idiots on the line (photters and filmers)

[yorkie]

We are not talking just about sidings though are we:roll:

Who is "we"? Scotsman and I are. See this post. Why respond to us if you don't know what you are responding to?

What sort of point are you trying to make? We should all ignore rail safety becuase road safety is s***? I think you will also find there is a hell of alot more road safety campaigns then there are for rail safety.

You think I am saying rail safety should be "ignored"?! Where on earth do I say or suggest that?! Perhaps a sense of proportion and common sense is needed, there is a middle ground you know?! Like in most countries in the world! Why do you seem to think it has to be one extreme or the other?!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Where does it require that enthusiasts railtours are treated differently?

And how do you define if it is "for enthusiasts"? Also surely the purpose of running a train has nothing to do with the actions of trespassers who are not on the train?

And what of the 67 drags by EC? Are they OK because the trains are not for enthusiasts? But if people are going to trespass on crossings to get photos of 67s, then why allow EC to run 67s but not allow a charter to run 67s?

There is no logic in this at all.

If the trespassers are acting incorrectly, they should be dealt with appropriately. To punish people on board a train that is being photographed is absurd. This wouldn't be tolerated on the roads so why should we tolerate it on rails? (and don't give me a "roads are different" response)

I see you have not answered by question. A little hypocritical, no? I shall ask again: Point out to me the exact paragraph where it requires Network Rail to allow charters to run. If you cannot, we can assume that it does not exist.
Your point about the EC drags are irrelevant. They are a paying (a lot of money) TOC providing a passenger service to that area of the country, a railtour does not.
Why are you also so quick to say that you don't want a roads are different response? Is that because you know they are? Roads are different. Shall we refresh ourselves?
70mph to 125mph.
Cars can take avoiding action. Trains cannot.
Cars can stop incredibly quickly. Trans cannot.
Cars are not powered by a 3rd Rail. Some trains are.
Cars are not powered by OHLE. Some trains are.

I have not ignored it. Chester025 is quoted as saying he was "allowed" to be there. Either he was, or he wasn't. I don't know, I wasn't there, and neither were you, so you don't either. So until such time as Chester025 can explain further I suggest that you refrain from passing judgement.

And since you say you were not their either, perhaps you should refrain from passing judgement on it as well?

 

[yorkie]

Answer my questions please.

The original question was directed at MattE2010, and he has already answered.

Answer mine and I'll answer yours! Also tell me this: why is a road death so much more acceptable than a rail death, and is this right?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Answer mine and I'll answer yours! Also tell me this: why is a road death so much more acceptable than a rail death, and is this right?

Because there are so many scenarios possilbe in road deaths, most of the time, rail deaths are down to the person killed.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Who is "we"? Scotsman and I are. See this post. Why respond to us if you don't know what you are responding to?

Who's "us" then?

 

[yorkie]

Chester 025. Simple.

Well, that's blatantly incorrect. Standing in a siding of course is trespassing (if not given permission or have authority to be there ) but trespassing doesn't necessarily mean that you are in danger, and just because crossing a road isn't trespassing doesn't mean it is not dangerous. The woman who stood in front of a Pacer the other week was trespassing but she was probably safer stood there (the driver was hardly going to run her over) than if she stood in the middle of a main road (where some drivers, you wouldn't trust not to run her over!) If you think crossing a main road is safer than doing what Chester025 did (whether trespassing or not) then you don't realise how dangerous it is to cross a main road.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who's "us" then?

I was responding to Scotsman, who was quoting Chester025. It's not that difficult to follow surely?

 

[GB]

Who is "we"? Scotsman and I are. See this post. Why respond to us if you don't know what you are responding to?

This is a topic about tresspass. You said mainland Europe "has a more sensible view".


I asked you how you would feel if one of them (tresspasser) was wiped out. It is you that assumed I was talking about sidings.

 

[90019]

Answer mine and I'll answer yours! Also tell me this: why is a road death so much more acceptable than a rail death, and is this right?

There is no difinitive answer to your question, it is all relative to what road and what siding you compare.

In fact, if what he says about the siding is true, and it was closed, then your question is only relevant when it is compared to a closed road.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I was responding to Scotsman, who was quoting Chester025. It's not that difficult to follow surely?

