Children on railway lines

[PaulRhB]

4 hours ago, Reorte said:

I've said this before but I'm not sure if graphic stuff necessarily gets through. At any rate first-hand stuff usually works a lot better. Now clearly we don't want children with first-hand experience of getting hit by trains, or of people they are close to getting hit by them but I think there are alternatives.

 

I don’t think it needs to be gory but showing an empty car being hit and what’s left afterwards is a less traumatic way to show what would happen to you in its place or inside it. 

Teach them to get out and call if a car is involved too. You hear plenty of stories of where a toddler has called 999 as mummy was ill, they are capable of understanding what to do in an emergency so maybe that’s the best way to present it?

NR has run various campaigns but it can never have the spread of it being in the curriculum, NR could be involved and like it has before run campaigns in synch with other things but like basic road safety it would be more comprehensive if part of the basic school education. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by PaulRhB

[lmsforever]

I regularily go to schools teaching water safety as a volunteer for the RNLI and find that actually talking to them using aids etc the message gets across extremely well.NR are going to have to do some similar work as really its the only way to do it.I have seen at events in Hatfield ,teams do  this very successful the guys and girls doing this were all drivers and really put the message over.This was a set up by the rail company and was a regular practice not by NR.Speaking direct is better than using films alone so someone has to take decisions.

[PaulRhB]

19 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

I regularily go to schools teaching water safety as a volunteer for the RNLI and find that actually talking to them using aids etc the message gets across extremely well.NR are going to have to do some similar work as really its the only way to do it.I have seen at events in Hatfield ,teams do  this very successful the guys and girls doing this were all drivers and really put the message over.This was a set up by the rail company and was a regular practice not by NR.Speaking direct is better than using films alone so someone has to take decisions.

It’s an industry wide thing with all the TOCs and NR doing a lot already but it’s never going to cover everyone like the curriculum would. 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

I regularily go to schools teaching water safety as a volunteer for the RNLI and find that actually talking to them using aids etc the message gets across extremely well.NR are going to have to do some similar work as really its the only way to do it.I have seen at events in Hatfield ,teams do  this very successful the guys and girls doing this were all drivers and really put the message over.This was a set up by the rail company and was a regular practice not by NR.Speaking direct is better than using films alone so someone has to take decisions.

 

Given NR has relatively few train drivers employed by them, it’s not surprising that TOCs are the ones pushing the ‘drivers’ views.

 

When deaths / injuries / near misses occur on the tracks involving trespassers* the only NR people likely to be involved will be the local MOMs (mobile operations manager). As a consequence while NR has a role to play, it is not really in a position to help explain the mental anguish etc as well as TOCs 

 

Also, the removal of body parts and cleaning (i.e. Washing away bloodstains, etc) is done by specialist contractors and not NR staff who are trained up to deal with the consequence of distressing incidents.

 

 

* things are a bit different when it comes to worker incidents of course.

Edited September 12, 2019 by phil-b259

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Classsix T said:

I don't disagree with this as fact or as a point of view, however were there not (what used to be called) electrification flashes on the stock? Besides, dicking about on top of railway vehicles isn't ever going to end well. 

Death by misadventure perhaps, but to kick DB in the balls over it seems a bit harsh. Maybe they can counter sue NR for not painting the ole in a suitably "this is f***king dangerous" colour scheme.

 

First, the kid didn't die so death by misadventure would seem to be inapplicable.

 

Second, I suspect part of this issue is that it wasn't just one issue that resulted in the injuries, but rather the combination of a number of things that indicated DB didn't take the issue seriously particularly given the ample evidence that they had an ongoing trespassing problem, particularly at the abandoned signal box.

 

Also possibly considered would be the relevance to the company - the BBC article indicated that DB Cargo UK had a pre-tax profit of £9 million and a quick search revealed that DB (the ultimate owner of DB Cargo UK) in its latest half year report had an after-tax profit of around €200 million.

 

Another thing to consider (though I don't know if the courts did or not) is the ongoing costs to the UK taxpayer - this is a teenager who has lost both legs as well as serious damage to hands which will mean ongoing care costs for the rest of his life, of which the judgement can go a long way to helping cover.

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

First, the kid didn't die so death by misadventure would seem to be inapplicable.

 

Second, I suspect part of this issue is that it wasn't just one issue that resulted in the injuries, but rather the combination of a number of things that indicated DB didn't take the issue seriously particularly given the ample evidence that they had an ongoing trespassing problem, particularly at the abandoned signal box.

 

Also possibly considered would be the relevance to the company - the BBC article indicated that DB Cargo UK had a pre-tax profit of £9 million and a quick search revealed that DB (the ultimate owner of DB Cargo UK) in its latest half year report had an after-tax profit of around €200 million.

