BBC condones railway trespass

[caradoc]

Earlier this month Network Rail was fined £135,000 after a child climbed onto a freight train and received a shock from the OLE:

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/huge-fine-network-rail-after-musselburgh-schoolboy-suffered-serious-burns-3070320

 

Note that the fine was not because there was no fencing at all, but because it was inadequate. Does this kind of incident happen in other countries, and if so, is the railway held in any way to blame ? It would be interesting to know.

 

 

[Neil]

How about this well know image, does it too condone trespass? Tricky isn't it.

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Neil

[Mikkel]

I know the debate is about broader principles, but for what it's worth, the photo in the OP was taken on the Canal Du Midi. The bridge is described here, maps and all:

 

https://www.canaldumidi.bike/railway-bridge-crossing-the-aude-river-to-get-from-canal-du-midi-to-narbonne.html

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Mikkel

[caradoc]

28 minutes ago, Neil said:

How about this well know image, does it too condone trespass? Tricky isn't it.

 

 

Tricky ? Not really ! That picture appeared in a book published in 1953, not on the UK's national broadcaster's website in 2020. 

But I will say no more, clearly there are differing opinions. 

 

 

[Fat Controller]

37 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Earlier this month Network Rail was fined £135,000 after a child climbed onto a freight train and received a shock from the OLE:

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/huge-fine-network-rail-after-musselburgh-schoolboy-suffered-serious-burns-3070320

 

Note that the fine was not because there was no fencing at all, but because it was inadequate. Does this kind of incident happen in other countries, and if so, is the railway held in any way to blame ? It would be interesting to know.

 

 

It does happen in France, and probably elsewhere. There was a kerfuffle a few years ago when someone was burned by an arc, after climbing on top of a van. The officer in charge of the pompiers refused to allow his personnel to attempt a rescue until he had confirmation that the catenary had been turned off, and an earth put in place. The result was that the malcreant died before he could be given first aid. I do not recollect any great outrage in the French press about this.

[Simond]

I do wonder if we don’t overdo the nanny state a bit too much.  Is it not reasonable to expect people to work out that in an argument between their body and several hundred tons of railway vehicle, they’re going to lose, and that it will be their fault and nobody else’s if it happens?  
Trains don’t sneak up on people who aren’t on their tracks.  

It does require parents take responsibility for their kids.

 

But it doesn’t help the poor sod driving the train.

[Derekl]

The link posted by Mikkel above clearly indicates that it is accepted that cyclists and pedestrians (presumably) use the bridge and that the few train drivers are aware of that and take precautions. It has no parallel with the UK situation and I do not see how the BBC could be said to be "condoning" trespass here. It is clearly simply accepted multi use of the bridge, which sin't done in the UK (or not with shared use of track, in any event).

 

But, hey, nothing like a bit of BBC bashing!

[Philou]

However ....... however ...... almost the last but one photo shows a sign placed by the SNCF which basically says: Do not trespass onto railway land. Risk of 6 months imprisonment and a €3500 fine.

 

The users of the railbridge ARE trespassing and I'll leave it at that.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Darius43]

An early(ish) episode of Dad’s Army - the one where they mistakenly think they are in occupied France and hide in a railway wagon - has them walking along the railway track looking for the butterfly spring to the Lewis gun in the closing sequence.   

 

Was the BBC condoning trespass on the railway in that instance?

 

Darius 

[caradoc]

17 hours ago, Derekl said:

But, hey, nothing like a bit of BBC bashing!

 

Not BBC bashing, just concern on my part as an ex-railwayman, who has dealt with (from the comfort of an office at least) far too many fatalities, about the unintended consequences of thoughtless actions. 

 

[Bomag]

Caradoc, your point reminds me of a comment from a fellow engineer in a European standards meeting about cultural imperialism relating to removing  a safety based option from a Standard  - 'we do it better so much better that other countries so they must be forced to adopt your way of doing it'.  In addition there was a discussion about wanting to add requirements relating to safety which had no relevance to most of the rest of Europe - in that case a French requirement related to the mandatory use of product Classes to indicate speed limits where nearly everybody else explicitly signs the limit.  As long as any Standard allows the UK to do what we think safe I have no problem if others, as a burning article of faith, think that we do is intrinsicly unsafe or unacceptable.  I do have the benefit of being able identify at least one of the user safety metrics  where we are safer than all other EEA countries.

