Here comes the (not too clever) bride

[edwin_m]

If it's Moreton-on-Lugg (or any other crossing with semaphore stop signals as shown) then it's manually operated, and they weren't actually in danger from a train unless the signaller failed to notice them after closing the barriers.

 

[Bromley boy]

There is a lot of presuming and much imagination going on in this thread. According the ORR page on Level Crossing Law



According to Google Streetview there are no instruction signs at the location and I assume the barriers were up and the lights not flashing.

Being on a public road (I've checked the Herefordshire definitive map), trespass does not come into play at all and the NR twitter team are totally incorrect to suggest it. Whether the Railway Byelaws Section 7 is enforceable on a Right of Way is my view unlikely.

No I'm afraid it is you who is totally incorrect. There is a specific criminal offence making misuse of a crossing trespass. As per my previous link.

The sources of law you've cited are more about the health safety/level crossing orders that specify required equipment rather than trespass.

 

[Bromley boy]

If it's Moreton-on-Lugg (or any other crossing with semaphore stop signals as shown) then it's manually operated, and they weren't actually in danger from a train unless the signaller failed to notice them after closing the barriers.

Oh well, that's all right then. :roll:

 

[Ianno87]

If it's Moreton-on-Lugg (or any other crossing with semaphore stop signals as shown) then it's manually operated, and they weren't actually in danger from a train unless the signaller failed to notice them after closing the barriers.

So they were still in danger since, as thoroughly professional and well-trained as signallers universally are, they are human beings and can make mistakes.

 

[alxndr]

If it's Moreton-on-Lugg (or any other crossing with semaphore stop signals as shown) then it's manually operated, and they weren't actually in danger from a train unless the signaller failed to notice them after closing the barriers.

Doesn't stop it being incredibly irresponsible. How many laypeople can recognise the difference between a manned and automatic crossing, or even know there is one?

 

[robertclark125]

Not only that, it's fine consulting a train timetable to make sure no trains are going to be passing that crossing at the time, but the train timetable doesn't show freight trains, railtours, engineers trains, light engine workings, training moves.

 

[Bertie the bus]

They were on a level crossing about 2 yards from the signal box. The barriers come down when a train is approaching whether it is in the public timetable or not.

There was more chance of them being killed by an asteroid than a train. Some of the hysterical stuff on here is literally beyond belief.

 

[whhistle]

Link to the actual photo:
https://twitter.com/networkrailPR/status/907198112581738496

The photo of the railway appears to have been taken with a telephoto lens causing foreshortening (are there any experts who can comment?) so it might have been taken from a position not on the railway and, as I said before, the couple were photoshopped onto that picture.

You can get the same effect with a proper portrait lens that would have a shallow depth of field - a typical lens that most photographers would have at a wedding.

It appears (looking further down) that it wasn't photoshopped.

So they were still in danger since, as thoroughly professional and well-trained as signallers universally are, they are human beings and can make mistakes.

I'm in danger every time I get into my vehicle, every time I walk out my front door, in fact, every time I am in my living room.
That doesn't stop me living or doing things that are considerably more dangerous than this photo.
Not on either side here, but it's not like it was a live railway line with trains round the corner.

If the photo inspires more newly weds to want photos, that's then the photographers responsibility to investigate the feasibility, or the couple themselves.
Whether they do or not is another mystery.

But perhaps Network Rail's downer on this will transfer to making the couple sad and putting a downer on their day. A shame.
There should be education on posing on any old crossing, and this sort of photo. Network Rail could have used it as an example of seeking permission and opening communication between "the people" and "the corporation" (even if that's not what happened).

 

[goblinuser]

It's a non electrified line and it doesn't seem they've left the crossing area. However, I do agree it is wrong because it normalises it and could "inspire" others to do the same in a more dangerous setting.

 

[theageofthetra]

It's a non electrified line and it doesn't seem they've left the crossing area. However, I do agree it is wrong because it normalises it and could "inspire" others to do the same in a more dangerous setting.

I wonder how NR found out in the first place - did the crossing keeper report it?- I guess a couple in full bridal wear must stick out a bit there!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Doesn't stop it being incredibly irresponsible. How many laypeople can recognise the difference between a manned and automatic crossing, or even know there is one?

