Trespassing 'enthusiast' on the WCML this morning...

[Kenton]

There is no ambiguity as regards railway trespass - it is an absolute offence in that you are either on the railway (either on or near the line or lineside as defined by the rulebook) or you aren't.

</p>But most people do not have access to the "rulebook" and have to rely on clear and obvious signage, impenetrable security fencing, and a large measure of common sense (something that appears lacking in many).

 

In this particular case it looks to me as if the signage and fencing were possibly inadequate - how many of the public understand the meaning of that sign. Though it is certain that the individual was severely lacking in common sense.

[Glorious NSE]

Kenton, members of the public should have no need of understanding the meaning of that sign as they shouldn't be wandering about on the railway in the first place!

 

There is no ambiguity as regards railway trespass - it is an absolute offence in that you are either on the railway (either on or near the line or lineside as defined by the rulebook) or you aren't.

 

 

Generally I agree 100%, although i've been to the occasional location where i've suddenly realised i've ended up at trackside on the 'wrong side' of a fence without crossing any fence line or other clear boundary.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Of course, Kenton you're right to mention the exclusivity of access to the rulebook and I used those terms chiefly as they will be understood by those interested in this topic. Lineside/ Trackside basically applies to everything inside the fence not covered by 'on or near the line'. The only legal signage required under the provisions of Section 55, BTC Act 1949 is the provision of a trespass warning notice at the nearest railway station. Although Mike rightly mentions the societal changes of recent decades, the view held in 1949 was that the presence of a fence between the public areas and the railway should advise a person of normal intelligence that it was there for a good reason and it was the safest policy to stay on the correct side of said fence.

 

Dave.

[Enterprisingwestern]

In this particular case it looks to me as if the signage and fencing were possibly inadequate - how many of the public understand the meaning of that sign. Though it is certain that the individual was severely lacking in common sense.

 

The signage was only maybe inadequate because the person shouldn't have been trespassing in the first place. It's not put ther for the public to understand.

[Kenton]

Not knowing the surrounding area or the other fencing that this individual may have passed through to get where he was, I was being a little generalistic. To the common public (and that includes me) The railway should be fenced off in such a way to prevent simple trespass and should also be clearly signed.

 

I do not think a sign at the nearest station is in anyway adequate except in that local area where is is required to demark the publicly accessed yet railway property area (eg a platform or level crossing) from the "out of bounds" area.

 

If that fence shown in the photo is all that there is it is clearly inadequate though I suspect from what has been said he would have been trespassing on either side of the fence.

 

The question comes down to whether the individual understood he was trespassing either side of the fence.

 

But whichever way he clearly doesn't understand or care of the danger he places himself or others in, which is back to the issue of common sense and his clear lack of it.

[beast66606]

Not knowing the surrounding area or the other fencing that this individual may have passed through to get where he was, I was being a little generalistic. To the common public (and that includes me) The railway should be fenced off in such a way to prevent simple trespass and should also be clearly signed.

 

The A12, just outside my office, is not fenced off or signed but I don't see many people trespassing on it ...

 

I do not think a sign at the nearest station is in anyway adequate except in that local area where is is required to demark the publicly accessed yet railway property area (eg a platform or level crossing) from the "out of bounds" area.

 

See above

 

If that fence shown in the photo is all that there is it is clearly inadequate though I suspect from what has been said he would have been trespassing on either side of the fence.

 

The question comes down to whether the individual understood he was trespassing either side of the fence.

 

There shouldn't really be a need for any fence, the simple fact that it's a railway with high speed heavy objects on it should be enough and (imho) he knew exactly what he was doing, he was there as he believed (imho) that would give him a clear view with no risk of being blocked by tourist spotters (those who arrive at the last minute but demand the best spots)

 

But whichever way he clearly doesn't understand or care of the danger he places himself or others in, which is back to the issue of common sense and his clear lack of it.

