Level crossing stupidity...

[Bernard Lamb]

2 hours ago, lmsforever said:

• They are going to build a bridge there so you will still be able to cycle towards Bishopstone and Haddenham, there is an excellent café at Hartwell Nuseries .When I went to the road show a woman who has got kennels just

Thanks.

That is a fairly recent update as the original plans showed the lane as being closed.

I know the Hartwell café.

Our group also uses the Bugle Horn.

Bernard

[TheQ]

2 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Forgot to finish post ,woman at an HS2 roadshow was upset by the bridge idea because car headlights would shine into her dog kennel business ,don't know the outcome people at roadshow did not seem very clewed up on anything.

This maybe why the there were many dog shows held at haddenham village hall. Been there many times with rough collies,  Local organisers are always useful .

[Bernard Lamb]

17 hours ago, lmsforever said:

• They are going to build a bridge there so you will still be able to cycle towards Bishopstone and Haddenham, there is an excellent café at Hartwell Nuseries .When I went to the road show a woman who has got kennels just

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378326/C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020-000006.pdf

Sorry to others for the continuation OT.

This plan shows Marsh Lane as being stopped up, to use a phrase.

AFAIK this is still the current proposal.

The new by pass does not look to be very attractive for cycling.

Even further OT. If you continue through Marsh you get to another good café at "The Pig Farm".

Bernard

[jim.snowdon]

Getting back on topic, a fundamental problem is that you will not get the average person to believe that something is dangerous unless it is patently dangerous, to the point of being too dangerous to take the risk. That means not designing for people ignoring the rules and accepting that when they do, providing the rules were clear and practicable, that action does not have to be taken when people break them and get hurt or killed by doing so.

 The basic problem with level crossings is that there are too many safe opportunities designed in by way of escape routes and time delays before trains arrive. People, particularly regular users, will learn those opportunities and abuse them. It's something we learned with tramways, where level crossings are signalled as normal road traffic junctions and the time intervals between the red aspect and a tram crossing are much shorter. After the initial outbreak of motorists bouncing off the front corners of trams, the local motorists learned.

 

Jim

[lmsforever]

Thanks Bernard I thought that they were putting a bridge in but obviously not ,the new bypass could be started next year but knowing BCC they will delay as long as possible.The route through the crossing is a good way to Wendover missing out all the traffic on the road past the hospital ,you can still get to Bishopstone via the lanes fom Kimble much nicer route.

[Reorte]

23 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Getting back on topic, a fundamental problem is that you will not get the average person to believe that something is dangerous unless it is patently dangerous, to the point of being too dangerous to take the risk. That means not designing for people ignoring the rules and accepting that when they do, providing the rules were clear and practicable, that action does not have to be taken when people break them and get hurt or killed by doing so.

I'd have thought being hit by a train is patently dangerous! There are also a lot of people who go the other way and appear to live in abject terror of the unlikely.

Quote

 The basic problem with level crossings is that there are too many safe opportunities designed in by way of escape routes and time delays before trains arrive.

I think that's an issue because it gives the impression TPTB are being over-cautious (even when that isn't necessarily the case). It also needs to be considered how many incidents are caused by how great a proportion of people, i.e. is it the average man on the street who's a potential issue or the sort of person who drives around corners with two wheels in the air and clearly isn't put off by even the things that are patently dangerous to the vast majority.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Reorte

[jcredfer]

8 hours ago, Reorte said:

I'd have thought being hit by a train is patently dangerous! There are also a lot of people who go the other way and appear to live in abject terror of the unlikely.

I think that's an issue because it gives the impression TPTB are being over-cautious (even when that isn't necessarily the case). It also needs to be considered how many incidents are caused by how great a proportion of people, i.e. is it the average man on the street who's a potential issue or the sort of person who drives around corners with two wheels in the air and clearly isn't put off by even the things that are patently dangerous to the vast majority.

 

I agree totally that the average [even the less cautious] will be well aware that conflict with items like rolling stock is very dangerous and to be avoided.  The real issue for the Railway operators is how much they should have to do to prevent those "very few" very careless or suicidal persons from ending their lives as a result of too close an engagement with rail movements.  There has to be a point where they have to decide that sufficient has been spent and anything beyond is becoming extreme.