 

Another thing to consider (though I don't know if the courts did or not) is the ongoing costs to the UK taxpayer - this is a teenager who has lost both legs as well as serious damage to hands which will mean ongoing care costs for the rest of his life, of which the judgement can go a long way to helping cover.

 

 

All worthy points to consider BUT....

 

.... why should companies be forced to stump up for what amounts to social problems not of their making?

 

if fences are repeatedly vandalised then why should the company pick up the bill for continually replacing them or 24/7 security to keep them intact?

 

(NOTE:- I am not suggesting that this was necessarily the case in the quoted example)

 

As others have noted, the rest of Europe seems to be far more sensible when it comes to this aspect - it doesn’t take a genius to realise that railways are dangerous places to be.

 

Providing the public are suitably educated that they should not go there, then anyone deliberately passing through vandalised fences* should know that they are doing something wrong and in my the site owners do not owe the trespasser anything.

[Zomboid]

Some kids will always want to do stuff they're told is dangerous. Some adults, too. Accidents are things that happen to other people...

[brianusa]

People have died on railways ever since their inception; wasn't someone killed by the Rocket?  As for todays problems, much can be laid to the laissez faire attitude which prevails with people of all ages, but more so with the young who feel invincible for some reason.  Many of us probably felt the same way but possibly had more respect for ourselves and our environment happily trespassing on the railway infrastructure, copping loco numbers in engine sheds, etc, and surviving.  The recent spate of FS trespass indicates not much has changed except the respect factor has decreased as has the publics attitude to people and property.  See graffiti; people complain but to little avail but earlier generations were usually more respectful and it was rarely seen as it is today.

     Brian.

[mdvle]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

.... why should companies be forced to stump up for what amounts to social problems not of their making?

 

if fences are repeatedly vandalised then why should the company pick up the bill for continually replacing them or 24/7 security to keep them intact?

 

(NOTE:- I am not suggesting that this was necessarily the case in the quoted example)

 

Providing the public are suitably educated that they should not go there, then anyone deliberately passing through vandalised fences* should know that they are doing something wrong and in my the site owners do not owe the trespasser anything.

 

I agree to a certain extent, but the world has changed over the decades and there is now an expectation in much of the world that those who operate dangerous places have an obligation to treat them as such and thus put in a reasonable effort to secure those places.

 

In this case all your conditions were not in place - the yard was not fully fenced (there were several methods to gain access to the yard that had no signage or gate/fencing and there was a gate that didn't latch properly.  DB were aware that kids / others trespassed on a regular basis because they had a part-time security patrol to deter it, and the signage on the signal box had been removed by the trespassers. 

 

Thus knowing that they had a problem DB chose to at best do a partial job, at worst ignore the problem (they could have fixed things, fenced off access where appropriate, demolished the former signal box (or at the very least done a proper job of making it inaccessible), etc.

 

While there is no way to know, one would suspect that if DB had been able to demonstrate that they had made efforts to secure the yard then the court outcome would have been very different, and perhaps even the life outcome of the kid in question if perhaps proper fences / gates / etc had been there to be a deterrent.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, brianusa said:

People have died on railways ever since their inception; wasn't someone killed by the Rocket?  As for todays problems, much can be laid to the laissez faire attitude which prevails with people of all ages, but more so with the young who feel invincible for some reason.  Many of us probably felt the same way but possibly had more respect for ourselves and our environment happily trespassing on the railway infrastructure, copping loco numbers in engine sheds, etc, and surviving.  The recent spate of FS trespass indicates not much has changed except the respect factor has decreased as has the publics attitude to people and property.  See graffiti; people complain but to little avail but earlier generations were usually more respectful and it was rarely seen as it is today.

 

Yes and no - tempting to say that, and certainly things like the level of graffiti give weight to it, but far fewer people are killed on the railway today. That said that number includes the fact that it's a much safer place to work now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's fewer even if you have the numbers for just members of the public who shouldn't be there. The young feeling invincible is something you can find evidence of going back for centuries.

 

That all said though I do feel there's an issue with respect nowdays, which the example of graffiti certainly agrees with.

[96701]

4 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Bringing safety into schools costs money. That money is rarely available these days. End of.

 

P 

Phil, 

Be careful of making sweeping statements. 

 

This is one event (or series of events) that I am aware of. I'm sure that similar events are taking place nationally. 

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/over-1-000-pupils-in-north-wales-taught-importance-of-rail-safety

[brianusa]

All very good but does it really sink in or is it just another boring lesson to be tolerated and forgotten?

    Brian.

[96701]

3 minutes ago, brianusa said:

All very good but does it really sink in or is it just another boring lesson to be tolerated and forgotten?

    Brian.

These sessions are made to be as interactive and interesting to the young audience. Do you honestly believe that Network Rail is populated with unfeeling people who don't care about the community? Try doing some research before asking open questions.

