http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-16826761
The fault of the railway again?
Time to shut down the entire railway?
The fault of the railway again?
Time to shut down the entire railway?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
BBC 31/1/12: Man killed at Barlaston level crossing
- Thread starter jon0844
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
SS4
Established Member
Nah, he isn't a photogenic teenage girl so tis his own fault*
I do hope the driver, staff and witnesses were ok. Ditto for the family.
* my cynical opinion of the press at large, not my personal one
I do hope the driver, staff and witnesses were ok. Ditto for the family.
* my cynical opinion of the press at large, not my personal one
ushawk
Established Member
33rd incident of a person being struck by a train in January, so about 1 a day - lets hope that February is different.
Thoughts as usual to the train crew, the victims family, emergency services and the witnesses.
Thoughts as usual to the train crew, the victims family, emergency services and the witnesses.
OuterDistant
Member
The headline says Barlaston crossing but the copy says Wedgwood crossing, which is a mile to the north. Sort it out, BBC!
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,006
I am awaiting the day when BRAKE campaign to install a 20mph limit and speed humps (for the trains) at every level crossing and station.
Network Rail should just close all the crossings where it can (as in the railway has the right of way). That will get the locals to reconsider very quickly as it comes down to the council (and their own money) to redirect the road or build a bridge!
Mind you, the tax payer would pay for crossing upgrades and bridges too - but most people don't seem to consider that.
Mind you, the tax payer would pay for crossing upgrades and bridges too - but most people don't seem to consider that.
I'm getting used to rail staff and others circling the wagons every time some unfortunate passenger is killed. The average seems to be about three posts before the victim is blamed, and NR/TOCs/rail staff exonerated. And there will be the obligatory howls that the entire British press is running a coordinated anti-rail campaign.
Regardless of the footnote qualification, though, this post is seriously out of order. The idea that the girls involved in the crossing tragedy were exonerated because they were photogenic is utterly laughable, or it would be if it wasn't so tasteless. Network Rail have after all pleaded guilty as charged regarding the safety of the crossing, so it's not even sub-judice.
And of course my thoughts are with all the individuals concerned in any way.
merlodlliw
Established Member
British Transport Police said the man, who has not yet been identified, was hit at the crossing near the Wedgwood railway station, in Barlaston.
I did not read it that way. The Wedgwood factory address is Barlaston. Just my opinion
Bob
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
Not exonerated but reported with such coverage. It's a common theme that tragic accident/murder/kidnap victims will get more media coverage if they are pretty young girls/women. Likewise if there's a family connection. Anything to tug at the heartstrings of the public and sell more fish wrappers.
The pictures everywhere were of the two girls, and both the BBC and Sky used lots of photos in their reporting and on the web. I firmly believe it got more press coverage than it otherwise would - certainly not the second top story from the BBC for most of the day. Of course, that has nothing to do with the outcome of the case, just the way it was covered.
As I work in the media, I know full well the important of having good pictures. Without these, some stories won't run at all. I've seen good stories dropped from print simply because there wasn't a supporting image - or the editor thought the photo that did exist was crap.
In my old job, we were asked to come in to talk about something on GMTV... but there was a slight catch; it had to be a female member of staff and the researcher was pretty upfront in saying that she needed to be friendly to the eye.
Think back to the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann. Instead of issuing a load of photos to the media straight away, the McCann's knew to drip feed them - and at the right time of day to ensure a new photo would hit all the required deadlines. Some of these photos were enhanced, and there's now even talk of some later photos of Madeleine actually being of Kate when she was a child! Nevertheless, the papers would print ANYTHING about the McCann's when there was a new photo. To this day, I don't know who advised Gerry to do this - but it worked wonders.
If there's anything to be offended about, it's all of that. However, that's the reality of life - just as it is that journalists always have, and most likely always will, use whatever tactics required to get a story. When it was uncovering corruption, nobody complained. Celebs were fair game too. Then came the phone hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail and the nation was outraged...
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
For the benefit of the thread, the incident was declared as non-suspicious.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
The press has for a long time had a way or ranking the importance of people lives. Pretty young girls (up until about mid 20s), strong, heroic sporty young men (intelligance seems to be a boost when combined with other things, but rarther a negative on it's own), parents, grandparents all seem to be more valuble than others. A single adult male who isn't a sports star or in the forces, or a woman who's lost her looks but still isn't a mother really doesn't matter. It's not just the press either though. Films and TV are just the same. Young, pretty females, parents, grandparents are the sort of characters you kill of for impact. Single men and single childless women from mid 20s onwards are what you kill to get the body count up.
MK Tom
Established Member
To be honest I think level crossings shouldn't exist on lines with speed limits exceeding 60mph. That doesn't mean reduce the speeds, that means prioritise grade-separating all remaining crossings on lines with higher speeds than that. Level crossings aren't unsafe when they're properly used; it would be difficult to have a serious accident at Woburn Sands for instance. But when you're dealing with 390s and 350s and Voyagers belting along this stretch of track, an at-grade crossing is inappropriate and I'd consider its replacement with a bridge to be a top priority for safety and secondarily also for the sake of avoiding road congestion (holding up emergency service vehicles etc).