 

(again imho) he does understand the danger but believes he is safe where he is standing ...

 

I'm afraid that whilst you may believe the whole of the railway network should be totally fenced in, I don't, there is no reason for anything more than a simple posts with wires, it's idiots like him - and "public" using the railway as short cuts that brought the onslaught of the pallisade fence.

[RedgateModels]

fences, any fences should never be climbed to gain access, the simple fact that a fence of whatever construction is there should be enough for "a reasonable man" to know that boundary should not be crossed.

 

Gates are provided where access is permitted

[kevinlms]

It's all about balance Kevin. I'll be the first to admit that some H&S thinking does appear ludicrous but there is a time honoured viewpoint here in the sense that there is a right and a wrong side of the railway boundary and this guy is very much on the wrong one.

There is no ambiguity as regards railway trespass - it is an absolute offence in that you are either on the railway (either on or near the line or lineside as defined by the rulebook) or you aren't. The only possible defence against the offence of trespass is that you were there in order to prevent the loss of life and limb; eg trying to stop a train running into a landslide by waving your bright red bloomers at it!

 

Dave.

 

 

Hi Dave & others.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying.

 

This guy is clearly the wrong side of the fence & thus is undoubtably trasspassing and further more, by the look on his face in one of the photos, he knows full well that he is. So I hope the LAW catches up with him.

 

Can I make it any clearer?

 

What I was trying to say that other threads do seem to imply that H&S is often a joke and sometimes it is, but not always. So we should be careful, before rubbishing H&S.

 

But lets move on.

 

Kevin Martin

[Kenton]

I'm afraid that whilst you may believe the whole of the railway network should be totally fenced in, I don't, there is no reason for anything more than a  simple posts with wires, it's idiots like him - and "public" using the railway as short cuts that brought the onslaught of the pallisade fence.

I don't.

 

My issue is with the idea of trespass vs the rather more obvious lack of common sense.

 

Most people use common sense not to go near the railway lines they do not need to be told it is trespassing to do so.

 

They do not need fences or signs just a clear sight of the danger. In Europe and in the US and probably most countries people manage perfectly well with this common sense and the railways are much more open to the public. Are accidents more common in those countries?

 

This guy (or any other photographer) could have easily been standing on a platform filming, standing too close to the edge and still in equal danger. Just the same lack of common sense but not trespassing.

[298]

I don't think there is any confusion, he has clearly strayed off a recognised footpath and his intention and motivation is clear.

 

Surely one issue with trespass is if someone witnesses someone else doing it, they think its OK and put themselves in a riskier location, until you end up with an incident like the one seen on YouTube where the photter of Oliver Cromwell nearly gets taken out by a 170 on a foot crossing.

[Edwin_m]

Picking up on 298's point I suspect even standing on a foot crossing to photograph a train probably counts as trespass, as you're not supposed to go beyond the Stop Look Listen sign except when there are no trains nearby. As per the video mentioned by 298 it can also be dangerous.

 

Today's Railway Herald has a photo which is clearly taken from the wrong side of the fence, with a foot crossing not visible but mentioned in the caption, probably so readers know that the photographer was standing on it. In this case it's clear that the photographer is well clear of both tracks, and may even be behind the warning sign, but would a view from closer to the line be equally acceptable?

[BlackRat]

Top tip............

 

Rather than speak to, or confront the individual, as here a picture speaks a thousand words, a video more so.

 

Perhaps make a note to of any cars parked near, BTP or the locals may not be able to identify the individual, but a car number.........

 

worth its weight in gold.

 

It would be great if one of the mags carried a rogues gallery to id the miscreants, the info being passed on to the necessary.

 

It would help redress the balance that as well as bad, there are far more good enthusiasts out there.

 

(Perhaps they already do )

[Boris]

Top tip............

 

Rather than speak to, or confront the individual, as here a picture speaks a thousand words, a video more so.