 

The lesson is if others don't agree with with your priorities , don't throw your toys out of your pram.

 

Its not just drivers who have to deal with things that get hit, when I was in P/W design we regularly found bits of animals spread all over the place. Although if it was a sheep, cow etc the P/W maintenance crew had normally got there first.  

Edited December 26, 2020 by Bomag

[Captain Kernow]

To me (as another ex-professional railwayman and someone who has also had his fair share of attending the aftermath of fatalities on the railway), the BBC photo published in March is quite clearly aimed at a UK audience and has no other information to inform those who don't have the wit to work out what is safe and what is not (and before anyone gets on a nearby high horse, yes, we know that many such folk exist).

 

The law is the law and there's no arguing with that cold, hard fact. Trespass on any length of railway line, operational or not, is an offence (and no homilies about trespass being a civil offence, please), unless there are clear and obvious indications that it is permitted, such as within the confines of a non-operational museum or similar setting.

 

Trespass on an operational line on the national network (and I assume on most, if not all, operational heritage lines) is a criminal offence. The BBC photo is irresponsible and I doubt you'll find any professional railwayman (working or retired), who would condone the act of trespass, under the circumstances indicated (ie. as part of an implied 'leisure activity').

 

That BBC photo, to me, is on a par with those published on the internet of wedding couples posing for photos on railway lines at the like.

 

I contend that it simply doesn't matter what others think about the level of risk, such as on lightly used lines. I've had to deal with countless incidents of trespass in my time, such as the family with young children, who felt it was 'OK' to walk over Calstock Viaduct on a Sunday morning, just because there was no train timetabled. But when they were reminded that engineering trains could run, they admitted that 'they hadn't thought of that'.

 

Or the idiot photographer, who felt it was 'OK' to walk off the end of a crowded platform at Newton Abbot in 2000, just to get a better photo of Flying Scotsman. When I went after him and lambasted him at the top of my voice, I actually got a loud cheer from the assembled masses, safely behind the fence or barriers!

 

Or the two arse*oles fishing off the rail portion of the Barmouth Bridge one summer morning, with many families with young children walking past on the adjacent public footpath. I nearly got assaulted for my troubles on that occasion and ended up arranging for the police to be called.

 

In those three examples above, the main protagonists were adults, who arguably would understand the potential consequences of what they were doing. But clearly, in none of these cases had any of them considered the implications of their actions on impressionable children, who might take away the idea that they could go home and do the same on a railway near them.

 

Even in retirement, UK railway trespass leaves me with an acute sense of humour failure and an on-going inability to restrain myself from answering back to those who can't (or won't) see things from the point of view of railway staff.

 

Quite simply, the BBC photo needed a brief bit of clarification as to the circumstances, then most of this debate would be unnecessary.

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Captain Kernow

[Michael Hodgson]

On 22/12/2020 at 00:07, Darius43 said:

An early(ish) episode of Dad’s Army - the one where they mistakenly think they are in occupied France and hide in a railway wagon - has them walking along the railway track looking for the butterfly spring to the Lewis gun in the closing sequence.   

 

Was the BBC condoning trespass on the railway in that instance?

 

Darius 

 

That was probably a fairly accurate reflection of attitudes towards safety generally during WW2 - I very much doubt anybody would have made much of an issue of people in military uniform walking along the line, unless it was perhaps somewhere that interfered with the transport of materials required for the war effort or had other adverse impact on railway operations.  Anybody doing so under orders (even if it was just the Home Guard) wouldn't be in trouble - it would the officer's reponsibility.   They would probably have to do such patrols to investigate reports of suspicious activity, look for unexploded bombs etc.  There were probably railwaymen in many Home Guard units, who would be used to walking along the line anyway, no hi-vis, just a few common sense rules in the company rules books. 

[meil]

It's not up to the BBC to condone or otherwise. That's not their job. Their job, as regards their news coverage, is to report facts. I don't look to the BBC for moral guidance in my life.

[dibber25]

The BBC covers all manner of offences and crimes in both its news bulletins and its drama content. Does that mean it condones them? The movie 'The Railway Children' is frequently screened. It depicts three children walking on a railway line in  several scenes. I have yet to see any warning posted before, after or during that film. Do we really need to have health and safety monitoring and warnings about everything? 

