Here comes the (not too clever) bride

[Ianno87]

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


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.

But in this case, the risk they were exposing themselves was wholly unnecessary. There's hundreds of ways to get a beautiful railway-themed wedding photograph without having to stand on a live operational railway (which is what it is) in uncontrolled conditions.

 

[lejog]

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.

Why is it factually incorrect? Do you have any evidence that railway law takes precedence over right of way common law? Right of way law too was initially framed in terms of a right to pass over the land, but this has been interpreted as allowing breaks to admire the view, take a photo, have a picnic, take a rest.

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.

So what? I go mountaineering (or I did when I was younger) and that may be highly dangerous, but no-one actively discouraged me from doing so. It is a personal responsibility for people to assess the risk that they are putting themselves and others in. As you admit you have no evidence whatsoever that this couple were taking a risk of any sort.

Okay, educate kids not to play silly games, prosecute those who ignore barriers and warning lights, but there's no need to ban or even discourage anyone who has sensibly appraised the risk they are under.

What next? Are you going to ban pedestrians crossing the road because "that may be highly dangerous". Pedestrians don't even have closing barriers or flashing lights to warn of a high speed car approaching.

 

[staticsteve]

I imagine taking a photo on the Abbey Road 'Bealtes' zebra crossing would be statistically more dangerous than this.

Seeing as how zebra crossings don't have warning sirens.

 

[Bantamzen]

What next? Are you going to ban pedestrians crossing the road because "that may be highly dangerous". Pedestrians don't even have closing barriers or flashing lights to warn of a high speed car approaching.

No, but would you stop in the middle of any road, & set up for a professional photo-shoot? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. I know I wouldn’t because you never quite know which nutter is around the corner. Similarly, unless you are well versed in the operation of the railway you wouldn’t know for sure that a fast train wasn’t about to approach you mid shot. And even if you were well versed, you would surely think twice?

Sadly it seems that NR's point is still being widely missed by some. They are making a point that its probably not a good idea to stop on any tracks, anywhere to take photos. And again, most punters seeing this photo won't know that it is a) on a level crossing, or b) on a section of track where no train is expected. All they will see is a photo-shoot on a section of track, and because some people have less common sense than they should they might remember this scene when they come across a track and think "Oooh, we could do a shot like the one on that photography page". Except they might be in the path of a fast moving service just moments away instead of being on a quiet, leafy section. That's the point!!!

 

[rebmcr]

Sadly it seems that NR's point is still being widely missed by some. They are making a point that its probably not a good idea to stop on any tracks, anywhere to take photos. And again, most punters seeing this photo won't know that it is a) on a level crossing, or b) on a section of track where no train is expected. All they will see is a photo-shoot on a section of track, and because some people have less common sense than they should they might remember this scene when they come across a track and think "Oooh, we could do a shot like the one on that photography page". Except they might be in the path of a fast moving service just moments away instead of being on a quiet, leafy section. That's the point!!!

Quoted for truth! Shall I put it in large print to try and browbeat those who disagree?

 

[Essan]

For the record, NR have now tweeted "We had a positive conversation w/ @whiteacacia. Lessons have been learned about taking photos on the railway. We will be deleting the photo."

 

[lejog]

No, but would you stop in the middle of any road, & set up for a professional photo-shoot? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. I know I wouldn’t because you never quite know which nutter is around the corner. Similarly, unless you are well versed in the operation of the railway you wouldn’t know for sure that a fast train wasn’t about to approach you mid shot. And even if you were well versed, you would surely think twice?

I don't take photos, let alone professionally. However personally, I'd be quite happy to stay on a level crossing as long as I judged I had plenty of time to leave in the time between the lights starting to flash and the train arriving - although I can't think of any obvious reason why I would want to.

And you do not know that the photographer was in the road, as has already been pointed out, there are paths both sides of the crossing, which would be sensible to use.

And a signal box, if it is still open (all I can find on Google is that is due to close within 20 years of 2013), presumably the signalman would have indicated any danger.