If it's a wedding shot, then the photo is presumably intended primarily for the couple's own personal use (and for their friends and relatives). I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect people (or photographers) to start thinking about that kind of thing every time they take a personal photo. (Obviously, if it's something specifically intended for wide public distribution, then those concerns might be more appropriate).

 

[yorkie]

It's a non electrified line and it doesn't seem they've left the crossing area. However, I do agree it is wrong because it normalises it and could "inspire" others to do the same in a more dangerous setting.

I'm sure there was a thread about someone being asked to pose for a photograph on a foot crossing, and they were hit by a train, but I am struggling to find it now. I'm pretty sure a photograph of the young lady who was hit by the train was released by the family.

 

[farleigh]

I think it was a bit silly and nothing more. The couple and the photographer have probably learnt from their mistake and I am not sure anything would be gained by prosecution etc.

 

[Busaholic]

If we ever get Official Divorce Photographers then perhaps level crossing photos might become more of a craze: come to think of it, if some of the more dire predictions on here come to pass then the participants can save themselves the expense and hassle of divorce!

 

[yorkie]

If we ever get Official Divorce Photographers then perhaps level crossing photos might become more of a craze: come to think of it, if some of the more dire predictions on here come to pass then the participants can save themselves the expense and hassle of divorce!

I see no 'predictions' here?

 

[Bromley boy]

They were on a level crossing about 2 yards from the signal box. The barriers come down when a train is approaching whether it is in the public timetable or not.

There was more chance of them being killed by an asteroid than a train. Some of the hysterical stuff on here is literally beyond belief.

Which comments are "hysterical", please?

Threads like this - where enthusiasts seek to justify and minimise this kind of reckless (and probably illegal) behaviour really serve to drive a wedge between staff and enthusiast members of the forum.

I'd bet my bottom dollar none of the apologists for this couple's actions to a job that will lead to them personally dealing with the aftermath when this kind of stupidity goes wrong, as it does from time to time.

I assume the couple are themselves enthusiasts or even railstaff (why else would they want that backdrop?). As such they really should know better.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Almost your entire post could be classed as hysterical. Appologists, reckless and illegal behaviour, aftermath of such stupidity... Need I go on?

They were stood on a pavement, which just happened to be on a road that crossed a railway when a train wasn't coming.

 

[GusB]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-works-level-crossings-and-tramways-288-to-307

Rule 291
A level crossing is where a road crosses a railway or tramway line. Approach and cross it with care. Never drive onto a crossing until the road is clear on the other side and do not get too close to the car in front. Never stop or park on, or near, a crossing.

 

[Adlington]

Does it apply to pedestrians?

 

[AlterEgo]

If it's a wedding shot, then the photo is presumably intended primarily for the couple's own personal use (and for their friends and relatives). I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect people (or photographers) to start thinking about that kind of thing every time they take a personal photo. (Obviously, if it's something specifically intended for wide public distribution, then those concerns might be more appropriate).

This, precisely.

One can imagine a couple having a kiss on top of a cliff where someone fell off a few years ago, and the Cliff Police on CliffForums start demanding education and prosecutions for "promoting this madness".

The only people who have brought this photo to a wider audience is Network Rail, who were well-intentioned but OTT.

PS: yes, I have witnessed a rail fatality and the aftermath.

 

[Bromley boy]

Almost your entire post could be classed as hysterical. Appologists, reckless and illegal behaviour, aftermath of such stupidity... Need I go on?

They were stood on a pavement, which just happened to be on a road that crossed a railway when a train wasn't coming.

There's nothing hysterical in what I posted - unless you have a very different definition of the word to mine.

Sorry but anyone who can't see how this kind of behaviour is:

A. Possibly highly dangerous, (possibly safe I concede, depending on location, but the point is these people wouldn't know the difference);

B. Likely to constitute railway trespass (a criminal offence);

C. Likely to encourage other people to do similar.

Is exactly the kind of person the "lowest common denominator" approach to making rules and regulations is aimed at!

 

[Bertie the bus]

So you've now completely changed your tune, toned down and decided to be insulting.

You really aren't worth engaging in a discussion with. You don't know whether it was dangerous or safe but still post hysterical rubbish like:

Threads like this - where enthusiasts seek to justify and minimise this kind of reckless (and probably illegal) behaviour really serve to drive a wedge between staff and enthusiast members of the forum.

