Photo on a Foot Crossing, Thoughts.

[VauxhallandI]

That's basically a slippery slope kind of logic. The trouble is, you could apply that logic to just about any human activity. Maybe I should not take a photo of myself eating a cake because someone might copy it and eat 100 cakes and make themselves ill... etc.

An example more related to the photo under discussion: I've sometimes taken photos in the middle of my street - perfectly safe because it's a quiet residential street with no through traffic and very low traffic speeds: I'm literally standing holding the camera for a second or so, so could easily move if required - and the geography means there's no way a vehicle could approach without my seeing it in plenty of time. Should I not do that because someone else might copy me on a busier street or use a tripod and then someone will copy them and before you know it, some idiot will set a tripod up in the middle of the M1 at rush hour, and apparently it'll all be because I took a photo in a location that I knew to be perfectly safe?

I do get the concern that some people do behave in a really silly, dangerous way on the railway, but I also think we need a more grown up attitude to distinguishing things that are in reality quite safe in the circumstances in which they are being done.

100% and here ends the debate.

 

[43066]

An example more related to the photo under discussion: I've sometimes taken photos in the middle of my street - perfectly safe because it's a quiet residential street with no through traffic and very low traffic speeds: I'm literally standing holding the camera for a second or so, so could easily move if required - and the geography means there's no way a vehicle could approach without my seeing it in plenty of time. Should I not do that because someone else might copy me on a busier street or use a tripod and then someone will copy them and before you know it, some idiot will set a tripod up in the middle of the M1 at rush hour, and apparently it'll all be because I took a photo in a location that I knew to be perfectly safe?

Unfortunately, when you’re talking about railway enthusiasts in particular, experience shows that this kind of thing is exactly what can and does happen. There is a minority who assume they’re experts and able to assess risks when in reality they cannot - we’ve all seen the videos of people nearly being wiped out by passing trains because they’re straining to take a photo.

Social media makes this worse because the photos spread and there’s no way of knowing whether or not the photographer had permission to take the photos they did, or genuinely understood the risks.

The comparisons with roads don’t really work because roads don’t have the same allure - we never hear of the M1 being closed because some idiot has climbed onto the embankment to take a photo of passing traffic, for example, whereas this happens fairly frequently on the railway.

I do get the concern that some people do behave in a really silly, dangerous way on the railway, but I also think we need a more grown up attitude to distinguishing things that are in reality quite safe in the circumstances in which they are being done.

The trouble is, much as people complain about health and safety, that is very much the culture now. If people are seen acting unusually around foot crossings invariably the job will end up being stopped, because someone will spot them, and not know whether they’re suicidal, having some kind of mental health episode or whatever. This then has an inevitable knock on in terms of delays.

 

[zwk500]

That's basically a slippery slope kind of logic. The trouble is, you could apply that logic to just about any human activity. Maybe I should not take a photo of myself eating a cake because someone might copy it and eat 100 cakes and make themselves ill... etc.

This comparison doesn't stack up the because the action of eating a single cake is not the dangerous part, it's repeating it over and over in quick succession. I'm sure you'd agree that standing on a railway and taking 100 photos in a row isn't a sensible thing to do?

An example more related to the photo under discussion: I've sometimes taken photos in the middle of my street - perfectly safe because it's a quiet residential street with no through traffic and very low traffic speeds: I'm literally standing holding the camera for a second or so, so could easily move if required - and the geography means there's no way a vehicle could approach without my seeing it in plenty of time. Should I not do that because someone else might copy me on a busier street or use a tripod and then someone will copy them and before you know it, some idiot will set a tripod up in the middle of the M1 at rush hour, and apparently it'll all be because I took a photo in a location that I knew to be perfectly safe?

Cars are driven to be stopped within the line of sight on streets, and drivers would largely be liable for injuries caused to a pedestrian, except on the motorway where a pedestrian is not allowed. The difference is a train driver usually can't stop within the visual range of the crossing. And people have tried to take photos on the ECML, which is very much the rail equivalent of the M1.

