Level Crossing stupidity

[silverfoxcc]

The BBC news just now ran an clip on idiots on level crossings

They may need to chastise one of their own as on P23 of Todays Daily Express there is a picture of Anita Rani advertising her programme on BBC4
She is standing in between what appears to be two running lines

Now where the picture was taken matters not NOR the state of the lines involved The bottom line is that condoning such a picture is stupidity of the highest level
I have sent a complaint of the the BBC . perhaps those on the list who feel strongly about double standards might well do the same

No doubt i will get a mealy mouthed reply but what an example to set

 

[norbitonflyer]

The BBC news just now ran an clip on idiots on level crossings

They may need to chastise one of their own as on P23 of Todays Daily Express there is a picture of Anita Rani advertising her programme on BBC4
She is standing in between what appears to be two running lines

Now where the picture was taken matters not NOR the state of the lines involved The bottom line is that condoning such a picture is stupidity of the highest level
I have sent a complaint of the the BBC . perhaps those on the list who feel strongly about double standards might well do the same

No doubt i will get a mealy mouthed reply but what an example to set

Alice Roberts did something similar a few weeks ago, in a publicity shot for her new Channel 4 series

RAIL even found a shot of her sitting on a rail.

 

[Spartacus]

I think even when they're filming in a country where it isn't against the rules it should definitely go down as bad practice when it's being filmed for a UK audience who could be influenced by such behaviour, and in particular the taking of photographs with railway lines as a backdrop, as unlike on the program itself there can't be any context given.

 

[brad465]

There's also this video demonstrating a parent who must have skipped parenting classes:

Watch: Children play on railway tracks as man looks at phone

Network Rail has released footage from covert cameras at level crossings to raise safety awareness.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dakta]

Probably bad practice, almost certainly make no realistic difference

That moment when you would have jumped the lights, but then you realise you can't remember your fave celeb doing it so it fails the risk assessment

 

[eldomtom2]

I think there are limits to what can realistically be regarded as setting a bad example.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think there are limits to what can realistically be regarded as setting a bad example.

I too am somewhat sceptical of a direct causal link between irresponsible editing choices and crossing misuse...

Though I also think the BBC should know better, especially when the news story is about people taking unnecessary risks on the railway.

 

[AlterEgo]

Alice Roberts did something similar a few weeks ago, in a publicity shot for her new Channel 4 series

RAIL even found a shot of her sitting on a rail.

That’s not a real location, and is a fairly obvious bit of photo editing mashing three scenes together. No presenters were harmed, etc.

 

[BrummieBobby]

The BBC news just now ran an clip on idiots on level crossings

They may need to chastise one of their own as on P23 of Todays Daily Express there is a picture of Anita Rani advertising her programme on BBC4
She is standing in between what appears to be two running lines

Now where the picture was taken matters not NOR the state of the lines involved The bottom line is that condoning such a picture is stupidity of the highest level
I have sent a complaint of the the BBC . perhaps those on the list who feel strongly about double standards might well do the same

No doubt i will get a mealy mouthed reply but what an example to set

I would argue that there is a fairly obvious difference between a properly arranged publicity shot arranged by the BBC and a numpty running across a crossing when the road signal is lit, the siren is sounding and the barriers are down...

 

[Big Jumby 74]

That’s not a real location, and is a fairly obvious bit of photo editing mashing three scenes together. No presenters were harmed, etc

What you say may be correct, but there are many 'brain dead' idiots in society today who seem to think getting a 'selfie' or some such out there for all to see on SM, is their main aim in life, and if it involves something remotely risky they are just as liable to try it. This sort of image, put out by either joe blogs or the blxxxx BBC etc gives out the WRONG message, end of !

 

[Egg Centric]

I'm astonished some people managed to stand on a railway for ten seconds and survived with their lives. No one has ever managed this abroad.

All railway crossings are the same, much like standing in the 3rd lane of the M40 is exactly the same as using a zebra crossing in a 20 limit.

 

[TreacleMiller]

I'm astonished some people managed to stand on a railway for ten seconds and survived with their lives. No one has ever managed this abroad.

All railway crossings are the same, much like standing in the 3rd lane of the M40 is exactly the same as using a zebra crossing in a 20 limit.

Might think differently if youve been involved in a near miss. Trust me with that.

 

[al78]

I'm astonished some people managed to stand on a railway for ten seconds and survived with their lives. No one has ever managed this abroad.