 

It is relevant, at this point, to mention that walls, fences, intruder detection systems, ditches and associated systems, will never prevent someone crossing them. [Frump please note!!]  Ask any military person, police person, prison guard, or even your common burglar and they will all confirm that such barriers never have prevented intrusion, they just involve a little more time / stupidity.  Additional measures, such as minefields, armed patrols, personnel radar, watchtowers, wire trigged Fleish guns, roll-top walls, searchlights and other enhancements, likewise, have never prevented people from bypassing them. 

 

How much money should be spent on persons who wish to bypass, or otherwise ignore, the obvious warnings and barriers placed around railway operations?   I confess that I am glad that it is not my decision to make.  There are those who opine that the human genome is improved by those who miss the danger signs, but all of us have had unpleasant experiences from the odd less guarded moment and have been fortunate enough to recall the moment.  There are those who claim that there should be no financial limit on the saving of any single human life.  Personally, I am glad that the costing balance doesn't fall on my shoulders.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

[TheQ]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/police-warn-drivers-to-avoid-failed-barriers-level-crossing-wymondham-1-6038119

count down till someone can't be bothered to avoid the crossing..

Edited May 8, 2019 by TheQ

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/police-warn-drivers-to-avoid-failed-barriers-level-crossing-wymondham-1-6038119

count down till someone can't be bothered to avoid the crossing..

 

Can't see what that says - my browser hangs on it. But shouldn't it be closed until it's fixed if it's that much of a risk, rather than simply asking people to avoid it?

[martin_wynne]

4 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Can't see what that says

 

"Network rail contacted police to alert them that the safety barriers on the level crossing between Wymondham Road and Suton Lane were stuck down and blocking access over the tracks,"

[TheQ]

The photo show half barriers, so you know what is likely to happen if they don't fix it or put someing across the full width..

[Budgie]

On 05/05/2019 at 12:12, dunwurken said:

With so much off-topic postings it is getting harder to search this thread for on-topic items so apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before and I have overlooked it.

 

Appears the Ffestiniog has had another case of a loco failing to stop.  in this case 'Vale of Ffestiniog' ran away for 1.25 miles through open crossings and Beddgelert station and onto a single line section without authorisation before coming to a halt.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/locomotive-runaway-at-beddgelert

 

Malcolm

 

That's on the Welsh Highland, not the Ffestiniog. (Yes I know both railways are owned by the same organisation.)

[johnofwessex]

I suggest that enforcement of existing legislation coupled with making it harder to get your licence back after disqualification, for example on the model of the State of Victoria in Australia might get the message over to at least some drivers that if you dont obey the rules you wont drive again.

[jim.snowdon]

And it appears to be entirely different to the previous incident on the Ffestiniog.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

4 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

I suggest that enforcement of existing legislation coupled with making it harder to get your licence back after disqualification, for example on the model of the State of Victoria in Australia might get the message over to at least some drivers that if you dont obey the rules you wont drive again.

Yes, and a lot of the current decline in driving standards appears to coincide with the significant reduction in the resources available for traffic policing. Take the enforcement away and people will take more chances, especially if they are offered them by design.

 

Jim 

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

Yes, and a lot of the current decline in driving standards appears to coincide with the significant reduction in the resources available for traffic policing. Take the enforcement away and people will take more chances, especially if they are offered them by design.

 

Jim 

 

Absolutely.  It's not the fear of the punishment, that prevents the crime...  it's the fear of being caught.

 

But, our wonderful legislators seem totally unaware of that fact, and reduce the finance for Police boots on the ground and increase the levels of punishment, so the jails are over-flowing.  I you have skills, you can earn a living, if you are rubbish at the skills, teach, if you lack skills and intellect, there are plenty of openings for highly paid polishers of green leather, in that house of disgrace!

 

Regards

 

Julian

[dunwurken]

2 hours ago, Budgie said:

 

That's on the Welsh Highland, not the Ffestiniog. (Yes I know both railways are owned by the same organisation.)

Thank you.  I am aware the runaway took place on the Welsh Highland.  The announcement refers to the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railway.

[jim.snowdon]

On 05/05/2019 at 12:12, dunwurken said:

With so much off-topic postings it is getting harder to search this thread for on-topic items so apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before and I have overlooked it.

