Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Marks DTM Calib on 01 February 2012, 08:51:48
-
Is it just me or are Network Rail being used as scape goats on this one.
for info, the report is here:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf
These girls crossed the line whilst the warning lights and sirens were still sounding, they were consequently hit by a train. The signs state:
'cross only when green light shows'
'cross quickly'
The lights and warning buzzer were working.
The 'clause' Network rail were hung on was that there has been a recommendation for some years to fit locking gates where possible. However these have big issues as they can potentialy lock pedestrians inside the crossing.
I hate to say it but, it looks very much like a case of miss adventure rather than a man slaughter issue.
-
As tragic as the situation is, and no one would deny that, I do tend to agree with you Mark. I fully understand (from similar personal circumstances) exactly how the family feels and why they would fight on for their cause, but there has to be a limit to how far you can go with safety measures?
-
I also agree Mark, this is a very sad accident. :(
The signage was adequate to warn of the danger, and common sense tells one to take care when crossing a road never mind a railway line . Stop Look, and Listen.
Where did all this blame culture come from?
-
Totally agree. Just shows what state this country has got itself into. What about taking personal responsibility for your actions? At 14 they were old enough, and I bet the crossing was local to them so they knew it. Speaking generally, we all know the attitude of youngsters crossing the road etc. It's common sense that one (or two) of them wil come unstuck once in a while. And families, it appears that they become blinkered, their state of mind alters and they just will not accept the fact that the deceased was at least partly to blame, and as you say, look for someone else to blame. I'm surprised they haven't tried to ban trains.
Not very nice though, it shows that depending on who you are and what you're doing, even making a small mistake can have massive, ultimate consequences.
-
Wasn't it that train "A" came to a stop, so they thought it was clear and train "B" then got them?
I could be wrong of course.
-
Haven't read the 100 pages, but reports on tv last night suggested the gates already had an auto lock device which had failed. The girls waited for a train to pass, then crossed, only go be hit by a second train.
As always with these things it's hard for those experienced in life to understand such oddities. Two youngsters less experienced in life wouldn't necessarily fully understand.
You do have kids yourself, although much younger would they understand precisely what to do? And if they did would they cheat the system, play a dare, mess about on the tracks?... Or think the coast was clear and cross perhaps? The gates have to account for ALL pedestrians... No?
I did play on a crossing as a lad, slightly unaware of where and what a local lad had in mind as we where on the way to another lads house, we arrived at a pedestrian crossing with a style either side. That was it. He was having great fun placing coins on the track so the train would flatten them. The drivers couldn't see the coin obviously but the look on their faces was telling as they passed us at the side inside the boundary. They where bloody petrified.
Kids don't get the rules, and if they do, love to brake them without understanding the dangers. I guess Network rail have a responsibility to pedestrians at that crossing, and failed in that responsibility. No real suprise it seems to me, but then I don't have all the facts and haven't read the report....
-
Sorry for the loss and all that but I was taught to look both ways ;)
They wasn't toddlers or young kids, they where 14 years old.
To me, its the claim culture we live in where its ALWAYS somebody elses fault :(
-
I certainly would not allow my children near a crossing given thier age.
The gates in question were not lockable at the time:
the design of the crossing at Elsenham did not physically prevent users from opening the
gate and walking onto the line when a train was approaching
Its fair to say that my eldest (7) is VERY aware of the danger of trains and is very cautious around/near them. Daughter (5) is one who likes to follow the rules (I get shouted at regarding my speed with respect to the signs she sees!).
Bottom line is that the requried information was present, the warning systems were present and sadly a lapse in concentration resulted in thier death.
-
Must admit, it struck me that they were being used as a scapegoat. As said, the lights and buzzers were still operating correctly and they chose to cross.
-
Network Rail will, of course, be hit by a gigantic fine. So a government-owned, not-for-profit, company will pay the fine into the government coffers and find itself with less money to invest and pay its workers. ::) ::)
If (and judging by the well-informed comments on here, it is a very big "if") anyone was responsible, there should be personal sanctions of some kind, not a corporate fine.
-
Appologies but you see my point?
So the design failed ? or the design was incorrect?
Sorry but that's too heavy a price for a mere lack of concentration... IMO.
Are all crossings designed the same? Guessing not.
Some will be managed better and worse presumably...?
Which ones work better, do they exceed the design? If they do this one failed... And all that argument.
-
And re the fine, that should go the the families if anyone at all. They won't want it, but how does a fine help the design of the level crossing so it doesn't happen again?
Can anyone here imagine two young girls waiting to cross, paying full attention, silently, concentrating fully on the single task of crossing a rail way line?
Because I can't! They'll be nattering away and giggling like young girls do....trains gone, cross, bang, dead.