You can often get away with stupidity a few times without consequence but you only have to be wrong once and eventually the laws of probability catch up with you. The BBC clip linked on this thread suggests they were dawdling on the track with minimal spatial awarenes for longer than ten seconds. I still think the very safe nature of modern society has eroded people's instinct to be aware of potential hazards around them, like a form of risk compensation they feel very safe in day-to-day life so they compensate by paying less attention.

 

[Falcon1200]

All railway crossings are the same

Actually, no they are not. Some crossings have lights and full barriers, some have lights and half barriers, some have CCTV monitors, some have Obstacle Detectors, some just have phones to the Signaller and user-operated gates or barriers, and some (foot crossings) have nothing other an instruction to the user to stop, look and listen.

You can often get away with stupidity a few times without consequence but you only have to be wrong once and eventually the laws of probability catch up with you.

Indeed, and someone acting an idiot on one crossing without consequences can encourage others to believe they can do the same.

 

[Requeststop]

Does that woman have children of her own? Does she present children's programmes on TV? If so she should be sacked. I don't care what country the photo's were taken or what the local rules are. Terrible example.

 

[norbitonflyer]

That’s not a real location, and is a fairly obvious bit of photo editing mashing three scenes together. No presenters were harmed, etc.

Whether it was photoshopped or not, it sets a bad example

 

[DarloRich]

Does that woman have children of her own? Does she present children's programmes on TV? If so she should be sacked. I don't care what country the photo's were taken or what the local rules are. Terrible example.

The bottom line is that condoning such a picture is stupidity of the highest level

really? You don't think that, at worst, a slight telling off might be more, you know, er, proportionate?

PS - your BBC complaint isn't going to result in anything other than a polite email dismissing you.

I would argue that there is a fairly obvious difference between a properly arranged publicity shot arranged by the BBC and a numpty running across a crossing when the road signal is lit, the siren is sounding and the barriers are down...

Absolutely

 

[AlterEgo]

Whether it was photoshopped or not, it sets a bad example

The railway needs to be a lot less po-faced about safety. I have posted at length about this before and don't intend doing so again, but my view is essentially that you cannot expend all your political capital in nannying BBC presenters about sitting on a rail (where? not even in the UK?) because most people are smart enough to realise that a BBC presenter wouldn't be sitting on the Down Fast at Bletchley on the WCML to take that picture.

The railway - and people involved in and around it - would do a lot better to focus on activities which demonstrate a clear and extreme risk, like level crossing misuse.

The idea the OP has that the two are even remotely similar is wide of the mark.

 

[Spartacus]

The railway needs to be a lot less po-faced about safety. I have posted at length about this before and don't intend doing so again, but my view is essentially that you cannot expend all your political capital in nannying BBC presenters about sitting on a rail (where? not even in the UK?) because most people are smart enough to realise that a BBC presenter wouldn't be sitting on the Down Fast at Bletchley on the WCML to take that picture.

The railway - and people involved in and around it - would do a lot better to focus on activities which demonstrate a clear and extreme risk, like level crossing misuse.

The idea the OP has that the two are even remotely similar is wide of the mark.

Trouble is there's plenty of people, as evidenced regularly, who don't think anything of sitting down, having photoshoots, having a chat, taking pictures, listening to music etc in the middle of a live railway line. Some people WILL see it, WILL see it looks good (which was the photographer's intention in the first place after all) and WILL decide to do the same on the nearest line to them without giving a hoot about context. It's not like there's any great difficulty in professionals NOT taking pictures of someone posing on a railway line, but doing it get's the idea into some people's heads. Yeah, they might be the kind of people that would jump of a cliff if everyone else did, or they might just be children, but it's the same problem when a train comes along regardless.

 

[AlterEgo]

Trouble is there's plenty of people, as evidenced regularly, who don't think anything of sitting down/having photoshoots, having a chat etc in the middle of a live railway line. Some people WILL see it, WILL see it looks good (which was the photographer's intention in the first place) and WILL decide to do the same on the nearest line to them without giving a hoot about context. It's not like there's any great difficulty in professionals NOT taking pictures of someone posing on a railway line.

You'd be better off spending your time and energy reporting the millions of images on Flickr, Twitter and Instagram of people windowhanging and sitting on tracks - usually, perfectly legally, abroad. That is what is being recreated.