 

Appears the Ffestiniog has had another case of a loco failing to stop.  in this case 'Vale of Ffestiniog' ran away for 1.25 miles through open crossings and Beddgelert station and onto a single line section without authorisation before coming to a halt.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/locomotive-runaway-at-beddgelert

 

Malcolm

An early question for RAIB to determine is whether the loco "ran away" as a result of ineffective brakes, or a lack of adhesion. Given the righht circumstances, which are not that unusual, of a damp rail head and light contamination by rust, the rail head can get very slippery. A mile long slide with next to no flats on the wheels is not at all unknown, and several fairly spectacular examples have already been the subject of RAIB's attentions.

 

Plus, in this instance, the presence of level crossings is immaterial, as they were open crossings, without any other form of warning than the approach of a train, whether it is meant to be there or not.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

Absolutely.  It's not the fear of the punishment, that prevents the crime...  it's the fear of being caught.

 

But, our wonderful legislators seem totally unaware of that fact, and reduce the finance for Police boots on the ground and increase the levels of punishment, so the jails are over-flowing.  I you have skills, you can earn a living, if you are rubbish at the skills, teach, if you lack skills and intellect, there are plenty of openings for highly paid polishers of green leather, in that house of disgrace!

 

No fear of being caught and importantly IMO a lack of respect. I've said this elsewhere, and got criticised for it, but punishing people merely for breaking the rules isn't helpful either because it destroys a lack of respect for the rules. The first step is to have people not inclined to break them in the first place even if they think they've got no chance of being caught, and to do that you need a general level of respect in the population. The more arbitrary the rules (or punishments, or enforcement) appears to be the less respect people will have for them and the more inclined they'll be to break them - it creates the impression "they're mostly just there for the sake of it rather than any good reason." On the other hand if that "there for the sake of it" attitude goes away then any time anyone is penalised the message is "they're in trouble for doing something wrong / stupid" rather than "they're in trouble just because they got caught breaking the law." I think people who being and end with "these are the rules, you must stick with them" overlook that and can be counterproductive.

 

Once you've got past that you still need a good fear of being caught to deal with the small number of people who'll never be dissuaded by anything else.

[jim.snowdon]

2 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

No fear of being caught and importantly IMO a lack of respect. I've said this elsewhere, and got criticised for it, but punishing people merely for breaking the rules isn't helpful either because it destroys a lack of respect for the rules. The first step is to have people not inclined to break them in the first place even if they think they've got no chance of being caught, and to do that you need a general level of respect in the population. The more arbitrary the rules (or punishments, or enforcement) appears to be the less respect people will have for them and the more inclined they'll be to break them - it creates the impression "they're mostly just there for the sake of it rather than any good reason." On the other hand if that "there for the sake of it" attitude goes away then any time anyone is penalised the message is "they're in trouble for doing something wrong / stupid" rather than "they're in trouble just because they got caught breaking the law." I think people who being and end with "these are the rules, you must stick with them" overlook that and can be counterproductive.

 

Once you've got past that you still need a good fear of being caught to deal with the small number of people who'll never be dissuaded by anything else.

Essentially, my point. Being the wrong side of the railway fence may be trespass, but it is not by itself dangerous. For authority (and others) to persistently label it as "dangerous", when it patently is not brings authority into disrepute. People will ignore the warnings because they are false - like crying "wolf" too often. People being on the track is a different matter - that does carry a significant risk of personal injury and distress to others. Prosecute them with the full weight of the law (more usually the railway byelaws) and publicise the fact, and the message might just get through that being on or too close to the track is not a place to be. The only safe way to treat a moving train is to respect it for what it is - an irresistable force that will think nothing of terminating your life.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

On 07/05/2019 at 20:18, jcredfer said:

 

I agree totally that the average [even the less cautious] will be well aware that conflict with items like rolling stock is very dangerous and to be avoided.  The real issue for the Railway operators is how much they should have to do to prevent those "very few" very careless or suicidal persons from ending their lives as a result of too close an engagement with rail movements.  There has to be a point where they have to decide that sufficient has been spent and anything beyond is becoming extreme.

