Level crossing stupidity...

[Porkscratching]

46 minutes ago, Hobby said:

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!

Handcuff 'em all together..job done..!

[TheQ]

52 minutes ago, Hobby said:

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!

But when it gets to the stage where you need high vis vested securicor guards walking alongside marching troops  it's a bit ridiculous.. 

[EddieB]

On 25/04/2019 at 19:05, 96701 said:

Are you sure that every kid in the country survived, or was it just you and your mates (and their parents and siblings) that were lucky?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44868659

So the BBC (our "national treasure" that we are forced to pay a subscription for its TV news service, shortly to be levied on the over-75s as well) includes a link on that page "Tributes to Graffiti Artists", as if all these "risk taking" youngsters (and their stupid parents) are some kind of heroes.

[laurenceb]

15 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 only people to fail their duty of care to this child were the parents. They were the ones who failed to teach her that sitting on a railway line is dangerous and stupid. I am sorry if that sounds harsh

[Reorte]

23 minutes ago, laurenceb said:

The only people to fail their duty of care to this child were the parents. They were the ones who failed to teach her that sitting on a railway line is dangerous and stupid. I am sorry if that sounds harsh

 

I'm of the opinion that we're instinctively wired to push from a very early age, and that the common sense instincts are formed by that getting slapped back. These are base, animal behaviours that we mess with at our peril. Explaining things or delayed consequences don't work at that stage, and get those wrong and you'll never make up the lost ground.

 

You need explanation too, but I'm also sceptical about how well that works without a bit of real world experience (although some knowledge that trains run at night would have helped here, although the assumption that they don't was a bit odd). Understandably we want to keep children away from railways except as passengers but we might do better if they weren't - under controlled circumstances of course. One thing that stayed with me from a child was a loco being moved at a preserved railway, where we were standing nearby, at ground level (makes them look so much larger than when you're on a platform). I was frightened by it, and that was good for me. Next best, stick a simulator in the back of a van and take it to schools, get the kids to stop it at the platform and see how much they overshoot (maybe through some closed level crossing barriers beyond the station - sure, that implies manual gates which aren't exactly common now but it'll get the point across better).

 

But that all said teenagers have always done stupid things no matter how well brought up.

 

[kevinlms]

49 minutes ago, laurenceb said:

The only people to fail their duty of care to this child were the parents. They were the ones who failed to teach her that sitting on a railway line is dangerous and stupid. I am sorry if that sounds harsh

It isn't just 'sitting on a level crossing', whether or not trains are actually running, that is dangerous. It is the whole concept of being near large objects that even at low speeds, have huge amounts of momentum.

 

As for the kid who got electrocuted, well he knew damn well that it was dangerous, but thought he was clever enough, had quick reactions, good sense of balance etc, would make it OK and immune from the danger.

[Derekl]

16 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

 

 

As one who was once engaged in claimant personal injury work, I would have thought more than twice about running a case like this, although perhaps there was information available to the claimant that is not apparent (I cannot imagine what, though). The argument appears to have been that NR ought to have signposted that trains run at night and/or would not sound the horn at night, both pretty tendentious arguments I would have thought.

 

NR's apparent generosity in saying that they would not pursue the mother for costs is perhaps less so - for cases issued after April 2013 successful defendants have been unable to recover costs from unsuccessful claimants other than in very restricted circumstances, which do not seem to apply here - so they would not be entitled to recover in any event.

[PatB]

3 hours ago, Porkscratching said:

Handcuff 'em all together..job done..!

 

You jest, of course, but a few years ago I stopped for petrol in a country town one morning, and watched the local kindergarten walk past on an outing. They were all attached to a long strap via velcro wristbands and with a teacher at each end. With their little sunhats on it looked like a chaingang for naughty Disney mushrooms.

[Coryton]

47 minutes ago, Derekl said:

 

As one who was once engaged in claimant personal injury work, I would have thought more than twice about running a case like this, although perhaps there was information available to the claimant that is not apparent (I cannot imagine what, though). The argument appears to have been that NR ought to have signposted that trains run at night and/or would not sound the horn at night, both pretty tendentious arguments I would have thought.

 

I suspect I'm in a minority here, but I think the point that trains no longer sound their horn after whatever time it is at level crossings is a reasonable one.

 

Given that trains used to sound their horns at night, why shouldn't NR have made it clear that the rules were changed? I don't recall seeing anything on this for general public consumption at the time.

 

The judge apparently felt that a sign saying "Stop, look, listen" was sufficient. But listen for what?