[Vecchio]

Difficult discussion for me. My mum always sent me with a milk can to the farmer when I was in my teens. I had to cross the mainline between Vienna and Italy. Location near the Semmering pass. Approximately 110 trains a day.  There was no fence, everybody crossed it, and there is no fence along the lines today in 2020.

From the Barbarian who grew up in the Austrian alps...

[caradoc]

Captain Kernow has explained far better than I did why I felt the BBC's use of this particular photo was irresponsible, and why I therefore complained about it. The BBC may not be the source of moral guidance for anyone's life, but it is the national broadcaster, and has a responsibility to consider the effects of what it publishes; BTW the photo in question was not a 'news item', nor 'drama content', but a reader's submission, which the BBC chose to publish without explanation or qualification. Just as CK says, clarification of the circumstances, perhaps a warning that railway trespass is both illegal and dangerous, would have been quite sufficient. 

 

[stewartingram]

1 hour ago, meil said:

It's not up to the BBC to condone or otherwise. That's not their job. Their job, as regards their news coverage, is to report facts. I don't look to the BBC for moral guidance in my life.

I don't now look to them for facts either. Too much speculation and quoting from social media.

 

Stewart

[dibber25]

Just received a UNICEF advert on Facebook which shows what are obviously the legs and feet of a child, walking on a railway line, in the four-foot. Apparently an organisation dedicated to caring for children, which sees nothing wrong in children being on railway lines. (CJL)

[DK123GWR]

2 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Just received a UNICEF advert on Facebook which shows what are obviously the legs and feet of a child, walking on a railway line, in the four-foot. Apparently an organisation dedicated to caring for children, which sees nothing wrong in children being on railway lines. (CJL)

Do you have a screenshot of the entire advert, or even better the page it leads to? The context here is critical. It might also be worth noting that in some areas where UNICEF operates a railway could be the best 'road' available.

[dibber25]

Just now, DK123GWR said:

Do you have a screenshot of the entire advert, or even better the page it leads to? The context here is critical. It might also be worth noting that in some areas where UNICEF operates a railway could be the best 'road' available.

It came up on that 'Timeline' thing that comes up when you open Facebook. I've no idea how to get that back but the same things never come up twice. From memory it probably was abroad - probably narrow gauge and with shiny rails. (CJL)

[dibber25]

13 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

Do you have a screenshot of the entire advert, or even better the page it leads to? The context here is critical. It might also be worth noting that in some areas where UNICEF operates a railway could be the best 'road' available.

 

[Steamport Southport]

On 27/12/2020 at 11:43, dibber25 said:

The BBC covers all manner of offences and crimes in both its news bulletins and its drama content. Does that mean it condones them? The movie 'The Railway Children' is frequently screened. It depicts three children walking on a railway line in  several scenes. I have yet to see any warning posted before, after or during that film. Do we really need to have health and safety monitoring and warnings about everything? 

 

However the item was on a page virtually saying "Go and take similar pictures on the same theme". Which is clearly aimed at families and especially children.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in_pictures

 

There is a warning, but it's so well hidden you would never see it as it's not even on the same page.

 

Finally, when taking photos, please do not endanger yourself or others, take unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10768282

 

 

Why they can't put that warning on all relevant pages is what I am wondering.

 

 

Jason

[phil_sutters]

I once complained to Channel 4 about their big metal man - which I now know is their 'ident' - walking out of the sea and landing a whole bunch of people on the top of chalk cliffs. At the time the local authorities, Coastguards and RNLI in Sussex were warning people not to go near the edge of cliffs, both at the top and at beach level, as there were frequent rock falls. The answer was that the group of people landing there, were shown to be a very diverse cross-section of the population. It was around the time of the 2012 Olympics during which the BBC coverage was being advertised, with a crowd of 'Olympians' again standing on the edge of the white cliffs.

[Darius43]

2 hours ago, dibber25 said:

Just received a UNICEF advert on Facebook which shows what are obviously the legs and feet of a child, walking on a railway line, in the four-foot. Apparently an organisation dedicated to caring for children, which sees nothing wrong in children being on railway lines. (CJL)

 

Clearly railway trespass should be their first priority.

 

The (self) righteous indignation expressed on this thread astounds me.

 

Darius