Trespassers - What would you have done?

[LAX54]

Tornado running to Walton on Saturday, gave rise to hundreds tresspassing incidents, extra staff had been drawn in to cover as much as possible, extra BTP units on patrols, Duty MOM, and extra MOM, staff from the OHL dept all trying to stop tresspass, but even with all the extra staff, the line was swarming with people, think there were at least two emergency brake applications, by service trains, even the footplate staff called in, end result all trains were cautioned all day ! Now who picks up the tab for that little lot ?

 

[shredder1]

I`d let the guard know, railways are fast and more dangerous these days. I grew up in the 50`s, we played on the railways and put pennies on the lines for trains to run over them, we even hung on the sides of good trains and leaped off as they gained speed, at 10 years old in the early 60`s I was running round Newton Heath locos sheds and no one batted an eyelid, we ran errands for the drivers to the local shop and they gave us rides down to the turntable, crazy days looking back, but no one amazingly got injured or killed.

 

[nedchester]

Is it a uniquely UK thing where we get hot under the collar about trespassing on the railway.

Yes it's illegal, yes it's dangerous, yes driver's and other staff get traumatised it people are hit but is there as much fuss made in other countries about it?

 

[al78]

Is it a uniquely UK thing where we get hot under the collar about trespassing on the railway.

Yes it's illegal, yes it's dangerous, yes driver's and other staff get traumatised it people are hit but is there as much fuss made in other countries about it?

Whether it is made a fuss of in other countries is irrelevant as to whether it is worth making a fuss of. IMO it is, because trespassers are not just putting their own lives at risk, but risking significant disruption and trauma to others in the process. It is again an example of externalizing costs onto others; those who claim it's none of my business need to understand that if you externalize risk and potential consequences of your actions onto me, then you make it my business, and I will call you out on it if I can. Do people in other countries have a similar entitlement attitude to do what they like and dump negative consequences onto others without any comeback?

 

[jon0844]

If 999 was called would non-BTP coppers be allowed trackside to deal with it or would the normal coppers have to await the arrival of either BTP coppers or NR staff before they could go trackside (by which time the tresspasser(s) might well have scarperd)?

An off duty officer recently chased someone along a track (and apprehended him) on a live railway with 75mph line speed. I'm sure there a million things to be said about it, but it happened. A right result too as the offender was caught with electronic items and jewellery

 

[shredder1]

Is it a uniquely UK thing where we get hot under the collar about trespassing on the railway.

Yes it's illegal, yes it's dangerous, yes driver's and other staff get traumatised it people are hit but is there as much fuss made in other countries about it?

Isnt there something in law in this country that makes the railways responsible, in othere countries isnt it the tresspasser??

 

[Antman]

Is it a uniquely UK thing where we get hot under the collar about trespassing on the railway.

Yes it's illegal, yes it's dangerous, yes driver's and other staff get traumatised it people are hit but is there as much fuss made in other countries about it?

Does seem to be the case, is it the third rail that (understandably) makes trespassing on the railway more serious in the UK?

 

[Antman]

If 999 was called would non-BTP coppers be allowed trackside to deal with it or would the normal coppers have to await the arrival of either BTP coppers or NR staff before they could go trackside (by which time the tresspasser(s) might well have scarperd)?

I think it would depend on the circumstances, ie the seriousness of whatever was happening? Probably no right or wrong answer just a decision they have to make for themselves?

 

[AlterEgo]

Whether it is made a fuss of in other countries is irrelevant as to whether it is worth making a fuss of. IMO it is, because trespassers are not just putting their own lives at risk, but risking significant disruption and trauma to others in the process. It is again an example of externalizing costs onto others; those who claim it's none of my business need to understand that if you externalize risk and potential consequences of your actions onto me, then you make it my business, and I will call you out on it if I can. Do people in other countries have a similar entitlement attitude to do what they like and dump negative consequences onto others without any comeback?

Would you also criminalise jaywalking?

