Level crossing stupidity...

[ejstubbs]

On 19/02/2019 at 16:51, Poggy1165 said:

Funnily enough, very few people would be so hardy as to step out in front of a moving bus

 

As a regular rider on the top deck of Lothian Buses going in and around central Edinburgh, I can assure you that plenty of people seem to actively choose buses (and lorries) to cross in front of in preference to cars.  Perhaps they think bus = slow.  But it's a 20mph limit across the whole of the city centre (and before the question of enforcement comes up: sadly, buses and lorries seem to be equally likely as cars to be exceeding that limit ).

Edited February 21, 2019 by ejstubbs

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

I'm tempted to agree but people have been getting hit by trains since trains were invented. Whether or not they're more likely to now... (particularly allowing for there being a lot more people)?

True, but I think there is far more chance of getting caught now. The modern world is full of cameras, public & private and video of people doing stupid things (such as challenging a train) can be upload within moments to Youtube or Facebook.

To me it makes them dumb & dumber to expect to get away with the worst cases.

 

Sure the police aren't going to bother with minor traffic infringements on youtube, such as failure to give way at a roundabout (unless it causes a major incident), but presumably much more interested in zig zagging around a level crossing.

[Poggy1165]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Modern trains? What does that mean, if you're talking about diesel/electrics, then your talking of more than 50 years ago! 

No it's because people are more selfish and important and think nothing should get their way. 

 

Remember most people don't get a 2nd chance of walking in front of any rail vehicle and then they don't boast about it!

 

I can't dissent from that; except that I would submit that trains are now quieter than they have ever been and are, generally, faster. A class 40 at the head of a long train of loose coupled goods wagons made almost as much noise as an Austerity 2-8-0 - although nothing could actually make more than the said Austerity. I also remember the old Class 76 and 77 electrics, and you certainly knew when one of those babies was coming. Even goods trains now are relatively quiet and certainly much swifter than in early diesel days.

 

As for the punters, the phrase that springs to mind is Darwin's law, though that is not a particularly kind thought.

[corneliuslundie]

A problem it seems to me that the human race seems to have found a way pf avoiding the effects of Darwin's law.

More relevant to the thread, I would be interested to know how many of those who take chances at level crossings, traffic lights etc, walk in front of buses etc and generally put their lives in unnecessary danger - along with the lives of others - are either on the phone, listening to music on headphones or wearing sound cancelling earplugs.

It doesn't help when a government minister can get away with knocking someone off their bike and then claiming that they should not have been in the cycle lane. Was it my any chance a transport minister?  i can't remember.

Jonathan

[kevinlms]

27 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

A problem it seems to me that the human race seems to have found a way pf avoiding the effects of Darwin's law.

More relevant to the thread, I would be interested to know how many of those who take chances at level crossings, traffic lights etc, walk in front of buses etc and generally put their lives in unnecessary danger - along with the lives of others - are either on the phone, listening to music on headphones or wearing sound cancelling earplugs.

It doesn't help when a government minister can get away with knocking someone off their bike and then claiming that they should not have been in the cycle lane. Was it my any chance a transport minister?  i can't remember.

Jonathan

Melbourne tram signs. The change from 30 to 40 Rhinos is correct, because they got bigger trams! People still walk in front of them!

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=melbourne+tram+rhino+sign&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBAU772AU772&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=5nVCyK-9cs54zM%3A%2C9uSpVmO8yOb16M%2C_&usg=AI4_-kQW6HQmK5CgXCOFy87AvHynumd4Tg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio9ZHm9MzgAhVCSX0KHQ_XA8QQ9QEwCHoECAQQFA#imgrc=5nVCyK-9cs54zM:

[ejstubbs]

19 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

It doesn't help when a government minister can get away with knocking someone off their bike and then claiming that they should not have been in the cycle lane. Was it my any chance a transport minister?  i can't remember.

Jonathan

 

If you're referring to Chris Grayling then what he actually tried to argue was that where there is a cycle lane, cyclists aren't road users:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-says-cyclists-are-not-road-users-a7524061.html

 

Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes and the road users are the users of the road.  It's very simple.

 

The only simple thing about that statement is that it's simply wrong.  Whether on the carriageway or the footway, anyone using the highway is a "road user".  The introduction to the Highway Code clearly states: "The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders."   There is also an entire section of the document dedicated to rules about "road users requiring extra care, including pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists, other road users and other vehicles."

 

FWIW the person who was knocked off his bike by Mr Grayling carelessly opening the door of his ministerial car (contrary to Highway Code Rule 239) wasn't in a cycle lane at the time.

 

Grayling also failed to report the incident to the police, contrary to Section 170 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act - but no action seems to have been taken.

