Trespassers mindset and ways to change that.

[jonathan01n]

In this forum I knew that almost everyone is strongly against trespassing, also network rail, BTP and TOCs did got adverts to educate people, nevertheless there are some people still trespass. I believe some ideas which may change that.

Why people trespass First-
They want to save time (Bridges/Authorized Walk paths)
They are unaware of the railway boundary (Fences+Warning)
They are unaware the dangers, and why they are unaware is because of the reasons below.
Train tracks are quiet compared to road/motorways. You won't cross the road without looking at the traffic but on train track you don't always see trains coming until very last moment.

Therefore here is the solution
Find an Disused airbase, build a 2 mile track along the tarmac.
Find a single Decker bus, and a class 153 train.
Put two dummy dolls at the same distance from starting point which the bus can be narrowly missed it.
Let the people in the bus, then the train cab.
Accelerate to 60mph and then brake harshly.
See what is happening to the dummy and I think they will never try /do it again.

Of course prosecution is always needed.

 

[notverydeep]

Trespass has been a feature of several recent threads. One thing that has struck me having travelled on trains extensively elsewhere in the world is how the UK's absolute prohibition on being on the railway except where passengers are permitted and authorised crossings is actually the exception rather than the norm. Most other countries have large sections of unfenced railway lines, including lines on which relatively high train speeds are permitted, yet little in the way of physical barriers, although I don't think I have ever seen unfenced lines with electrification at track level.

The absence of barriers is not just a feature of railways in the developing world, it includes lines in the US and other parts of the EU. There are limits, I think most newly built very high speed lines do have continuous fences, even in China which otherwise seems very permissive in the sense that Railways are frequently taken to be rights of way for foot traffic and often motorised (at least for mopeds, motorcycles). Germany and Austria I have often noticed that a road will run parallel with no fence. In the US, runs through towns (away from the North East corridor) tend also to be unfenced.

This is simply an observation, I am not advocating it for the UK! I doubt that unrestricted access makes for a safer railway and the US certainly has a fairly terrible record of collisions at barely protected level crossings. However, I do wonder if many drivers on DB or OBB would be a little bemused by the degree to which a reported trespass causes disruption across the UK. I assume that in countries where unimpeded access to railway lines is the norm, residents near railways simply acquire a 'green cross code' like approach to the hazards and mostly are able to protect themselves.

This may point to one reason why we are seeing self evacuation during severe disruption at locations where alternatives are obvious. Rightly or wrongly, many passengers trust themselves to continue their journey without injury. In practice, while no doubt they did extend the disruption, those self evacuating at Lewisham would have had concluded from the evidence that they could see to think that the power was off and no train movements were likely and that fact removed the two most significant hazards of being electrocuted or run over. This meant that the clearest risk they faced would have been slips, trips and falls (or possibly hypothermia) as they negotiated the track side route to the nearest exit. They would probably have concluded that these hazards would have less significant consequences and I suspect the more infirm passengers stayed on the trains. Without agreeing with their decision to self evacuate, it seems clear that these passengers' individual risk assessments turned out to be correct. The individual risk of significant injury was indeed low as demonstrated by the reports that hundreds of people self evacuated, but none were reported to have been injured.

 

[Chris M]

There are many different circumstances in which people trespass on the railway, and many different reasons for it, so there is no one solution that will stop people doing it. As just one example, I suspect that very few, if any, of the people who self-detrained at Lewisham would walk across the track from one platform to another as a shortcut, and not everybody who uses the tracks as a shortcut would have self-detrained at Lewisham. For example I somehow (I have no idea how) strained the muscles in my upper legs recently in such a way that I could have quickly and safely walked over a railway line without falling but wouldn't have been able to climb down from a train to track level.

 

[6Gman]

Therefore here is the solution
Find an Disused airbase, build a 2 mile track along the tarmac.
Find a single Decker bus, and a class 153 train.
Put two dummy dolls at the same distance from starting point which the bus can be narrowly missed it.
Let the people in the bus, then the train cab.
Accelerate to 60mph and then brake harshly.
See what is happening to the dummy and I think they will never try /do it again.

