Word of warning

[jon0844]

How can there be more to the story if the person didn't cross the railway line but got an on the spot fine? If he'd attacked or abused the BTP officer, it would have been a different charge and probably arrest. Maybe the OP did do more, but it doesn't actually matter for the sake of the argument.

And if you're trying to be the voice of reason, saying that the law is different in the railway world, then your 'ludicrous' comment to what I wrote is even more weird, as you must have seen the point I was making. Are you saying that the warning sign only applies beyond its position? The point is, if it says 'must not cross the line' then the wording means you can't cross the yellow line to board a train.

If it only applies beyond the sign, then that means I can jump off the platform and cross the railway line as long as I climb up the other side and never pass this invisible line that is horizontal in line with the sign. No, obviously it doesn't mean that. THAT is ludicrous.

Come on, you're clutching at straws here. I don't need to be qualified lawyer to understand what 'crossing the line' means.

If people in the railway think otherwise then that's a serious issue and may explain why they've been so slow to put up the proper 'must not cross this point' signs that would do away with ANY chance of confusion.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't believe I am being "ludicrous" in what I am saying. Are you a lawyer and qualified to tell me what is legal or not?

As for the rest of your post, well I think it would be charitable to say that you are merely splitting hairs. I'm assessed regularly for my competence in the rules and I have had no problems passing. Therefore I feel qualified to state what is in the rules and to provide some interpretation for those untrained in such matters. Might I ask what are your credentials?

Crossing a rail line even without passing any sign is clearly verboten, as you have demonstrated that you understand. To suggest otherwise would be both incorrect and misleading. However, you are attempting to mislead by inferring meanings into my words that are not intended. Far from myself being desperate to appear reasonable or to prove things in the face of the "obvious", it is you who appear to be floundering. Why else would you deliberately misconstrue my words or attempt to paint me as the "unreasonable" party?

I have been entirely clear on the meaning of the prohibition notices seen around the railway, and in doing so am using the Network Rail Rule Book as the source. It may not necessarily be backed up by legislation in the same way that other activities are but it does not make it any less enforceable, otherwise there should be no reason why a driver should expect to be disciplined for a SPAD, which I think we can both agree that this would be a daft situation. That aside, I don't think I need to remind you that the railway is private property and, therefore, subject to byelaws governing who is permitted access, where they can be, what they can do and, by extension, what is not permitted.

I don't believe I have claimed anything in this thread so far that is not capable of substantiation. I have said that there may be more to this story than the OP has been willing to let on, and there has been nothing added thus far to suggest otherwise. As mentioned before, the OP does not say that he passed a prohibition notice or walked around a barrier. However, that does not mean that such actions were not taken. If the OP is willing to state truthfully that he did not pass a prohibition notice or walk around a barrier then I will be willing to concede that point.

What really irks me about your objection to my posts is your insistence on ignoring at least half of what I've written. I have outlined my reasons for "calling in" people standing outside of what I consider the usual waiting areas for passengers irrespective of whether they may be breaking some law or other. I have also stated that, on the basis of what the OP has said, the BTP response seemed a little heavy-handed. Both of those things you have clearly ignored in your haste to prove that rail staff are ignorant. You have also ignored my default enthusiast-tolerant position. I have no problem with you taking issue with me as the debate helps to inform both sides, but please do me the courtesy of not sticking your head in the sand, quoting me out of any context and trying to hang an argument on the flimsiest of premises.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

It's not ignoring what you've posted, but rather concentrating on one issue; whether a sign saying you cannot cross the line refers to passing the sign.

I would prefer it if you didn't try to associate this with a SPAD as if to say that if I think you could pass the sign, but not cross the line, it's in some way condoning passing red signals!

What do my credentials have to do with anything? Ever stopped to consider that you might be wrong on this issue, yet be totally correct on everything else?

I am waiting to see some LEGAL definition that says crossing the line means passing the sign, or refers to a different type of line painted (or not) on the platform. I am not really able to comment on anything else as I don't have access to the rule book - nor do I feel that I need to on this occasion.

