Word of warning

[william]

So what does 'Do not cross the Line' mean then? It means do not cross the RAILWAY LINE. If the sign had said 'Do not pass this sign' then it would be different. The OP was on the platform three or four foot from where the ramp starts - therefore NOT TRESPASSING. Is it really that difficult for you to understand?

Keyboard warriors

Look i could walk off the end of a platform along the permanent way to the next station perfectly legally according to you's guys asl ong as i hadnt 'crossed the line'.

You musnt pass these safety boards, it's THAT SIMPLE!

 

[westcoaster]

RUBBISH!!! He was NOT trespassing he went past a sign that said DO NOT CROSS THE LINE. The only line there was was the RAILWAY LINE no other line. That's what the signs are there for. He was perfectly OK where he was.

The BTP officer could have been coming up with a 'story' that a driver had expressed concern.

As I said appeal, go to the press etc that'll make them change their minds. The OP is not guilty of trespass. End of!

do you have all the facts? do you know where the incident took place? do you have proof there was no line on the platform? do you know there was no sign visable? or is this just from what you have read from the op's 'story'.

also if i were to walk to a railway line and there was no fence there (broken/missing) and went on to the line does that mean im not tresspassing.

 

[nedchester]

Keyboard warriors

Look i could walk off the end of a platform along the permanent way to the next station perfectly legally according to you's guys asl ong as i hadnt 'crossed the line'.

You musnt pass these safety boards, it's THAT SIMPLE!

It is well established that going onto the track is trespassing. He hadn't gone onto the track. The sign does not say "Do Not pass this Point" or some such. It says Do Not Cross the Line. If this case goes to court then the Railway will undoubtedly lose. :mad:

What I cannot understand is why the TOC didn't come and have a word first or did they just ask the BTP officer to go and have a word and the officer thought he'd give out the ticket cos he was board???

 

[eos]

The OP was NEVER at any time TRESSPASSING. If he /she will confirm it was Manchester Piccadilly where it happened, at one of the south platform ends ( platform 13/14?) then it will be sorted within 24 hours ( not including sunday). The next post MUST come from the OP to confirm the location.. All the rubbish being posted about how any sign is a safety sign should be totally disregarded as armchair windup-merchants....

What I cannot understand is why the TOC didn't come and have a word first

The OP explains that in his first post - 'It started to rain' .. Do you really think the TOC staff are going leave a nice cosy office on floor 5 of the building above the entrance of Man Picc/ (BTP occupy floor 6 -convenient eh!), and walk all that way, Nah there just happened to be a spare Plod on floor 5 having a cuppa, so tell him.

 

[nedchester]

do you have all the facts? do you know where the incident took place? do you have proof there was no line on the platform? do you know there was no sign visable? or is this just from what you have read from the op's 'story'.

also if i were to walk to a railway line and there was no fence there (broken/missing) and went on to the line does that mean im not tresspassing.

No, I nor you for that matter know all the facts. However, going on the evidence of the original poster then we have to take his word. The original poster needs to come back with where this happened and with pictures of the sign.

Of course you are trespassing on the railway line if you are ON THE RAILWAY but not on the platform.

I hope that the OP will come back with location details. Then we can see who's right. If the sign says something different then fine the OP is wrong but if the sign says 'Do not cross the line' then it means the tracks as far as I am concerned.

 

[william]

What does a black person in a red circle with a red diagonal line on a white background generally mean?

 

[eos]

What does a black person in a red circle with a red diagonal line on a white background generally mean?

The circle with a line thru has a general meaning of 'prohibition' and its meaning depends on the qualifying text . It could mean do not cross the road. do not dump rubbish, etc.
When it says 'Do NOT CROSS THE LINE' , it means do not CROSS THE TRACK - Keep up , its been explained a lot of times now to you.

If you say I am wrong , point me to an independant website that confirms your warped explanation.

 

[nedchester]

What does a black person in a red circle with a red diagonal line on a white background generally mean?

(sarcastic mode on)

No Black people allowed? (Used by the BNP maybe)

(sarcastic mode off)

 

[westcoaster]

you can be tresspassing on a platform, national rail enthusiasts guidelines says,

do not tresspass on any area of the railway that is not available to passengers

and as far as i know platform ramps are not available to passengers, i do believe a little common sence should prevail though, i can guarentee a 100% that any driver will report/have a quiet word with a passenger for being in a postion of danger this includes platform ramps.