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks for clarifying. I was going from memory - always a mistake. Of course as Secretary of State for Transport he can rewrite the law - and that is not a dig at him so much as a reflection on the general attitude to facts and the law these days. Presumably those who cross level crossings against the red lights think they can prevent any trains from crossing, just a small change to the laws of physics. Simples!

Anyway, let's get back to level crossings, waiting patiently for another train to come along. Glad there have been no incidents reported today.

Jonathan

[talisman56]

It appears not to be a requirement for the minister for a Government department to be au fait with all the laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the department he is nominally in charge of.

 

This is because they think:

a) my 'Sir Humphrey' should give me advice on the matters at hand;

and

b) why bother, by the time I'm up to speed it's time for the next Cabinet reshuffle.

Edited February 22, 2019 by talisman56

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, talisman56 said:

It appears not to be a requirement for the minister for a Government department to be au fait with all the laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the department he is nominally in charge of.

 

This is because they think:

a) my 'Sir Humphrey' should give me advice on the matters at hand

and

b) why bother, by the time I'm up to speed it's time for the next Cabinet reshuffle.

 

I think you left out:

c) I'm so knowledgeable and clever that nothing I think or say can ever possibly be wrong, so there is no reason for me not to share my ineffable wisdom with my subjects sorry, I mean, the electorate at every opportunity so that they will never forget how wonderful I am and will keep voting for me to receive my index-linked, tax-payer funded pension in a few years' time.

 

If a) is actually what they think then they should logically keep their mouth shut until Sir Humphrey has given said advice, rather than making stuff up on the fly and then trying but failing to dig themselves out of the hole of their own making, all the while with no reference to any authoritative source of information!

Edited February 22, 2019 by ejstubbs

[Hobby]

I suspect it is (a) as I wouldn't expect anyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything in their portfolio like people seem to expect these days and whilst you'd think they would wait that's not the way the Media work these days, they'll keep hounding you until they get some sort of response and if they don't get that answer straight away they'll castigate the minister anyhow regardless on how fair/unfair that might be... Tell you what you try doing a Minister's job for a while and see if you can keep from making some sort of boo-boo when asked (sorry, pestered constantly) for answers you only have a vague knowledge on, I'm honest enough to say I wouldn't want or be able to do it... It's no wonder politicians have a reputation for giving evasive answers, it's the only way with the demands of today's 24 hour news... If you want honest, straight answers then give them some time to find out before giving an answer and remember that railways are just a small part of their remit...

 

I do think we expect too much sometimes... Damned if they do, Damned if they don't.

[johnofwessex]

Its a pity that there isnt a 'fit and proper' test both to get a driving licence & then when you break the rules.  Do we think that this incident was simply unfortunate or is this person a candidate for the attentions of the Involuntary Euthanasia Society?

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

I suspect it is (a) as I wouldn't expect anyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything in their portfolio like people seem to expect these days and whilst you'd think they would wait that's not the way the Media work these days, they'll keep hounding you until they get some sort of response and if they don't get that answer straight away they'll castigate the minister anyhow regardless on how fair/unfair that might be

 

He wasn't being hounded by the media, it was Transport Questions in the House of Commons.  And knowing what constitutes a "road user" should be pretty much general knowledge for anyone who ventures outside their front door.  Everyone who has passed a driving test is supposed to have been examined on their understanding of this kind of thing.  That's millions of ordinary people in the UK.  By no stretch of the imagination can it realistically be regarded as specialist technical knowledge.

 

Being extremely disappointed that the minister responsible for such things appears to be ignorant of such basic information hardly seems to be unreasonable.

[Hobby]

I'll agree to differ, we expect too much knowledge from our ministers these days. It's the civil servants who should have that knowledge, not the minister and that should be passed on when required. 

[kevinlms]

21 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

I think you left out:

c) I'm so knowledgeable and clever that nothing I think or say can ever possibly be wrong, so there is no reason for me not to share my ineffable wisdom with my subjects sorry, I mean, the electorate at every opportunity so that they will never forget how wonderful I am and will keep voting for me to receive my index-linked, tax-payer funded pension in a few years' time.

 

If a) is actually what they think then they should logically keep their mouth shut until Sir Humphrey has given said advice, rather than making stuff up on the fly and then trying but failing to dig themselves out of the hole of their own making, all the while with no reference to any authoritative source of information!

No, none of that nonsense anymore, they just bluff it out these days.

 

The PM makes a public statement about how the Minister/MP concerned is doing such a wonderful job!

[Mark Saunders]

On 23/02/2019 at 10:56, kevinlms said:

 

 

The PM makes a public statement about how the Minister/MP concerned is doing such a wonderful job!

 

 

I remember when this was the kiss of death and it normally was followed by a resignation slightly in front of a sacking!

 

 

[talisman56]

On 24/02/2019 at 18:16, Mark Saunders said:

 

I remember when this was the kiss of death and it normally was followed by a resignation slightly in front of a sacking!