If anything, we've highlighted the need for clearer signs and better positioning and/or other markings on the ground - or suitable gates/fencing. As we all know there is a sign that does the job, the question is why it isn't used.

Meanwhile, getting a fine for supposedly crossing the line when no line was crossed is the issue in hand. I really cannot see how you can defend it in ANY way or claim there may be something more to it.

Now if the OP did actually go down onto the tracks, that does change things - but it still wouldn't stop us discussing what not crossing the line actually means.

Also, why have any description beneath the prohibition logo if it always means just one thing - that you cannot pass?

 

[O L Leigh]

There are things in your post that I agree with (the need for clearer signage) and that I am unable to comment on (the ethos behind designing the current signage), but I still find myself largely in disagreement with you. This isn't on some point of principle, but purely because, as rail staff, I have an understanding of how the railway works. We've touched on issues relating to legalities and others relating to pragmatics. I've yet to find anyone on this forum qualified to comment on the former, but the latter really has to be the preserve of those of us who earn our livings from the railway.

I have already mentioned the "suicide spot" and my feelings towards it, and that is something that almost every driver will share to some extent or other. While I have colleagues who will take the view that anyone clobbered by a train had it coming to them, as someone who has already got one fatality to my name I have to temper that by saying that it really isn't worth the paperwork and aggravation. No matter what brand of bravado a driver exhibits, no-one really wants to run someone down. If nothing else, enthusiasts need to be sensitive to that and to the amount of disruption they can cause due to trains being cautioned just by standing in the wrong place.

Where I will insist on disagreeing with you is in what the OP may or may not have done. As I've said above, I'd like to think that the BTP were just being heavy-handed, but without further information and a completely honest appraisal of the OP's conduct it really is hard to make much of a judgement about that.

I will also take some issue with you about the legality of certain actions. You may not have access to the Rule Book but, as I said before, I am regularly assessed on my knowledge of the aforementioned document, so I feel qualified to comment. However, it should be intuitive that the owner of private property can set their own standards of behaviour on their own property over and above the requirements of the law. As such it shouldn't require expert legal advice to outline what is and is not acceptable. This is why I have mentioned credentials over and over. With the greatest of respect, who are you to gainsay what the railways say is acceptable standards of behaviour? Just because you are holding out for some legal opinion does not exempt you (or anyone else) from complying with instructions given to you by a member of rail staff or a BTP officer.

I may not be right on everything I say, and I am always willing to retract any statement I make if I can be shown the error in my argument. Are you prepared to do the same? The reason I ask is because, in the absence of any properly informed legal advice, the best informed people in this matter are rail staff like myself and Westcoaster who have to regularly demonstrate our knowledge of the Rule Book in order to do our jobs.

O L Leigh

 

[43021HST]

that happened to me but for a shorter time period, I got let off scot free.

 

[Ferret]

As a member of rail staff it does amuse me that we have the best part of four pages of opinion from the assembled "experts" on railway legality, all of which ignores a number of very basic fundamentals.

The first of these fundamentals is the meaning of a prohibition notice. Someone has already touched on it but would appear to have been laughed out of the thread, but if you pass any sign with a picture of a person in a red circle with a red diagonal line through them you have gone past the point where you should be. Irrespective of the wording below the pictogram informing passengers that they must not cross the line except by means of the footbridge/underpass, this sign is a marker delineating the public part of the platform from the private. In fact, within the Rule Book this sign denotes to staff that you must not pass beyond this point unless you are carrying out emergency protection of the line. Therefore not even staff are permitted to pass such a sign in order to seek shelter under a signal even if, like me, they hold a current and valid PTS certificate.