 

[eos]

and as far as i know platform ramps are not available to passengers

Well you don't know very far then do you , there are many stations where there is no subway/footbridge and the only way to cross to other platforms is via the ramps and 'barrow crossing'.
Take Southampton Central. The two signs 'Do not cross the line' and Do not pass this point' are both displayed on a single post about 8 foot from the lowest part of the ramp , but still within a paved area. ( end of platform 2/3 , east end). Why would both be displayed on the same signpost if they didn't have different meanings.

 

[jon0844]

Three pages for something open and shut?

1) The sign refers to crossing the railway line. That's pure fact, yet clearly the BTP officer didn't understand that - or knew it could be interpreted in a different way. Yet, the law is the law. If you could just assume things or interpret however you wanted, legal cases would be very hit and miss. Hey [xxxx], you just libeled me. Why? Because I said you did - now pay me £200...

If the BTP did know and just relied on the ignorance of the OP, that's even worse. Imagine if the officer made up other things to secure a more serious conviction or hinder a case?

There are now signs that say 'do not pass this point' which make it nice and clear. It's the fault of the railway surely for not changing these signs.

As someone has pointed out, there is nothing to stop a normal passenger walking down the ramp. Technically, I guess that could include walking alongside the track on the ballast. That is another issue and not relevant to this case. By all means let the court decide that (besides there being no crime of trespass being committed here) all signs should be updated, or clearly defined lines painted on the platform - or, how about gates like the Underground?

I am not sure what the situation is about apologising and admitting an offence that you later discover wasn't actually committed. My hunch is that it would never make court.

Fight it - for the sake of every member of British society that doesn't want to give powers to the police that don't exist.

(Finally, when they put new signs up at Hatfield, someone put a 'do not cross' sign on the lamp post before the steps to cross the line - meaning everyone trying to exit the station would be technically trespassing. Eventually it was moved back to the fencing that actually serves to stop you walking down to the track level)

 

[westcoaster]

Well you don't know very far then do you , there are many stations where there is no subway/footbridge and the only way to cross to other platforms is via the ramps and 'barrow crossing'.
Take Southampton Central. The two signs 'Do not cross the line' and Do not pass this point' are both displayed on a single post about 8 foot from the lowest part of the ramp , but still within a paved area. ( end of platform 2/3 , east end). Why would both be displayed on the same signpost if they didn't have different meanings.

i know about stations where you enter and exit the stations using the ramp, i believe we are talking about a mainline station(man pic) with an island platform with through roads, not some country station, as said before just usa a bit of common sence if it does not feel right do not stand there.

 

[EM2]

you can be tresspassing on a platform, national rail enthusiasts guidelines says, and as far as i know platform ramps are not available to passengers, i do believe a little common sence should prevail though, i can guarentee a 100% that any driver will report/have a quiet word with a passenger for being in a postion of danger this includes platform ramps.

My initial thought with my 'work hat' on, was that the OP was in the wrong, but having re-read the post, they do say:

There was a signal a foot beyond this sign (which provided shelter from the rain) and I therefore moved forward. It was probably three or four feet from the start of the ramp decline.

To me, the important point is which side of the ramp 'crest' the signal is on. If it's behind the sign but still on the level part of the platform, in *front* of the ramp, then I think he's OK.
However, if it's on the ramp then the ground is quite a bit more shaky.

 

[jon0844]

I would personally consider trespass to be the point where the platform actually ends and you're walking on ballast or the edge of the track - unless told otherwise (i.e. a sign that says you cannot cross any particular point).

And I think that's a fair assumption that would be agreed by any judge. You walk on the platform and even the ramp is still part of the platform - and you are no nearer to the track at ground level than a metre or so up.

 

[GB]

I would personally consider trespass to be the point where the platform actually ends and you're walking on ballast or the edge of the track - unless told otherwise (i.e. a sign that says you cannot cross any particular point).
.

Platform ramps maybe attached to the platform but they are not actually part of the platform as far as the public is concerened. The only time this is not the case is where the ramp is either used for defined public access to the station or official means to cross the railway.

 

[jon0844]

I would like to have a legal clarification for that, as I would see the entire section as being the platform - level or otherwise.

This must be why there are often lines painted (even if this still isn't what '...cross the line' means on the sign) or gates/posts with '...pass this point' on them. There can then be no doubt whatsoever.

I can see why you might assume that a ramp to a crossing is okay and a ramp to the track isn't, but that's merely an opinion until there's something specific to quote. And if there is no such literature, then there needs to be to prevent situations like this where a police officer can make up the law as they go.