I thought it was fairly obvious who the "we" was that GB was referring to. Surely it wasn't that difficult to follow?

 

[GB]

Thankyou Ralph.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Well, that's blatantly incorrect.

Yep, but trepass is braking the law, walking across the road isn't...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Surely it wasn't that difficult to follow?

lol, owned

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yep, but trepass is braking the law, walking across the road isn't. Generally, if you do it correctly, you won't get run pover on a main road, but anything could happen on private land.

What makes private land any different to public land? Bit of a silly point!
Unless it's a motorway

 

[90019]

What makes private land any different to public land?

Liability would be one of the obvious ones, but yes, it is a slightly silly point to make and somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Dennis]

http://dave421.fotopic.net/p67598968.html
....this group of trainspotters where on wrongside of the fence ,you will notice a women with CHILDREN on the rails

Looks to me like most of these could well be ignorant crossing abusers rather than trainspotters given the absence of cameras. Good evidence of the need to reduce the number of crossings where the public can put themselves in danger.

As an idea for shaming those who behave irresponsibly on the railway, why not start a gallery of shame?

 

[yorkie]

I thought it was fairly obvious who the "we" was that GB was referring to. Surely it wasn't that difficult to follow?

Right, I'm going to waste several minutes of my time finding the relevant quotes to prove that you are, in fact, mistaken.

lol, owned :grin:

On the contrary!

I will now show how the quotes went (click on the relevant links to verify):

Exhibit A - Chester025 admits trespassing.

I responded to Scotsman about Chester025 allegedly trespassing at Kingussie:

How is it trespass if he was "allowed" to go there? (Or are you accusing him of lying?)

It's only in the UK where people get so wound up by such things, mainland Europe has a more sensible view.

GB quoted my 2nd sentence and responded:

And what would your view be if one of them was wiped out?

I then replied:

There's more chance of being wiped out crossing a road than standing at a siding.

GB then replied:

We are not talking just about sidings though are we

Well, I was, but only because Scotsman decided to accuse Chester025 of trespassing at a siding in Kingussie.

I do not know if Chester025 was trespassing or not. He says he has been given permission. It is alleged that this is incorrect. I do not know if the allegations are true and I suggest we give Chester025 time to respond.

Irrespective of whether or not Chester025 had been given permission or not, what he did was safer than crossing a road. If he had not been given permission then what he did is less legal than crossing a road but that doesn't make it less safe.

I asked Matt if Chester025's actions were more dangerous than crossing a main road, he said they were. However this clearly is not correct as there was no danger of any rail movement at Chester025's location at the time Chester025 was there. I am not stating Chester025 did not trespass but before he is assumed guilty of it, I suggest he is given chance to respond. In mainland Europe he would likely have been given permission to be there, that I can confidently say based on reports from various people I know who have been to various European countries who have all told me that the rules are far more relaxed over there. I stand by those claims.

Saying I have been "owned" and laughing shows immaturity and a lack of understanding of what I have said, Matt.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Saying I have been "owned" and laughing shows immaturity and a lack of understanding of what I have said, Matt.

indicates very happy, not laughing yorkie. Check up on stuff before you post. It doesn't show immaturity, it shows just not being as serious as some try desperately to prove that they are right and always will be. Please don't address me by my first name either.

 

[yorkie]

And since you say you were not their either, perhaps you should refrain from passing judgement on it as well?

Why are you telling me that? I have already stated that we should not judge Chester025 and to let him respond. I have not judged him as guilty or not guilty of trespassing. However having met him I found him very sensible, and I would also suggest he is considered not guilty until proven otherwise, surely you can't disagree with that?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I thought it was perfectly obvious that by "we", GB meant those of us opposing the motion that enthusiasts should be allowed to go wherever they want to.
Anyway, as you said about Chester025, neither of us can pass judgement on that until GB responds confirming what he meant.

Saying I have been "owned" and laughing shows immaturity and a lack of understanding of what I have said, Matt.

I will agree with you there, however.

 

[yorkie]

indicates very happy, not laughing yorkie. Check up on stuff before you post. It doesn't show immaturity, it shows just not being as serious as some try desperately to prove that they are right and always will be. Please don't address me by my first name either.

