Here comes the (not too clever) bride

[Adlington]

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

Cars crossing in front of the train were not hanging around,just driving across, but still in danger. Is your logical conclusion that level crossings are dangerous in all circumstances, irrespective of whether barriers are up or down?

 

[QueensCurve]

The BBC's Andrew Marr appears to have been at it as well.

[youtube]3zWgWI2qCOw[/youtube]

https://youtu.be/3zWgWI2qCOw

PS. The embed doesn't seem to work for me, never does. The link however does.

 

[Adlington]

If (repeat: IF) this was filmed on a working stretch of the track, I'm sure there were red signals, detonators, men with flags &c in front of and behind Andrew Marr.

 

[Chris M]

I'm not sure how many of those talking about how long it would take a professional photographer to set up a shot like this have ever seen a professional photographer with a digital camera. Chances are that the photographer will have chosen the aperture, shutter speed, white balance, etc in advance (if they weren't on automatic) and set autofocus. Turn on bracketing so you get (typically) three or five photos taken in the space of a couple of seconds at most each with different settings so you can pick the best one and tweak from that in your studio. Very plausible that they were stationary on the crossing for no more than 1-2 minutes - the longest delaying factor would likely be waiting for anyone passing between photographer and subject to get out the way.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm not sure how many of those talking about how long it would take a professional photographer to set up a shot like this have ever seen a professional photographer with a digital camera. Chances are that the photographer will have chosen the aperture, shutter speed, white balance, etc in advance (if they weren't on automatic) and set autofocus. Turn on bracketing so you get (typically) three or five photos taken in the space of a couple of seconds at most each with different settings so you can pick the best one and tweak from that in your studio. Very plausible that they were stationary on the crossing for no more than 1-2 minutes - the longest delaying factor would likely be waiting for anyone passing between photographer and subject to get out the way.

Not really the point of this thread, the Highway Code is quite clear on the subject about vehicles not stopping at all on level crossings & the same should apply in common sense to pedestrians. And besides, as pointed out earlier the couple were photographed with an 85mph speed board just behind them. Given that the section of line is on a curve, how long would it be from the point they realised a train was approaching to it actually passing over the crossing if travelling at close to that speed? Probably not that long if for any reason the barriers failed, especially if they were originally distracted in the first place.

I wonder how many accidents on level crossings started with the thought "I've got plenty of time", "I can make it" or "I'm sure its safe"? Like I have said all along, common sense should be applied and people shouldn't hang around on the tracks, even on crossings and even when they are sure that it ought to be safe.

 

[Chris M]

If people are on a level crossing over an 85mph railway and all the safety systems have failed in such a way that a train is approaching at that speed without there being any warning to crossing users, it really doesn't matter what anybody is doing on the crossing. Indeed I'd say in that situation it's far more dangerous to have heavy or awkward bags, a small child, an animal, a mobility impairment, a sight impairment, be listing to headphones, pushing a bicycle, using a mobile phone, in a crowd of people, or probably half a dozen other things than to spend a few moments behind a camera. I've never used any level crossing regularly (except for one three-day holiday in Lincoln) but I've seen every single one of these (including photographers) multiple times (I've also seen somebody reading a book, but I think only once), and yet nobody is saying any of those are unsafe. Indeed, just being behind a camera does not mean that you necessarily loose all awareness of what is around you - far from it in many cases as you need to be aware of the actions of other people so you know when the window for the photograph will be, etc.

 

[QueensCurve]

If (repeat: IF) this was filmed on a working stretch of the track, I'm sure there were red signals, detonators, men with flags &c in front of and behind Andrew Marr.

And we don't know, on first sight, whether those same precautions were in place for the Moreton on Lugg shot. Granted we know this now.

And if the argument is that it sets a bad example to people who may see the shot, the same is true of Andrew Marr. We did see an active signal, all be it at danger, in the Marr clip.

If I were taking the shot (not to say that I would) I would contact the box in advance if it was there. If the semaphore signals were on danger and the barriers up I would consider it safe to take the shot.

It may be bad practice, and of course the photographer in question may have had no knowledge to interpret the signals, but that is my thought for what its worth.