[brianusa]

No doubt NR is acting in good faith but what about the kids as was the question?

    Brian

[96701]

13 minutes ago, brianusa said:

No doubt NR is acting in good faith but what about the kids as was the question?

    Brian

The sessions, I will re-iterate are not lessons, not boring, not authoritarian. They are designed to stimulate children to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Now, I cannot get into the minds of all children (who would want to?) but you do seem to want an answer that cannot be given. There is no way that anybody can confirm that such sessions will stop all children who attend the sessions will not trespass, but if it stops some of them, then surely it has to be a worthwhile activity.

[big jim]

My eldest lad had network rail visiting his high school before the end of the last term to give one of those talks, they bought a MOM with them who told them about his job and having to deal with fatalities etc, being a high school they of course had the ‘cocky kids’ asking questions about blood and guts, when he told it as it is they went all quiet apparently it certainly made an impression on my son as he came home talking about the session and how he’d enjoyed it, he of course knows not to mess about on the tracks as he would have me to deal with when he got home too

 

back in the early 80s when my dad was the local bobby in Llwyngwril he used to come to the school now and again and warn us about going on the tracks, the school only had 30 kids and he knew everyone’s parents so if he did spot anyone messing on the tracks he would be round their house to speak to the parents too

 

 

 

 

[Mallard60022]

10 hours ago, 96701 said:

Phil, 

Be careful of making sweeping statements. 

 

This is one event (or series of events) that I am aware of. I'm sure that similar events are taking place nationally. 

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/over-1-000-pupils-in-north-wales-taught-importance-of-rail-safety

Ah, point taken Phil. There are, of course, the outside agencies such as Network Rail, who must be applauded for providing these sessions and I am really pleased to see they are doing it (used to be retired or active Drivers when I were a lad) and the Road Safety Teams from the CCs (where they still have some staff) or another agency such as 'Brake', that can provide such sessions. My statement was a bit sweeping, I accept that. Problem with schools is that they have to 'make the time', even if the sessions are free. The curriculum constraints are massive these days but good management teams will find the 'time'. However, there are some young people that will be exactly as Brian describes, but that's life and the messages should be available as many will take it on board.

I think that children and young people are rarely exposed to rail travel these days and thus know very little about the way things are on the railway and even if they do use trains they are just absorbed in their phones or headsets and do not take in the 'environment' as maybe we used to?

ATB by the way.

 

Phil (another one!)

 

[Mallard60022]

8 hours ago, big jim said:

My eldest lad had network rail visiting his high school before the end of the last term to give one of those talks, they bought a MOM with them who told them about his job and having to deal with fatalities etc, being a high school they of course had the ‘cocky kids’ asking questions about blood and guts, when he told it as it is they went all quiet apparently it certainly made an impression on my son as he came home talking about the session and how he’d enjoyed it, he of course knows not to mess about on the tracks as he would have me to deal with when he got home too

 

back in the early 80s when my dad was the local bobby in Llwyngwril he used to come to the school now and again and warn us about going on the tracks, the school only had 30 kids and he knew everyone’s parents so if he did spot anyone messing on the tracks he would be round their house to speak to the parents too

The most important education that can be given (highlighted). Sadly many young people will only get one of those above and there lies much of the problem.

I do agree with many on here about the fact that NR and TOCs get hammered by the powers that be when in fact it should be more a case of personal responsibility if a young person, that should know better, is involved in such an incident. A toddler 'escaping' is a different matter and such a situation must be horrific for all concerned.

As for road safety, that to me is almost entirely a job for adults/parents carers before a child goes to school, during school and even into driving years. Just stop and think when you last saw an adult engaging with a child when going to cross a road or using a crossing. In fact, an adult engaging with a child these days is conspicuous by its' absence, especially when the child is in a buggy. Mobile phones again...…..pah!

Then think how kids see their parents/adults when they are in a car or around traffic! Scary isn't it?

Oh yes, just in case anyone wants to tell me that the road safety bit is cobblers, I worked in road safety education and training for 12 years before I retired alongside other agencies such as the Emergency Services and the NHS. I am not right about many things, however I do know a bit about that particular subject.

P

[Mallard60022]

10 hours ago, brianusa said:

No doubt NR is acting in good faith but what about the kids as was the question?

    Brian

Even Secondary age young people I have been involved with will, almost all, respond well to sessions like this, even the kn0bheads. However it is exactly as Phil says        "There is no way that anybody can confirm that such sessions will stop all children who attend the sessions will not trespass, but if it stops some of them, then surely it has to be a worthwhile activity".  I could be really, really  controversial and say that the few kn0bheads that don't give a toss are possibly dispensable………………..however I wouldn't do that as it is terribly bad form.