 

Perhaps make a note to of any cars parked near, BTP or the locals may not be able to identify the individual, but a car number.........

 

worth its weight in gold.

 

I know a guy who did this on the Settle line, got the reg and a decent photo of the trespasser and the BTP prosecuted the offending person. It does work.

 

When I first did my PTS many years ago we were told you needed at least 3 things on the lineside, a PTS, a hi-vis and a valid reason for being there. Unfortunately taking photos is not a valid reason for being there!

[Glorious NSE]

In Europe and in the US and probably most countries people manage perfectly well with this common sense and the railways are much more open to the public. Are accidents more common in those countries?

 

I believe with regard to the US the answer is yes, there are more accidents, injuries and fatalities - although a mitigation to the risk there may be that their trains tend to be usually noisier and usually slower.

[jamie92208]

In the US though the lines are often not fenced the railroads are very wary of trespass and many locos are now fitted with forward facing video cameras. This is mainly to provide mevidence in court when trains hit vehicles on crossings but the fottage can still be used to back up police statements against trespassers. On a recent visit i was told by several train crew that they are actively envcouraged to report trespassers.

 

Jamie

[trisonic]

Well, after the furore over here (USA) about photographers being arrested just for taking photographs of the various railroad systems I wrote to the PR chief of NS (as an example) asking for their policy regarding photographers.

He replied saying that their workers (including their own Police Force) would do nothing against photographers UNLESS they were trespassing on their property.

 

Further I implied that legitimate photographers (i.e. ones not breaking laws; not necessarily professionals by definition) can actually help the railroad's security by alerting them to people acting suspiciously and/or trespassing which he accepted.

 

I think this point is well made in that it is a quid pro quo we can actually be helpful BUT we must be robust in defending our rights too.

 

Don't forget, Martyn, that over here even 10,000ft trains can travel at 70+mph in rural areas - the main difference being that despite the USA having five times the population of England; the land area is 9,600,000 sq. Kms vs England of a mere 242,000sq. Kms.

 

 

Best, Pete.

[BlackRat]

The old rules are the best, and you cant beat the 'best evidence rule'.

 

Even the best of legal experts cant talk the offender out off of that!

[Glorious NSE]

Don't forget, Martyn, that over here even 10,000ft trains can travel at 70+mph in rural areas

 

I don't disagree Pete (hence the careful use of 'usually'! ) - in this case though one track over from where that bloke is standing I suspect line speed is somewhere between 100mph and 125mph, is populated with very frequent electric trains that make very little noise and aren't blowing for crossings every mile or so...

 

Either way in terms of person vs train it makes little difference. A pacer at 25mph is just as capable of ruining your whole day as a Pendolino or a mile of double stacks...

[Timara]

It would be great if one of the mags carried a rogues gallery to id the miscreants, the info being passed on to the necessary.

 

It would help redress the balance that as well as bad, there are far more good enthusiasts out there.

 

(Perhaps they already do )

 

It's happened in the past in some of the monthlies, but has never been a regular thing (sadly).

 

I well remember one occasion whilst out for "Sutherland" where I caught sight of a pair of cretins stood right by one of the OLE headspans, feet from the up slow at Brookmans Park. The abuse they both gave me when I told them (perfectly politely too) that they were trespassing made my hair stand on end! What got me more was that they were more than old enough to know the rules.

 

Their mugshot went into Steam Railway as a result, though whether it did any good, I don't know.

 

I'll echo what everyone else has said about the "parts donor" in the OP.

 

Regards,

[The Stationmaster]

When I first did my PTS many years ago we were told you needed at least 3 things on the lineside, a PTS, a hi-vis and a valid reason for being there. Unfortunately taking photos is not a valid reason for being there!

If I'd being taking your PTS exam and there had been any reference at all to the use of a camera on your part I would have been asking all about your Lookoutman - people alone lineside with a camera are often in the same league as people lineside with a mobile 'phone, the last thing they tend to be concentrating on is personal safety.

