Anti-trespass "matting"

[RailAleFan]

How is this stuff supposed to work?

I would never trespass on the railways but I have frequently been waiting for a train and seen this stuff crossing gaps between fences and the edge of a platform or around level crossings, and thought to myself, that if I was intent on trespassing then I have no idea how that would stop me!!

 

[najaB]

How is this stuff supposed to work... that if I was intent on trespassing then I have no idea how that would stop me!!

I think it's meant to stop people 'accidentally' trespassing.

 

[jon0844]

I bet you'd find it hard and extremely uncomfortable to walk on.

 

[HSTfan!!!]

It's not much fun to walk on when relieving a train put it that way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's meant to stop people 'accidentally' trespassing.

Apparently it, like the fast-line fencing, has a very powerful psychological effect, even on those who may be about to commit suicide. The fences aren't locked at stations where the fast line platforms are in use but they still work.

Neil

 

[TheEdge]

I bet you'd find it hard and extremely uncomfortable to walk on.

It is unbelievably hard to walk over. In legitimate course of duty cases I have had to walk over that stuff and it really is an effort.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'd quite like to try it for myself now (though without trespassing obviously) as it doesn't look that hard to walk over (easy no but not especially hard)!

 

[TheEdge]

I'd quite like to try it for myself now (though without trespassing obviously) as it doesn't look that hard to walk over (easy no but not especially hard)!

It really is. I had to walk over the wooden slating rather than plastic pyramids. I thought it would be easy but no, it really throws you off balance.

 

[work-traveller]

It basically starts off with the fact that we now live in a litigious and risk averse society (thanks America) where incidents involving a 3rd party are often assumed to be the fault of an asset owner, even when it's clear the 3rd party was trespassing and taking a personal risk.

So, to help demonstrate that the asset owner has fulfilled their obligations under (insert title of H&S type legislation here) they put this sort of stuff in to make it abundantly clear that if a 3rd party circumvents these measures they are unquestionably trespassing, taking risks and potentially putting others in danger as well. It's the same reason you end up with miles of palisade fencing along NR infrastructure, whilst our more pragmatic Continental cousins use far lower-key measures or indeed no measures.

If we were appropriately pragmatic, we'd take a view that nobody (including children) could reasonably assume that they are allowed to access a railway line, factory roof or similar. However, this would assume that it's a parent's responsibility to raise a child and instil an understanding of what's right and what's wrong - and not that of the state.

Right - I'm getting off my soapbox now.

 

[jon0844]

Right - I'm getting off my soapbox now.

Be careful when you do. Mind you, if you fall then you could always sue!

 

[47802]

It basically starts off with the fact that we now live in a litigious and risk averse society (thanks America) where incidents involving a 3rd party are often assumed to be the fault of an asset owner, even when it's clear the 3rd party was trespassing and taking a personal risk.

.

Except the irony of that is that most of the American railway has no fencing at all.

 

[starrymarkb]

UK Law requires the fencing and has done since the first railways, it was required so railway staff didn't trespass outside railway land (not to keep the public safe), laws in other countries were more sensible

 

[brianthegiant]

It basically starts off with the fact that we now live in a litigious and risk averse society (thanks America) where incidents involving a 3rd party are often assumed to be the fault of an asset owner, even when it's clear the 3rd party was trespassing and taking a personal risk.

The UK legal system is not the same animal as the US legal system.

My impression is that railway safety is driven primarily by RAIB investigations and the need to deal with the rising number of suicides. There is the principle moral consideration regarding the personal tragedies these involve, but they also account for a significant proportion of delay minutes which affect all rail users.

The other factor is that we have a strict health & safety in both rail and construction industries as a result in a sharp rise in accidents following casualisation in the eighties.

Furthermore H&S is now taken more seriously that the full economic impacts are considered beyond just immediate litigation, etc, costs

To simply put it down to litigation culture is very over-simplistic.

 

[work-traveller]

Very simplistic? Yes. But pretty well the case. I wouldn't say I'm a paid up member of the 'It's H&S gone mad!' brigade, because I don't generally believe that's the case. It's more the risk aversion.

Considering the 'full economic impacts' is a pragmatic matter, but inherent in that philosophy is the assumption that individuals have a lower expectation of personal responsibility than would be the case in many other countries or indeed this country until recently. i.e. instead of inculcating a sense of what it right/wrong in individuals, push the onus onto asset owners. This is where at least some of the 'full economic impacts' come from.

Network Rail (and it's various private predecessors) have always had an obligation to demarcate it's boundary and/or to prevent animals from wandering onto the line. In practice this would mean something of the order of a post & wire fence, rather than palisade fencing.

 

[Bodiddly]

Very simplistic? Yes. But pretty well the case. I wouldn't say I'm a paid up member of the 'It's H&S gone mad!' brigade, because I don't generally believe that's the case. It's more the risk aversion.

Considering the 'full economic impacts' is a pragmatic matter, but inherent in that philosophy is the assumption that individuals have a lower expectation of personal responsibility than would be the case in many other countries or indeed this country until recently. i.e. instead of inculcating a sense of what it right/wrong in individuals, push the onus onto asset owners. This is where at least some of the 'full economic impacts' come from.

Network Rail (and it's various private predecessors) have always had an obligation to demarcate it's boundary and/or to prevent animals from wandering onto the line. In practice this would mean something of the order of a post & wire fence, rather than palisade fencing.

I don't know if this is still the case, maybe someone from NR can tell me. When I was involved with railway boundaries, there was a risk factor that was put in place. To cut a long story short, this would mean putting high palisade in when the risk factor hit a certain number. This led to one ridiculous scenario I was involved in. At a quite remote West Highland line area between Roy Bridge and Tulloch we had to install high fencing for 100 metres to the left of a track access point with gates that were sometimes unlocked, and post and wire fence away to the right! At the time, post and wire was around £10 per metre installed, palisade was around £45 per metre.

On another note, when on holiday in Salou a few years ago, there were no fences along the side of the High Speed railway and people seemed to just cross the line wherever it was convenient for them to. At Tarragona station, people were crossing the line in front of trains to access the platforms with no challenge from any staff. A totally relaxed attitude to railway safety!

 

[work-traveller]

I don't know if this is still the case, maybe someone from NR can tell me. When I was involved with railway boundaries, there was a risk factor that was put in place...

Yes - that would be the risk matrix in the lineside security standard.

 

[afyutr]

I used to live in Barcelona; on the RENFE in Catalunya (I guess it's the same in the rest of Spain?) everyone wanders across the tracks. You wouldn't sue the council if you got run over crossing the road (I'd hope), so why it is seen as everyone else's fault when they get hurt or killed crossing a high speed railway line I have no idea.

This matting sounds worse than walking on hot coals - maybe they should install it around David Cameron to dissuade 'joggers'.