I do get the concern that some people do behave in a really silly, dangerous way on the railway, but I also think we need a more grown up attitude to distinguishing things that are in reality quite safe in the circumstances in which they are being done.

The railway is liable for injuries suffered on it's property. It must assume the worst and act to the common denominator to protect itself against the legal risk. If you want that to change, speak to your MP to change the law.

 

[nanstallon]

That's basically a slippery slope kind of logic. The trouble is, you could apply that logic to just about any human activity. Maybe I should not take a photo of myself eating a cake because someone might copy it and eat 100 cakes and make themselves ill... etc.

An example more related to the photo under discussion: I've sometimes taken photos in the middle of my street - perfectly safe because it's a quiet residential street with no through traffic and very low traffic speeds: I'm literally standing holding the camera for a second or so, so could easily move if required - and the geography means there's no way a vehicle could approach without my seeing it in plenty of time. Should I not do that because someone else might copy me on a busier street or use a tripod and then someone will copy them and before you know it, some idiot will set a tripod up in the middle of the M1 at rush hour, and apparently it'll all be because I took a photo in a location that I knew to be perfectly safe?

I do get the concern that some people do behave in a really silly, dangerous way on the railway, but I also think we need a more grown up attitude to distinguishing things that are in reality quite safe in the circumstances in which they are being done.

Very true. A society that treats everybody as an idiot who cannot be trusted to look after his own safety, will become a society of idiots all looking for a 'no win, no fee' ambulance chaser when something does go wrong.

Why are the British so pathetic?

 

[43066]

A society that treats everybody as an idiot who cannot be trusted to look after his own safety, will become a society of idiots all looking for a 'no win, no fee' ambulance chaser when something does go wrong.

Too late. Its already happened!

 

[12LDA28C]

Another problem with those instructions is at step 5. The user is instructed to close both gates. This, naturally, entails recrossing the line (twice) to close the 'far' gate (i.e. the one from whence the user has come). But there is no instruction to recheck that the green light still shows or that the line is clear.

No, the problem is how the instruction is shown. Logically, you close the first gate behind you then cross the line, go through the second gate then close that behind you. No need to cross the line more than once. The wording is poor but still someone of average intelligence should be able to work out the most sensible and simplest/quickest way to cross the line.

 

[zwk500]

No, the problem is how the instruction is shown. Logically, you close the first gate behind you then cross the line, go through the second gate then close that behind you. No need to cross the line more than once. The wording is poor but still someone of average intelligence should be able to work out the most sensible and simplest/quickest way to cross the line.

If you close the first gate behind you the car is parked over a level crossing, and there was a recent fatality in Wales of somebody doing exactly as you describe.

 

[AdamWW]

No, the problem is how the instruction is shown. Logically, you close the first gate behind you then cross the line, go through the second gate then close that behind you. No need to cross the line more than once. The wording is poor but still someone of average intelligence should be able to work out the most sensible and simplest/quickest way to cross the line.

This is how you cross on foot.

It is absolutely not how you take a vehicle across.

You do not leave the vehicle on the rail side of the gates to close the first gate behind you then open the second gate.

You open both gates then drive it across as quickly as you reasonably can, then when it's over the crossing you shut both gates. Which, yes, does involve crossing (on foot) multiple times.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This comparison doesn't stack up the because the action of eating a single cake is not the dangerous part, it's repeating it over and over in quick succession. I'm sure you'd agree that standing on a railway and taking 100 photos in a row isn't a sensible thing to do?

That aspect of the comparison looks reasonable to me. Eating one cake is generally OK but eating 100 would be stupid/dangerous. In the same way, pausing for a few seconds to take one photo while crossing a level crossing where the gates/lights are green for you should normally be perfectly safe, but you wouldn't stay there to take 100 photos.

Cars are driven to be stopped within the line of sight on streets, and drivers would largely be liable for injuries caused to a pedestrian, except on the motorway where a pedestrian is not allowed. The difference is a train driver usually can't stop within the visual range of the crossing.