Why are you happy? And yes, it does indicate immaturty, you admit to being "very happy" because Ralph falsely claimed that GB was not replying to my reply to Scotsman's claims regarding Chester025. I find that disappointing.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Why are you telling me that? I have already stated that we should not judge Chester025 and to let him respond. I have not judged him as guilty or not guilty of trespassing. However having met him I found him very sensible, and I would also suggest he is considered not guilty until proven otherwise, surely you can't disagree with that?

The only way we shall ever find out is with witness accounts of everyone in the vicinity, and statements from the stewards, and from Chester. Therefore, I think it best we consider it irrelevant. You never know on the internet whether people are telling the truth or not.

I also notice that you still have not answered my question, asking you to point out where in the EU directive you linked to, does it state that charters and specials must be allowed to run?

 

[90019]

I will ask once again if you can please answer my question, yorkie.

Simple question: Which is trespassing and which isn't?
a) Chester025 taking the photo he took at Kingussie
b) someone crossing a main road?

Also, which is more likely to be able to stop when the driver sees someone in the way; a car or a train?
Which one can take evasive action?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Why are you happy? And yes, it does indicate immaturty, you admit to being "very happy" because Ralph falsely claimed that GB was not replying to my reply to Scotsman's claims regarding Chester025. I find that disappointing.

I never said anything of the sort. I merely said, that by "we" I thought that GB was referring to the wider posting community. I never mentioned anything about whether or not he was replying to your post.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Why are you happy? And yes, it does indicate immaturty, you admit to being "very happy" because Ralph falsely claimed that GB was not replying to my reply to Scotsman's claims regarding Chester025. I find that disappointing.

Have you noticed the levels of the smiley I use elsewhere, primarily to represent myself as an individual using other people's creations, most of the time out of context. Got any problems about how disappointing you find anything I do, PM with them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I never said anything of the sort. I merely said, that by "we" I thought that GB was referring to the wider posting community. I never mentioned anything about whether or not he was replying to your post.

Exactly the way I was interpreting it, otherwise I would never have left the comment, 'cept I thought he was replying to yorkie.

 

[yorkie]

I thought it was perfectly obvious that by "we", GB meant those of us opposing the motion that enthusiasts should be allowed to go wherever they want to.

But is anyone suggesting enthusiasts should go wherever they want to?

It does seem that some people think that everything has to be one extreme or the other. I do not think that either extreme is appropriate!

I think that Scotsman's attack on Chester025 in this topic was unwarranted, and I felt I had to respond. No doubt others who know Chester025 will respond. Such an attack is hardly going to make people rush to book with SRPS (which is a shame as the vast majority of their stewards have been sound, in my experience).

 

[scotsman]

Deleted. See comment further down.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But is anyone suggesting enthusiasts should go wherever they want to?

Enthusiasts being allowed on running lines will only go to one extreme. You couldn't possibly regulate a middle ground.

 

[scotsman]

I do not know if Chester025 was trespassing or not. He says he has been given permission. It is alleged that this is incorrect. I do not know if the allegations are true and I suggest we give Chester025 time to respond.

Irrespective of whether or not Chester025 had been given permission or not, what he did was safer than crossing a road. If he had not been given permission then what he did is less legal than crossing a road but that doesn't make it less safe.

Stewards are not authorised to give permission to trespass and certainly wouldn't do such a thing (I put this to my colleagues yesterday, they didn't like Chester025's story). In fact, we had safety instrction notices throughout the train which said passengers were should not detrain away from a platform in any situation short of an evacuation.

So, over to Chester025.

 

[GB]

I never said anything of the sort. I merely said, that by "we" I thought that GB was referring to the wider posting community. I never mentioned anything about whether or not he was replying to your post.

Thats correct. I'm not sure why Yorkie is having a hard time processing it.

 

[kyrano]

Hang 'em, burn 'em and flog 'em I say...

Have you reported this officially or have you just posted it on here to adopt a 'holier than thou' attitude?

Hello yes the guard on 1A23 saw the pic on the phone and asked if there was a steam charter about ,I told him just these are being dragged by a 67 loco,even staff in the buffet car took a phot and I can tell you they hate trainspotters !!
Think its time to burn my books and get another hobby.