It is sad that the media treats certain types of person as being less important than others; as far as I'm concerned either gender and any age is equally tragic. My best wishes and condolences to all those affected by all of the incidents to occur during January and I hope we see a significant frequency drop this month.
It is sad that the media treats certain types of person as being less important than others; as far as I'm concerned either gender and any age is equally tragic. My best wishes and condolences to all those affected by all of the incidents to occur during January and I hope we see a significant frequency drop this month.
Daz28
Member
I disagree. The world has only room for so many people, births and deaths are a natural and inevitable part of the cycle. We cannot prevent deaths, only delay them.
We should apply an appropriate level of resources and effort into making railways sufficiently safe. We should not pursue the goal of preventing all accidents or suicides, for it is both expensive and futile. I don't want the safest railway in the world if it means nobody can afford to travel on it.
Sad though every death is, we just have to accept that it is a dangerous world, and railways are part of that danger.
...and the argument is where does the funds come from for such a lavish replacement program and why should the tax payer have to foot the bill?
Also, why 60mph? A train traveling at 20mph has enough energy to wipe out a person whether on foot or in a car.
You have also already said level crossings are safe if used correctly so why do we need to change them all?
And for a last point, not every level crossing site is suitable for a bridge due to local constraints....what do you propose about them?
western Champion
Member
What a load of bo****ks ! what next ? footpaths shouldn't be allowed at the sides of roads in case some clown decides to step off it and gets hit by a car ?
When will this world come to its senses and stop trying to protect these clowns from themselves ?
If you play in the road you expect to get hit by a car !
If you can't swim and you play in the water you expect to drown !
If you trespass on the railway you expect to get hit by a train !
S*it happens ! That's life ! Flout the rules then expect the consequences
Very very very few fatalities on the railway are accidents e.g pushed off a platform. If you're waiting at a level crossing, the train comes and goes but the barriers / gates stay down for another train and you decide not to wait but cross the line any way then you risk being hit by a train. Fact of life !
I've driven trains for 23 years and had one fatality. The ONLY victims are the driver who has to witness this stupidity and the passengers who's day is inconvenienced by the inevitable delay.
MK Tom
Established Member
I was being a little too arbitrary with the 60mph figure; it's more a question of the speed and the frequency. The higher both are, the less appropriate a level crossing is. Yeah I accept there are places where it's not practical to grade-separate and in those cases complete closure of the road may be the only answer, but there are very few cases like that on lines where the safety risk is severe. For the most part crossings are perfectly safe when people look and pay attention to warnings. The question of speed is more about people on foot seeing/hearing the train coming and having time to get out of the way.
Funding is another matter entirely, I didn't say there should be an instant replacement programme, I said it should be a priority.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I feel I have been somewhat misinterpreted. I aplogise for mis-wording my original post, see my above reply for clarification. On the last line add in the families and friends and witnesses affected.
Last edited:
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
David Hughes was their original 'media adviser', later replaced by Clarence Mitchell.
Mystic Force
Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2009
- Messages
- 105
Speed would be more important factor for sighting than damage potential especially due to the optical effect of looming. Some people will defeat any system you put in place if they are determined enough like the idiot I saw nearly creamed at brimsdown, there is a subway right there! But we should make it less possible. I worked at a location where I was searched everyday I left work not because they thought we would steal but it keeps honest people honest. Making safer crossing will keep safe people from making poor choices, there is no way of preventing certain people behaving the way they do.
How many suspects have media advisors and PR managers anyway?
Back to the crossing incident - what about bringing back a requirement to 'whistle' when approaching all crossings? Would no doubt annoy local residents, and not help for those listening to their iPod, but a rather cheap and easy (plus instant) way of giving additional warnings to people who think they know best.
Network Rail has been served with noise abatement orders by local authorities for whistling at certain crossings. And it does nothing for those in sound proofed cars or with headphones on.
Minilad
Established Member
And that right there is another reason why this country is heading downwards
Real example - Districty Council serves NR with noise abatement order for whistling at a rural crossing that happens to be near one house (the complainant). NR thus applies to County Council for order to close said crossing (very lightly used). County Council says no!
On the contrary, I suspect most fatalities are accidental, ie not done on purpose. A moments forgetfulness or lack of concentration and...sheblammoh!
Yes, but that does not necessarily deserve the sort of criticism that is handed out. When driving on the road, I am sure we have all had small lapses that could have been fatal if we hadn't caught on in time. We are, after all, all human. A momentary assumption that the line is clear on a foot crossing is all it needs for a serious accident. Another human trait, I'm afraid.
No, even those who deliberately cross against lights are still victims, and are potentially valuable lives that have been snuffed out. Saying, in effect, they deserved what they got is just plain wrong.
I agree with MK Tom that the aim should eventually be to eliminate level crossings. But, as the majority of incidents are caused by road and path users, the funding should come from the road and path funding agencies
martin2345uk
Established Member
What's the optical effect of looming? Sounds intriguing...
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Not on the railway. The large majority of fatalities are declared non-suspicious (suicides).
No, but it's something that's an additional warning that could be given from this point on, with no huge investment beyond W boards to remind drivers.
As I said before, there's a limit to what can be done (or should be done) but it is equally silly to stop giving a warning simply because people living near a railway object.
- Status