As ever speculation is pointless because detailed information is not known. But I can certainly see circumstances where my answer to your question is yes, I would be perfectly happy to set up a photo shoot. The answer to your second question is that I always think twice, whether I'm crossing a road or climbing in the mountains, I have no desire to end up a Darwin Awards winner.

But neither do I have any desire to be told by posters on this forum that "but the fact remains this kind of activity may be highly dangerous (depending on location) but definitely needs to be actively discouraged". If the behaviour is not dangerous, then why discourage it? Sure educate/penalise people behaving dangerously, but please leave it at that.

 

[Holmevalley]

On a different tack ...... why would you want a wedding photo taken on a level crossing? Hardly a romantic location.

 

[Andyjs247]

Should you take photos on a level crossing? Now there's a question. It depends on the situation. I've got photos of me stood on a level crossing from about 5 years ago. Was it a problem? No, given I was stood next to an officer of the BTP who was doing exactly the same.

And before anyone asks, the occasion was the London 2012 Olympic Torch Relay.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On a different tack ...... why would you want a wedding photo taken on a level crossing? Hardly a romantic location.

I'm guessing it was not their only wedding photo I can speculate all sorts of reasons why you might want to (maybe one of them likes trains. maybe they have some memories associated with that location. maybe it was a completely unplanned spur-of-the-moment thing.).

On a slightly different tack, am I the only one who thinks that, whatever the legalities of it, it's rather refreshing to see people wanting special photos that are associated with the railways. You see so many photos in which people try to make cars look romantic/sexy/etc. - which to me is somewhat irresponsible given the damage cars cause - that it's a nice change to see at least someone doing the same for railways. (Shame NR didn't notice that angle).

And one final thing. I can't help noticing that noone's questioned why this thread title includes the phrase "(not too clever) bride", when the decision is just as likely to have been the groom's!

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't take photos, let alone professionally. However personally, I'd be quite happy to stay on a level crossing as long as I judged I had plenty of time to leave in the time between the lights starting to flash ....

I can certainly see circumstances where my answer to your question is yes, I would be perfectly happy to set up a photo shoot.....
.

Here is a poster who has actually stated there are circumstances where he would set up a photo shoot in the middle of a level crossing.

Why not sunbathe or have a picnic on one as well? So long as you've done a risk assessment or course. After all it's no different to mountaineering.

I can't be bothered to make any more serious contributions with this thread. It's as futile as telling bashers not to flail out of windows (not that I bother). I learned long ago that, in the end, you can't argue with stupid.

 

[farleigh]

Here is a poster who has actually stated there are circumstances where he would set up a photo shoot in the middle of a level crossing.

Why not sunbathe or have a picnic on one as well? So long as you've done a risk assessment or course. After all it's no different to mountaineering.

I can't be bothered to make any more serious contributions with this thread. It's as futile as telling bashers not to flail out of windows (not that I bother). I learned long ago that, in the end, you can't argue with stupid.

This is a highly irresponsible suggestion. A quick photo is one thing, but to suggest that people have a picnic on a level crossing? Please!

 

[jon0844]

Years ago I've used a foot crossing and while walking slowed enough to take a photo down the track. Maybe delayed my crossing by 2 seconds tops.

I probably shouldn't have done it, but I don't regard it as quite the same as setting up a wedding photo where you are clearly going to take a bit longer than a 'hold phone up and shoot'.

While setting up the pose and perhaps taking a few shots you surely can't be aware of what else is going on.

And the real risk here was, as mentioned, the risk of copycat incidents.

Even if the photographer had got permission from Network Rail and line blocks were put on, how would anyone else know?

 

[lejog]

Here is a poster who has actually stated there are circumstances where he would set up a photo shoot in the middle of a level crossing.

Why not sunbathe or have a picnic on one as well? So long as you've done a risk assessment or course. After all it's no different to mountaineering.

I can't be bothered to make any more serious contributions with this thread. It's as futile as telling bashers not to flail out of windows (not that I bother). I learned long ago that, in the end, you can't argue with stupid.