PS: It is also important to note that Network Rail are having a campaign to improve user behaviour at Level crossings which the photo arguably undermines (as does Marr).

 

[Bantamzen]

If people are on a level crossing over an 85mph railway and all the safety systems have failed in such a way that a train is approaching at that speed without there being any warning to crossing users, it really doesn't matter what anybody is doing on the crossing. Indeed I'd say in that situation it's far more dangerous to have heavy or awkward bags, a small child, an animal, a mobility impairment, a sight impairment, be listing to headphones, pushing a bicycle, using a mobile phone, in a crowd of people, or probably half a dozen other things than to spend a few moments behind a camera. I've never used any level crossing regularly (except for one three-day holiday in Lincoln) but I've seen every single one of these (including photographers) multiple times (I've also seen somebody reading a book, but I think only once), and yet nobody is saying any of those are unsafe. Indeed, just being behind a camera does not mean that you necessarily loose all awareness of what is around you - far from it in many cases as you need to be aware of the actions of other people so you know when the window for the photograph will be, etc.

What is the difference between loitering on a level crossing and any other part of a live track? Is hanging around on a level crossing somehow safer than elsewhere? Is there a reason why the Highway Code specifically states not to stop on a level crossing? Answer these questions and you may see why stopping on a live track to take photographs isn't the best of ideas.

I have to say I am seriously surprised at the number of people seemingly defending these people given the number of level crossing accidents on a forum where you would imagine that most would recognise the issues.

 

[3141]

What is the difference between loitering on a level crossing and any other part of a live track? Is hanging around on a level crossing somehow safer than elsewhere? Is there a reason why the Highway Code specifically states not to stop on a level crossing? Answer these questions and you may see why stopping on a live track to take photographs isn't the best of ideas.

I have to say I am seriously surprised at the number of people seemingly defending these people given the number of level crossing accidents on a forum where you would imagine that most would recognise the issues.

I think most people would agree that it isn't sensible to spend more time than necessary on a level crossing, and that the photo of the newly-weds might weaken the campaign by Network Rail to improve awareness of the dangers of misusing them. (Though the photographer and the subjects may not have been aware at the time that there was such a NR campaign, and it's possible that the photo has achieved more publicity as a result of NR publishing it than it would have done on the photographer's website.)

But several posts on this thread weighed into the photographer and her subjects expressing the hope that they'd be prosecuted and fined, and talking about the dangers of what they did as if there was a strong probability of an accident. Some early posts assumed that those involved were trespassing, before it became accepted that they'd been standing on a level crossing which was open to road traffic and pedestrians.

I think these are the reasons why other posters have defended those concerned. And it looks as if Network Rail are satisfied that they've made their point to the photographer, and that the reasons for not publishing such a photo are now understood.

I agree with your statement that "stopping on a live track to take photographs isn't the best of ideas". But stopping on a level crossing, which has barriers which are raised to allow traffic to pass, and which you'll hear and see if they start to come down, is safer for pedestrians than stopping on many other sections of track. It would be less safe for vehicles on which something might go wrong and you'd be unable to restart. Rule 291 in my edition of the Highway Code (fifteenth edition, seventeenth impression, 2014) tells motorists they should not stop or park on or near a level crossing, but Rule 34, which is about pedestrians using level crossings, doesn't say anything about not stopping on one.

 

[Chris M]

What is the difference between loitering on a level crossing and any other part of a live track?

Other parts of tracks are not designed for public access and do not have warning systems that are specifically designed to alert people on and near the crossing that a train is approaching. Nor do other bits of track have systems such that approaching trains get some warning that they are not clear (although this is not necessarily true of every level crossing).

Is hanging around on a level crossing somehow safer than elsewhere?

It is much safer than many other places, such as a live motorway, an airport runway, etc. Assuming you are asking specifically about other parts of a live railway, then for the reasons given in my previous answer it is at least less dangerous than many other places.

Is there a reason why the Highway Code specifically states not to stop on a level crossing?