O L Leigh

O L Leigh, while I agree with much of your post, I must take issue with this paragraph. The prohibition notice you refer to is qualified by the phrase "No safe access while trains are running" is it not? In a similar manner, that sign at Man Vic is qualified by the phrase "Passengers must not cross the line". You are fundamentally wrong to interpret that sign as meaning do not go past this point. If that was what it meant, it would say so!!! There are many stations on the network that have the same prohibition sign qualified with "passengers must not pass this point" - there'd be one at Man Vic if that was the 'mischief' they were trying to prevent! All that sign means is that you must not do something - in terms of the lineside sign it tells you what you mustn't do - and on the platforms at Man Vic it equally tells you what you mustn't do - cross the line.

Now from a legal point of view, I'd expect the court to take note of the 'mischief' rule in interpreting the relevant statute of the railway bye-laws as per Heydons Case 1584. Here, the Court looks at the 'mischief' that a statute was trying to prevent. In this case, it's clear that the mischief that that sign and the relevant supporting bye-law are trying to prevent is trespassing on the actual running line, and not sheltering under a signal from a bit of rain!!!!

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't believe I am wrong in interpreting the meaning of a prohibition notice. The writing underneath is just a qualifier but does not change the actual meaning of the sign. "You are now leaving the public area of the railway".

If the sign had a picture of a car or a bicycle, or even a dog, instead of a man, there would be no discussion about it's meaning. You wouldn't take your car/bicycle/dog past that point. Consequently I am baffled by the range of different interpretations that are being applied. The sign should be perfectly clear. However, given this range of interpretations perhaps a replacement ought to be considered, something like a No Entry sign, but there really shouldn't be any need.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

I don't disagree about the opinion that someone standing right at the end of a platform may be of concern to a driver, but I am not sure why someone wanting to jump under would stand beyond the sign.

Finsbury Park has very long platforms, as it can be used to take NXEC trains. Generally, the most it ever gets is 8-car. That leaves some 100+ metres where someone can wander when waiting for a train - and I'll sometimes walk up and down to kill time waiting.

Now, if a driver comes along and sees me somewhere up near where the end of the platform - but still well clear of the sign telling me I cannot cross the line OR pass this point, what are they going to think? Presumably the exact same thought crosses their mind.

So what is the solution there? Could you expect BTP to ask you to come back and join the rest of the passengers waiting for their train?

 

[Ferret]

I don't believe I am wrong in interpreting the meaning of a prohibition notice. The writing underneath is just a qualifier but does not change the actual meaning of the sign. "You are now leaving the public area of the railway".

Doesn't hold good - are you now saying that a sign in the middle of nowhere on the lineside indicating to those of us with PTS that there is no safe access while trains are running actually means "You are now leaving the public area of the railway"?

 

[jon0844]

I think common sense tells people that when you're off the platform and down by the track, that would be trespass.

We can argue all day long about how far to the edge we can go, to the top of the ramp, standing ON the ramp, standing at the bottom or simply standing behind the sign because it was put on a lamp post some metres before the edge.

The fact is, if it went to court then I'm certain nobody would be found guilty of trespass if they were still on the platform - whatever angle the tarmac/concrete. But, set one foot on the ballast or grass...

But, you don't get the opportunity to get clarification if you accept an on-the-spot fine.. which you're intimidated into accepting because you'll be told that it could be much worse if you go to court. In many cases, that might be true (e.g. a speeding ticket) but the real reason is that there would be the need for the police to prove their case, and these types of falsely issued tickets would get them into a lot of trouble.

 

[eos]

A word of advice to the OP about his suggestion that he will take the easy way out and pay the Fixed Penalty Notice.
Please read http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index...owers_to_deal_with_you_without_going_to_court

and see how that will affect your job, your future employment, etc. Once you pay you have a Criminal Record......

 

[flymo]

Once you pay you have a Criminal Record......

So all the more reason not to pay and tell these idiots that they are in the wrong.

How ANYONE including any driver/platform staff/anyone else can say that this sign is anything other than telling passengers that they must not cross the railway line or lines is simply beyond me. The big red circular thingy with the moonwalking guy (the sign in question) has the qualifying text below it saying that passengers must not cross the line except by means of the footbridge. If the text doesn't mean anything why bother putting it there in the first place. Are we saying that there are 3 signs in one here?

