Level crossing stupidity...

[Reorte]

13 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Actually I agree that in a perfect world nobody would ever do anything stupid, ill-advised or illegal, but we do not now, never have and probably never will, live in such a world. Therefore there is a duty, where risk exists, to protect people from their own actions, if reasonably possible.

 

There's the fundamental conflict of views - I firmly believe that it should not be a duty to protect people from their own actions (other than with the vulnerable) and I find a world that tries to do so insulting and patronising towards the majority of people in it who don't need such protection. The more responsibility taken away from people, particularly towards themselves, the worse.

 

Quote

To go back to the Tyne Yard case, the reason DB were fined £2.7 million was not simply because children trespassed, it was because DB were aware of trespass and yet left their property wide open and insecure.

 

Which should only be a problem because of the risks that poses to whatever assets they've got there. The law has got it firmly wrong IMO.

[Wickham Green]

13 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

...... in a perfect world nobody would ever do anything stupid, ill-advised or illegal, .......................................

Can I borrow that pedant hat from whoever's got it ........... thanks .................. and question the need for the words "or illegal" ( my italics ) : an action is only illegal if it's stupid or ill-advised in the eyes of the majority of the population - as represented by those who put such things in writing. 

[Hobby]

At the moment the problem seems not driven by the Law as such but by interpretations of the Law which I don't think the Law makers themselves envisaged when they wrote the laws. In particular the current trend to "no win, no fee" claims where they are exploiting every chink in the law to make claims (that lady's claim where tis discussion started is a prime example). I am sure that Common Law is developed over time and "common sense" is applied, actions that are seen as reasonable for instance. The blame/claim culture we are now seeing seems to be riding roughshod over everything these days.

 

(I hope that makes some sense!)

[Reorte]

Not just blame culture but also about where do you stop. E.g. with fences no fence is completely uncrossable or unbreachable with enough effort. And of course there's the old saw that the problem with making things foolproof is that there are some very inventive fools.

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

There's the fundamental conflict of views - I firmly believe that it should not be a duty to protect people from their own actions (other than with the vulnerable) and I find a world that tries to do so insulting and patronising towards the majority of people in it who don't need such protection. The more responsibility taken away from people, particularly towards themselves, the worse.

 

 

Which should only be a problem because of the risks that poses to whatever assets they've got there. The law has got it firmly wrong IMO.

 

Clearly our views differ, which is perfectly OK. The only (and final, I promise !) thing to add is that remembering things I did at 13 (the age of the boy severely injured at Tyne Yard) but certainly would not do now, I class children as vulnerable.

 

[Reorte]

Just now, caradoc said:

 

Clearly our views differ, which is perfectly OK. The only (and final, I promise !) thing to add is that remembering things I did at 13 (the age of the boy severely injured at Tyne Yard) but certainly would not do now, I class children as vulnerable.

 

 

It's all down to personal views and values, there's no definitive right or wrong (which is why so many internet arguments never end!)

 

I agree that children are vulnerable, my take on that is that it's therefore their carers' responsibility to look after and protect them rather than the rest of the world be adapted so that that responsibility isn't required.

[corneliuslundie]

I have to admit that i once did some damage to a hire cruiser in France. There was a sharp left hand bend just before a bridge, with a feeder, quite a big feeder too, entering from what as I approached was straight ahead. Thee current swung the boat round so the boat hit the bridge and I did enough damage to the superstructure to need to borrow some tools from a neighbouring moored boat - as it happened owned by a Brit. I felt a bit better after looking at the bridge and finding paint of every colour under the rainbow on the arch.

I suspect that although I do not drive, this is the kind of thing which sometimes causes vehicles to go through bridge parapets, veer off the road at level crossings  etc. Certainly nnear here one demolition job was done when two lorries approached a bridge which would only fit one, and with a right angled bend each end of the bridge - a typical Cambrian main line job. Mind you plenty of drivers manage to go through the parapets of such bridges without help.

Anyway, at least we don't have any new level crossing disasters to discuss. Let's hope it stays that way.

Jonathan

[lmsforever]

On ‎30‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 10:16, Wickham Green said:

Let's not get into crossroad stupidity too ......... we'll be here all night !

Wasn't cross roads a tv serial set in the midlands but I did not see a level crossing any time or a railway some of the cast were stupid but don't think we will be on here alnight talking about it.

[Porkscratching]

A rather young David Jason had a small part in Crossroads apparently.. I remember my gran watching it, Noel Gordon the main character as I recall, a rather low budget and dreary series... I keep thinking of the annoying theme tune now...!

[PhilJ W]

Not forgetting the wobbly sets.

 

[duncan]

On 30/04/2019 at 20:35, caradoc said:

 

every child is brought up to learn the dangers of traffic and how to cross roads safely

 

 

Sorry Caradoc, have to disagree.  The number of generally young mothers on mobile phones who push the pram onto the road without looking is large, the poor kid doesn't get an opportunity to learn.  The mother probably then phones her "no win, no fee" assistance for the stress caused to her.    I only slightly exagerate !