Here's the poster who claims not to be insulting, calling me stupid Yes if a signalman in a box a couple of yards away says its okay, then I certainly see no problems whatsoever. I'm certainly not a basher and wouldn't hang out train windows, so your comparison is flawed.

If you wish to insult those who disagree with you, may I say that I personally find your views to be overprotective and interfering unduly with personal choice (trying hard to avoid a right wing cliche).

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't take photos, let alone professionally. However personally, I'd be quite happy to stay on a level crossing as long as I judged I had plenty of time to leave in the time between the lights starting to flash and the train arriving - although I can't think of any obvious reason why I would want to.

And you do not know that the photographer was in the road, as has already been pointed out, there are paths both sides of the crossing, which would be sensible to use.

And a signal box, if it is still open (all I can find on Google is that is due to close within 20 years of 2013), presumably the signalman would have indicated any danger.

As ever speculation is pointless because detailed information is not known. But I can certainly see circumstances where my answer to your question is yes, I would be perfectly happy to set up a photo shoot. The answer to your second question is that I always think twice, whether I'm crossing a road or climbing in the mountains, I have no desire to end up a Darwin Awards winner.

But neither do I have any desire to be told by posters on this forum that "but the fact remains this kind of activity may be highly dangerous (depending on location) but definitely needs to be actively discouraged". If the behaviour is not dangerous, then why discourage it? Sure educate/penalise people behaving dangerously, but please leave it at that.

<Sigh> I have made my point twice now, please go back and read them.

This is not just about the act of the photograph being taken, this is about it being put on a professional photographer’s site / feed and potentially encouraging others to do the same. And before you say nobody would, I can tell you with absolute certainty some people would see that and want to do the same. That was the point NR was making, they were telling would-be copycats not to think about it. A level crossing on a relatively quiet stretch of line may be deemed "safe" to take such a photo, but those viewing it might just see it as any old section of line and head off to do the same on a section of track no so "safe". I hope that clears that up?

 

[AlterEgo]

<Sigh> I have made my point twice now, please go back and read them.

This is not just about the act of the photograph being taken, this is about it being put on a professional photographer’s site / feed and potentially encouraging others to do the same. And before you say nobody would, I can tell you with absolute certainty some people would see that and want to do the same. That was the point NR was making, they were telling would-be copycats not to think about it. A level crossing on a relatively quiet stretch of line may be deemed "safe" to take such a photo, but those viewing it might just see it as any old section of line and head off to do the same on a section of track no so "safe". I hope that clears that up?

Do you think artful photos down the barrel of a gun should be banned?

Photos near cliff edges?
Action photos of rally cars coming really close to the photographer?
Album covers of the Beatles crossing Abbey Road?
Photos of the Pamplona bull run?
Wildlife photography of a tiger 30 yards away?

Please instruct us which of those should be banned.

 

[adamello]

Do you think artful photos down the barrel of a gun should be banned?

Photos near cliff edges?
Action photos of rally cars coming really close to the photographer?
Album covers of the Beatles crossing Abbey Road?
Photos of the Pamplona bull run?
Wildlife photography of a tiger 30 yards away?

Please instruct us which of those should be banned.

C'mon, at no point did he say they should be banned, he just echoed and explained NR's point of making people think, 'is this really safe' which I would also agree should be a relevant thought process to your examples

 

[lejog]

<Sigh> I have made my point twice now, please go back and read them.

This is not just about the act of the photograph being taken, this is about it being put on a professional photographer’s site / feed and potentially encouraging others to do the same. And before you say nobody would, I can tell you with absolute certainty some people would see that and want to do the same. That was the point NR was making, they were telling would-be copycats not to think about it. A level crossing on a relatively quiet stretch of line may be deemed "safe" to take such a photo, but those viewing it might just see it as any old section of line and head off to do the same on a section of track no so "safe". I hope that clears that up?

<Sigh> And if you read my single reply to you, I haven't made any comment for or against your "point" because frankly I had no comment to make on it. That's why I deleted the part of your quote relating to your "point".

I only responded to your hypothetical questions of what I would in the situation, to which it seems I gave an unexpected reply, since you seem not to have considered the paths either side of the road or the presence of a (possibly) manned signal box a couple of yards away.