Of course prosecution is always needed.

Which people would these be?

 

[DelW]

Even just in this country, it's something that has changed quite markedly in the last 50 years or so. Recent lineside trespass incidents involving Tornado or Flying Scotsman, which led to BTP action and trains being stopped, would barely have raised eyebrows in the 1960s. There are plenty of photos from the end of steam with people all over platforms, tracks, on locos, up signal gantries, all sorts of places which would cause panic stations these days. I'm not suggesting that was a good thing, just commenting on changed times.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Find a single Decker bus, and a class 153 train.

Make it a HST with the leading power car shut down.

 

[hexagon789]

Which people would these be?

People you don't like much

 

[SteveP29]

This is probably going to sound rather controversial, but....

If people cannot control themselves and stay away from places that are inherently dangerous, then why should attempts be made to prevent it.

The 'authorities' really should stop trying to control how people behave regarding their own safety, let them choose their own path in life, if they stray onto railway property (or other places that they really shouldn't be, or do things they shouldn't be doing) and get hurt, so be it, they shouldn't have been there in the first place, so its their own fault, NOBODY else's and nobody else should pay the penalty for it but the trespasser.

 

[hexagon789]

nobody else should pay the penalty for it but the trespasser.

While I concur that no else should be made to pay for other's stupidity, someone will have to pay for the cleanup unfortunately.

 

[DelW]

nobody else should pay the penalty for it but the trespasser.

While I concur that no else should be made to pay for other's stupidity, someone will have to pay for the cleanup unfortunately.

... and lots of other people will pay the penalty of the delays and cancellations which inevitably result.

 

[hexagon789]

... and lots of other people will pay the penalty of the delays and cancellations which inevitably resu

Which they shouldn't have to pay for. I do feel that the policy should be towards prevening trespass by any means possible.

 

[Mathew S]

Which they shouldn't have to pay for. I do feel that the policy should be towards prevening trespass by any means possible.

Any means possible? Or any proportionate means possible? Because whilst I'm sure 100% of trespassing could be prevented I'm less sure that the effort involved would be reasonable. There does come a point where people have to take some responsibility for themselves, encouraged, in this case, by swift and effective prosecutions of those who don't.

 

[hexagon789]

Any means possible? Or any proportionate means possible? Because whilst I'm sure 100% of trespassing could be prevented I'm less sure that the effort involved would be reasonable. There does come a point where people have to take some responsibility for themselves, encouraged, in this case, by swift and effective prosecutions of those who don't.

Proportionate means

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

I recently travelled in Japan by train and observed something interesting. Naturally, the Shinkansen and lines within cities are fully fenced. But, get out into the suburbs, the countryside and you'll find a largely unfenced railway - some people's small-holdings & farms extend right up to the cess on occasion!

However...Japan has virtually no trespass issues. People recognise that the railway is a dangerous place and that it's none of their business to be walking on it. Imagine the money and time that could be saved over here if people had the same attitude!

Whilst it would be an insanely complex & risky task to administer safely, if one could take a class of school kids out, stand them behind a handrail 2m from the track and let an HST whizz past at 125mph, I doubt many would want to experience it twice!

 

[hozza94]

Whilst it would be an insanely complex & risky task to administer safely, if one could take a class of school kids out, stand them behind a handrail 2m from the track and let an HST whizz past at 125mph, I doubt many would want to experience it twice!

A simpler way: just take a bunch of kids to one of the WCML fast platforms e.g. Milton Keynes, pretty sure that is scary for a lot of people, not just kids!

 

[swaldman]

Trespass has been a feature of several recent threads. One thing that has struck me having travelled on trains extensively elsewhere in the world is how the UK's absolute prohibition on being on the railway except where passengers are permitted and authorised crossings is actually the exception rather than the norm. Most other countries have large sections of unfenced railway lines, including lines on which relatively high train speeds are permitted, yet little in the way of physical barriers, although I don't think I have ever seen unfenced lines with electrification at track level.