The Highway Code states that vehicles should not stop on a level crossing. It doesn't give the reasons, but I can think of several including that it is harder to hear the warning tones from inside a vehicle, it is not possible to stop on a level crossing without causing an obstruction to other vehicles (or least least it isn't on any of the level crossings I can immediately bring to mind) and (for at least some vehicles) it can take significant time to start moving again and this might exceed the warning time available.
The Highway Code does not state that pedestrians should not stop on a level crossing.

Answer these questions and you may see why stopping on a live track to take photographs isn't the best of ideas.

Are there safer places to take photographs? yes. Are there more dangerous places to take photographs? yes. These apply equally whether you are talking about only parts of a live railway or more generally than that.

I have to say I am seriously surprised at the number of people seemingly defending these people given the number of level crossing accidents on a forum where you would imagine that most would recognise the issues.

Level crossing accidents are a very serious issue, and I am very aware of what the issues are. Pedestrians spending 1-2 minutes taking photographs while remaining aware of their environment, while not something that should be encouraged, is not an abuse of level crossings. The real issues with level crossing safety are things like damaging barriers/other equipment, leaving gates open, ignoring warnings, not contacting the signaller when instructed to do so, and things of that nature.

The cause of improving level crossing safety is not advanced by reacting in a draconian fashion to actions that are ill-advised but not actually unsafe - it leaves no proportional reaction available for actions that are unquestionably dangerous - for example driving over a crossing after the barriers have closed.

 

[Bantamzen]

Jusr two points to make on the above. Firstly it should be obvious why the Highway Code instructs drivers not to stop on a level crossing for any reason. A stationary vehicle will take too long to get out of the way of a fast oncoming train, particularly when there is limited vision of both directions of track.

And on this point, neither the photographer or couple were fully aware of their surroundings. The photographer had their back to one direction and of course was focusing on the couple in the other, whilst they were gazing on each other. Had a train arrived in either direction at full tilt they would have had only seconds to react if the warnings and barriers failed, particually if there waa traffic in the area potentially masking the noise of an approaching train.

Network Rail were right to point out why a) This was a dangerous thing to do & b) point out that anyone doing similar may find themselves under prosecution if they were found to be trespassing. I am not suggesting that the couple's or photographer's actions warrant prosecution, however they did take an unnecessary risk and failed to use a bit of common sense. There is practically no justification for loitering on the tracks, level crossing or otherwise.

 

[Chris M]

Had a train arrived in either direction at full tilt they would have had only seconds to react if the warnings and barriers failed, particually if there waa traffic in the area potentially masking the noise of an approaching train.

If the warnings and the barriers failed and a train was approaching at full tilt then every single crossing user would have only seconds to react regardless of what they were or were not doing on the crossing.

The photographer, the bride and groom, the little old lady shuffling along, the parent walking with their toddler, the jogger (with or without headphones), the crossing keeper walking to the box to start their shift, the two blokes who know each other from down the pub who bumped in to each other while walking opposite directions across the crossing and the bridesmaid standing beside the photographer watching out for them and the couple will all have exactly the same same time to react and exactly the same chance of being hit. Which of these people would you like to see prosecuted for setting a bad example?

 

[3141]

And on this point, neither the photographer or couple were fully aware of their surroundings. The photographer had their back to one direction and of course was focusing on the couple in the other, whilst they were gazing on each other. Had a train arrived in either direction at full tilt they would have had only seconds to react if the warnings and barriers failed, particually if there was traffic in the area potentially masking the noise of an approaching train.

After I'd posted #99 yesterday evening I had a bet with myself that there'd be a response rehearsing the "what ifs...?". And you've provided it.

If
The runaway train came down the track and she blew,
The runaway train came down the track, her whistle wide and her throttle back,
And she blew, blew, blew, blew, blew

and if
all three of the people involved had a hearing loss at the frequency at which the whistle was blowing,

and there was a sudden eclipse of the sun so it all went dark and nobody could see anything,

and on top of all that the warnings and barriers failed....

Sounds to me like "The runaway thread went over the top and she grew....".

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If the warnings and the barriers failed and a train was approaching at full tilt then every single crossing user would have only seconds to react regardless of what they were or were not doing on the crossing.