Yes those are differences between the road and the railway, but I don't think they negate the general principle that you shouldn't be condemning (or banning) things that are actually safe if the only reason for the condemnation is a theoretical risk that someone else might try something that is similar, but escalated to the point where it isn't safe. Rather, it's more reasonable to expect people to act like grown ups and to distinguish safe and unsafe situations.

And people have tried to take photos on the ECML, which is very much the rail equivalent of the M1.

But I'm guessing that's qualitatively not the same thing as pausing on a level crossing, because these are going to be people who are actually trespassing in places where the public is not allowed access.

The railway is liable for injuries suffered on it's property. It must assume the worst and act to the common denominator to protect itself against the legal risk. If you want that to change, speak to your MP to change the law.

You've mentioned that before and to my mind that is an issue with the law. I don't blame the railway for being ultra-careful while the law holds it responsible, but it seems ludicrous that the railway should be held liable for injuries where the reason a member of the public got injured is simply that that person was behaving stupidly and in a manner that any reasonable person would realise was likely to cause an injury.

 

[zwk500]

You've mentioned that before and to my mind that is an issue with the law. I don't blame the railway for being ultra-careful while the law holds it responsible, but it seems ludicrous that the railway should be held liable for injuries where the reason a member of the public got injured is simply that that person was behaving stupidly and in a manner that any reasonable person would realise was likely to cause an injury.

There are many aspects of the law many people find ludicrous. Unfortunately arguing that a law is ridiculous has rarely, if ever, persuaded a judge to waive the verdict. As people have amply demonstrated time and time again, they will do clearly dangerous things around the railway. People play chicken with trains, people leave bikes across the tracks, people trespass onto embankments to photograph steam trains. And yet the railway has been held liable in multiple cases of clear trespass:
2014: DB Cargo fined £2.7m for teenage boys trespassing in depot and climbing on wagons near Newcastle: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/tyne-rail-yard-gateshead-court-15969981
2016: Network Rail fined £135,000 for teenage boys trespassing in millerhill depot and standing on trains: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman....urgh-schoolboy-suffered-serious-burns-3070320
2017: DB Cargo fined £1.2m for teenage boys crawling through a fence and standing on wagons in Birmingham: https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/health-safety-news/electric-shock-at-bescot-yard/69900/
In all 3 cases the boys received 25,000 volt electric shocks that caused life changing injuries.

Is it any wonder that NR takes a worst-case and no-nonsense approach to Level Crossing misuse where they are required to provide access to the line?

 

[AlterEgo]

This comparison doesn't stack up the because the action of eating a single cake is not the dangerous part, it's repeating it over and over in quick succession. I'm sure you'd agree that standing on a railway and taking 100 photos in a row isn't a sensible thing to do?

Would you ban Nikacado Avocado?

 

[Mikey C]

There are many aspects of the law many people find ludicrous. Unfortunately arguing that a law is ridiculous has rarely, if ever, persuaded a judge to waive the verdict. As people have amply demonstrated time and time again, they will do clearly dangerous things around the railway. People play chicken with trains, people leave bikes across the tracks, people trespass onto embankments to photograph steam trains. And yet the railway has been held liable in multiple cases of clear trespass:
2014: DB Cargo fined £2.7m for teenage boys trespassing in depot and climbing on wagons near Newcastle: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/tyne-rail-yard-gateshead-court-15969981
2016: Network Rail fined £135,000 for teenage boys trespassing in millerhill depot and standing on trains: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman....urgh-schoolboy-suffered-serious-burns-3070320
2017: DB Cargo fined £1.2m for teenage boys crawling through a fence and standing on wagons in Birmingham: https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/health-safety-news/electric-shock-at-bescot-yard/69900/
In all 3 cases the boys received 25,000 volt electric shocks that caused life changing injuries.

Is it any wonder that NR takes a worst-case and no-nonsense approach to Level Crossing misuse where they are required to provide access to the line?

Teenage boys are the last people to read instruction and warning signs anyway

 

[zwk500]

Teenage boys are the last people to read instruction and warning signs anyway

Yet the railway is held liable for them, and was instructed to improve its signage and lineside security after them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2023 ==

Would you ban Nikacado Avocado?