Interesting point, though I guess they are rather different kinds of railway.
I recall, in a smallish town in the US, walking along a single-track rail bridge as a convenient way to get across a river, and doing so following a stream of local pedestrians - it was clearly a normal and accepted thing. The track went through the town centre, next to the road, across footpaths, etc., unfenced. But their trains are freight only, infrequent (I don't know how infrequent - measured trains per day, or per week?), and slow. Yes, it's possible that somebody could trip and injure themselves and be unable to get out of the way in time, but in a quantitative risk sense it's very unlikely. And obviously there's no 3rd rail. Not terribly comparable to most lines in the UK.

Here's (I think) the bridge that I remember, but I'm sure it's not all that rare:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...!1s0x4cb5a78cc44dea05:0x4891e094ceb5836?hl=en

 

[JLUK144]

While I concur that no else should be made to pay for other's stupidity, someone will have to pay for the cleanup unfortunately.

And for those who are too unfortunate, they pay with their lives.

 

[hexagon789]

And for those who are too unfortunate, they pay with their lives.

Quite, the number of trespass incidents seems to be on an alarming upward trend.

 

[eslcma]

I'm unclear on what proportionate response actually means. There are clearly open access point at stations, but if a barrier (fenceline etc) and other deterrents don't physically stop a trespasser then does that mean that the railway is not preventing trespass? If there is a small fence or wall which could be climbed over by a trespasser, does occasional trespass say once per year at that location mean that a fortress should be created at that and every other location? If the railway doesn't absolutely prevent trespass which may or may not lead to fatalities then surely it is in breach of its own regulations?

 

[hexagon789]

I'm unclear on what proportionate response actually means. There are clearly open access point at stations, but if a barrier (fenceline etc) and other deterrents don't physically stop a trespasser then does that mean that the railway is not preventing trespass? If there is a small fence or wall which could be climbed over by a trespasser, does occasional trespass say once per year at that location mean that a fortress should be created at that and every other location? If the railway doesn't absolutely prevent trespass which may or may not lead to fatalities then surely it is in breach of its own regulations?

That's a very good question, but surely the railway can only be expected to do so much?

 

[Mathew S]

That's a very good question, but surely the railway can only be expected to do so much?

That was the point I was trying to make
Personally, I think that the measures taken at present (fences, warning signs, flashing lights at crossings, etc. & also publicity) are more than enough to keep almost all people safe. I suppose there is a question about duty of care to people with additional needs, but someone with more knowledge than I would need to look at that. I do think that the consequences for trespassers should be more severe, personally, but I recognise that's probably just me

 

[hexagon789]

I do think that the consequences for trespassers should be more severe, personally, but I recognise that's probably just me

No, I think they should be too, unlimited fine and maybe up to 3-5 years in prison if necessary.

 

[Chris M]

No, I think they should be too, unlimited fine and maybe up to 3-5 years in prison if necessary.

There should, in my opinion, be a wide range of possible sentences that recognise that there is a massive difference in severity between actions. Retrieving a football from just over arms length inside a fenceline that's five metres from the nearest rail of the Far North line in the middle of the night is very different to driving off a level crossing onto the ECML in Hertfordshire at 8:30 on a Monday morning.

 

[hexagon789]

There should, in my opinion, be a wide range of possible sentences that recognise that there is a massive difference in severity between actions. Retrieving a football from just over arms length inside a fenceline that's five metres from the nearest rail of the Far North line in the middle of the night is very different to driving off a level crossing onto the ECML in Hertfordshire at 8:30 on a Monday morning.

That was just supposed to reflect the maximum sentence. You could just as easily give them a couple of months.

 

[6Gman]

I'm unclear on what proportionate response actually means. There are clearly open access point at stations, but if a barrier (fenceline etc) and other deterrents don't physically stop a trespasser then does that mean that the railway is not preventing trespass? If there is a small fence or wall which could be climbed over by a trespasser, does occasional trespass say once per year at that location mean that a fortress should be created at that and every other location? If the railway doesn't absolutely prevent trespass which may or may not lead to fatalities then surely it is in breach of its own regulations?