 

 

 

A very similar situation to the football manager's 'vote of confidence' from the board...

 

...followed by news of their sacking after the next match (if they lasted that long).

Edited February 25, 2019 by talisman56

[JeremyC]

On 22/02/2019 at 19:19, Hobby said:

I'll agree to differ, we expect too much knowledge from our ministers these days. It's the civil servants who should have that knowledge, not the minister and that should be passed on when required. 

But I do expect a minister to make the effort to aquire some basic knowledge of the department he's in charge of so he doesn't make a fool of himself, but too many seem to be in post solely for party political reasons.  Yes the civil servants should have the detailed knowlege, but nowadays it often seems ministers ignore that advice if it doesn't fit their political agenda. A further problem is that over recent years the civil service has been massively reduced ( a popular move with many of certain political persuasions), but unfortunately many of those who left or took early retirement were the people with the expertise and knowledge.

Edited February 26, 2019 by JeremyC
Spelling

[Hobby]

They usually aren't in the job long enough to acquire that knowledge. Mainly because of people on social media baying for their blood...

Edited February 26, 2019 by Hobby

[beast66606]

On 19/02/2019 at 11:26, martin_wynne said:

This seems especially tragic. A pedestrian waits correctly for a train to pass, and then because it is foggy he doesn't realise a second one is approaching in the opposite direction. Would the sound of the second one be drowned by the sound of the first?

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fatal-accident-at-tibberton-footpath-crossing

 

Published today.

 

Martin.

 

I'm a regular user of a foot crossing on a 90mph stretch of the GEML, I never cross behind a train until I cannot see or hear a train, so the one which has just passed could be a significant distance away before I move -  and obviously I keep looking as I do cross.  If the visibilty was bad then I wouldn't cross - ever - it's simply too dangerous.

 

 

[Hobby]

Which is what you are supposed to do, but these days you are the exception...

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, JeremyC said:

But I do expect a minister to make the effort to aquire some basic knowledge of the department he's in charge of so he doesn't make a fool of himself, but too many seem to be in post solely for party political reasons.  Yes the civil servants should have the detailed knowlege, but nowadays it often seems ministers ignore that advice if it doesn't fit their political agenda. A further problem is that over recent years the civil service has been massively reduced ( a popular move with many of certain political persuasions), but unfortunately many of those who left or took early retirement were the people with the expertise and knowledge.

I'm not necessarily advocating this approach, more tossing the idea in but... it's the job of politicians to come up with the political agenda and the job of the civil servants to try to actually make it work. You can always find reasons that doing anything is too hard / not possible with how things are now / too expensive, and never do anything as a result. Since I find most change now loathsome I should be fine with that I suppose, but sometimes it's worth making the effort to figure out the path between "this is how I want something to be" and "this is how we do it."

[caradoc]

I am a motorist, and a cyclist, and I was once knocked off my bike by a car door being opened, yet I had no idea such an incident should be reported to the Police. Given that Mr Grayling is Minister of Transport (not Minister of Road Transport), how much detailed knowledge is it reasonable to expect that he (or any of his predecessors, or successors) should have of road traffic law, aviation law, maritime law and railway law ? Especially since at the next reshuffle he could become Minister of something else entirely (or of nothing at all), not to mention perhaps being rejected as an MP altogether at the next General Election !

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by caradoc
Spelling mistake

[Joseph_Pestell]

43 minutes ago, caradoc said:

I am a motorist, and a cyclist, and I was once knocked off my bike by a car door being opened, yet I had no idea such an incident should be reported to the Police. Given that Mr Grayling is Minister of Transport (not Minister of Road Transport), how much detailed knowledge is it reasonable to expect that he (or any of his predecessors, or successors) should have of road traffic law, aviation law, maritime law and railway law ? Especially since at the next reshuffle he could become Minister of something else entirely (or of nothing at all), not to mention perhaps being rejected as an MP altogether at the next General Election !

 

 

Only accidents causing physical injury need to be reported to the police. I would expect any motorist to know this and presumably CG is a motorist.

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, Reorte said:

I'm not necessarily advocating this approach, more tossing the idea in but... it's the job of politicians to come up with the political agenda and the job of the civil servants to try to actually make it work. You can always find reasons that doing anything is too hard / not possible with how things are now / too expensive, and never do anything as a result. Since I find most change now loathsome I should be fine with that I suppose, but sometimes it's worth making the effort to figure out the path between "this is how I want something to be" and "this is how we do it."

 

To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, "a policy of masterly inactivity".

[John_Hughes]

19 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, "a policy of masterly inactivity".

 

W S Gilbert put it even better in Iolanthe:

 

The House of Lords throughout the war

Did nothing in particular

And did it very well.