It is not clear that it was dangerous assuming there is a workman's walkway, they crossed in daylight, if the people clearly understood that they were acting at their own risk, if they were careful, fit and alert (I expect hikers in the highlands typically are) and if they keep a keen lookout for trains (we have no idea about that).
Without wishing to flame too much, it is clear as daylight that it is dangerous. I'm not a railway employee but what about these dangers:
- driver having to emergency stop
- driver not seeing them till too late
- risk of being hit by the train, either head on or by the side
- risk of falling off the viaduct
Whether they "clearly understood" they were acting at their own risk is irrelevant - they were on the viaduct, they shouldn't have been, end of.
Likewise, it doesn't matter a jot whether they're careful, fit and alert if they're half way across and the train is bearing down on them.
Really, there needs to be some common sense. Perhaps they had an emergency, perhaps walking on the bog instead of the viaduct would have caused them such difficulties that a rescue became needed, or worse. It is not like anyone is proposing providing general access, including wheelchair access etc. to either viaduct or boggy moor. If what they were doing was reasonably safe, in the circumstances, and harmless then common sense dictates a blind eye needs to be turned to victimless law breaking.
What emergency. They were carrying backpacks and hiking sticks, and were walking at a normal pace. What they were doing was not "reasonably safe" in any circumstances. For all they (or I) knew, a freight train could have been due, or a special (which was due), or a late-runner. A train coming south cannot be seen or heard till it rounds the curve just north of the viaduct - I know because I was standing there waiting for it.
Otherwise the UK will end up like the US, bankrupt, litigious, post-industrial, uncaring, in a downward spiral of poverty.
No it won't.
And again, as a matter of common sense, it is appropriate that there be warning signs each end of a bridge or viaduct if venturing on to it is significantly more dangerous than walking alongside the railway approaches. Not a legal requirement, just good sense, it could save a young person's life to remind them of the increased danger. At least it is likely to increase alertness.
In my view it is not needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For the record, would the orginal poster pl tell us how much time actually elapsed between the two people cross the bridge - now we understand using the workman's walkway - I can only supposed from what was written that it was some 90 minutes later.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking how much time elapsed between the people coming off the viaduct and the train arriving, or how long it took them to cross?