The "line" means the railway line, it says so in the rule book about a gazillion times. Why not just put the sign up and forget about the text, it would no doubt save a huge amount in printing costs. I cannot believe anyone can interpret this as a prohibition notice not to pass beyond this point when it clearly states not to pass "the line" when there is no line to cross.

I think that there should be a huge amount of retraining here in terms of common sense, meaning people who work on the railways.

 

[jon0844]

How expensive would it be to put a sticker saying 'do not pass this point' over the 'do not cross the line' on existing signs to finally clear up the situation?

Until then, it means what it says - do not cross the railway line. I would agree that it seems odd for there to be no other explanation about where a member of the public can or cannot go, but that's for another thread. Fact is, no offence was committed in this situation for merely walking beyond the sign on the platform.

Agreeing to pay an unjustified fine is not a good idea for many reasons, especially when there will be a record of it made.

 

[O L Leigh]

Doesn't hold good - are you now saying that a sign in the middle of nowhere on the lineside indicating to those of us with PTS that there is no safe access while trains are running actually means "You are now leaving the public area of the railway"?

So if these prohibition notices don't have this meaning, precisely what do they mean? Please tell me because, as the holder of a current PTS, I'm dying to know. And please, no more amateur opinions on it's interpretation.

If you have PTS you will know that the prohibition notice has different text underneath the warning sign depending on the location. However, the warning sign itself is clear and unambiguous in it's meaning.

O L Leigh

 

[Daimler]

A word of advice to the OP about his suggestion that he will take the easy way out and pay the Fixed Penalty Notice.
Please read http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index...owers_to_deal_with_you_without_going_to_court

and see how that will affect your job, your future employment, etc. Once you pay you have a Criminal Record......

Surely a fixed penalty notice in a case like this wouldn't lead to a criminal record? After all, a speeding fine doesn't!

 

[Ferret]

So if these prohibition notices don't have this meaning, precisely what do they mean? Please tell me because, as the holder of a current PTS, I'm dying to know. And please, no more amateur opinions on it's interpretation.

If you have PTS you will know that the prohibition notice has different text underneath the warning sign depending on the location. However, the warning sign itself is clear and unambiguous in it's meaning.

O L Leigh

Oh dear, you really don't get it do you? Amateur interpretations are exactly what's needed! Are those signs on the platform aimed at PTS-qualified staff? Are they heck as like. They are aimed at the general public, some of whom can be very slow on the uptake if things are not spelled out in simple terms to them. Coming the big "I am" about having a PTS and therefore being super-qualified to comment on the issues at hand really is ridiculous where this particular subject is concerned.

Now, to your average, non-PTS qualified passenger, that sign is a prohibition notice telling a pedestrian not to do something; in this case cross the line - the writing on the sign says so. That's the crux of the issue and that's how a Court of Law will see it - I can't see them for a minute expecting average Joe to look for hidden meanings or to look for what O L Leigh thinks the station owners *meant* to say..............

 

[jon0844]

What does having PTS have to do with the law?

It seems more likely that the people who give the training on track safety do not even understand it fully themselves.

It's fine to err on the side of caution and use common sense, but in the legal world - the sign means one thing or another and there's no 'grey area'. The symbol is qualified by the text below, and one sign says one thing and another says another. They are quite clearly two different signs for different purposes.

The only correct solution is to CHANGE the signs, not ask for them to be interpreted differently.

This morning I walked up and down platform 1/2 at Finsbury Park. Two signs at each end - one a brand new one saying 'Danger - No unauthorised access. Customers must not pass this point' and the other saying 'Passengers must not cross the line'. There really is no logic to it at all. I presume they only replace the old signs when they are sufficiently worn, as the other platforms all appeared to be a mish mash.

 

[yorkie]

What does having PTS have to do with the law?