I'm not liable for copycat people eating after watching his videos. But McDonalds has certainly been sued for making people eat unhealthily in the US (although their liability rules are different over there).

 

[LAX54]

Is it similar to this sign?

It's not an impossible conclusion that the Red/Green lights in this situation are only for drivers - after all, a pedestrian would not need to open both gates and then come back across the road. And the signs imply that the green lights are only for those requiring to follow the instructions.
Of course the Red/Green lights and 'Phone if no light' instruction are also on pedestrian only crossings, so the lights do apply to all users, but it would be unreasonable to expect the average user of a crossing to know the national standards and conventions.

The strict answer remains the same - if you cannot contact the signaller you should find an alternative crossing. But it would not be unreasonable upon finding the lights out and the phones disconnected to look carefully both ways and then cross as quickly as is safe to do so, without pausing to take a photo.

If the lights were out, AND the phones disconnected, there would either be a caution in place for all trains, the xing manned, or chained up out of use.

 

[AdamWW]

If the lights were out, AND the phones disconnected, there would either be a caution in place for all trains, the xing manned, or chained up out of use.

So I would hope. But if you go back to my original post, I raised this example when I was effectively told that as I don't work on the railways I am not equipped to make any judgements as to risk and must just follow the rules exactly.

And the rules appeared to say that no light, no permission from signaller, no crossing.

Is it any wonder that NR takes a worst-case and no-nonsense approach to Level Crossing misuse where they are required to provide access to the line?

No but it's a shame that their no-nonsense approach doesn't extent to less ambiguous signage.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Likewise, but it was a few decades ago. There was a pub across the river to which access was provided by ringing a bell and waiting for someone to row you across. Alternatively there was the railway bridge.

The Bounty. Pub still there and the landlord celebrated his 25th year there last year

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not liable for copycat people eating after watching his videos. But McDonalds has certainly been sued for making people eat unhealthily in the US (although their liability rules are different over there).

The difference is in the cases you cite where the railway was found liable, they were in clear breach of their legal obligations to ensure people physically cannot access secured or fenced off areas.

The po-facedness of some railway professionals regarding very minor risks can come across as insincere or overblown and in my view actually dilutes the boundaries between an extreme risk (climbing on railway vehicles in an electrified yard) and a near-zero one (stopping for a few moments on a crossing on a single line where a train has just passed).

 

[12LDA28C]

This is how you cross on foot.

It is absolutely not how you take a vehicle across.

You do not leave the vehicle on the rail side of the gates to close the first gate behind you then open the second gate.

You open both gates then drive it across as quickly as you reasonably can, then when it's over the crossing you shut both gates. Which, yes, does involve crossing (on foot) multiple times.

Absolutely agreed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2023 ==

If you close the first gate behind you the car is parked over a level crossing, and there was a recent fatality in Wales of somebody doing exactly as you describe.

Apologies, I failed to notice that notice applied to a vehicular crossing. Of course the method I described was for crossing on foot.

 

[AdamWW]

The po-facedness of some railway professionals regarding very minor risks can come across as insincere or overblown and in my view actually dilutes the boundaries between an extreme risk (climbing on railway vehicles in an electrified yard) and a near-zero one (stopping for a few moments on a crossing on a single line where a train has just passed).

Or being yelled at because you put a foot across the yellow line that is already further back than would be needed to avoid being hit by an open slam door that non of the trains using the station have.

Apologies, I failed to notice that notice applied to a vehicular crossing.

Yes and it would be very good if the sign had made that clear.

Rather than relying on people reading it, scratching their head, deciding that it makes no sense for crossing on foot so must not apply.

 

[nanstallon]

The difference is in the cases you cite where the railway was found liable, they were in clear breach of their legal obligations to ensure people physically cannot access secured or fenced off areas.

The po-facedness of some railway professionals regarding very minor risks can come across as insincere or overblown and in my view actually dilutes the boundaries between an extreme risk (climbing on railway vehicles in an electrified yard) and a near-zero one (stopping for a few moments on a crossing on a single line where a train has just passed).

A much needed sense of proportion.