More trespassers - Rannoch Viaduct

[EltonRoad]

Following on from the other thread on trespassing, imagine my horror when I saw this couple out for a stroll over Rannoch Viaduct last year. They appeared off the moor at the north end of the viaduct, walked its full length then continued along the embankment to the station.

I was set up with camera on tripod, waiting for the Royal Scotsman to come south. This train can run up to 90 minutes early, and I was expecting it at any minute. There were no public trains scheduled, so perhaps these two thought it was ok.

It takes several minutes to walk the full length of the viaduct (see third picture to appreciate full length). There are walkways so I suppose if the train had appeared whilst they were half way across they could have moved sideways, but I still think it was incredibly stupid. I doubt the driver would have been too impressed.

What do others think?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I will ask the obvious question....are there prohibition signs affixed to either end of the viaduct, that can be clearly seen by tresspassers?

 

[AlterEgo]

I will ask the obvious question....are there prohibition signs affixed to either end of the viaduct, that can be clearly seen by tresspassers?

Why would that matter?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why would that matter?

I was just checking as I was not sure what is shown on this viaduct. But is there not a responsibility to display such notices for legal reasons? I say this as I am not conversant with railway law and am willing to learn from those who undertand it.

 

[yorkie]

I was just checking as I was not sure what is shown on this viaduct. But is there not a responsibility to display such notices for legal reasons?

I don't think that there is a requirement for signs to be placed at regular intervals along railway tracks! If there was, it wouldn't actually improve safety in my opinion, and it would be a huge waste of money. The problem with the expectation of signs is that the absence of them may be seen by some people that they can break the law, which would be counter-productive.

There's no need for signs. They just thought no train was due and that therefore, it didn't matter. A sign wouldn't change that.

 

[Skimble19]

Hello nanny state ^. Why must people insist on putting signs stating the obvious absolutely everywhere.. we've got enough of them already, and along with announcements they're already ignored for the large part!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Hello nanny state ^. Why must people insist on putting signs stating the obvious absolutely everywhere.. we've got enough of them already, and along with announcements they're already ignored for the large part!

I am sorry that you feel that I made a stupid posting. I was in the middle of editing it, before you said this. I did add the fact that I am willing to learn from those who know railway law.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think that there is a requirement for signs to be placed at regular intervals along railway tracks!.

My posting did not make reference to "regular intervals along railway tracks".
All I said was "were there signs at either end of the viaduct, that can be clearly seen by tresspassers".

As I said to Skimble 19, I was in the middle of editing my post when you made your posting.

If this is what "willing to learn from those who know railway law" leads to, I am sorry that I am considered to be so stupid and not worthy of receiving an answer that I sought.

 

[GB]

Remember...there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. (speaking in general)

 

[AlterEgo]

The railway is clearly not a public right of way, except for specifically marked crossings. It would be superfluous in my view to start putting up signs, as Yorkie says, any lack of a sign would be seen as an invitation to trespass!

I think these ramblers were probably more than a little ignorant. They may even have travelled up by sleeper!

 

[Old Timer]

I was just checking as I was not sure what is shown on this viaduct. But is there not a responsibility to display such notices for legal reasons? I say this as I am not conversant with railway law and am willing to learn from those who undertand it.

The only requirement in Law is for the various Statutory signs relevant to the Railway, to be displayed at every passenger station.

From memory these relate to trespass, conditions of carriage, railway byelaws, and the various signs that apply to penalty fares and CTA areas.

It has become the practice to erect ever increasing signs to deal with the "I didn't know" syndrome - although ignorance of the Law is no defence - at level crossings, access points and other locations where people can gain easy access to the track.

For Prosecution purposes, the evidence will confirm that the relavant anti-trespass sign was displayed at the nearest passenger station however a record will be provided showing that signs displayed at the point where a person accessed the track.

On a historical note, those Railway staff that have had to complete report forms will possibly remember the question about the nearest passenger station ? If you ever wondered about the relevance, then this is the reason !

Lineside warning and staff notices have no relevance to those who are on the Railway without authority, and the necessary training.

 

[the sniper]

Paul's question is not really a stupid one, and Old Timer's answer is spot on.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The only requirement in Law is for the various Statutory signs relevant to the Railway, to be displayed at every passenger station.

From memory these relate to trespass, conditions of carriage, railway byelaws, and the various signs that apply to penalty fares and CTA areas.

It has become the practice to erect ever increasing signs to deal with the "I didn't know" syndrome - although ignorance of the Law is no defence - at level crossings, access points and other locations where people can gain easy access to the track.

For Prosecution purposes, the evidence will confirm that the relavant anti-trespass sign was displayed at the nearest passenger station however a record will be provided showing that signs displayed at the point where a person accessed the track.

On a historical note, those Railway staff that have had to complete report forms will possibly remember the question about the nearest passenger station ? If you ever wondered about the relevance, then this is the reason !

Lineside warning and staff notices have no relevance to those who are on the Railway without authority, and the necessary training.

I thank you for your full and detailed clarification of all the above points which I have taken on board. As I said, I am a novice in such matters and willing to learn from those, like you, have long experiance within the railway industry. I do remember seeing cast iron bi-lingual warning signs in both Welsh and English covering many railway safety matters which were placed on the railway in Victorian times.