And by the way as I'm a PHBPHB T I'm well aware of the consequencies and aftermath of people coming into contact with trains. I'm just not a drama queen like you.

 

[alxndr]

If it's a wedding shot, then the photo is presumably intended primarily for the couple's own personal use (and for their friends and relatives). I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect people (or photographers) to start thinking about that kind of thing every time they take a personal photo. (Obviously, if it's something specifically intended for wide public distribution, then those concerns might be more appropriate).

We don't know how NR became aware of the photograph, but I suspect it's reasonably likely that it was shared on the photographer's Twitter feed in the same manner that they've shared numerous other examples of their work. At this point it stops being purely a personal photograph and starts being something more akin to an advertisement and framed as something desirable.

 

[Bromley boy]

So you've now completely changed your tune, toned down and decided to be insulting.

You really aren't worth engaging in a discussion with. You don't know whether it was dangerous or safe but still post hysterical rubbish like:



And by the way as I'm a PHBPHB T I'm well aware of the consequencies and aftermath of people coming into contact with trains. I'm just not a drama queen like you.

Can you please explain:

1. How I've "changed my tune". I've made a few factual observations;
2. How I've been insulting?

You're the one lobbing "drama queen" around and, if I may say, starting to sound a little hysterical yourself!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have to admit that I'm struggling to see the direct problem. From what we can tell from the photo, the couple are standing in a location (and, presumably, at a time) when it would be perfectly legitimate to be walking across the crossing. Presumably, if the crossing barriers were about to go down, there would be an audible warning, which would alert anyone walking across the crossing that they do need to get off it as quickly as they can. I see no indication in the photo that the couple are doing anything that would prevent them from immediately doing exactly that if that warning was heard. On that basis, they don't seem to be an a situation that's any more dangerous than if they were walking across the crossing. Of course you can speculate that maybe there's something else going on that is dangerous - but you can't deduce that from the photo.

I appreciate that there is a slippery slope argument where some people might continually try to push the boundaries of what is acceptable - and the consequences of pushing that boundary can be absolutely awful. You certainly don't want to be encouraging people to be stopping or taking photos on level crossings - because there is a very fine line between that and doing something that clearly is dangerous. But at the same time, I'd have thought that if NR wants to reinforce the message of safety on level crossings, or start threatening people with prosecution, then they should be using examples where people are doing something that is definitely dangerous. And this isn't an example of that. This looks like an example where people are straying quite close to the line of 'dangerous' but haven't actually - from what we can tell - crossed that line.

Having said that, I can see that NR are probably in an awkward situation. Once their attention has been publically drawn to the photo, it's pretty much impossible for them not to respond at all - as that will leave them open to accusations of encouraging undesirable behaviour. But it's probably almost impossible to frame a public response on Twitter that adequately captures the nuances of explaining that it's only a very small step from what that photo shows to actually putting yourself in serious danger - and isn't open to misunderstanding. Perhaps in that light, NR's response really was the least bad option they had?

 

[theageofthetra]

This, precisely.

One can imagine a couple having a kiss on top of a cliff where someone fell off a few years ago, and the Cliff Police on CliffForums start demanding education and prosecutions for "promoting this madness".

The only people who have brought this photo to a wider audience is Network Rail, who were well-intentioned but OTT.

PS: yes, I have witnessed a rail fatality and the aftermath.

The photo has a copywrite stamp and is on the photographers social media

 

[Bromley boy]

I have to admit that I'm struggling to see the direct problem. From what we can tell from the photo, the couple are standing in a location (and, presumably, at a time) when it would be perfectly legitimate to be walking across the crossing. Presumably, if the crossing barriers were about to go down, there would be an audible warning, which would alert anyone walking across the crossing that they do need to get off it as quickly as they can. I see no indication in the photo that the couple are doing anything that would prevent them from immediately doing exactly that if that warning was heard. On that basis, they don't seem to be an a situation that's any more dangerous than if they were walking across the crossing. Of course you can speculate that maybe there's something else going on that is dangerous - but you can't deduce that from the photo.