There are far, far more car drivers traumatised by colliding with careless pedestrians than train drivers.

The attitude to trespass is certainly a cultural thing and I expect was ingrained in British culture from an early stage. After all, the first railway fatality happened in Britain. As with most cultural things it's difficult to pronounce them as necessarily good or bad. Overall I think we have a fair balance with the current approach.

 

[Antman]

do people still pay for texts?

I'm on EE and it's £2 for 400 texts to be used within 14 days.

 

[bramling]

Whether it is made a fuss of in other countries is irrelevant as to whether it is worth making a fuss of. IMO it is, because trespassers are not just putting their own lives at risk, but risking significant disruption and trauma to others in the process. It is again an example of externalizing costs onto others; those who claim it's none of my business need to understand that if you externalize risk and potential consequences of your actions onto me, then you make it my business, and I will call you out on it if I can. Do people in other countries have a similar entitlement attitude to do what they like and dump negative consequences onto others without any comeback?

(duplicate post deleted)

 

[bramling]

Whether it is made a fuss of in other countries is irrelevant as to whether it is worth making a fuss of. IMO it is, because trespassers are not just putting their own lives at risk, but risking significant disruption and trauma to others in the process. It is again an example of externalizing costs onto others; those who claim it's none of my business need to understand that if you externalize risk and potential consequences of your actions onto me, then you make it my business, and I will call you out on it if I can. Do people in other countries have a similar entitlement attitude to do what they like and dump negative consequences onto others without any comeback?

I understand the point, however the "none of my business" considers the reality of the situation. In the vast majority of trespass incidents, by the time BTP turn up the trespassers will be long gone. So all that's being done is cause delays to any trains which have to be cautioned. Perhaps an exception is if the trespasser is there through lack of awareness - perhaps an alzheimers sufferer or such like. Another possible exception is where there's an obvious breach in fencing. On balance it's best left to the railway to manage. By all means let staff know if one thinks this is helpful, but I really don't advocate operating passcoms or cords -- the disbenefits outweigh the benefits quite heavily in the vast majority of instances.

As I posted elsewhere, there's little real value in reporting something like a railway enthusiast taking photos from inside the boundary (unless they're really obviously in a place of imminent danger), or a local resident obviously taking a short-cut. This is my personal view - others may hold different views, as there's no right or wrong answer to this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be more likely to report it if it was kids, as they often have a limited understanding of risk, and very often (unlike adults, particularly drivers) a very poor sense of how fast a vehicle they can see is moving.

 

[DarloRich]

As I posted elsewhere, there's little real value in reporting something like a railway enthusiast taking photos from inside the boundary (unless they're really obviously in a place of imminent danger), or a local resident obviously taking a short-cut. This is my personal view - others may hold different views, as there's no right or wrong answer to this.

No. There most certainly is a right answer. They shouldn't be there. Whether they are a spotter, a lazy dog walker or a kid the train coming the other way wont discriminate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. There most certainly is a right answer. They shouldn't be there. Whether they are a spotter, a lazy dog walker or a kid the train coming the other way wont discriminate.

There clearly isn't, because trespass is tolerated in probably the vast majority of other countries. There is the UK convention, and UK law which is to be followed when in the UK, but who are we to say that most other countries in the world are wrong?

 

[DarloRich]

There clearly isn't, because trespass is tolerated in probably the vast majority of other countries. There is the UK convention, and UK law which is to be followed when in the UK, but who are we to say that most other countries in the world are wrong?

I don't care what they do or think in another country. It has no impact on what we do here. We all know real people should not be inside the fence. Why are you all so reluctant to do something about it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't care what they do or think in another country. It has no impact on what we do here. We all know real people should not be inside the fence. Why are you all so reluctant to do something about it?

Because if an adult gets themselves splatted due to their own stupidity they've basically Darwinned themselves. I strongly believe in personal responsibility, and that if grown adults do something glaringly and obviously stupid and get themselves killed / life changing injuries as a result of doing so then that is their loss.