Proportionate is one of those words (reasonable is another one) which - for legal purposes - needs to be interpreted in the light of the specific case.

So, for example, there are places out in the remote wilds where the barrier between railway and adjoining land is nothing more than a post and wire fence which serves (usually) to stop cattle wandering. Where a railway adjoins a school playground such an arrangement would, I suggest, be considered neither proportionate nor reasonable. Pallisade fencing eight feet in height might.

If some of the children broke into the school caretaker's shed, stole ladders and used them to scale said 8' fence I don't think any court in the land - nor any reasonable person - would consider that the railway had been remiss in not raising the fence height to twelve feet.

But absolute prevention is surely (almost) impossible, unless we want to run the railway in concrete tubes throughout their entire length, with Jubilee Line-style stations?

 

[hexagon789]

But absolute prevention is surely (almost) impossible, unless we want to run the railway in concrete tubes throughout their entire length, with Jubilee Line-style stations?

Of course it's impossible, it is as you say about doing what in normal circumstances suits the location.

 

[hooverboy]

In this forum I knew that almost everyone is strongly against trespassing, also network rail, BTP and TOCs did got adverts to educate people, nevertheless there are some people still trespass. I believe some ideas which may change that.

Why people trespass First-
They want to save time (Bridges/Authorized Walk paths)
They are unaware of the railway boundary (Fences+Warning)
They are unaware the dangers, and why they are unaware is because of the reasons below.
Train tracks are quiet compared to road/motorways. You won't cross the road without looking at the traffic but on train track you don't always see trains coming until very last moment.

Therefore here is the solution
Find an Disused airbase, build a 2 mile track along the tarmac.
Find a single Decker bus, and a class 153 train.
Put two dummy dolls at the same distance from starting point which the bus can be narrowly missed it.
Let the people in the bus, then the train cab.
Accelerate to 60mph and then brake harshly.
See what is happening to the dummy and I think they will never try /do it again.

Of course prosecution is always needed.

I think jeremy clarksons demonstration of a car,a level crossing,and a class 31 ought to make people think twice!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=ue61c6MZNQw&usg=AOvVaw2jr6d5fyfWvowEiXJQetMw

 

[3141]

In this forum I knew that almost everyone is strongly against trespassing, also network rail, BTP and TOCs did got adverts to educate people, nevertheless there are some people still trespass. I believe some ideas which may change that.

Why people trespass First-
They want to save time (Bridges/Authorized Walk paths)
They are unaware of the railway boundary (Fences+Warning)
They are unaware the dangers, and why they are unaware is because of the reasons below.
Train tracks are quiet compared to road/motorways. You won't cross the road without looking at the traffic but on train track you don't always see trains coming until very last moment.

Some people, maybe many, trespass because I do what I want, no-one tells me what to do, my dad says don't let the bastards push you around, who cares what the cops/teachers/posh people say/ha ha that film of kids on the line being splatted was funny/stupid fool shouldn't have got his foot stuck, should he? (The expletives were deleted.) That sort of mindset affects attitudes to many other things besides trespassing on a railway, and it will require something much more fundamental than a bus and a class 153 to change it.

 

[hexagon789]

Some people, maybe many, trespass because I do what I want, no-one tells me what to do, my dad says don't let the bastards push you around, who cares what the cops/teachers/posh people say/ha ha that film of kids on the line being splatted was funny/stupid fool shouldn't have got his foot stuck, should he? (The expletives were deleted.) That sort of mindset affects attitudes to many other things besides trespassing on a railway, and it will require something much more fundamental than a bus and a class 153 to change it.

Which is the unfortunate reality, too many people do what they like no matter how utterly stupid.

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

A simpler way: just take a bunch of kids to one of the WCML fast platforms e.g. Milton Keynes, pretty sure that is scary for a lot of people, not just kids!

True. Although, I think being at ground level is a far greater way to appreciate the size and power of modern traction - it definitely makes one feel very vulnerable compared to being on a platform.