 

[37401]

As i said before i feel that the BTP went over the top, on my 87002 Bash a officer told me to sit down properly with my feet on the floor, he spoke to me like he would speak to a 7 year old and the train was not moving and i was not in a dangerous position.

when i was at Euston a year ago i went down towards the platform to get a photo of a Pendolino and a BTP officer asked me where i was going i told her and showed her my ticket "I have a ticket if it helps" i made it clear i was not going to get on it but this was not the problem the prblem was her and the VT staff`s joke at my expence, firstly she asked if i had any proof i was 15 (as i was at the time) I said no i was scared that i would end up at the Police station so i was trembling abit, after some umm-ing and errr-ing she let me take 1 photo and as i walked back a member of VT staff said "Alright mate" and him and the BTP officer started laughing at me, i was not happy at all and i felt really crap, a nice end to a great day...Not!

 

[westcoaster]

just looking through pictures of man pic pl13/14 south end if this indeed is where this happened,
http://william-hunt.fotopic.net/p59497985.html recent pic dated the 11th july 09 self explanitary others in the collection from same point.

http://chris-lowes-train.photos.gb.com/p58798005.html
different angle looking back up the platform which shows the sign behind the signal.

 

[EM2]

just looking through pictures of man pic pl13/14 south end if this indeed is where this happened,
http://william-hunt.fotopic.net/p59497985.html recent pic dated the 11th july 09 self explanitary others in the collection from same point.

http://chris-lowes-train.photos.gb.com/p58798005.html
different angle looking back up the platform which shows the sign behind the signal.

OK, the first picture shows a sign that says 'Passengers must not pass this point', so if they OP has passed this sign, then he is in the wrong.
The second pic shows the signal being in front of the sign, so if he has sheltered there, he is in the right.

 

[jon0844]

i was scared that i would end up at the Police station so i was trembling abit

This is one reason I think people comply with the police even when they police are wrong, possibly even breaking the law themselves.

You have to believe that

a) it's not THAT bad being arrested and detained, as it's not like you're going to prison. If you're not drunk, you should be dealt with quite promptly and bailed.

b) The officer is going to have to be pretty sure that what he (or she) has done will stand up to the officer on duty at the station - and at this point, it's all recorded and the police officer is digging a big hole if they're on shaky ground.

Being willing to be arrested will then put the pressure on the officer to play by the rules, and most will bow down very quickly. If they are willing to take it to the station, you're still likely to find there's no further action.

It's no different than why your average chavvy thug gets away with murder, because people won't stand up to them. It's probably far worse when someone is in uniform and has the benefit of a warrant card.

 

[37401]

This is one reason I think people comply with the police even when they police are wrong, possibly even breaking the law themselves.

You have to believe that

a) it's not THAT bad being arrested and detained, as it's not like you're going to prison. If you're not drunk, you should be dealt with quite promptly and bailed.

b) The officer is going to have to be pretty sure that what he (or she) has done will stand up to the officer on duty at the station - and at this point, it's all recorded and the police officer is digging a big hole if they're on shaky ground.

Being willing to be arrested will then put the pressure on the officer to play by the rules, and most will bow down very quickly. If they are willing to take it to the station, you're still likely to find there's no further action.

It's no different than why your average chavvy thug gets away with murder, because people won't stand up to them. It's probably far worse when someone is in uniform and has the benefit of a warrant card.

good advice, its been about a year since that happened and i dont mind if a BTP officer arrests me for takings pics of trains because A. its wrongfull arrest (as ive never done anything wrong and never will) and B. i would love to tell the press about it if it happened.

A mate of mine was arrested by the BTP while filming at a station, it was the station staff that called them and he got money from VT because of what had happened (Because the Police have to respond to every call and see its delt with properly) but he came out with a good £600+ from VT

 

[mawallace]

Hi Folks - I have just logged on and seen the various posts and read the points raised.

It seems most people want to know where it happened - it was at Manchester Victoria - the sign in question is the one in my picture refered to at the start of the thread - I stop just inder the signal - see above http://markwallace.fotopic.net/p59330612.html

I am still not too sure what am going to - I really think that accepting a fine and closing the matter might be the best way to go - though I am thinking of writing to the railway press as well - Thank you for the offers of help - it is just the time / hassle etc which is the issue.

 

[Phoenix]

Hi Folks - I have just logged on and seen the various posts and read the points raised.

It seems most people want to know where it happened - it was at Manchester Victoria - the sign in question is the one in my picture refered to at the start of the thread - I stop just inder the signal - see above http://markwallace.fotopic.net/p59330612.html

I am still not too sure what am going to - I really think that accepting a fine and closing the matter might be the best way to go - though I am thinking of writing to the railway press as well - Thank you for the offers of help - it is just the time / hassle etc which is the issue.