I would not expect many forum members to understand the problems that can occur with intumescent paints when applied to structural steelwork. If that ever occurred,for example, I would try to address any "unknowledgeable" questions on the matter in a carefully considered fashion. without any hint of sarcasm in my reply, in the same thoughtful manner that you have done.

 

[yorkie]

My posting did not make reference to "regular intervals along railway tracks".
All I said was "were there signs at either end of the viaduct, that can be clearly seen by tresspassers".

Sorry if it appears I was suggesting you did, I will re-phrase it:

I would expect there to be signs at stations, but not at any intermediate points between stations, because there's no point putting signs in places the public should not be in the first place. Any signs at viaducts or any other location I would expect to be for staff information only (such as the sign visible in the photo in the WCML trespasser thread).

 

[StrollerEd]

The railway is clearly not a public right of way, except for specifically marked crossings. It would be superfluous in my view to start putting up signs, as Yorkie says, any lack of a sign would be seen as an invitation to trespass!:

Scotland does not have a comparable law of trespass.

One can walk legally without a 'public right of way'.

The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 restricts itself to restricting lodging, occupation and encampment; there is otherwise a general right to roam.

 

[the sniper]

Scotland does not have a comparable law of trespass.

Well it has railway trespass as an offence, which is as applicable in Scotland as it is in E&W.

 

[StrollerEd]

that I admit, but since the general position is a right to roam, as enshrined in land reform legislation passed in 2003 by the Scottish Parliament, then prohibition to walk across Network Rail property is an exception that requires some form of notice - if only to bring the exception to the attention of walkers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The stupidity of walking along a railtrack is otherwise self-evident, especially the enclosed space of a bridge ...

... however it is done 'out of hours' in some rural areas.

 

[yorkie]

Scotland does not have a comparable law of trespass.

One can walk legally without a 'public right of way'.

The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 restricts itself to restricting lodging, occupation and encampment; there is otherwise a general right to roam.

This isn't about trespass, which is a civil matter. This is trespass on the railway, which is a criminal offence under Railway Byelaws. Not comparable at all.

 

[Old Timer]

Scotland does not have a comparable law of trespass.

One can walk legally without a 'public right of way'.

The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 restricts itself to restricting lodging, occupation and encampment; there is otherwise a general right to roam.

Whilst the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 did establish universal rights to roam, it has provision for exclusions, such as Railways.

The Scottish Outdoor Access Code provides detailed guidance on the responsibilities of those exercising access rights and of those managing land and water and sets out a number of exceptions where the land access right doesn’t apply. These are :

Houses and gardens, and non-residential buildings and associated land;

• Land in which crops are growing;
• Land next to a school and used by the school;
• Sports or playing fields when these are in use and where the exercise of access rights would interfere with such use;
• Land developed and in use for recreation and where the exercise of access rights would interfere with such use;
• Golf courses (but you can cross a golf course provided you don’t interfere with any games of golf);
• Places like airfields, railways, telecommunication sites, military bases and installations, working quarries and construction sites; and
• Visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry.

Access which doesn’t comply with the rights set out in the Scottish Land Reform Act still constitute trespass.

Trespass on the Railway is a Criminal not a Civil Offence.

Although the Police and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 does not apply in Scotland, the sections which deal with trespass DO apply

 

[bAzTNM]

That could have ended up like that scene in "Stand By Me" when they get chased by a train along a bridge. Lucky people.

 

[StrollerEd]

Rannoch is in Scotland

Although I for one will admit not to being a member of the judiciary - I never had the Latin as Dud once put it - the point of my post was to advise against loose talk of trespass as though this generally applied - it doesn't.

So IMHO, it would be sensible to make plain by way of a notice that Trespass On Railway Property Is Forbidden By Law; Such Trespass Is Dangerous And Will Be Prosecuted


I read that ...

...

As in England, trespass is a civil wrong in Scotland, and can sometimes also constitute a criminal offence, e.g. trespass which breaches poaching laws. However, the legislation that established trespass as an offence has been amended by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which establishes universal access rights to most land and inland water. People only have these rights if they exercise them responsibly by respecting people’s privacy, safety and livelihoods, and Scotland’s environment. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code provides detailed guidance on the responsibilities of those exercising access rights and of those managing land and water and sets out a number of exceptions where the land access right doesn’t apply:

Houses and gardens, and non-residential buildings and associated land;
Land in which crops are growing;
Land next to a school and used by the school;
Sports or playing fields when these are in use and where the exercise of access rights would interfere with such use;
Land developed and in use for recreation and where the exercise of access rights would interfere with such use;
Golf courses (but you can cross a golf course provided you don’t interfere with any games of golf);
Places like airfields, railways , telecommunication sites, military bases and installations, working quarries and construction sites; and
Visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry.

Whilst most of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 does not apply in Scotland, the sections concerned with trespass and several others DO apply.

Access which doesn’t comply with the rights set out in the Scottish Land Reform Act would still constitute trespass.