[newbryford]

On 30/04/2019 at 20:35, caradoc said:

 

, every child is brought up to learn the dangers of traffic and how to cross roads safely

 

 

Try telling that to the kids in a large town near me......

 

They blatantly start to walk out in front of an obvious red man showing at traffic lights or ped Xings, with a knowing "you hit me and my parents will sue" look on their face.

[Ohmisterporter]

That should be a comfort to them when they are lying in a hospital bed and on a life support machine.

[kevinlms]

3 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

That should be a comfort to them when they are lying in a hospital bed and on a life support machine.

And even if you are 'in the right', its not much good if your dead!

 

Always pays to look where you're going.

[Porkscratching]

Maybe this is nature's way of trimming surplus population, remove all self preservation instincts and common sense for a bit..!

[Fat Controller]

13 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Wasn't cross roads a tv serial set in the midlands but I did not see a level crossing any time or a railway some of the cast were stupid but don't think we will be on here alnight talking about it.

There was a railway reference in the title sequence; a Class 47 towing a broken-down Suburban unit. I thought it was a metaphor for the whole programme. I should add that I never deliberately watched it, just caught the beginning when picking Lynne up from TTTV

[Reorte]

10 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

Try telling that to the kids in a large town near me......

 

They blatantly start to walk out in front of an obvious red man showing at traffic lights or ped Xings, with a knowing "you hit me and my parents will sue" look on their face.

My generation paid rather more attention when we found out that it was Darth Vader telling us how to cross the road!

[Welchester]

4 hours ago, Reorte said:

My generation paid rather more attention when we found out that it was Darth Vader telling us how to cross the road!

 

In my day it was Tufty.

[PatB]

1 hour ago, Bishop of Welchester said:

 

In my day it was Tufty.

Even at a fairly young age I thought it rather bad taste that the local lollipop person was a hedgehog. 

[Wickham Green]

46 minutes ago, PatB said:

Even at a fairly young age I thought it rather bad taste that the local lollipop person was a hedgehog. 

Not exactly famous for their road sense.

[John_Hughes]

The red  and green lights on pedestrian crossings - the pedestrian ones, not the associated traffic ones - are, I understand, advisory and not compulsory - in the UK. anyway. On the Continent and in North America, the rules are very different.

[Porkscratching]

Perhaps time for a change then...it'd be most entertaining to hear of some orrible chav youth being 'done' for going thru a red light, as a pedestrian..!

[Pacific231G]

6 minutes ago, John_Hughes said:

The red  and green lights on pedestrian crossings - the pedestrian ones, not the associated traffic ones - are, I understand, advisory and not compulsory - in the UK. anyway. On the Continent and in North America, the rules are very different.

In the United States the concept of "jaywalking" i.e. pedestrians being on a road when they shouldn't be, was promoted in the first decades of the twentieth century largely by the growing motor industry who wanted to establish the idea that the roads "belong" to motor vehicles. That concept seems to have been largely accepted to the degree that on roads without sidewalks pedestrians may be required to walk on the side facing oncoming traffic and to give way to motor vehicles.   

In Great Britain the roads, with some exceptions such as motorways, are public highways which everyone has the right to use. There is a hierarchy of vulnerability that is supposed to prioritise road users (with pedestrians the most vulnerabl)e and more restrictive rules for progressively less vulnerable users.  Pedestrians are not therefore required to obey traffic signals. 

 

In the rest of Europe the rules vary widely but often require pedestrians to use marked crossings within a certain distance of them which can be as great as 100 metres.  

[lmsforever]

We only have one crossing in the area its on the Aylesbury Risboro line and seems to be used properly but there used to be a foot crossing on the outskirts of Aylesbury on the same line ,NR have closed it due to deaths and constant misuse .The locals were up in arms about the closure but NR stood their ground and told councillors and the public because of constant misuse its close that's it.

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, John_Hughes said:

The red  and green lights on pedestrian crossings - the pedestrian ones, not the associated traffic ones - are, I understand, advisory and not compulsory - in the UK. anyway. On the Continent and in North America, the rules are very different.

 

I have several issues with the design and operation of many of the modern pedestrian crossings - one of which I use every day on my way to work.

 

Traditionally pelican crossings had the lights perpendicular to the road, usually at or above head height, on the opposite side of the road so they could clearly be seen by pedestrians. Modern crossings have the button and the light in a combined box around waist height, with the lights parallel to the road. Consequently they are very difficult for a peddestrian to see (indeed the motorist may be able to see them more easily than the pedestrian!

 

In addition, rather than the old flashing green man phase, pedestrian crossings now seem to have a long period when both pedestrian and vehicle lights are on red. This means it's difficult to know which phase will be next (or indeed how long it will be).

 

Personally I think the best system is that used on some crossings in London (the one outside Cannon Street springs to mind), which has a countdown in place of the flashing green man.