That is fair enough If you accept the charges due to not wanting hassel that is completely your choice although I would write to a magazine about this situation as incidents such as this are piled up by the magazines and used against the offending organizations and then they can wake up to the fact there staff need to have a boot up the backside.

Honestly if it were me I would accept the fine but write to someone about the incident in the hope it may help and then learn from this for the next time this sort of incident happens.

Anyway mate best of luck whatever you decide to do as you are clearly not in the wrong here.

 

[nedchester]

Hi Folks - I have just logged on and seen the various posts and read the points raised.

It seems most people want to know where it happened - it was at Manchester Victoria - the sign in question is the one in my picture refered to at the start of the thread - I stop just inder the signal - see above http://markwallace.fotopic.net/p59330612.html

I am still not too sure what am going to - I really think that accepting a fine and closing the matter might be the best way to go - though I am thinking of writing to the railway press as well - Thank you for the offers of help - it is just the time / hassle etc which is the issue.

To be honest by accepting the fine it makes this incident more likely to happen again. The BTP will have won by intimidating you. Thin end of the wedge and all that.

I think you should appeal and also contact the railway and other press about this incident.

 

[yorkie]

Don't be put off by people who think that "line" referrs to an imaginary line. They are wrong, and I am sorry to see that there's actually as many as about 3 or 4 people who still think that despite having it explained to them.

Please don't pay this fine, and please do contact railway magazines. If there are costs associated with appealing then we will launch an appeal to raise money for you. I'll even organise a sponsored event to raise money if that is required.

You did not trespass and don't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise.

 

[Phoenix]

Don't be put off by people who think that "line" referrs to an imaginary line. They are wrong, and I am sorry to see that there's actually as many as about 3 or 4 people who still think that despite having it explained to them.

Please don't pay this fine, and please do contact railway magazines. If there are costs associated with appealing then we will launch an appeal to raise money for you. I'll even organise a sponsored event to raise money if that is required.

You did not trespass and don't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise.

Not being funny but this gentleman as he said doesn't want hassle and appeals and sponsored events are hassle.
If he chooses to take the fine why not start a campaign against these injustices as you clearly feel strongly and well I just feel your energy would be put to better use campaigning.

But we do understand the "Line" but problem is Railway enthusiasts have been abiding by the idea you shouldn't go past the sign from day one, how do I know about a total of 200 hours on a platform with such a sign which I admit I go past but only because no officers serve the area really.

The way the current "line" statement is interpreted is by far the best solution because it keeps individuals off platform slopes which are a potential hazard given the right circumstances and if we take this literally like intended (apparently) then we can actually walk between the tracks as far as we like.
No that's trespassing so doesn't that bring us back to a don't pass the sign situation yes.

 

[flymo]

the sign in question is the one in my picture refered to at the start of the thread - I stop just inder the signal - see above http://markwallace.fotopic.net/p59330612.html

So this was the sign you passed. Hmm OK I see some text below the "Passengers must not cross the line" which looks like (by enlarging the photo) "unless by means of the footbridge". Well Ok just tell them you crossed the line by means of the footbridge and that should appease everybody.

By the way does anyone have any pictures of this infamous "line", i.e. is there anything physical one can be accused of crossing, by means of a footbridge, subway or otherwise ?? By stretching the point even further, I suppose in the same vein such a sign could refer to the yellow line in this photo. "Fined £200 for boarding a train - a clear breach of the rules as the "line" was crossed."

P.S. I believe that "line" refers to railway line not an imaginary line and this whole affair is totally ridiculous. The Police and everyone involved in this farce, except the OP who did nothing wrong, have "crossed the line" with regard to sanity.

 

[O L Leigh]

As a member of rail staff it does amuse me that we have the best part of four pages of opinion from the assembled "experts" on railway legality, all of which ignores a number of very basic fundamentals.

The first of these fundamentals is the meaning of a prohibition notice. Someone has already touched on it but would appear to have been laughed out of the thread, but if you pass any sign with a picture of a person in a red circle with a red diagonal line through them you have gone past the point where you should be. Irrespective of the wording below the pictogram informing passengers that they must not cross the line except by means of the footbridge/underpass, this sign is a marker delineating the public part of the platform from the private. In fact, within the Rule Book this sign denotes to staff that you must not pass beyond this point unless you are carrying out emergency protection of the line. Therefore not even staff are permitted to pass such a sign in order to seek shelter under a signal even if, like me, they hold a current and valid PTS certificate.