 

Until the change in rules, for a long time "listen" meant listen for a two-tone horn. Now it means listen for a single-tone horn most of the time, and for the train itself at night.

 

Most people also fail to appreciate how quietly a train can approach, so I would say that the "listen" part of the sign is not reliable at all when horns are not used.

 

Compared to - say- enforcing people staying behind the yellow line when a train approaches slowly, I would have thought that "Caution - train horns not used between such-and-such hours" signs at level crossings would be entirely reasonable.

 

I think there is a case to be made that the railways have been negligent in this respect, though of course none of this means that sitting down on a level crossing is a good idea.

 

If it had been someone crossing at night, who had thought it was safe to cross because they didn't hear a horn, maybe the judgement would have been different?

[beast66606]

1 hour ago, Derekl said:

NR's apparent generosity in saying that they would not pursue the mother for costs is perhaps less so - for cases issued after April 2013 successful defendants have been unable to recover costs from unsuccessful claimants other than in very restricted circumstances, which do not seem to apply here - so they would not be entitled to recover in any event.

 

Which explains why some cases are brought, there's no penalty for giving it a go.  It could end up costing an innocent many thousands of pounds - for no genuine  reason.

Edited April 27, 2019 by beast66606

[beast66606]

22 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

I suspect I'm in a minority here, but I think the point that trains no longer sound their horn after whatever time it is at level crossings is a reasonable one.

 

Given that trains used to sound their horns at night, why shouldn't NR have made it clear that the rules were changed? I don't recall seeing anything on this for general public consumption at the time.

 

The judge apparently felt that a sign saying "Stop, look, listen" was sufficient. But listen for what?

 

Until the change in rules, for a long time "listen" meant listen for a two-tone horn. Now it means listen for a single-tone horn most of the time, and for the train itself at night.

 

Most people also fail to appreciate how quietly a train can approach, so I would say that the "listen" part of the sign is not reliable at all when horns are not used.

 

Compared to - say- enforcing people staying behind the yellow line when a train approaches slowly, I would have thought that "Caution - train horns not used between such-and-such hours" signs at level crossings would be entirely reasonable.

 

I think there is a case to be made that the railways have been negligent in this respect, though of course none of this means that sitting down on a level crossing is a good idea.

 

If it had been someone crossing at night, who had thought it was safe to cross because they didn't hear a horn, maybe the judgement would have been different?

 

The sounding of horns there ceased in 2007 when the girl was around 9 and presumably not allowed out (without adult supervision) after midnight to "buy baking ingredients for biscuits" so a red herring.

 

The Stop, Look, Listen sign clearly states "Beware of trains" so it's not hard to work out what to listen for.

 

Sitting down on a level crossing is very stupid and unfortunately the outcome was entirely predictable - and preventable.

 

Someone using the crossing correctly would be moving when crossing and even if they were stupid enough to cross without looking would still have stood a good chance of jumping clear of the train, someone sitting down would have to get up first and the shock of a train approaching may well have delayed that action until it was too late.

 

No negligence imho.

Edited April 27, 2019 by beast66606

[Derekl]

20 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

I think there is a case to be made that the railways have been negligent in this respect, though of course none of this means that sitting down on a level crossing is a good idea.

 

If it had been someone crossing at night, who had thought it was safe to cross because they didn't hear a horn, maybe the judgement would have been different? 

 

That was roughly my view - if a person was crossing the line having taken all precautions, but didn't realise the train was on approach because there was no horn sounded, maybe. Certainly a better case than sitting in the 4 foot with back to direction of travel, as appears to have been the case (and I fully accept the two may not have appreciated the significance of the direction of travel).

 

A cautionary word, though - the judgment will normally have been several pages long and is condensed into a short report of a few hundred words: it is difficult to contain nuances in such a short report. There may also have been evidence which had significance for the judge, but is unreported.

[kevinlms]

1 minute ago, Derekl said:

 

That was roughly my view - if a person was crossing the line having taken all precautions, but didn't realise the train was on approach because there was no horn sounded, maybe. Certainly a better case than sitting in the 4 foot with back to direction of travel, as appears to have been the case (and I fully accept the two may not have appreciated the significance of the direction of travel).

 

A cautionary word, though - the judgment will normally have been several pages long and is condensed into a short report of a few hundred words: it is difficult to contain nuances in such a short report. There may also have been evidence which had significance for the judge, but is unreported.

Most people would expect trains to use the left hand track, just like roads and presumably the train was running in this fashion.

