If that were true, and it was just a permissive path, then don't you think that Network Rail would have closed it years ago?
According to the Railway Regulation Act, Trespass can be prosecuted where the person is refusing to leave (tenuous in this instance, there's no evidence a challenge to leave was ever given) or where someone is making a nuisance of themselves on Railway premises. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if potential for disruption or misusing an authorised crossing counts as a nuisance, but if it doesn't then I'd certainly like the law changed to make it so.
I can't imagine that's going to help anybody - for one, there's no way of confirming how much pain those who do sadly pass are in and for how long. Many who do get struck by a train are killed instantly. If a person is in a position where they are contemplating suicide the chances are that they're already in a vast amount of pain, mental or physical. Being made aware of more pain is unlikely to alter their decisions. As you say, those left behind would be even more hurt than they already are trying to come to terms with why their loved one has died.
Because if the wording in the Enabling Acts of the railway says that they will provide a crossing then that Act has to be altered to close it, and that requires time in Parliament to do it, which is both expensive and slow. It really isn't as easy as some people think!
Either NR have discovered an invisibility cloak, or that's an old photo. (Photo says it's from 2011).
Would it actually work? Perhaps the mindset of these people is that "it won't happen to me." To be honest, you could show me pictures of bicycle vs HGV collisions but I'd still ride my bike. In fact, when I was 10 I saw the shattered remains of my gran's bike in her house a few days after she had a head on crash with a suspected drunk driver in a mini. I can still picture it now. Doesn't put me off.
I think this is precisely the issue. Rather than appealing to their inner nature, perhaps the way to change that mindset is to substitute the theoretical penalty for an actual, financial, one. Change 'it won't happen to me' to 'it cost me £1,000 last time, it's not worth it again'. It's rather like mobile phone use while driving (or a speeding ticket). Problem is for pedestrians it's almost impossible to identify with enough confidence for a prosecution, unless they happen to be stupid enough to post the photo on facebook later. At least car owners can be done for failing to ID the driver when the license plate is visible.
Really ! of course they are tresspassing, they are 'allowed' to cross, and quickly, not stop and have a lay down and take stupid photos !
I agree - the risk has to be assessed and the response proportional. Of course society could adopt the stance that every single crossing risk must be eliminated at any cost, giving us bridges everywhere - rail, road and so on. It can't, and shouldn't spend gargantuan sums trying. The people involved here are morons, but have any 'stunts' like this actually resulted in deaths? The elimination of risk has given us farcical structures like the Gomshall footbridge on the North Downs line - a totally disproportionate response to no deaths (that I am aware of). Society cannot afford to cover every possible risk and people have to take personal responsibility for their behaviour. Road pedestrian crossings have vastly more deaths but we do not replace all of them with bridges.
NO!! Really - if the taking of 'peril' shots is catered for/encouraged, people simply WILL NOT travel specifically to their nearest heritage line and pay for the opportunity!
Do you understand the difference between a Public Right of Way, and a Permissive Path?
It may even result in simply exporting (and possibly multiplying) the risk, as with the closure of the Mexico Inn crossing near Penzance - the alternative walking route to the beach is a half mile detour along a 60mph A-road, with a blind bend where it crosses the railway. ,
I disagree, there's plenty of evidence that crossings were misused from pre-nationalisation days.
Agreed. The question is how sympathetic can you get with a 6m high bridge in a landscape that's almost virtually flat? Is NR's design the best possible effort whilst still allowing the railway to continue to operate the service required of it? Personally, I think transparent Parapets and use of more lattice supports than embankments would be better, but it's inevitable the view will be impacted. An underpass is impractical due to the flooding risk.
The railway had a legal obligation to provide secure fencing. What penalty would you think would be appropriate for its failure to do so?
Nobody's held Railtrack responsible for anything since 2004. Network Rail is a totally different company, structured in a completely different way and governed under a different framework.
It's a question that should be discussed. However, it doesn't change the fact that currently the obligation exists.
Completely agree, but there's no suggestion in the incident for which NR got fined that the fencing was deliberately damaged by the individual who got harmed. Where it can be proven, criminal damage and destruction of railway property are prosecuted.
My error. I was looking at several similar cases, most of them before 2004. Yes the fence should have been maintained, but that does not excuse the trespass - two wrongs don't make a right.
No worries, I've known people who've worked for 'the railway' under so many different guises they've lost track themselves!
Pedantic point noted. The Seaford route is a branch line, and yes the trains mostly go to Brighton (the odd on-peak train runs to London), but precisely because it's a branch and not isolated from the rest of the network delay can be transferred to the junctions, and from there across the wider network.
Not to mention the human cost. My nephew joined the fire brigade recently and has already had to be involved in such a clean-up.
I’m not sure that’s correct. “Pass and repass” rights allow you to travel through an area and maybe stop briefly for the purpose of loading or unloading, if that’s appropriate, but not to “stop and linger” on the right of way.
Agreed, a quick google throws up the following:
Reading a map and taking a rest are, to me, definitely reasonable to enable the right of way to be enjoyed and even taking a photo may well count. (I think a picnic is pushing your luck for legal rights, stopping for a flask of tea and pork pie maybe). However, I (a non-lawyer) would argue that it is not reasonable to exercise those rights in a clearly unsafe place or in a clearly unsafe manner. Especially when a safe place is available either immediately prior or immediately afterwards.
It is funny you mention that, as I have just come across