It means you are 'permitted' to have an opinion on this thread as you are then an 'expert' and not an 'amateur'

 

[GB]

Those that are stating that the sign simply says "Passenger must not cross the line", it may well do, but would you pass it, walk down the ramp then preceed to walk along the track?

After all it doesnt say you can or can't does it.

As for the sign its self, Im with O L L, in any industry a sign that has a picture of a person in a red circle with a diagonal band means no anauthorised access, regardless of what it says at the bottom.

 

[nedchester]

Those that are stating that the sign simply says "Passenger must not cross the line", it may well do, but would you pass it, walk down the ramp then preceed to walk along the track?

After all it doesnt say you can or can't does it.

As for the sign its self, Im with O L L, in any industry a sign that has a picture of a person in a red circle with a diagonal band means no anauthorised access, regardless of what it says at the bottom.

So are you saying that we need signs to say where passengers 'can' go then.

The wording is there to qualify to the public what the sign means. If it says 'Do Not Cross the Line' then that is what it means i.e. the RAILWAY LINE. If it meant something different then it should say so. Is it really that difficult to understand to some of you numpties on here?!!

 

[GB]

"Numpties"?

Grow up mate

You have missed my point completly, or just purely chose to ignore it!

 

[yorkie]

Those that are stating that the sign simply says "Passenger must not cross the line", it may well do, but would you pass it, walk down the ramp then preceed to walk along the track?

After all it doesnt say you can or can't does it.

As for the sign its self, Im with O L L, in any industry a sign that has a picture of a person in a red circle with a diagonal band means no anauthorised access, regardless of what it says at the bottom.

Yes, no unauthorised access to the railway.

It says "do not cross the line" because they think people will be tempted to trespass in order to get to another platform or possibly to climb a fence to avoid barriers.

Walking alongside the track is also trespassing and prohibited, but the sign is worded the way it is because in the vast majority of trespass cases people don't walk along the line to the next station, instead they cross the line in order to take a shortcut.

 

[Oswyntail]

.....therefore being super-qualified to comment on the issues at hand really is ridiculous where this particular subject is concerned. ......and that's how a Court of Law will see it ........

A court of law is actually managed by super-qualified experts. And they might take the view that the standard international pictogram is the essence of the sign and the wording (which is not interpretable to those who cannot read) is not essential.
Not that I am an expert

 

[Ferret]

"Numpties"?

Grow up mate

You have missed my point completly, or just purely chose to ignore it!

It's hardly surprising that Nedchester is getting frustrated though is it? A succession of people are completely failing to understand basic principles here and it worries me that they're fellow railway staff. The law is very much black and white - mean what you say and say what you mean. There is no role for assumption in law just as really there isn't any role for assumption in the safety critical world of the railway, the workings of which O L Leigh would have all users of the railway judged by.

O L Leigh is asking the public to *assume* that a sign means something when the written text underneath says otherwise. Now, in a recent incident at Curzon Street Jn, a driver approached a signal which is approach controlled. He saw the points were set right for him and anticipated that the signal would clear on approach as it would've done hundreds of times for him in the past - alas he made a wrong assumption. It didn't clear and he SPADed it by a carriage length. That's just an example of why it's wrong to *assume* anything.

The issue at hand is whether the OP broke any laws. Gibbering about holding a PTS card and in-depth meaning of a sign is a complete irrelevance quite frankly. GB - a lot of law comes down to the interpretation of the word 'reasonable' and lawyers have got very rich arguing about that single word!!!! Would a reasonable man do as you described and leg it off the platform and down the track and not expect to be charged with trespass? No. Would a reasonable man read a sign and infer that it may mean something else as well? Probably not. That's the crux of this thread, is the OP guilty of an offence? In my opinion, he isn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A court of law is actually managed by super-qualified experts. And they might take the view that the standard international pictogram is the essence of the sign and the wording (which is not interpretable to those who cannot read) is not essential.
Not that I am an expert

Congratulations on taking a quote completely out of context.:roll:

My point is that having a PTS *does not* make somebody superqualified to comment on this subject.