 

No, they were convinced that 'no trains ran at night', so it was immaterial to keep a look out. A foolish mistake.

[Mark Saunders]

Try telling some people which side of the road to walk on they have no idea and believe that you do the same as cars rather than walk on the right facing oncoming traffic!

[Derekl]

34 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

 

Which explains why some cases are brought, there's no penalty for giving it a go.  It could end up costing an innocent many thousands of pounds - for no genuine  reason.

 

Which is also why some of us thought it a less than brilliant idea. It was, I think, at the behest of the insurance industry which had had enough of paying for the insurance premiums that insured the claimant against responsibility for the defendant's costs on a lost case - recoverable from the defendant as part of the costs where the claimant was successful. I don't know whether the trade off has been of benefit or not, but I did notice (and others have remarked) that the lack of costs risk can result in a somewhat gung-ho attitude on the part of some claimant solicitors (but by no means either all or the majority).

 

In passing, the "innocent" will usually be the insurance industry - generally, personal injury claims are against insured defendants (although not always). I don't know whether NR insures or self-insures - if the former it is likely to be with the sort of excess that would result in NR meeting the costs in any event. As a matter of interest, the BRB self insured, running its own Solicitors' Office and a claims management department, so meeting the costs of all claims itself.

[Derekl]

12 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Most people would expect trains to use the left hand track, just like roads and presumably the train was running in this fashion.

 

No, they were convinced that 'no trains ran at night', so it was immaterial to keep a look out. A foolish mistake.

 

I am sure that is likely to be correct, but we do not have the full judgment - presumably had they realised trains do run at night, they may not have decided to sit in the middle of the track. But had they been facing direction of travel, they may have seen the train approaching (but we don't know anything about the layout, speeds, etc, so that is surmise). My point was merely that the case might have been stronger had they actually been crossing, rather than sitting in the four foot.

[beast66606]

10 minutes ago, Derekl said:

 

I am sure that is likely to be correct, but we do not have the full judgment - presumably had they realised trains do run at night, they may not have decided to sit in the middle of the track. But had they been facing direction of travel, they may have seen the train approaching (but we don't know anything about the layout, speeds, etc, so that is surmise). My point was merely that the case might have been stronger had they actually been crossing, rather than sitting in the four foot.

 

Conventional double track

 

(Picking the point you mentioned, not your view on it)

 

The "we thought trains didn't run at night" sounds tenuous at best - what about winter when it gets dark around 16:00  ?

 

The buying of biscuit ingredients and taking them to the foot crossing around midnight sounds somewhat strange too but without facts I'll say nothing more than it wouldn't normally be biscuit ingredients that teenagers buy late at night.

[eastglosmog]

I believe the corpse was tested for drugs and none found.

As a general rule, if using a foot crossing for the proper purpose, it is safer at night these days, as trains have powerful headlights which can be seen from some distance away, provided you look before crossing.

[caradoc]

22 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

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

 

 

Fair enough Julian. I took your original post to be critical of politicians for not legislating on platform safety barriers. but I understand the point you were making.

 

[corneliuslundie]

My wife's comment was that as they were minors their parents had a duty of care. What were the girls doing out at all at this hour?

Re horns at night, is this not normally stopped at particular places because the locals have complained, and can therefore hardly get upset if the railway does as they ask.

Jonathan

[big jim]

1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

I believe the corpse was tested for drugs and none found.

As a general rule, if using a foot crossing for the proper purpose, it is safer at night these days, as trains have powerful headlights which can be seen from some distance away, provided you look before crossing.

 

But if you read the previous report she had smoked dope earlier in the night before going to the crossing  

 

also in the report the driver (and download) said the unit (a class 142) was at full power at the time of the collision so not exactly coasting quietly

[jcredfer]

13 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Fair enough Julian. I took your original post to be critical of politicians for not legislating on platform safety barriers. but I understand the point you were making.

 

 

Thank you for understanding, I may have caused some of that impression, by suggesting that if "they had" possessed the political will to do it, then manufacturers would have [over the years] would have designed coaches to match the spec.  

 

Regards and appreciation

 

Julian

[Porkscratching]

Back in real life It's basic natural selection operating, you walk in front of a train , you die, simples.....

[PhilJ W]

19 minutes ago, Porkscratching said:

Back in real life It's basic natural selection operating, you walk sit in front of a moving train , you die, simples.....

Corrected.

[NittenDormer]

I just hope none of the victim's family read this, they may get the impression that all train enthusiasts lack empathy. A little more decorum please.