Level crossing stupidity...

[Mark Saunders]

15 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Stupidity goes off-topic too:

 

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-48026250

 

Martin.

 

It cuts both ways why isn't the edge fenced off to prevent such actions?

 

 

[Hobby]

Why should it be...

 

 

The Trust says:

 

Ms Caulfield said: "It's a difficult balance... if you put too much fencing or signage you destroy the beauty of the place."

 

and

 

"We advise visitors to act sensibly."

 

 

 

Seems Darwinism is stronger than Common Sense these days...

 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hobby

[laurenceb]

Fencing would probably destabilise the edge even more 

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Philou said:

'Au pif', and they use 'un pifometre' .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

Un pifomètre is a device used for measuring at the pif level, not a unit of measurement. As in, "my experiment was three meters tall" - I had the ohmmeter balanced on top of the voltmeter, in turn sitting on the ammeter.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Compound2632

[Joseph_Pestell]

A pif is a variable measure according to the width of the shoulders being shrugged.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

A pif is a variable measure according to the width of the shoulders being shrugged.

 

At what point does it become a pouf?

Edited April 23, 2019 by Compound2632

[Philou]

When the magic smoke escapes?

Edited April 23, 2019 by Philou

[Compound2632]

Isn't that the more plosive bouf?

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

Why should it be...

 

The Trust says:

 

Ms Caulfield said: "It's a difficult balance... if you put too much fencing or signage you destroy the beauty of the place."

 

and

 

"We advise visitors to act sensibly."

 

Seems Darwinism is stronger than Common Sense these days...

Couldn't agree more. Fencing and signs for such a situation is a sure sign of a society loosing the plot IMO. I'll never support any such measures to protect idiots from themselves - and this is from someone who has a photo showing his boots, then the bottom of Malham Cove. Not something I'd do now (student days) but if I had slipped I'd wanted the response to be "idiot student" rather than "something must be done."

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

thereby greatly increasing the risk of accidents elsewhere.

Last time I was held up on a Motorway (A14 last year, car caught fire) the biggest hold up was caused by rubber-neckers, long after the emergency services had departed. 

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

RUBBISH ! ................................. that's Irish Standard Gauge you're talking about.

Referred to as broad gauge as compared to the Irish narrow gauge, of 3 feet.

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, laurenceb said:

Fencing would probably destabilise the edge even more 

Some safety elf would doubtless conclude that if it was dangerous enough to warrant putting up a fence, then it would be too dangerous for the fencing contractors to be the wrong side of it, so it would have to be erected at least a quarter of a mile further inland (just to be safe). Then, some idiot would doubtless have to try getting beyond the fence, just because you're not supposed to be there. And of course he would regard it as perfectly safe because the probability of a collapse in the short period he was there is actually quite low.

Remembering the original topic of this thread, the same applies at level crossings. The chances of being caught or hit by a train are perceived as being tolerably low by the perpetrators, a situation that is exacerbated by the opportunities and conservatism that are built into UK level crossings. That people, often regular users, abuse them is hardly surprising, especially in an age where visible policing of the highway has become virtually nil and road discipline to be declining.

 

Jim

[EddieB]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Stupidity goes off-topic too:

 

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-48026250

 

Martin.

Funny that (well in a sort of coincidental rather than humorous way).  I was reading a similar story from Victoria Australia, from a link posted in this very thread by KevinLMS a few days back.  It seems that there is no monopoly on stupidity anywhere on this planet.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/tourists-in-search-of-selfies-ignore-warning-signs-put-lives-at-risk-20190422-p51g2m.html

Edited April 23, 2019 by EddieB
Kant spel.

[eastglosmog]

4 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

It cuts both ways why isn't the edge fenced off to prevent such actions?

 

 

On that logic,  every road in the land will have to be fenced off to prevent people wandering out into the carriageway.  There are far more deaths to pedestrians from cars than from falling off of cliffs.

 

[corneliuslundie]

In fact the same logic applies as to fencing railways.  Why are all roads not fenced like railways to prevent stupid people doing stupid things?

No, i am not advocating such a thing; merely pointing out the double think.

In fact I feel that if the independent motorised vehicle had been invented for the first time today it would never have been allowed on the roads. Far too dangerous.

Jonathan

PS Of course it is the drivers, not the vehicles, which are dangerous. Without a driver - at the moment anyway - road vehicles don't usually go very far.

[cctransuk]

5 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

It cuts both ways why isn't the edge fenced off to prevent such actions?

 

 

 

I strongly suspect that you made this comment specifically to provoke a reaction - but I'll bite, if only to demonstrate the idiocy of what you're suggesting.

 

So ............ you'd like high security prison fencing along the entire UK coastline, both banks of every river in the UK, the edge of every geographical and man-made feature of the landscape, ........ (oh, I can't be a*sed to go on & on & on)?!?

 

We're well down the road of having an entire profession whose living depends upon coming up with increasingly fantastical ways in which mankind could conceivably put itself in harms way; surely we don't need to encourage them with postings of this nature?