 

It is relevant, at this point, to mention that walls, fences, intruder detection systems, ditches and associated systems, will never prevent someone crossing them. [Frump please note!!]  Ask any military person, police person, prison guard, or even your common burglar and they will all confirm that such barriers never have prevented intrusion, they just involve a little more time / stupidity.  Additional measures, such as minefields, armed patrols, personnel radar, watchtowers, wire trigged Fleish guns, roll-top walls, searchlights and other enhancements, likewise, have never prevented people from bypassing them. 

 

How much money should be spent on persons who wish to bypass, or otherwise ignore, the obvious warnings and barriers placed around railway operations?   I confess that I am glad that it is not my decision to make.  There are those who opine that the human genome is improved by those who miss the danger signs, but all of us have had unpleasant experiences from the odd less guarded moment and have been fortunate enough to recall the moment.  There are those who claim that there should be no financial limit on the saving of any single human life.  Personally, I am glad that the costing balance doesn't fall on my shoulders.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

 

Personally - and perhaps harshly in some folks eyes -  I couldn't care less about trespassers who get splatted / electrocuted etc. I'm more worried about the staff (or innocent bystanders if it occurs at a station for example) who whiteness it or have to clear up the mess.

 

Dead bodies (or body parts) do not suffer from post traumatic stress disorder - live people do! It doesn't take much for someones entire life to be ruined due to anothers thoughtless actions...

[Coryton]

9 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

For authority (and others) to persistently label it as "dangerous", when it patently is not brings authority into disrepute. People will ignore the warnings because they are false - like crying "wolf" too often.

 

Which is why I don't like it when misbehaviour at a full barrier crossing before all barriers are down is presented as extremely dangerous, though perhaps the difference between full and half barrier crossings is too subtle to try to get across to the general public.

[Coryton]

Deleted duplicate post

Edited May 9, 2019 by Coryton

[Reorte]

16 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Which is why I don't like it when misbehaviour at a full barrier crossing before all barriers are down is presented as extremely dangerous, though perhaps the difference between full and half barrier crossings is too subtle to try to get across to the general public.

 

The motive is understandable - don't really want people misbehaving at all, better that they don't than say "I can get away with it here and now." But for the reasons already given I think that's counterproductive. I suppose I could boil it down to saying "You shouldn't be doing that because it's dangerous / disruptive etc." rather than "You shouldn't be doing that because there's a rule against it."

 

Ideally the rules are written that those are one and the same although that's rarely completely possible, the hard bit to deal with then is that unfortunately you jhave to start getting subjective about it in some cases to avoid the boy who cried wolf type effect someone else mentioned.

[ejstubbs]

 

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

The motive is understandable - don't really want people misbehaving at all, better that they don't than say "I can get away with it here and now." But for the reasons already given I think that's counterproductive. I suppose I could boil it down to saying "You shouldn't be doing that because it's dangerous / disruptive etc." rather than "You shouldn't be doing that because there's a rule against it."

 

 

You could use the same argument about speed limits - and people do.  It's not dangerous per se to drive at 80-90mph on a deserted motorway, but it's still against the law and you can be pulled over, talked to and - depending partly on how you do in the attitude test - prosecuted for it.

 

I am reminded of the oft-cited story of the Van Halen concert contract which, amongst other things, required that a bowl of M&Ms be provided in their dressing room from which all the brown ones had been removed.  Many people assumed that this was just typical diva-like behaviour from rock stars.  In fact, though, they put it in as a check that the promoter & venue had read and actioned all the requirements of the contract - which also included much more important technical details about the strength of the stage, the safety of the power supplies and so forth - issues which absolutely could be life-threatening.  If they found brown M&Ms in their bowl then that was a strong clue that they needed to double-check that all the other requirements had been met - or even pull out altogether.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/

 

Similarly, if people can't be arsed to follow some fairly straightforward and (in theory - see point below) easy to police rules, just because they decide that there's no good reason to obey them, that is quite likely to be indicative of a more profoundly dismissive attitude to compliance generally.

 

Of course, the above does presuppose that some kind of enforcement does happen...  (An opinion piece in The Guardian today used the phrase "The UK's feral roads" in its headline.)

Edited May 9, 2019 by ejstubbs