 

[EM2]

The wording is there to qualify to the public what the sign means.

Nail on the head there, old boy. The pictogram clearly shows a person is prohibited *and* the wording qualifies that particular point i.e. Pictogram says you are forbidden to go past the sign. That's what a red circle with a line across it means. And in addition, the text tells you that passengers are not permitted to cross the line (the railway line)

 

[Ferret]

Point proved?

 

[Mintona]

Usually I side with the railway staff, but I am gonna take the other side here. If I saw someone beyond the "line" sign, I wouldn't take any action. Well I might go and ask them what they were doing, coz no trains stop down there, if they explain they are taking photos then it would be fine, I'd let them get on with their day. To me, line = railway line.

 

[Ferret]

Mintona - common sense at last! Btw, due credit to 60163 on wnxx for the shot at Nuneaton - note the difference between that sign and the sign at Man Vic. Now can we have some acceptance that the OP did nothing wrong?

 

[O L Leigh]

Oh dear, you really don't get it do you? Amateur interpretations are exactly what's needed! Are those signs on the platform aimed at PTS-qualified staff? Are they heck as like. They are aimed at the general public, some of whom can be very slow on the uptake if things are not spelled out in simple terms to them. Coming the big "I am" about having a PTS and therefore being super-qualified to comment on the issues at hand really is ridiculous where this particular subject is concerned.

Now, to your average, non-PTS qualified passenger, that sign is a prohibition notice telling a pedestrian not to do something; in this case cross the line - the writing on the sign says so. That's the crux of the issue and that's how a Court of Law will see it - I can't see them for a minute expecting average Joe to look for hidden meanings or to look for what O L Leigh thinks the station owners *meant* to say..............

I'm staggered. Truly I am.

Are you seriously suggesting that every sign, every notice, every warning does not have absolute meaning but can be interpreted in any way that a person wishes...? What a wonderful utopian world you describe. I shall certainly make sure that I remember your words of wisdom should I ever find myself in the position of having to explain a SPAD, failure-to-call or station overrun.

Of course that isn't the case. I am also perfectly well aware that the prohibition notice is not intended for PTS qualified staff, which is the reason why it uses a simple pictogram that everyone should be able to understand irrespective of their language or literacy skills, unlike the limited clearance sign.

As for the meaning of the sign, I really and honestly can't believe that we're still discussing it. I mean, it couldn't be any more plain. It's not down to what I say Nitwit Rail may or may not have meant, it really is that obvious. If we have no problems with signs like;

or;

why are we all struggling to understand the meaning of this?

As I have been at pains to explain, the text underneath the pictogram is just there to qualify the sign not to replace the meaning of the pictogram. The purpose of the sign may ultimately be to prevent folk wandering off the end of a platform, but there are locations where these signs are not placed right at the end of the platform. Walthamstow Queens Road is one such place.

I don't like coming the "big I am" as you suggest, but there are times when a position of knowledge and expertise is helpful for clarifying stuff.

**EDIT**

Incidentally, I am not asking anyone to "assume" anything. I am asking them to say what they see. It really is as simple as that.

As to the legalities of what the OP has done, I have already said I am not qualified to answer that and have conceded that, on the face of things, the BTP were perhaps rather heavy-handed when all that was needed was a quiet word.

O L Leigh

 

[Ferret]

I'm staggered. Truly I am.

You and me both.

Look at the sign at Man Vic. It's got a picture of a pedestrian, so it obviously refers to them. It's got a red outline with a diagonal red line through it. That means the pedestrian must not do something. Hey presto - look underneath - it tells them what they must not do - cross the line. Could it be made any more simple for you?

There - you asked me to say what I see and I have done. Anything beyond that is asking for an assumption which I think I've illustrated is not the way to go. Have you looked at the picture in my post above? Read what that says - clear and unambiguous but note the crucial difference - you are not allowed beyond that point or cross the line. If that was the case at Man Vic, guess which sign would've been put up! When are you going to understand this basic concept?