had no distractions like mobiles/headphones, etc., we were more aware of our surroundings and their dangers, that's not being lucky, it's having  common sense and treating our surroundings with some respect...

 

So what were these distractions we had back then you mentioned, Please tell me...

No need to take it personally!