The photographer, the bride and groom, the little old lady shuffling along, the parent walking with their toddler, the jogger (with or without headphones), the crossing keeper walking to the box to start their shift, the two blokes who know each other from down the pub who bumped in to each other while walking opposite directions across the crossing and the bridesmaid standing beside the photographer watching out for them and the couple will all have exactly the same same time to react and exactly the same chance of being hit. Which of these people would you like to see prosecuted for setting a bad example?

In that case, the only group deserving of prosecution would be Network Rail. Nevertheless I don't think Bantamzen needs to be pilloried for his post.

 

[3141]

In that case, the only group deserving of prosecution would be Network Rail. Nevertheless I don't think Bantamzen needs to be pilloried for his post.

I don't think that either I or Chris M have "pilloried" Bantamzen.

In my post #99 I agreed with Bantamzen that "stopping on a live track to take photographs isn't the best of ideas". I attempted to explain why he shouldn't be surprised that several people had defended the actions of those involved in the photograph.

Later yesterday evening Chris M provided some factual information in response to statements Bantamzen had made earlier.

The matter might have been left there. But Bantamzen came back with a scenario of a train "at full tilt" and the failure of the barriers and warning systems. That obviously is a possibility, but it is extremely and almost absolutely unlikely. If that wasn't so, using a level crossing, on foot or in a vehicle, would be like a lottery, and how many people would dare risk it?

 

[Bantamzen]

Look again at the photograph, there is clearly an 85 sign to the left of the couple. Then take a look at the street view link and note the curvature of the line in both directions. Then take the example given earlier in the thread of a situation where the safety measures failed and a train passed through a open level crossing, albeit it heavy breaking.

It should be instantly obvious that this is not a location one ought to choose even for a quick snapshot let alone setting up a professional shot. Quite why some on here seem more annoyed at people pointing out the obvious issue with this scenario than the people involved is frankly a mystery. I can only put it down to being pedantic as no specific rule exists about pedestrians, wedding parties and photographers and level crossings. Because no-one here would surely condone hanging around on tracks longer than necessary would they?

I stand by my "what if" because that "if" has in the past become an "it". People make mistakes, including photographers, safety systems fail, the unexpected happens. And in moments of stress people often act erratically. The inference seems to be that the photographer was in full charge of the situation, and able to monitor any potential train moves in both directions as well as focus on taking a photograph. This of course is nonsense, anyone that has been in a stressful situation where unexpected events unfold knows that people don't always do what they ought.

Or in other words, they should not have been hanging around on a live line, and NR where right to make the point that they did because they were distracted, and not using the crossing as they should. Common sense should be applied when crossing any railway, you should check that nothing is coming and get across as quickly as you are able. Am I being somehow illogical in thinking this is the sensible thing to do?

 

[father_jack]

Look again at the photograph, there is clearly an 85 sign to the left of the couple. Then take a look at the street view link and note the curvature of the line in both directions. Then take the example given earlier in the thread of a situation where the safety measures failed and a train passed through a open level crossing, albeit it heavy breaking.

It should be instantly obvious that this is not a location one ought to choose even for a quick snapshot let alone setting up a professional shot. Quite why some on here seem more annoyed at people pointing out the obvious issue with this scenario than the people involved is frankly a mystery. I can only put it down to being pedantic as no specific rule exists about pedestrians, wedding parties and photographers and level crossings. Because no-one here would surely condone hanging around on tracks longer than necessary would they?

I stand by my "what if" because that "if" has in the past become an "it". People make mistakes, including photographers, safety systems fail, the unexpected happens. And in moments of stress people often act erratically. The inference seems to be that the photographer was in full charge of the situation, and able to monitor any potential train moves in both directions as well as focus on taking a photograph. This of course is nonsense, anyone that has been in a stressful situation where unexpected events unfold knows that people don't always do what they ought.

Or in other words, they should not have been hanging around on a live line, and NR where right to make the point that they did because they were distracted, and not using the crossing as they should. Common sense should be applied when crossing any railway, you should check that nothing is coming and get across as quickly as you are able. Am I being somehow illogical in thinking this is the sensible thing to do?