I still don't have any response to your "point" because frankly I neither strongly agree or disagree with it. It's hardly the cover of Abbey Road that we are talking about. <Shrugs shoulders>

 

[AlterEgo]

C'mon, at no point did he say they should be banned, he just echoed and explained NR's point of making people think, 'is this really safe' which I would also agree should be a relevant thought process to your examples

The point is, people do not need to be lectured to. NR's point was not "hey guys this is not safe", it was "this is illegal and you will be prosecuted if you do this".

It is entirely up to the photographer whether they take the risk; the photo was only published to a wide audience by NR, rather than where it was before - on a sole trader's photography site.

Not many people want to live in a society where we are lectured to all the time. Yes, their behaviour was risky - no doubt. But no less risky than any of the examples I've mentioned.

"Ahhh the Beatles are suggesting it's safe to take photos in the middle of a road, people might do that and get hit". So?

NR were well-intentioned but if they wanted to suggest it's not safe to take photos on a level crossing they'd have done better to contact the photographer offline rather than trying to shame them on Twitter. (Curiously done from their press office account as well rather than one with mass public following...)

 

[Bantamzen]

Do you think artful photos down the barrel of a gun should be banned?

Photos near cliff edges?
Action photos of rally cars coming really close to the photographer?
Album covers of the Beatles crossing Abbey Road?
Photos of the Pamplona bull run?
Wildlife photography of a tiger 30 yards away?

Please instruct us which of those should be banned.

I must be typing in some foreign language, because I'm pretty sure I didn't call for it to be banned just made the point that NR would be unhappy about it because of the risk of copycat attempts on sections of track not so quiet as the one in question here.

<Sigh> And if you read my single reply to you, I haven't made any comment for or against your "point" because frankly I had no comment to make on it. That's why I deleted the part of your quote relating to your "point".

I only responded to your hypothetical questions of what I would in the situation, to which it seems I gave an unexpected reply, since you seem not to have considered the paths either side of the road or the presence of a (possibly) manned signal box a couple of yards away.

I still don't have any response to your "point" because frankly I neither strongly agree or disagree with it. It's hardly the cover of Abbey Road that we are talking about. <Shrugs shoulders>

Paths / roadway or otherwise, my original point there was that that the photographer said they had "paused" to take the photo. However we are not talking about someone with a mobile phone or cheap camera taking a quick selfie or snapshot, they would have spent a bit of time setting up, maybe checking light levels, getting the couple to get onto just the right bit of track / path / road. Common sense should dictate that no matter how quiet, hanging around on tracks even when you are technically on the public highway to take professional photographs probably isn't the best idea. Trains, unlike cars driving along Abbey Road (for example) don't have the option of just suddenly slamming on the brakes for some tourists taking quick photos for social media. Yes someone well versed in the workings of the railways, signals etc might recognise that no service was due and therefore it might be deemed "safe" to do what they did. However it is very possible that the photographer is not so well versed, and so made an assumption that it would be safe and that as train was not due to pass for some time. Accidents often happen when people make incorrect judgments about what they consider to be safe.

 

[QueensCurve]

I do wish people could post links to individual tweets or posts in order to save us going through whole feeds in this case the offending photos can be found at:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Oldpanks/status/906555271740358658

I fundamentally understand the outrage about this case. I also think it could be a fun setting for a a photo if taken with appropriate permissions and safety precautions.

I can't find the photographers "explanation". If someone could post the link to the relevant tweet I would be grateful.

 

[lejog]

Paths / roadway or otherwise, my original point there was that that the photographer said they had "paused" to take the photo. However we are not talking about someone with a mobile phone or cheap camera taking a quick selfie or snapshot, they would have spent a bit of time setting up, maybe checking light levels, getting the couple to get onto just the right bit of track / path / road. Common sense should dictate that no matter how quiet, hanging around on tracks even when you are technically on the public highway to take professional photographs probably isn't the best idea. Trains, unlike cars driving along Abbey Road (for example) don't have the option of just suddenly slamming on the brakes for some tourists taking quick photos for social media. Yes someone well versed in the workings of the railways, signals etc might recognise that no service was due and therefore it might be deemed "safe" to do what they did. However it is very possible that the photographer is not so well versed, and so made an assumption that it would be safe and that as train was not due to pass for some time. Accidents often happen when people make incorrect judgments about what they consider to be safe.