The thing that would make me think otherwise would be (a) kids, who have poor risk understanding, or (b) regard for the driver who has to live with having hit someone and the other staff who have to clean up and tell the family.

 

[DarloRich]

Because if an adult gets themselves splatted due to their own stupidity they've basically Darwinned themselves. I strongly believe in personal responsibility, and that if grown adults do something glaringly and obviously stupid and get themselves killed / life changing injuries as a result of doing so then that is their loss.

The thing that would make me think otherwise would be (a) kids, who have poor risk understanding, or (b) regard for the driver who has to live with having hit someone and the other staff who have to clean up and tell the family.

That is a poor attitude to take imo. You could potentially save a life but cant be bothered to text it in because an adult who should know better. It also doesn't reflect the reality of the governing legislation.

People should not be on the track, regardless of age.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is a poor attitude to take imo. You could potentially save a life but cant be bothered to text it in because an adult who should know better.

People need to take responsibility for their own safety, as per the culture of much of the rest of mainland Europe. I venture the view, much as some find it a little distasteful, that we have gone too far down the other line, and that that lack of responsibility is actually harming society overall. Responsibilities first, rights second. We have in my view gone too far the other way.

Railways are obviously dangerous and are fenced off. That to me is quite sufficient. Indeed, most of Europe doesn't bother fencing them.

 

[DarloRich]

People need to take responsibility for their own safety, as per the culture of much of the rest of mainland Europe. I venture the view, much as some find it a little distasteful, that we have gone too far down the other line, and that that lack of responsibility is actually harming society overall. Responsibilities first, rights second. We have in my view gone too far the other way.

Railways are obviously dangerous and are fenced off. That to me is quite sufficient. Indeed, most of Europe doesn't bother fencing them.

of course - but that doesn't absolve you of a moral duty to act to turn someone back from a potentially dangerous course of action nor does it give carte blanche to all manner of failings by land owners.

 

[shredder1]

People need to take responsibility for their own safety, as per the culture of much of the rest of mainland Europe. I venture the view, much as some find it a little distasteful, that we have gone too far down the other line, and that that lack of responsibility is actually harming society overall. Responsibilities first, rights second. We have in my view gone too far the other way.

Railways are obviously dangerous and are fenced off. That to me is quite sufficient. Indeed, most of Europe doesn't bother fencing them.

I agree absolutely Neil.

 

[Bletchleyite]

of course - but that doesn't absolve you of a moral duty to act to turn someone back from a potentially dangerous course of action

If an adult is well aware that they are taking a dangerous course of action and still choose in sound mind[1] to take it, I don't consider that I have any responsibility to prevent them. They have made a conscious choice to accept the risk.

I'm a rock climber. Should I be stopped from doing that, as some parts of that activity can be dangerous - more dangerous than crossing a rural branch line with good views in both directions (not that I do the latter because it's illegal, but I certainly have done it where legal i.e. at a foot crossing, and in other countries where it is normal practice).

[1] Example: I would seek to stop someone looking to jump from a bridge to commit suicide, I wouldn't stop someone tombstoning. The difference is fairly obvious.

 

[bramling]

No. There most certainly is a right answer. They shouldn't be there. Whether they are a spotter, a lazy dog walker or a kid the train coming the other way wont discriminate.

That's a different question though, isn't it. We know they *shouldn't be there*. The question was what's best to do about it, which is a different matter entirely.

Using the real example of my journey into London the day the FS was coming north, if people had been pulling cords every time a trespasser was seen inside the wire fencing, and trains being cautioned right left and centre, my train would have barely moved, let alone arrived in London right-time. We simply have to be realistic about the issue. Likewise, if staff/BTP were called out for every minor instance of trespass, this would massively take them away from their other duties - which is simply not a good use of time when for virtually every report there will be nothing to see when they get to the location.