Sums it up.

Sensible opinions on web fora, whatever next.

 

[Chris M]

I stand by my "what if" because that "if" has in the past become an "it". People make mistakes, including photographers, safety systems fail, the unexpected happens.

You are missing the point. If all those what ifs come to pass then it doesn't matter what anybody on the crossing is doing, they will almost certainly get hit - even people using the crossing only to get from one side to the other in the most expeditious manner they are able unless they are lucky to be able to move more quickly than average and are not in the middle of the track the train is on when they get the first warning (remember in the scenario you give the people on the crossing will get exactly the same warning time as the train driver, whether that is seconds or minutes).

If the safety systems do not fail, then based on my knowledge of this situation and my knowledge of modern professional photo shoots outside a studio environment, all involved would have sufficient time and ability to move clear from the crossing when the safety systems give a warning. Even if the photographer was spending an age setting up everything (unlikely per my previous posts) that doesn't impact one iota on the length of time it takes to move away from the crossing. You can spend 5 seconds setting up a shot and move away the instant you need to even if you haven't taken it, you can spend 5 hours setting up a shot and move away the instant you need to even if you haven't taken it yet.

I'm not saying that taking photographs on a level crossing is something to recommend, I'm just saying that it is not actually significantly more dangerous than using a crossing normally. Indeed the wedding couple would likely stand a greater chance of moving to safety in time to avoid a speeding train when all safety systems have failed than would a deaf pensioner who was using the crossing in exactly the way it was intended. The reason for this is simple - they are young and able to move quicker and (assuming they are not both deaf) will have greater warning of the impending danger.

 

[Val3ntine]

So many people are missing the point NR are trying to make and the point of all who are defending NR's response. It is not WHAT they are doing that is the issue, it is the message it sends out and if nothing is done or at least said about it then it will be deemed as ok. No one is disputing they can or cannot move out of the way in time if the systems fail blah blah. Looking at this thread it seems so many are okay with their young children seeing this photo and having the idea the railway is a nice safe place, "oh what a lovely colourful photo of standing people on the choo choo train tracks how cool"?!?

 

[Bantamzen]

You are missing the point. If all those what ifs come to pass then it doesn't matter what anybody on the crossing is doing, they will almost certainly get hit - even people using the crossing only to get from one side to the other in the most expeditious manner they are able unless they are lucky to be able to move more quickly than average and are not in the middle of the track the train is on when they get the first warning (remember in the scenario you give the people on the crossing will get exactly the same warning time as the train driver, whether that is seconds or minutes).

And you are, deliberately I believe missing my point. If the safety system failed, someone using the crossing correctly, i.e. looking each way, listening for anything coming along would have a far better chance of getting out of the way than three people stood on the crossing and not paying full attention to the crossing and possible traffic. Its really no different from the idiots you see daily crossing roads whilst staring at their mobiles. Most sensible people would not linger on a road for longer than they need, so why should it be different for anyone using a level crossing?

If the safety systems do not fail, then based on my knowledge of this situation and my knowledge of modern professional photo shoots outside a studio environment, all involved would have sufficient time and ability to move clear from the crossing when the safety systems give a warning. Even if the photographer was spending an age setting up everything (unlikely per my previous posts) that doesn't impact one iota on the length of time it takes to move away from the crossing. You can spend 5 seconds setting up a shot and move away the instant you need to even if you haven't taken it, you can spend 5 hours setting up a shot and move away the instant you need to even if you haven't taken it yet.

I'm not saying that taking photographs on a level crossing is something to recommend, I'm just saying that it is not actually significantly more dangerous than using a crossing normally. Indeed the wedding couple would likely stand a greater chance of moving to safety in time to avoid a speeding train when all safety systems have failed than would a deaf pensioner who was using the crossing in exactly the way it was intended. The reason for this is simple - they are young and able to move quicker and (assuming they are not both deaf) will have greater warning of the impending danger.

