The Bristol Railway Archive

If we all agreed on everything all the time we'd never get a discussion going

I shall set out my views a bit clearer than I did last night.

In the Bath Road example, the cyclist was giving himself no margin for error, no escape route. He wouldn't even have been able to dismount up there if something went wrong, and even something as trivial as a sneezing fit could cause a problem. And if something did go wrong there would immediately be a serious problem. If he fell off road side, the best he could hope for would to be seriously injured. If he fell off rail side, the best he could hope for would be that he died instantly so he didn't feel anything ....

In the WSR example there was plently of room for a margin of error, and an escape route. I take the point about headphones, but I didn't see any sign of that in the video clip. Had a train approached, they would have heard and/or seen it coming, and at no more than 10mph, so there would have been plenty of time to get out of the way.

To my eyes, the two situations are totally different. The first was a potential disaster waiting to happen, and would have happened if the slightest thing had gone wrong. The second was a minor transgression by a fool who took his son along.

I would draw an analogy with people overtaking other vehicles. Some people are afraid of overtaking because they think its risky and so don't do it. Others feel differently. An overtaking manouvre is not inherently dangerous in itself, but it can be highly dangerous in some circumstances, like when somebody is coming the other way. If you made overtaking illegal it wouldn't mean that all those safe overtakes would now suddenly become unsafe or dangerous.

jules wrote: The fact is, it is against the LAW to trespass on any railway and one can't really pick and choose which laws to obey or disregard.

If people didn't pick and choose which laws they obeyed or disregarded there'd be no need for a police force

But on a more serious note, this is in fact what goes on day in day out. Most of us will drive just a little bit faster than the speed limit at some time, or bring a litttle bit more through customs then we're supposed to, or (and I'm thinking of Jules and me here ) perhaps not being averse to having a fag in a pub when the landlord says it's ok Add your own vices and illegalities to taste. We live in the real world, not an imaginary one.

jules wrote: And some years ago, a woman riding a horse on the Lydeard to Norton section. She actually complained at the crew for driving a train down there, as she told them very firmly that the line was closed! Then she complained that her horse had been frightened by the blowing of the horn ...

Now you really are describing an idiot

I have to take issue here with Robin, as I feel he is being too lenient in respect of the WSR cyclists.

IMHO the adult (father?) was setting a VERY BAD example to the child, who may well now feel that it is quite OK to do such things in future. The child may be below the age of responsibility, but the adult is not and perhaps ought to be charged with endangering the life of a child.

Sadly there was an incident there a few years ago when a pedestrian was killed on the line because she tried to rescue a dog from in front of an approaching train. She saw the train coming, but still took the risk.....

Steam trains may make a lot of noise (sometimes), but I know from personal experience that the WSR's DMU - when coasting down hill with the wind in the wrong direction - is VERY quiet. I was lineside there one day, with the appropriate permit and hiz-viz and away from rail in a 'place of safety' - and got the shock of my life when this horn blasted behind me, as I simply had NOT heard it coming. Imagine if this had happened to the cyclists as the train came around a bend and one of them fell off their bike with the shock.

railwest wrote: I have to take issue here with Robin, as I feel he is being too lenient in respect of the WSR cyclists.

Fair enough

However, I have already said that I did not condone in any way what he did, and I have also said that it might be a good idea for Plod to have a word with him

railwest wrote: IMHO the adult (father?) was setting a VERY BAD example to the child, who may well now feel that it is quite OK to do such things in future.

Couldn't agree more, which is one of the reasons that I said Plod should have a word

railwest wrote: The child may be below the age of responsibility, but the adult is not and perhaps ought to be charged with endangering the life of a child.

This is the only point at which we appear to disagree, because you are taking a leap into "what if?" territory, and we need to look at the actual facts of the matter, not what they might have been.