I appreciate that there is a slippery slope argument where some people might continually try to push the boundaries of what is acceptable - and the consequences of pushing that boundary can be absolutely awful. But at the same time, I'd have thought that if NR wants to reinforce the message of safety on level crossings, or start threatening people with prosecution, then they should be using examples where people are doing something that is definitely dangerous. And this isn't an example of that. This looks like an example where people are straying quite close to the line of 'dangerous' but haven't actually - from what we can tell - crossed that line.

I think the general point is that people really have no business being on a crossing for any purpose other than the intended one. If you dwell on a crossing unnecessarily, particularly if there is a warning sounding, you rapidly stray into committing a trespass offence. A previous poster making the factually incorrect assertion that this isn't the case and numerous examples online of near misses suggest the message isn't getting through.

The approach taken has to cater for the lowest common denominator. Something that is highly lethal may not be "obviously" dangerous to the completely uninitiated, stepping on the third rail for example. This is a point often lost on this forum where the majority of posters will know more than joe public about the operational railway*.

It may very well be that this particular couple in this particular location aren't in any particular danger (I'm not familiar with the location), but the fact remains this kind of activity may be highly dangerous (depending on location) but definitely needs to be actively discouraged which is what Network Rail were trying to do here - perhaps by using a wedding photo as a relatively amusing example and something a lot of people can relate to (although God knows who would want that backdrop to their wedding photos).

*although this can actually make people behave more dangerously than the average, based on what I've seen at some galas and preserved lines. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing etc.

 

[Busaholic]

Those of us who live close to the sea, especially in areas that attract tourists, are aware of 'tombstoning', being the practice of (mainly) young men and teenagers of diving from cliff edges into the sea, sometimes with devastating results, i.e. paralysis, as well as the occasional death. Film of the practice is sometimes shown on local TV, and probably You Tube etc though I haven't looked, but does showing it mean anyone is condoning or encouraging it? I don't know the answer to that.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Those of us who live close to the sea, especially in areas that attract tourists, are aware of 'tombstoning', being the practice of (mainly) young men and teenagers of diving from cliff edges into the sea, sometimes with devastating results, i.e. paralysis, as well as the occasional death. Film of the practice is sometimes shown on local TV, and probably You Tube etc though I haven't looked, but does showing it mean anyone is condoning or encouraging it? I don't know the answer to that.

Copycat incidents are very common, it is afterall why most of these crazes spread. People get the idea to do something stupid, like jump off a cliff, jump off a train etc. because they see or hear about others doing it and want to one-up them. I can't find a study at present, but there is extensive research into copycat suicides - http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/4/238 - showing clear links between media reports on a technique and others following, I would expect it to be similar for 'stunts'.

Obviously this photo (in which the people are clearly not photoshopped, but the background sky colour has been tweaked with poor attention paid to the horizon margin) is not on the level of idiots jumping off a DLR train into a canal, but still makes posing for photographs on a railway line seem acceptable and possibly attractive for other wedding photographs and while this case might have been safe (a barriered road crossing), others might not be so safe and could take real risks in search of a similar image. NR have acted correctly by condemning the image.

 

[Bantamzen]

The issue here is not whether or not a railway bylaw has been broken, it is that they stopped on a crossing to take a photograph. And it probably wasn't just one and I seriously doubt that a professional photographer would have just "paused" for a moment to take a quick snap. That the signal and barrier did not indicate the approach of a train is irrelevant, they stopped where common sense tells you it is not safe to do so.

And for all those who feel that nothing wrong occured here, replace the happy couple with a couple of teenagers in hoodies, and replace the photographer's Twitter feed with Facebook. Would you still be condoning it? Unfortunately we live in a society where common sense comes second to that all important selfie / photo. NR were right to point out what was wrong with this photo. Presumably this appeared on the photographer's site or feed and this is how they became aware of it. And if so many other people will have seen it and for some it may normalise taking photos on the rails. Except of course that to many people this photograph was just taken on a random strech of line and not necessarily on a level crossing where no train is approaching. And this is the point many people are missing, most people cannot read semaphore signals, nor can then instantly pinpoint the location of the photo. To most this is a photo of a couple standing on a railway line. And if they can do it, then why not anyone else?

There is no suggestion that NR are threatening anyone involved with prosecution, they will also be aware of the location. But they are reminding their audience of the risk people take when they do trespass. I would have thought that this message would have been universally welcomed on here by people who should understand more than most the dangers of loitering on tracks? Clearly not it seems.