Yes it is significantly more dangerous, whilst taking those kinds of shots neither the couple nor the photographer would be paying attention properly as would someone using the crossing correctly. Maybe they would have had a better chance than getting to safety than say an elderly person, but that simply isn't the point. Most able bodied people would have a far better chance of getting out of the way of an unexpected train. They should not have loitered on the tracked section for any reason, let alone to have a photo-shoot no matter how long it might have taken.

It occurs to me that you are feeling some loyalty towards the photographer in question, as you seem to have some interest in this profession / hobby. If this is the case may I suggest that the safety of all concerned is far more important than "that shot", and that any loyalty towards them due to common interest is misplaced. Taking silly risks, no matter how small they may be perceived is not acceptable in this context. As others have posted in this thread, they could easily have achieved similar shots without having to loiter on a live track. You openly admit that it isn’t something that they should have done, and that is generally speaking what most people on this thread agree on.

 

[Chris M]

My key point is that this was neither the most sensible place to take a photo nor as dangerous as you claim - and these are not incompatible at all. Your righteous indignation at what they were doing is misplaced - save that for those who vault the barriers or damage the safety systems.

In my view it is very simple - if you are in a position to move off the crossing to a place of safety within the warning period given, regardless of what you are doing and why - your actions are not unsafe (whether they are advisable or not is another question entirely). If the safety systems fail to such a degree that there is no warning then it is irrelevant whether you were using the crossing safely or not - whether you are hit is down to luck. Even if they had set up in the four foot of one track and were completely oblivious to the rest of the world (which they wouldn't be) then they would not be hit even if a HST came through at 125 on the adjacent track, but someone using the crossing completely correctly would be if they happened to be crossing the track the train was on. Pure luck.

In the real world though, there would be at least some warning from the train horn and all concerned with the photo shoot would be aware enough to take notice of that. I speak from experience of being completely engrossed in a book (to a greater extent than I have ever been focused on photographing anything) and jarred out of that when a HST sounded its horn at the far end of Bristol Parkway station platform as it approached at line speed (I don't know why the horn was sounded).

No one is disputing they can or cannot move out of the way in time if the systems fail blah blah.

Actually @Bantamzen is disputing exactly that.

Looking at this thread it seems so many are okay with their young children seeing this photo and having the idea the railway is a nice safe place, "oh what a lovely colourful photo of standing people on the choo choo train tracks how cool"?!?

So should we stop people publicising photos of roads, racetracks, wild animals, waterfalls, oceans, aeroplanes, etc, etc, that are not obviously taken from a place that even a child will know is a safe place? What is the difference between the photo this thread is about and say this one?

 

[AlterEgo]

So many people are missing the point NR are trying to make and the point of all who are defending NR's response. It is not WHAT they are doing that is the issue, it is the message it sends out and if nothing is done or at least said about it then it will be deemed as ok. No one is disputing they can or cannot move out of the way in time if the systems fail blah blah. Looking at this thread it seems so many are okay with their young children seeing this photo and having the idea the railway is a nice safe place, "oh what a lovely colourful photo of standing people on the choo choo train tracks how cool"?!?

Do you feel equally strongly about photos down the barrel of a gun, or on cliff edges, or the Abbey Road album cover, etc, etc?

 

[Bantamzen]

My key point is that this was neither the most sensible place to take a photo nor as dangerous as you claim - and these are not incompatible at all. Your righteous indignation at what they were doing is misplaced - save that for those who vault the barriers or damage the safety systems.

What righteous indignation? I was merely pointing out why NR may have reacted the way they did.

In my view it is very simple - if you are in a position to move off the crossing to a place of safety within the warning period given, regardless of what you are doing and why - your actions are not unsafe (whether they are advisable or not is another question entirely). If the safety systems fail to such a degree that there is no warning then it is irrelevant whether you were using the crossing safely or not - whether you are hit is down to luck. Even if they had set up in the four foot of one track and were completely oblivious to the rest of the world (which they wouldn't be) then they would not be hit even if a HST came through at 125 on the adjacent track, but someone using the crossing completely correctly would be if they happened to be crossing the track the train was on. Pure luck.

