Trespasser dies

[Met Driver]

Where does it say he was in the 6 foot? He may of been walking in the Cess, close to the line with his back to traffic, he may of been walking in the Cess, a good distance from the line but been struct by an insecure load {all track workers have to wear hardhats when trackside}.
Basically all it says is a 15 year old lad was killed by tresspassing on the railway and the police are investigating.

I don't want an argument. I simply thought it's more probable that he was killed in the six-foot. What are the real chances of being struck by an unsecure load in the cess? If a load was that unsecure, surely it would bring down the catenary?

 

[yorkie]

Let's face it, almost all the time it's the same story. Maybe this one is different, but it doesn't sound like it.

I don't think anyone has said he "deserves to die" though.

The same arguments have cropped up before and it gets very tedious. Can we all stop now please? :roll:

 

[Craig]

I don't think anyone has said he "deserves to die" though.

Good. It serves him right

It serves him right

 

[Guinness]

I didn't know the Person who died along with the rest of the members so I can't comment on whether he deserved to die or not. Been a Rail Fan or not not in a 3rd Party opinion I feel that no deserves to die unless they are a serial killer or what have you.

It is sad that people trespass on Railways and that people choose to do that with most people knowing the dangers. Its another sad incident on the Railway and I do hope it sends a clear warning out for others in the future.

 

[Tom]

I don't think anyone has said he "deserves to die" though.

Good. It serves him right

It serves him right

That does not mean "deserves to die". He could have been minorly injured and still it served him right, doesn't it?

 

[S Lowes]

I dont see what this all this argueing is about.

The fact is that a tresspasser was on the line where they should not have been and they have faced the consequences

 

[Craig]

I don't think anyone has said he "deserves to die" though.

Good. It serves him right

It serves him right

That does not mean "deserves to die". He could have been minorly injured and still it served him right, doesn't it?

He wasn't injured (minorly isn't a word) though, he was killed. That would infer (to me) that the above statements meant it served him right that he was killed.

 

[TheSlash]

Even wierder than Craig agreeing with me, is me agreeing with him.
Craig and I are basically trying to point out that you lot are drawing your own conclusions from in-acccurate news reports and basically until you have been there from start to finish {incident to enquiry} you shouldn't be making such rash comments on events like this.
I am 20 and have been involved with 3 fatalities since i joined the railway at 17.
No matter who says what to me, i would never wish it upon them to see, hear and smell what i have seen in these 3 incidents

 

[Craig]

If the idiot wasn't pratting about in the six-foot then he wouldn't have been hit by the train. Simple.

Incidentally, there's no six foot on that section of line. Due to the layout of the track and the line speed it's four foot and ten foot. So if he had been "pratting about" six foot he would have been fine...