Trespassers mindset and ways to change that.

[Joseph_Locke]

A Network Rail emergency number isn't really of any use to report historic trespassing though

If it reoccurs at one location it is, as then appropriate steps can be taken.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

And the trauma suffered by a driver who hits them, some of whom never drive again and suffer long term psychological trauma.
Also what about people with mental disabilities and young children who find themselves on the tacks without fully understanding the risk they're exposing themselves to?

Network Rail and their predecessors spend millions every year erecting fences, gates, warning signs and other measures. When some scrote compromises these precautions it it Network Rail that is blamed when some innocent party dies. I was personally involved in such an event, where a hole in a fence (made by a lazy dog walker who happened to carry a disc saw) allowed a four year old child to breach the fence also.

What to do in a society that thinks this kind of reckless selfishness is acceptable?

 

[ABB125]

[Controversy] The simple solution is to just adopt the 'natural selection' approach. If an idiot jumps off a bridge/crosses the line on foot, ignoring any warning signs, then there is no hope for them. And then get rid of the drivers/use driverless trains so that there are no psychological effects of hitting someone. [/Controversy]
When someone is run over by a car, does the Highways Agency decide to fence off every road in Britain? No. Do they take the blame for the death? No. Should Network Rail? No. Simple.

 

[Rail Blues]

[Controversy] The simple solution is to just adopt the 'natural selection' approach. If an idiot jumps off a bridge/crosses the line on foot, ignoring any warning signs, then there is no hope for them. And then get rid of the drivers/use driverless trains so that there are no psychological effects of hitting someone. [/Controversy]
When someone is run over by a car, does the Highways Agency decide to fence off every road in Britain? No. Do they take the blame for the death? No. Should Network Rail? No. Simple.

I think you are confusing 'simple' with simplistic.

Driverless trains on the mainline are pie in the sky and are generations away from reality.

The comparison with roads is bogus too. The stopping distances and times make it inherently more risky and not to mention the fact roads don't have an electrified rail running alongside them.

As I said upthread, those who find themselves on the track may have no idea of the risk they're exposing themselves to for a host of good reasons ( dementia, mental disability, very young children)

 

[ABB125]

I think you are confusing 'simple' with simplistic.

Driverless trains on the mainline are pie in the sky and are generations away from reality.

The comparison with roads is bogus too. The stopping distances and times make it inherently more risky and not to mention the fact roads don't have an electrified rail running alongside them.

As I said upthread, those who find themselves on the track may have no idea of the risk they're exposing themselves to for a host of good reasons ( dementia, mental disability, very young children)

Yes, that is a good point. The bit about driverless trains was slightly sarcastic, and many trespassers may access the line where there is no signage telling them not to do so. However this is not Network Rail's fault for not erecting a continuous warning sign/barrier along the length of every railway in the country.
The thing that most annoys me about trespass is how Network Rail just seem to accept all blame.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

The thing that most annoys me about trespass is how Network Rail just seem to accept all blame.

Network Rail have no choice in the matter.

Starting with the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act adding the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Construction Design and Management Regulations (amended), the railway infrastructure owner has become responsible for ensuring that the public has no access to the railway unless it is absolutely required. To change NR's liabilities would require the railway to be treated as a highway (or some such fiddle).

The court of public opinion has always come down hard on the railways, and it would be career suicide to suggest that "it was the deceased's fault for parking / standing in front of a train", however true it might actually be.

 

[vlad]

When someone is run over by a car, does the Highways Agency decide to fence off every road in Britain? No. Do they take the blame for the death? No. Should Network Rail? No. Simple.

No - they just reduce speed limits.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Network Rail have no choice in the matter.

Starting with the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act adding the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Construction Design and Management Regulations (amended), the railway infrastructure owner has become responsible for ensuring that the public has no access to the railway unless it is absolutely required. To change NR's liabilities would require the railway to be treated as a highway (or some such fiddle).

Early motorway proposals called for them to be regulated as light railways. Maybe we could get railways to be legally defined as a particular class of Special Road?

Don't think it would fool anyone though.

 

[DarloRich]

[Controversy] The simple solution is to just adopt the 'natural selection' approach. If an idiot jumps off a bridge/crosses the line on foot, ignoring any warning signs, then there is no hope for them. And then get rid of the drivers/use driverless trains so that there are no psychological effects of hitting someone. [/Controversy]
When someone is run over by a car, does the Highways Agency decide to fence off every road in Britain? No. Do they take the blame for the death? No. Should Network Rail? No. Simple.

I am not sure you quite understand the legal framework underpinning the operation of the railways.