From personal experience, BTP aren't particularly interested. If they turn up at all, often the most that will happen is one officer will ride through on a train and declare 'all clear'. More might be done if a pattern builds up at a particular location, but train staff who work the route regularly will almost certainly take care of this.

 

[bramling]

I agree absolutely Neil.

So do I. Let responsible adults be held accountable for their actions and decisions, and any consequences which arise to them.

 

[nedchester]

People need to take responsibility for their own safety, as per the culture of much of the rest of mainland Europe. I venture the view, much as some find it a little distasteful, that we have gone too far down the other line, and that that lack of responsibility is actually harming society overall. Responsibilities first, rights second. We have in my view gone too far the other way.

Railways are obviously dangerous and are fenced off. That to me is quite sufficient. Indeed, most of Europe doesn't bother fencing them.

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make.

I think that removing personal responsibility has gone too far in the U.K.

 

[dakta]

how does one check the adults capability to be responsible for their own safety before making the decision to not get involved because they are responsible for their own safety where you otherwise might have done?

I'm playing devils advocate a bit, as I think contacting 999 etc is perhaps a bit extreme (IMO) but its food for thought.

 

[nedchester]

of course - but that doesn't absolve you of a moral duty to act to turn someone back from a potentially dangerous course of action nor does it give carte blanche to all manner of failings by land owners.

Do you try to stop someone crossing the road in an obviously dangerous place?

 

[skyhigh]

If 999 was called would non-BTP coppers be allowed trackside to deal with it or would the normal coppers have to await the arrival of either BTP coppers or NR staff before they could go trackside (by which time the tresspasser(s) might well have scarperd)?

Sorry, only just seen this. Theoretically, only BTP officers would be allowed trackside. In practice, those from local forces may be on scene first and let themselves onto the track...

BTP officers are meant to wait for the arrival of a Network Rail Mobile Operations Manager before accessing the track unless given directions to the contrary by control or there is an immediate danger to life. (For example, if a few people are standing in the four foot to take photos of Flying Scotsman, control may arrange lines to be blocked and authorise officers to go lineside and arrest offenders before a MOM can attend).

 

[Dhassell]

Sorry, only just seen this. Theoretically, only BTP officers would be allowed trackside. In practice, those from local forces may be on scene first and let themselves onto the track...

BTP officers are meant to wait for the arrival of a Network Rail Mobile Operations Manager before accessing the track unless given directions to the contrary by control or there is an immediate danger to life. (For example, if a few people are standing in the four foot to take photos of Flying Scotsman, control may arrange lines to be blocked and authorise officers to go lineside and arrest offenders before a MOM can attend).

I witnessed an incident at Stapleton Road near Bristol a few weeks ago, as we approached on the train the brakes went on hard, and I noticed two blokes walking up the side of the track, we pulled into Stapleton Road, the train stopped for about 2 minute, and then continued. 5 minute latter two BTP officers turned up and went straight onto the track to search for them, they returned empty handed, during this time, trains were stopped at the signal before the site and i assume told to look out when continuing.

 

[bramling]

Sorry, only just seen this. Theoretically, only BTP officers would be allowed trackside. In practice, those from local forces may be on scene first and let themselves onto the track...

BTP officers are meant to wait for the arrival of a Network Rail Mobile Operations Manager before accessing the track unless given directions to the contrary by control or there is an immediate danger to life. (For example, if a few people are standing in the four foot to take photos of Flying Scotsman, control may arrange lines to be blocked and authorise officers to go lineside and arrest offenders before a MOM can attend).

Meant to ... we recently had an incident where BTP wanted to look at the underside of a train which had potentially been involved in a fatality incident. Before staff arrived, BTP had been and gone, breaking their way through the sidings gate, and leaving it insecure afterwards so anyone could have walked in. The initial incident wasn't even one which was being treated as suspicious. There was a bit of a stir about what happened, but old habits die hard and I don't expect anything was actually done about it.