 

..... or perhaps you're a member of that profession yourself?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Andy Hayter]

8 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

In fact the same logic applies as to fencing railways.  Why are all roads not fenced like railways to prevent stupid people doing stupid things?

 

 

Fencing the railway is a very British thing and not considered necessary on much of the continent - except for high speed lines.  

[jim.snowdon]

It simply illustrates the extent to which what society considers as reasonable risks get magnified out of proportion as soon they get translated into the railway environment.

 

Jim

[martin_wynne]

7 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

It simply illustrates the extent to which what society considers as reasonable risks get magnified out of proportion as soon they get translated into the railway environment.

 

Hi Jim,

 

The original legal requirement to fence the railways was insisted on by landowners to prevent injury to livestock. Humans didn't count because they don't have a market value. A simple post and wire fence was considered adequate.

 

Martin.

[cctransuk]

11 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

It simply illustrates the extent to which what society considers as reasonable risks get magnified out of proportion as soon they get translated into the railway environment.

 

Jim

 

Probably because we have all become numbed by the frequency of injury and death on our roads; whereas they are so relatively rare on the railways; (not that is any justification for the paranoia which society seems to have relatings to all things rail-related).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood,

[Compound2632]

V & VI Vict. Cap. LV [aka Regulation of Railways Act 1842]:

 

X [Railway Companies to erect and maintain fences]. And whereas it is expedient that further Provision be made for the Safety of the Public in respect of the Fences of Railways ; be it enacted, That all Railway Companies shall be under the same Liability of Obligation to erect, and to maintain and repair, good and sufficient Fences throughout the whole of their respective Lines, as .they would have been if every Part of such Fences had been originally ordered to be made under an Order of Justices by virtue of the Provisions to that Effect in the Acts of Parliament relating to such Railways respectively.

 

XIII [Alteration of dangerous level crossings]. And whereas in many Cases Railways have been made to cross Turnpike Roads, Highways, and private Roads and Tramways on the Level, and the Companies to whom such Railways belong would in some Cases be willing, at their own Expence, to carry such Roads and Tramways over or under such Railways by means of a Bridge or Archway for the greater Safety of the Public, but have no Authority so to do: And whereas it would promote the public Safety if Railway Companies were enabled, under the Sanction and Authority of the Lords of the said Committee, to substitute Bridges or Archways for such level Crossings as aforesaid ; be it -therefore enacted, That in all Cases where any Railway Company shall be willing, at their own Expence, to carry any Turnpike Road, Highway, or private Road or Tramway over or under their Railway by means of a Bridge or Arch in lieu of crossing the same on the Level, it shall be lawful for the Lords of the said Committee, on the Application of the said Company, and after hearing the several Parties interested, if it shall appear to the Lords of the said Committee that such level Crossing endangers the public Safety, and that the Proposal of the Company does not involve any Violation of existing Rights or Interests without adequate Compensation, to give the said Company full Power and Authority for removing the Danger at their own Expence, either by building a Bridge, or by such other Arrangement as the Nature of the Case shall require, subject to such Conditions as the Lords of the said Committee shall direct.

 

The safety of members of the public has always been the priority.

[eastglosmog]

It is not just railways that have to be fenced off - quarries also must be fenced as they constitute a public nuisance.  The standard of fencing required does vary according to how close you are to inhabited places.  Just because some load of idiots think it would be fun to explore the quarry and cut holes in the fence does not let you off keeping them repaired on a daily basis.  In Ireland they have a different attitude - they put up a notice saying in effect you are entering a premises and on your head be it if you fall down a hole.

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

A simple post and wire fence was considered adequate.

 

 

.... and should be for all but the wilfully idiotic.

 

As for those who see no future in this life - for whom I have the utmost sympathy and some small personal, past empathy - if they can't end it all on the railway, the world offers an infinite number of alternatives which will NEVER all be eliminated, despite the best efforts of H&S.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[jim.snowdon]

As a now retired, very senior and much respected member of HM Railway Inspectorate would publicly remind us younger engineers (I was, then) the purpose of fencing as set out in the 1842 Act was to protect the public from the railways, not to protect the railways from the public. In other words, actually his, the fences were not there to keep the public out (there were railway bye-laws to prevent the public from getting onto the railway where they shouldn't).

 

The whole issue got overtaken by a judgement under the Health & Safety at Work Act which ruled that British Railways had a duty of care to protect trespassers against getting onto the railway.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

As a now retired, very senior and much respected member of HM Railway Inspectorate would publicly remind us younger engineers (I was, then) the purpose of fencing as set out in the 1842 Act was to protect the public from the railways, not to protect the railways from the public. In other words, actually his, the fences were not there to keep the public out (there were railway bye-laws to prevent the public from getting onto the railway where they shouldn't).

 

 

16 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

V & VI Vict. Cap. LV [aka Regulation of Railways Act 1842]:

 

"further Provision be made for the Safety of the Public" 

 

"promote the public Safety"

 

I can't quite reconcile these. It seems to me that the intention of the 1842 act is to promote the safety of the public by preventing them from straying onto the railway - placing a duty of care on the railway company. A fence does this more effectively than a bye-law, even accompanied by a 40s fine.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Compound2632