[trisonic]

Martyn, Sorry, I should have been clearer - I just wanted to suggest that people should be aware of the potential for speed of US freight trains.

 

I've got some US Statistics for 2007 which are (mildly) interesting:

 

1. 13,067 railroad related accidents resulting in 851 deaths and 8,801 non-fatal injuries.

2. 338 of the deaths occurred at highway/railroad crossings.

3. 473 deaths were the result of trespassing on railroad rights of way and property. More than half of all deaths...............

 

So deaths on the railroads (for whatever cause) represent (in 2007) .0003% of the total USA Population.

 

I cannot compare these to either England or the whole UK stats 'cos I cannot find them........

 

Best, Pete.

[Kenton]

I cannot compare these to either England or the whole UK stats 'cos I cannot find them........

</p>

 

You would probably require a Freedom of Information request to get them - and even then they probably would not be comparable.

 

Do those include Railway Workers or are they just the dumb public? I would think that a more comparable figure would be per mile - though even that would be influenced by little-used track. Perhaps unit miles traveled?

[298]

My current avatar is an image of a sign on the Yakima Valley Trolley line in the US, and was probably taken in the mid 1970's. There was no fencing and the right of way was either through farmland or down the middle of the public highways There was obviously some kind of problem that required signs to be used, the threat being from arrest. My experience on trips is that despite well known tales of someone taking legal action against a restaurant because their coffee/apple pie filling was too hot, there is in fact the atitude that you can look after your own safety and a little common sense goes a long way, so walk on the line at your own risk without the railroad having to resort to using miles of pallisade fencing to stop you doing so. (But at least we don't get dozens of cars trying to pace a steam engine on a parallel road, as happens in the US...)

 

As for a rogues gallery, I doubt it would work as there are similar ones for general stoats or well known celebrities, but that doesn't prevent trainspotters appearing incognito, instead of their usual apparel. I may even suggest there isn't and won't be the social stigma there for photters to remain the right side of the fence, if they know of a quiet location away from the crowds where they won't be bothered and can bag their precious shot.

[The Stationmaster]

I've got some US Statistics for 2007 which are (mildly) interesting:

1. 13,067 railroad related accidents resulting in 851 deaths and 8,801 non-fatal injuries.

2. 338 of the deaths occurred at highway/railroad crossings.

3. 473 deaths were the result of trespassing on railroad rights of way and property. More than half of all deaths...............

 

So deaths on the railroads (for whatever cause) represent (in 2007) .0003% of the total USA Population.

I cannot compare these to either England or the whole UK stats 'cos I cannot find them........

Best, Pete.

The nearest I can readily find for Britain's railways are trespass fatalities for 2009 which was 49 out of a total number of c.9,000 reported trespass incidents. An interesting feature of the2009 figure is the age split with 8% being children (aged 7 -15), 46% 'young adults (aged 16 - 29), and the remainder being 'older adults (age 30 and over, 11 of whom were aged 70 or over). Quite why 70 year olds should be trespassing on the railway is beyond my past experience

Reading off a bar chart the figures over several years were as follows -

2004 - c.32

2005 - c.43

2006 - c.42

2007 - c.43

2008 - c.48

Similarly off a bar chart trespasser major injures were as follows :-

2004 - c.28

2005 - 20

2006 - c.36

2007 - 30

2008 - c.26

2009 - c.24)

[Rumblestripe]

The most shocking thing about those photographs is that is so unnecessary. Would putting himself and the camera the right side of the fence made any noticeable difference to his shot? No.

 

Sadly it is far from uncommon. I rarely photograph the modern railway but when steam specials are about brains, common sense and courtesy are apparently left at home. So you get fools on railway property and the ignorant wandering in front of your carefully composed shot. Not my idea of a creative relaxing hobby. I hope this particular fool gets a visit from the BTP toot sweet as they say en France.