However, the law is similar to the English law in that if you allow this state of affairs to continue unchecked, then you will be deemed to have consented to the encroachment and you will lose your rights to object. You can ask the individual to stop trespassing which will prevent any acceptance or consent to the trespass and preserve your rights to act against it.

The defences to trespass are:

Consent
Judicial Warrant
Emergency
Exercise of a right. For example, this could be a servitude, a public right of way, or an access right under part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Old Timer, you beat me to it

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Remember...there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. (speaking in general)

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people is generally much closer to the mark.

At Ely this summer, I saw three Germans walk from the level crossing, along the slanted wood, and onto the platform. As with the people in question here, they're idiots.

 

[Old Timer]

... So IMHO, it would be sensible to make plain by way of a notice that Trespass On Railway Property Is Forbidden By Law; Such Trespass Is Dangerous And Will Be Prosecuted...

The provision for this exists in Law and requires that trespass notices are only legally required to be displayed at stations - because in theory the Railway is fenced off so therefore a person could only legally gain access at a station.

Any additional notices will add weight but do not extend or replace the Statutory requirement

 

[the sniper]

This isn't about trespass, which is a civil matter. This is trespass on the railway, which is a criminal offence under Railway Byelaws. Not comparable at all.

Not that it really matters, but FYI, it's covered by S.55 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, not the byelaws.

 

[StrollerEd]

in theory the Railway is fenced off

Any additional notices will add weight but do not extend or replace the Statutory requirement

perhaps, but this is surely not only about the letter of the Law.

The mindset wrt 'trespass' is different in Scotland and it would appear sensible to use notices to make the exceptions plain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BTW, I am in against the trend twowards excessive signage which is a blot on many a landscape and townscape - but it might be worth re-thinking this one

 

[Old Timer]

perhaps, but this is surely not only about the letter of the Law.

The mindset wrt 'trespass' is different in Scotland and it would appear sensible to use notices to make the exceptions plain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BTW, I am in against the trend twowards excessive signage which is a blot on many a landscape and townscape - but it might be worth re-thinking this one

The question this leads to is when and what should you signpost ??

Taken to its furtherst extent you would have to signpost everything for everyone because you could not argue that one equal Law was superior to another.

UK Law, and indeed most Law throughout the world, has been based upon the premise that ignorance of any Law is no defence.

 

[StrollerEd]

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't help imho.

It is all about reasonable behaviour.

What you should signpost is a matter of judgement (in the non-legal meaning).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Say that there is a law that we drive on the left, not the right side of the road, and that one should not cross that double line in the middle. And yet we can all think of circumstances - not forseen by those who drafted such laws - when to cross that double line and drive on the right was the most reasonable thing to do.

But we digess surely. Respect for the British Transport Commission Act 1949 is not above all things.

 

[Old Timer]

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't help imho.

It is all about reasonable behaviour.

What you should signpost is a matter of judgement (in the non-legal meaning).

I am sorry but only you consider that to be absurd.

You talk about "judgement" and "reasonable" but whose ?

Many a legal fortune and a career has been made out of arguing the interpretation of such phrases, and still no-one can be certain.

 

[StrollerEd]

I did do Latin at school but was hopeless at it. That said, in answer to your question (if my earlier - crossed - post does not):

Quam rationabilis debet esse finis, non definitur, sed omnibus circumstantiis inspectis pendet ex justiciariorum discretione.
What a reasonable fine ought to be is not defined, but is left to the discretion of the judges, all the circumstances being considered.

Quam longum debet esse rationabile tempus non definitur in lege, sed pendet ex discretione justiciariorum. How long a reasonable time ought to be is not defined by law, but is left to the discretion of the judges.

And in English Law, there is a lot of scope given to the judiciary to interpret legislation on the grounds of what is now thought reasonable - even to revert certain parts of legislation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Your phrase "Taken to its furtherst extent" is the exact stance taken in the ad absurdum argument. It has value in arguments of logic but not of law imho.

 

[route:oxford]

Ok, probably a stupid question...

But given that they are walking to one side of the bridge, is there a clear footway to one side that would give appearance of a pedestrian route?

The images do suggest that the bridge is relatively wide for a single-track line.

 

[Old Timer]

I did do Latin at school but was hopeless at it. That said, in answer to your question (if my earlier - crossed - post does not):

Quam rationabilis debet esse finis, non definitur, sed omnibus circumstantiis inspectis pendet ex justiciariorum discretione.
What a reasonable fine ought to be is not defined, but is left to the discretion of the judges, all the circumstances being considered.

Quam longum debet esse rationabile tempus non definitur in lege, sed pendet ex discretione justiciariorum. How long a reasonable time ought to be is not defined by law, but is left to the discretion of the judges.

And in English Law, there is a lot of scope given to the judiciary to interpret legislation on the grounds of what is now thought reasonable - even to revert certain parts of legislation.

Right now I am writing a condition report on a Railway in between posting on various topics on here so I really do not want to enter into a long debate. Suffice to say that both Parliament and the Law have considered the necessity to signpost and long ago set out the precedent. I imagine this has in itself been challenged at some point.

So irrespective of any personal views and opinions, that is the legal situation and I suggest we let that particular matter lay.