 

[Lost property]

The railway needs to be a lot less po-faced about safety. I have posted at length about this before and don't intend doing so again, but my view is essentially that you cannot expend all your political capital in nannying BBC presenters about sitting on a rail (where? not even in the UK?) because most people are smart enough to realise that a BBC presenter wouldn't be sitting on the Down Fast at Bletchley on the WCML to take that picture.

The railway - and people involved in and around it - would do a lot better to focus on activities which demonstrate a clear and extreme risk, like level crossing misuse.

The idea the OP has that the two are even remotely similar is wide of the mark.

I completely agree.

I would happily suggest a few graphic images of what is politely termed "human remains " should be broadcast to exemplify what happens when the human body encounters xxxx tonnes of train. Same applies to drink / drug drivers and the results of their selfish stupidity.

Unfortunately, such broadcasts may upset those of a sensitive disposition.

There was one notable example we used when I was training baby engineers. This showed a former USAF member, intact from the waist up, but, pulp from the waist down.

This was to demonstrate the difference between charging pressures when bar was stipulated as well as psi, hence the unfortunate example, shown still in the vicinity of the mainwheel.

 

[Spartacus]

You'd be better off spending your time and energy reporting the millions of images on Flickr, Twitter and Instagram of people windowhanging and sitting on tracks - usually, perfectly legally, abroad. That is what is being recreated.

I really wouldn't. That's just like saying because they're jumping off cliffs it's ok for the BBC to do so too. Just because something problematic already exists doesn't mean we shouldn't have a problem with it being added to, especially by those who should know better. How many of those are reaching the size of audience the BBC and other broadcasters are?

 

[66701GBRF]

I really wouldn't. That's just like saying because they're jumping off cliffs it's ok for the BBC to do so too. Just because something problematic already exists doesn't mean we shouldn't have a problem with it being added to, especially by those who should know better. How many of those are reaching the size of audience the BBC and other broadcasters are?

Size of audience isn’t what matters. Type of audience is. Those watching bbc are less likely to be copying stuff seen compared to the likes of TikTok, Instagram or YouTube etc. If this was really a problem then surely this thread is adding to it by highlighting it.

 

[ExRes]

If this was really a problem then surely this thread is adding to it by highlighting it.

For the umpteenth time

 

[AlterEgo]

Size of audience isn’t what matters. Type of audience is. Those watching bbc are less likely to be copying stuff seen compared to the likes of TikTok, Instagram or YouTube etc. If this was really a problem then surely this thread is adding to it by highlighting it.

Exactly! People aren’t copying BBC presenters. They’re copying people they want to be (seen to be) like, with social media content.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Does that woman have children of her own? Does she present children's programmes on TV? If so she should be sacked. I don't care what country the photo's were taken or what the local rules are. Terrible example.

Which one? Prof Roberts has two children acording to her Wikipedia entry, and presented the Royal Institution Christmas lectures for children in 2018.
But complaining to the BBC would be pointless in her case though as the programme advertised is on Channel 4.

I know less about Anita Rani - apparently she has presented Countryfile, Watchdog and Strictly.

 

[Spartacus]

If this was really a problem then surely this thread is adding to it by highlighting it.

So rather than highlight a problem should we ignore it and hope it goes away? Besides, I'd have hope people on here would be more than aware of the dangers involved.

 

[AlterEgo]

So rather than highlight a problem should we ignore it and hope it goes away? Besides, I'd have hope people on here would be more than aware of the dangers involved.

Genuine question - what do you actually think is driving the increase in people wanting to take pictures on the railway?

 

[josh-j]

Does that woman have children of her own? Does she present children's programmes on TV? If so she should be sacked. I don't care what country the photo's were taken or what the local rules are. Terrible example.

Aside from the fact that the particular scenes used in a programme and for its publicity are not going to be solely down to the presenter, it's a bit beyond the pale to imply that she doesn't care about her own children just because of this.

There's sensible safety messaging and then there's exaggeration which helps nobody.

If you think it is problematic put in a complaint. But don't use it to harass the presenter.

 

[Dave W]

The hysterics in this thread are extraordinary and the mental gymnastics in this...

Does that woman have children of her own? Does she present children's programmes on TV? If so she should be sacked. I don't care what country the photo's were taken or what the local rules are. Terrible example.

... are absolutely mental.

BBC bashing disguised as hand-wringing.