In the real world though, there would be at least some warning from the train horn and all concerned with the photo shoot would be aware enough to take notice of that. I speak from experience of being completely engrossed in a book (to a greater extent than I have ever been focused on photographing anything) and jarred out of that when a HST sounded its horn at the far end of Bristol Parkway station platform as it approached at line speed (I don't know why the horn was sounded).

My position is even simpler, use your common sense and don't linger on the rails on a level crossing (or elsewhere), and stop pretending that nothing bad could ever happen. Because they can and they do. As I said earlier, how many accidents started when people made the kind of judgements about what should or might happen and then these things don't happen? I really don't understand why this simple principle needs to be argued?

 

[EM2]

In my view it is very simple - if you are in a position to move off the crossing to a place of safety within the warning period given, regardless of what you are doing and why - your actions are not unsafe (whether they are advisable or not is another question entirely).

Ever tried hurrying to a place of safety in a big, unwieldy dress and high heels?
Ever tried it while making sure that your heel doesn't get stuck in rail lines?
Ever tried it with sirens going off, lights flashing, barriers coming down and in the knowledge that hundreds of tonnes of steel travelling at speed is bearing down on you?

 

[Val3ntine]

Do you feel equally strongly about photos down the barrel of a gun, or on cliff edges, or the Abbey Road album cover, etc, etc?

In all honesty no, Im not involved/work around guns/cliffs and etc. But lord knows if there was a campaign against a dangerous action in one of these places I certainly wouldnt try and defend it, i'd be all for the safety nature of the campaign and just like this situation maybe even learn about the reasonings behind it which i may not even have known before.

 

[3141]

So far the focus has been on what might happen at a level crossing in Bantamzen’s scenario of a train “at full tilt” and the warnings and barriers have failed – which of course would include a failure of the signalling system, allowing a speeding train to reach a level crossing where the barriers were still up.

It’s time to consider what this would mean for the train and the people on it. It would probably be a passenger train, because that’s what most trains in Britain are. With luck there might be nobody on the crossing, or there might be a few unfortunate pedestrians, but if a large road vehicle was going across when the train arrived there might well be a derailment, with consequential deaths and serious injuries among the passengers.

Bantamzen says that a crossing “is not a location one ought to choose even for a quick snapshot” because “safety systems fail, the unexpected happens”. There are at least five level crossings between Hereford and Shrewsbury, including this one at Moreton-on-Lugg. Bantamzen’s scenario of a systems failure might happen at any one of them. If it did, it would affect the users of only that crossing, but the train passengers face the possibility of a potential disaster five times. What advice should we give to passengers who are worried in case, as Bantamzen has said, the “if” might become the “it”, and an unexpected catastrophe occurs on their journey?

In reality, most people can evaluate the risk and conclude that while it is there, it is very small indeed and they can undertake the journey with a full expectation of arriving safely at the other end. The risk is so tiny that we normally don’t even need to think about it.

Do you think that’s reasonable, Bantamzen? If so, would it also be reasonable to say the following to the users of level crossings?

“The Highway Code requires drivers not to stop on a level crossing. It is sensible for pedestrians not to stop there either. Normally, you should pass over the crossing as quickly as you reasonably can. But if you want to pause and take a photo, and the road barriers are still up and the warning is not sounding, or you just want to look along the railway track, you may do so. If the warning sounds it means a train is due imminently, and you should get off the crossing at once.”

 

[Bantamzen]

So far the focus has been on what might happen at a level crossing in Bantamzen’s scenario of a train “at full tilt” and the warnings and barriers have failed – which of course would include a failure of the signalling system, allowing a speeding train to reach a level crossing where the barriers were still up.

It’s time to consider what this would mean for the train and the people on it. It would probably be a passenger train, because that’s what most trains in Britain are. With luck there might be nobody on the crossing, or there might be a few unfortunate pedestrians, but if a large road vehicle was going across when the train arrived there might well be a derailment, with consequential deaths and serious injuries among the passengers.

Bantamzen says that a crossing “is not a location one ought to choose even for a quick snapshot” because “safety systems fail, the unexpected happens”. There are at least five level crossings between Hereford and Shrewsbury, including this one at Moreton-on-Lugg. Bantamzen’s scenario of a systems failure might happen at any one of them. If it did, it would affect the users of only that crossing, but the train passengers face the possibility of a potential disaster five times. What advice should we give to passengers who are worried in case, as Bantamzen has said, the “if” might become the “it”, and an unexpected catastrophe occurs on their journey?