Unfortunately it is the fewkn0bheads that cause so much grief and angst for all involved if they do become a statistic. Truly horrible.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Mallard60022

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But why should they have to repeatedly repair a fence which has been damaged by the public?

The whole original legal intention of fencing etc on British railways has been completely altered by the courts with no change to the legislation. I am afraid that I agree with certain others on here and feel that if children trespass, cause damage etc the parents should be prosecuted.

By the way, why don't councils have to fence every road to stop trespass? Cars are far more ;likely to kill you than trains and they don't even have to stay on track.

Railways seem to be completely unfairly treated in this respect. 

Rant over, normal service resumed. Apologies if I have offended anyone.

Jonathan

Having found out the hardway there is an essential difference between railway boundary fencing and road boundary fencing.  In the case of railway boundary it is now - as you have said - the 'railway's' responsibility to fence its boundary although I don't think it has a legal obligation to fence in order to prevent trespass.  With roads it is the other way round and the landowner or his tenant is legally obliged to fence and maintain the fence at the boundary of their land with the highway - that is very definitely the case with agricultural land bordering on a trunk road and was a point I spent some time (and money) arguing with the Dept of Transport several decades ago - I lost my argument that becausethe road was being built on former railway land the fencing was the responsibility of the Dept of Transport (as it was a trunk road involved).

[lmsforever]

Some very good replies but the overall factor is that visits must be made  regularlarily to get the message over to all age groups  of children and in such a manner that it is remembered and thought provoking .

[royaloak]

16 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Bringing safety into schools costs money. That money is rarely available these days. End of.

 

P 

But picking bits of Jemima and Timothy off the railway lines after they have been tw@ted by a train costs a lot more, but as that comes out of somebody elses budget it doesnt matter.

[jim.snowdon]

44 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Having found out the hardway there is an essential difference between railway boundary fencing and road boundary fencing.  In the case of railway boundary it is now - as you have said - the 'railway's' responsibility to fence its boundary although I don't think it has a legal obligation to fence in order to prevent trespass.  With roads it is the other way round and the landowner or his tenant is legally obliged to fence and maintain the fence at the boundary of their land with the highway - that is very definitely the case with agricultural land bordering on a trunk road and was a point I spent some time (and money) arguing with the Dept of Transport several decades ago - I lost my argument that becausethe road was being built on former railway land the fencing was the responsibility of the Dept of Transport (as it was a trunk road involved).

Britain is, as far as I am aware, the only country that put a legal obligation on its railway companies to continuously fence their lines*, and at the time it wasn't to prevent trespass onto the railway, but to prevent trespass from the railway. It all got turned about by a judgement under the Health and Safety at Work Act, under the duty of care to others requirements. The problem is that that Act, worthwhile as it is, effectively removed the duty of the person to care for themselves, and it is where Britain differs radically from the rest of Europe, if not much of the world.

In Germany, the issues at Tyne Yard would not have raised many eyebrows; in Britain, the law is the law and DB get prosecuted, whatever the prosecution may think about the stupidity and lack of personal responsibility of the miscreants.

 

*I am aware that there is, in Europe, now a requirement to fence the high speed lines, where the speeds are greater than 100mph, but that is there to address a specific risk.

 

Jim

[caradoc]

It would be interesting to know the comparative figures for death and injury on the various railways of Europe, and elsewhere, and what proportion is deliberate, ie suicide, and what is due to trespass and vandalism. I have tried to find such data on the internet but with little success.

[phil-b259]

11 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Britain is, as far as I am aware, the only country that put a legal obligation on its railway companies to continuously fence their lines*, and at the time it wasn't to prevent trespass onto the railway, but to prevent trespass from the railway. It all got turned about by a judgement under the Health and Safety at Work Act, under the duty of care to others requirements. The problem is that that Act, worthwhile as it is, effectively removed the duty of the person to care for themselves, and it is where Britain differs radically from the rest of Europe, if not much of the world.

In Germany, the issues at Tyne Yard would not have raised many eyebrows; in Britain, the law is the law and DB get prosecuted, whatever the prosecution may think about the stupidity and lack of personal responsibility of the miscreants.

 

*I am aware that there is, in Europe, now a requirement to fence the high speed lines, where the speeds are greater than 100mph, but that is there to address a specific risk.

 

Jim

 

But if the state is effectively removing the accountability for actions, what hope do asset owners have when it comes to trespassers? Not for the first time do I cite UK law making as being more about enriching the legal profession than being a force for good in society. All it does is re-enforces the 'me first' type of thinking that drives the whole compensation culture and diminishes personal responsibility to the detriment of society as a whole.

 

Yes organisations have a duty of care to those authorised to be on the premisses (be it workers or members of the public for legitimate needs), but that duty of care should not extend to taking responsibility for those trespassing* fences or no fences!

 

* (with a few minor exceptions - i.e. a blind person not able to read 'keep out' sign type of thing)