The second fundamental is the responsibility of rail staff for the safety of everyone on the railway. I can't speak for other drivers, but I count the far ends of platforms, especially where a person is standing beyond the prohibition notice or on the wrong side of a barrier, as the "suicide spot". If I see someone standing there I will consider calling it in to the signaller, even if only for his/her information. I couldn't care less if someone is or isn't committing a criminal act or trespassing, if I consider them to be "at risk" then I will call it in. I've already run over one person so far in my career and she was standing in a perfectly legal position on a platform before rushing out and jumping in front of my train. What happens after I've called in a person "at risk" is outside of my area of expertise, but I would imagine that such a report would result in some sort of action, even if only on the basis that the signaller and controller would not want to ignore a report in case the person in question flings themselves under a train or carries out some other nefarious activity.

The only thing that does appear to be a bit heavy-handed, especially if we are to take the OP's report on face value, is the issuing of a ticket and a fine. If the OP really had passed a prohibition notice or gone around a barrier to take shelter under a signal in all ignorance as he suggests, then I would have hoped that the worst the BTP would have done is to tell him to get back where he should be. However, we don't know for certain what if anything the OP did to aggravate the BTP. After all, why should we believe the OP rather than question the actions of the officers? Both positions are equally defensible, especially as we've only had the OP's side of the story.

That aside, there are too many unknowns in this story to make a firm judgement on whether the OP did anything wrong or not, and none of us are really qualified to make any judgements on the legalities of the situation.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

I really think that accepting a fine and closing the matter might be the best way to go

While I'd fully understand and respect the reasons for wanting to do that, it's not the best way to go - it's the easiest!

The best way is to ensure it doesn't happen again - and hopefully get an apology.

I'm not suggesting trying to get compensation, as you didn't actually lose anything financially beyond the penalty that would be refunded/cancelled - but simply doing the right thing for yourself and potentially many others.

P.S. I believe that "line" refers to railway line not an imaginary line and this whole affair is totally ridiculous. The Police and everyone involved in this farce, except the OP who did nothing wrong, have "crossed the line" with regard to sanity.

Easy way to get clarification.

Go to station, buy ticket, wait on platform. Train comes in, stand behind line, let train leave.

Find member of staff, or BTP, to complain that you couldn't get on the train because it meant crossing the line. When they ask what the hell you're talking about, point to the sign that says you cannot cross the line.

Then, record them saying 'No, that means crossing the RAILWAY line' and laughing at you for being an idiot.

I bet most of them know damn well what the sign actually means!

if you pass any sign with a picture of a person in a red circle with a red diagonal line through them you have gone past the point where you should be.

If that was true, nobody would be able to get off the platform island at my station to exit and would have no choice but to get on the next train that stopped!

The footbridge is right behind a sign with a person in a red circle!

You can't say there might be something else to the story because he had walked beyond the prohibition notice because it is clearly established that the sign refers only to crossing the line. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a sign to say you cannot pass that point - but it wasn't/isn't there.

 

[O L Leigh]

Easy way to get clarification.

Go to station, buy ticket, wait on platform. Train comes in, stand behind line, let train leave.

Find member of staff, or BTP, to complain that you couldn't get on the train because it meant crossing the line. When they ask what the hell you're talking about, point to the sign that says you cannot cross the line.

Then, record them saying 'No, that means crossing the RAILWAY line' and laughing at you for being an idiot.

I bet most of them know damn well what the sign actually means!

I know of no station where a train stops beyond the prohibition notice. Suggesting that you might miss a train because you were observing these notices is ludicrous.

If that was true, nobody would be able to get off the platform island at my station to exit and would have no choice but to get on the next train that stopped!

The footbridge is right behind a sign with a person in a red circle!

You can't say there might be something else to the story because he had walked beyond the prohibition notice because it is clearly established that the sign refers only to crossing the line. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a sign to say you cannot pass that point - but it wasn't/isn't there.

No it isn't clearly established. This meaning is only assumed by folk who do not actually work on the railway. However, I believe I have cleared up the misunderstanding more than adequately. What the situation is at your local station I couldn't even begin to comment on, but I have not yet seen a prohibition notice sited in front of an authorised crossing point (though I will concede that this is not the same thing as saying that such a situation is impossible). However, whatever the situation at your local station, it does not change the meaning of the sign as stipulated in the rules.

As for suggesting that there may be more to the story, my position is no less tenable than yours. How do we know that there is nothing more to the story? I'd love to believe that the OP speaks the gospel truth, but it wouldn't be the first time that an OP has exaggerated things in order to appear more slighted than was perhaps the case. Just because we have had an account of an incident from a forum member, it does not necessarily mean we've got the whole truth. The omission of a detail such as passing a prohibition notice or walking around a barrier does not mean that the OP did not do either of these things.

O L Leigh