The facts are that, OK only as it happened, there was no life endangered. No train arrived whilst they were on the track. We don't know what would have happened if one had turned up but I still maintain, notwithstanding your silent DMU comment, that somehow this would have come to their attention and they would have got off the line. For any real danger to have occurred, the following would have had to happen:

1. The father didn't see or hear the train coming
2. The child didn't see or hear the train coming
3. The driver would have failed to see them.

Having all those three happen at once would be, shall we say, singularly unfortunate.

Of course, we don't actually know that, but the balance of probablility would suggest that that is what would have happened.

Every time I go out in my car, I am potentially "endangering the life of a child" because cars can kill people. However, I am not held guilty of such an offence every time I put the keys into the ignition.

All I am saying is we need to keep this in its true perspective.

Personally, I am scared witless when I am anywhere near a railway track, especially at level crossings. But I get the impression that the general populace think that a locomotive or other prime mover can stop, well, more-or-less dead! they don't seem to understand that something travelling at 60mph or more with steel on steel can't stop on a sixpence.

Robin Summerhill wrote: 1. The father didn't see or hear the train coming
2. The child didn't see or hear the train coming
3. The driver would have failed to see them.

You could also add in this particular case, the bloke who actually took the video and the other guy watching what was going on didn't see the train coming either and didn't shout a warning

Robin Summerhill wrote:
Secondly, as regards reporting him, this is an open railway forum where a lot of serving and former railwaymen participate. If Network Rail weren't aware of this beforehand, I am sure that they are now since you posted the link to the video and we started nattering about it

The video on youtube and perhaps the cyclist himself appear to be sponsored by a manufacturer of penetrating / water dispersing spray.

I wonder whether it has occurred to said manufacturer that some seriously large railway industry customers might be none too chuffed (apologies) by this video...

I for one shall be withdrawing my custom (at least one tin per five years). Can anyone out there recommend an alternative product?

Meanwhile, for an example of fools on foot see

http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/tory_ ... _1_1672770

I agree with what Ian is saying exept scared of being beside railway.
There are several points one of which the train cant stop on a sixpence. Correct, You have reaction time of driver then delay before brakes start to actualy slow/ stop train. Then condition of track which if as I said earlier it is used infrequently then rust can act as lubricant. The railway I am involved in has a cattle crossing which usualy includes sh** covered rails. Its surprising how the wheels slip on that.
If loco is coasting then could be nearly upon you before you hear it and then chap would be panicking to make sure son is clear of line then himself. locos arent always barking or chuffing loudly.

1. The father didn't see or hear the train coming
2. The child didn't see or hear the train coming
3. The driver would have failed to see them.

Having all those three happen at once would be, shall we say, singularly unfortunate.

Experience shows in numerous railway accidents past that it is seldom one factor that causes an accident, but a combination of factors that unfortunately come together all at the same time to cause the accident.

It is quite easy to see how 1, 2 and 3 above could quite feasibly all come together at the same time. (The father is wearing headphones or the train is "silent", the child is too young to realize the significance of the approaching train, the driver is temporarily distracted ... etc).

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.

Add to that, being in the 4 foot is a stupid place to put yourself at any time (unless you have good reason to be there and are aware of the dangers), especially with a bike and a child. Sleepers are slippery, ballast is rough and uneven, rails and signal wires are trip hazards, there may be drain holes etc. - essentially, a railway track is a pretty unsafe environment, even without a train bearing down on you.

So, if trespassers do notice an oncoming train and especially if they notice it late and have to get out of the way in a hurry, there is a very real risk of trips and falls or getting snagged up, especially if you are trying to get to a place of safety with a bike AND a child. And if that trip or fall results in somebody "down" on the track, it can easily be curtains for them.

As to the Tory MEP and councillors in Soham, well - they are obviously not in a place of safety. Idiots, all of them.

We went down there and stood by the track, we did not go on the track. We are trying to get the re-opening of the railway station at the top of the agenda.

Oh yes you did!

Even when they've been caught and had it explained to them, they STILL don't understand.

