I agree with Robin that common sense states that in 99% of cases, somebody is going to notice and take avoiding action. But it is the remaining 1% that accidents arise from and that is what we have to protect against to stop people getting killed or injured.
Fundamental disagreement time Wink
No we don't. No we fundamentally don't. We don't in real day to day life, we don't even do it in law. It is only in the worst excesses of Health & Safety fascism that we even try to.
OK - let's start with a principle here - that if an accident can be prevented, no matter how unlikely it is to occur and that if preventing that accident does not unduly disrupt people's daily lives or its prevention does not outweigh the benefits of taking the risk associated with the activity involved, then that accident *should* be prevented.
I am obviously referring to Robin's motor car and aeroplane arguments here. We don't ban cars because they might crash into sober people or drunks (but we do try and educate people not to drink so much, because they might get into - or even worse, cause - an accident to somebody else). On balance though, of course I agree - we don't ban cars because the benefit of driving one is perceived to far outweigh the risks associated with driving one. We make them as safe as we can, we attempt to educate people how to drive them safely, we in general mitigate all the risks as far as we can and accept that there will be a level of unfortunate accidents. (I don't have a car BTW, so I would usually be on the receiving end, but I don't complain!)
Likewise, the aeroplane. The aviation industry take enormous efforts to operate planes safely, as nobody wants them dropping out of the sky (once again, an innocent party could well be on the receiving end!) and we the public generally judge that there is some minimal risk, it ain't going to be very nice if it happens, but - the benefits of getting 1000s of mile away in a few hours are well worth the associated minimal risk. I fly all the time
So, here is the point about H&S in these two cases: we drive cars and we fly in planes because we believe it is *necessary* and the benefits far outweigh the risks. Not that we don't still do everything possible to mitigate these risks ... I wouldn't get into a ropey old aeroplane. But it doesn't stop me taking a well maintained and operated aeroplane when I want to go see my wife and kids in America. So far, so good ...
Now, excuse the pun, but I'll bring the argument down to ground with a bump and apply it to railways:
When was it *EVER* necessary for a member of public to walk along a railway line? Or ride a bike along a railway line?
The only time I can think is in the event of an emergency, i.e. to get away from a train accident or to go and assist at one. Or to steal cables maybe. But I can think of NO other reasons that Joe Public would ever need to walk on a railway ... so why do it? For the fun of it? No. For the thrill of playing chicken with the trains? Plain stupid.
Add to that railways are private property and trespassing on them is an offence and you have an additional deterrent. There is just plain no need for the public to walk on railways. I can justify driving a car, but would I drive it into a brick wall? No. I can justify flying in a plane, but would I jump out of it? No. Now try and justify why I would ever *need* to walk along a railway line as a member of Joe Public? You can't - I just simply do not need to do it.
So, having established there is no need to trespass on a railway and unless you are a criminal, no reasonable person will derive any benefit from doing so, it should be easy to mitigate the considerable risks involved. You just stop people from doing it!
But what if I decided to take a wander along the four foot tomorrow morning between Iron Acton and Tytherington? Would I be just as stupid as doing it on the main line, would I be slightly less stupid, a lot less stupid, or not stupid at all? If you think I would be just as stupid, please explain why and, if not, explain why this would be any different by your criteria
I would say just as stupid, but that's down to my training
We are taught, no matter what line is chosen to take a morning wander along, to STAY OUT OF THE FOUR FOOT. There is simply no reason to put yourself in a place of danger when you do not need to be there. Let me put it another way: would I be happy to work on the track between Iron Acton and Tytherington without protection, just because it is not a very busy line? No, I would very definitely not!
Of course, I can accept that you might perceive a wander along a quarry freight line as less dangerous than the WCML, but it is still putting yourself at risk when you simply do not need to do it. I don't want to go down the route of the public perceiving and assessing the risks for themselves, because as our councillor friends in the picture proved, they just do not understand them. You might have a good appreciation of the risks, but the public at large generally doesn't. Why should they? They are in an alien environment once they step onto a railway line and they are simply instructed not to do so because there is simply no benefit in taking the risk - other than a short-cut or to save a few seconds at a crossing - which aren't in my opinion benefits if they put life in danger.
Add to that the legal situation where you might feel you are safe, but you are still trespassing on private property. Would it be OK for me to wander around in your garden uninvited? You may well say that's a ridiculous comparison Jules, but legally it is just the same. And you would be responsible for my safety as a trespasser, just the same as the railways are
So, the net answer is - I think I've built a fairly good case for keeping people off the railway. And if they won't stay off, prosecute them.
Back to the infamous WSR cyclist to finish up then:
Did they cycle off a platform end somewhere or were they only going a hundred yards or so, perhaps taking a short cut from a public footpath to the road.
Other than preventing future access, it doesn't matter how they got there or how far they were going. He was ambling along in the four foot and placing both himself and the child in danger. When you cross a track, you do so at right angles, quickly but safely, having looked and listened. That's not exactly how they were behaving.
2. We've already covered that the cyclist couldn't possibly be experienced in railways, as if he was, he wouldn't have even thought about doing what he did. But I am going to take very serious issue with a further point you made:
He might even know the current timetable, and had calculated that he had plenty of time to complete the manouvre before the next train was scheduled.
Never, ever rely on a timetable. The rule is "Speak to the signalman and make sure he knows you are there." Trains run late and out of course, extra trains run, there is even the danger of a vehicle running away - and believe me, that CAN be silent. Think back, only a few years ago, track workers were killed on NR by a trolley running away. It happens, not very often I'll give you, but happen it does and you don't want to be on the receiving end. Which is another reason it makes sense to stay out of the four foot.
He might have given his son a "pep talk" before they set out.
His mere presence there proves that any "pep talk" he might have given would have been utterly invalid, as he obviously knows nothing about railway safety or trespass. The child looked pretty young to me and wouldn't have recognized or understood what to do if an emergency developed, pep talk or no pep talk. What are you suggesting? "Look Son, here's how we put our lives at risk and break the law all at the same time?" A fine example to set ...
I believe Plod do need to have a word with him - and quite a serious word in fact. If he thinks his actions were OK on the WSR, he probably thinks it would be OK on Network Rail too. The simple facts are - he should not have been there, his bike shouldn't have been there and the child most certainly shouldn't have been taken there. There was simply no NEED for him to be there, so why do it?