In reality, most people can evaluate the risk and conclude that while it is there, it is very small indeed and they can undertake the journey with a full expectation of arriving safely at the other end. The risk is so tiny that we normally don’t even need to think about it.

Do you think that’s reasonable, Bantamzen? If so, would it also be reasonable to say the following to the users of level crossings?

“The Highway Code requires drivers not to stop on a level crossing. It is sensible for pedestrians not to stop there either. Normally, you should pass over the crossing as quickly as you reasonably can. But if you want to pause and take a photo, and the road barriers are still up and the warning is not sounding, or you just want to look along the railway track, you may do so. If the warning sounds it means a train is due imminently, and you should get off the crossing at once.”

How about this:

"The Highway Code requires drivers not to stop on a level crossing, and pedestrians should not stop there either. Pass over the crossing as quickly as you reasonably can, and only once you have checked that there is no train coming in either direction on any tracks. If whilst crossing the warning signals sound, leave the crossing immediately. In the event that someone is unable to complete the crossing, immediately inform NR using an emergency phone if available, otherwise call NR on xxxx xxx xxxx, or BTP on xxxxx."

The Highway code doesn't actually stipulate pedestrians should not linger whilst crossing roads, but it is generally understood that you shouldn't. The same, simple concept should in all common sense apply to level crossings. And the same applies to taking photographs, quick snap shots or selfies, having picnics, training for Strictly Come Dancing, playing football etc etc……

 

[al78]

Do you feel equally strongly about photos down the barrel of a gun, or on cliff edges, or the Abbey Road album cover, etc, etc?

Strawman of the month award. Who takes photos down the barrel of a gun whilst someone is about to use, is using it, or is unaware that someone is standing at the end of the barrel taking a photograph? Yes I would say that standing on a cliff edge which has been deemed unstable and in danger of collapse, just to get a photo is irresponsible behaviour. One key difference is that if someone does something careless on the railway which costs their life, it causes major disruption to the users of the railway, so some of the costs of the carelessness are externalised onto others. This isn't the case with going to the edge of an unstable cliff, where you take the full consequences if it goes wrong (aside from the grief to your loved ones and the loss of your services to your employer).

I don't understand why some people can't grasp the concept of externalised costs, and either deny they exist or think they don't matter. Seems to me like an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. :roll:

 

[AlterEgo]

Strawman of the month award. Who takes photos down the barrel of a gun whilst someone is about to use, is using it, or is unaware that someone is standing at the end of the barrel taking a photograph?

When I was in the cadets, the rules were very, very strict - all photos of cadets firing were to be taken behind the firing point. Even staged photos with an ammo-less weapon were never to be taken from the front. You also must never ever point a weapon at anyone, even if you "know" it is unloaded.

You assume that the weapon is unloaded, the safety catch is on, the person won't slip...etc, etc. The same sort of human error risks as there are with a signalbox-controlled crossing as explained in the OP!

Nonetheless, I don't moan about photos taken down the barrel of a gun.

Yes I would say that standing on a cliff edge which has been deemed unstable and in danger of collapse, just to get a photo is irresponsible behaviour.

No, any cliff edge. I would never do this, and I would not ever suggest this was sensible. But equally, I don't go to town on people who do take such photos. The risk is theirs to take.

For clarity, standing on a level crossing is not clever, and I have not once defended the practice, and I would not partake in it myself. My point is, the outrage bus on this thread seems only to accept certain passengers who would never dream to call out others performing similarly risky activities for the sake of a photo.

 

[Bantamzen]

There seem to have been a few references to people's "righteous indignation" & "outrage" at this taking of photographs. So let's drop the Daily Mail newspeak and clear one thing up, those of us who have defended NR's position of highlighting this are neither outraged nor in a state of indignation. We are merely pointing out that NR were right to point this out as being something that should not have happened, and is something that should in no way be encouraged or indeed defended.