Saw that on another link and posted on fb. a person in the industry didnt approve of what they did ut at least the local mp was representing a good cause. I despair. Also our cyclst who was cause of this post in first place was talking on national radio earlier today and will be on tv at some point this evening.

As usual, we are in general agreement but then argue about the detail

jules wrote: Experience shows in numerous railway accidents past that it is seldom one factor that causes an accident, but a combination of factors that unfortunately come together all at the same time to cause the accident.

I totally agree, and not just with railway accidents - many accidents happen as a result of a freak combination of circumstances. But that's not really the point.

We never get to hear about the instances where the freak circumstances didn't combine to cause an accident, because an accident didn't happen.

jules wrote: 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

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 thar we even try to. Let me give you a few f'rinstances.

A drunk staggers into the road and gets killed by a car. 99.999% of drunks don't stagger into the road, 99.999% of cars don't knock down drunks. We do not try to ban cars or alocohol because these combinations of circumstances might sometimes happen, and neither do we fence off every pavement in the country to stop it happening.

Passenger aircraft crash from time to time and, when they do, the passenger's chances of survival are usually minimal. However, we don't ban passenger aviation because one might fall out of the sky.

It is, quite logically, illegal to kill somebody. However, if I am driving my car and I bump somebody off, I could be charged with murder (if I did it intentionally), manslaughter (if did something stupid which unintentionally caused the death of somebody), careless driving (if it was mainly the victim's fault) or, in the case above, if a drunk simply walked off the pavement right in front of me and I did nothing wrong (eg not drunk myself or speeding) I might not be charged with anything at all.

This is called proportionality. We weigh up the likely risk, the benefits of doing something about it, and the disadvantages of doing something about it. We take all these circumstances into account before we decide, in real life or in law, whether we ought to do something.

It is only in the field of spurious H&S legislation that we seem to want to throw this concept out of the window.

jules wrote: Add to that, being in the 4 foot is a stupid place to put yourself at any time (unless you have good reason to be there and are aware of the dangers)

You appear to be looking at this matter in black and white, whilst I see various shades of grey

If I decide to take a wander along the GWR main line between Box and Corsham tomorrow then, even if I do know what to do in an emergency, I would be pretty stupid to do it. On that we no doubt agree.

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

jules wrote: So, if trespassers do notice an oncoming train and especially if they notice it late and have to get out of the way in a hurry, there is a very real risk of trips and falls or getting snagged up, especially if you are trying to get to a place of safety with a bike AND a child. And if that trip or fall results in somebody "down" on the track, it can easily be curtains for them.

The general point has been answered above, but again you are taking a "what if the worst case scenario happens?" position. There are a lot of things we do know about the WSR cyclist incident, but also a lot we don't know. For example:

1. We know they were cycling along the track. 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.

2. We don't know whether the father is experienced in railways. If he is, so knows what to do in an emergency, then that in itself negates many of the "danger" arguments that have been put forward. 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.

3. He might have given his son a "pep talk" before they set out.

It is easy to watch a video and then come to conclusions whilst not being acquainted with all the facts - because all the facts aren't necessarily shown in the footage.

So, how dangerous was this little cycling outing on the WSR? The short answer is "it all depends on circumstances" and that is why I was also suggesting that Plod have a word with him. They would be in a better position to analyse all the facts and come to a conclusion on the true danger level after interviewing him, than we would by simply watching something that somebody else decided to capture on film, then shooting first and not bothering to ask the questions afterwards.

Morning Robin

I'll give a full response later, but one point that I just had to counter straight away:

We don't know whether the father is experienced in railways.

If he had even a modicum of railway experience, he would certainly know NOT to ride a bicycle down the four foot!!!

With or without child ...

jules wrote:Morning Robin

I'll give a full response later, but one point that I just had to counter straight away:

We don't know whether the father is experienced in railways.

If he had even a modicum of railway experience, he would certainly know NOT to ride a bicycle down the four foot!!!

With or without child ...

Point accepted

I look forward to your full response

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?