I'm glad you've effectively now withdrawn post #75, which I frankly found to be bizarre, I've never been <sighed> at before for not venturing an opinion. However I don't understand the need to constantly reiterate your points, it doesn't make them any more valid. In response to your "original" point, I can only repeat my original response in post #67 to your highly hypothetical questions.

No, but would you stop in the middle of any road, & set up for a professional photo-shoot? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. I know I wouldn’t because you never quite know which nutter is around the corner.

No, I wouldn't stand in the road when there is a pavement to stand on.

Similarly, unless you are well versed in the operation of the railway you wouldn’t know for sure that a fast train wasn’t about to approach you mid shot.

Since there is a signal box right next to the crossing, I might ask the signalman or expect them to intervene if there was a problem.

And even if you were well versed, you would surely think twice?

I always think twice.

If all you can do is repeat your "original" point or harass me for a response to your "second" point, I suggest we move on. I thought I made it plain in my last sentence of post #67, that my argument was with other members, you do appear to be tilting at windmills.

 

[Bantamzen]

If all you can do is repeat your "original" point or harass me for a response to your "second" point, I suggest we move on. I thought I made it plain in my last sentence of post #67, that my argument was with other members, you do appear to be tilting at windmills.

If you feel that my posts were in any way harassing, then I shall for the sake of the forum and the mods move away from this subject. It certainly was not intended to be, it was intended to actually try to see this issue from NR's point of view especially in the light of so many recent incidents at level crossings, and the stick they sometimes receive as a result. That was all, it was not an attack on your good self.

 

[Bromley boy]

If you feel that my posts were in any way harassing, then I shall for the sake of the forum and the mods move away from this subject. It certainly was not intended to be, it was intended to actually try to see this issue from NR's point of view especially in the light of so many recent incidents at level crossings, and the stick they sometimes receive as a result. That was all, it was not an attack on your good self.

You are flogging a dead horse.

This thread is comedy gold . Even having stated I would not contribute further I cannot resist:

The blown up image helpful posted by Queenscurve shows an 85 mph speedboard beside the happy couple!

And for those who believe the presence of signal box makes a difference, a quick google search of the location reveals a fatal incident in 2010 where the signaller raised the barriers in error and a train ploughed into a car... Human errors happen, safety systems fail.

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/fatal-accident-at-moreton-on-lugg-near-hereford

Not that I expect the above to make any difference!

 

[theageofthetra]

RAIB have just published this today which doesn't make great reading for all involved. Barriers up, 70mph train, crossing under local control during maintenance work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...el-crossing-near-canterbury-kent-29-june-2017

 

[krus_aragon]

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".

Funny, I can't see any discussion of it here: http://www.cliffrichard.org/CFForum/todaytopics.cfm :P

 

[Adlington]

Barriers up, 70mph train, crossing under local control during maintenance work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...el-crossing-near-canterbury-kent-29-june-2017

What this has to do with the bride in question?

 

[rebmcr]

What this has to do with the bride in question?

That even if the barriers are up and the NR bloke says it's safe, you still shouldn't hang around on a level crossing.

 

[theageofthetra]

That even if the barriers are up and the NR bloke says it's safe, you still shouldn't hang around on a level crossing.

It certainly wasn't safe in this case. Despite an emergency brake application the train went through the still open crossing at nearly 20mph.

 

[Bantamzen]

That even if the barriers are up and the NR bloke says it's safe, you still shouldn't hang around on a level crossing.

Exactly. The Highway Code says vehicles should not hang around on level crossings, common sense should tell you that pedestrians ought not to do the same. And just because there are no specific bylaws covering the taking of wedding photographs on level crossings doesn't mean that it is acceptable in certain circumstances.