I would prefer network rail paid a bit more attention and put the money they spent on defending the case, and hence the money for the fine towards safer crossings.
They sat on their hands it seems to me, and these two paid with their lives.
As said the fine is pointless and was inevitable by all accounts(?) so why waiste even more cash on a lengthy defence?
-
Elsenham station is the local station to where I work, and I've used this crossing a few times. While a tragic accident and I have sympathy for their families, I fail to see how they were unaware that a train was coming. There are warning lights and audible alarms when trains are approaching and by looking left and right (as you would before crossing a road), the track is visible in both directions for some considerable distance. I can only assume that they were chatting and not paying attention, or trying to be brave and get across before the second train came. :-\ I fail to see why Network Rail should be held responsible in a situation where they couldn't do much more to have made it any safer IMO. As usual, in our wonderful land of blame culture, someone has to take the can and shell out compensation. >:(
-
Chris,
As you know, we don't even have barriers on many of our crossings in our area... They simply aren't needed because when the lights flash and the sirens sound, people do as they are supposed to and stop.
OK, there is a speed restriction on the line and it's not a "main line" but we even have many crossings which are just manual gates with no warnings whatsoever... We use common sense and the old fashioned "Stop, Look and Listen" technique ::)
It is a tragedy that anyone has lost their life, perhaps more so for the families they have left behind, but this is an accident caused by their lack of attention.
Are the Highways Agency/Councils to be responsible for any loss of life when people get run over crossing the road? It's the same situation IMO
-
... the track is visible in both directions for some considerable distance. .....
The news last night showed the line from the crossing. The line curves away a very short distance from the crossing & a high speed train would be going over the crossing 3 secs after the driver first sees it.
Everything else though I agree with you though. :y
-
...... They simply aren't needed because when the lights flash and the sirens sound, people do as they are supposed to and stop.
... We use common sense and the old fashioned "Stop, Look and Listen" technique ::)
..... but this is an accident caused by their lack of attention.
....
Agreed. Too many people are prepared to take a risk. How many times have we seen people on CCTV footage on telly where people have tried to beat the automated barriers as they come down or try to beat the train itself? There'll always be just one winner when something the size & weight of a train hits something.
-
Are the Highways Agency/Councils to be responsible for any loss of life when people get run over crossing the road? It's the same situation IMO
Yep, and, if you do run someone over do you then get fined because, retrospectively, you could have bought an Omega made out of cotton wool?
IMHO, Network rail are responsible if the crossing design didn't meet industry standards or if it was defective, I.E. warning lights and sounders not working.
If not, there's an argument for looking at the incident and deciding on improvements to the design of the crossing, of course, but fines are not going to help improve matters.
A desperately sad incident, indeed, but, we all suffer the consequences of our actions, even at 14. If they crossed against sirens and red lights, they would probably have climbed over a locked gate too.
I get a feeling this decision is pandering to those who are, perhaps understandably, baying for blood rather than accepting that it was a tragic accident brought about by a stupid mistake.
-
Is it just me or are Network Rail being used as scape goats on this one.
for info, the report is here:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf (http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf)
These girls crossed the line whilst the warning lights and sirens were still sounding, they were consequently hit by a train. The signs state:
'cross only when green light shows'
'cross quickly'
The lights and warning buzzer were working.
The 'clause' Network rail were hung on was that there has been a recommendation for some years to fit locking gates where possible. However these have big issues as they can potentialy lock pedestrians inside the crossing.
I hate to say it but, it looks very much like a case of miss adventure rather than a man slaughter issue.
when I checked the report my eyes popped off :o :o
hats off to the staff who write the report :y :y :y
-
Chris,
As you know, we don't even have barriers on many of our crossings in our area... They simply aren't needed because when the lights flash and the sirens sound, people do as they are supposed to and stop.
OK, there is a speed restriction on the line and it's not a "main line" but we even have many crossings which are just manual gates with no warnings whatsoever... We use common sense and the old fashioned "Stop, Look and Listen" technique ::)
It is a tragedy that anyone has lost their life, perhaps more so for the families they have left behind, but this is an accident caused by their lack of attention.
Are the Highways Agency/Councils to be responsible for any loss of life when people get run over crossing the road? It's the same situation IMO
I had deleted a whole section I'd typed that ran along these lines(pardon the pun) if we manage something it has to work, it may be arguable its better not to manage it at all. But clearly management of the issue is in place....equally clearly a pedestrian crossing on a road is not the same.
I guess there's no no need for the adverts on tv asking for care at crossings then? There's numerous cases of accidents on crossings for drivers and pedestrians alike.
-
Chris,
As you know, we don't even have barriers on many of our crossings in our area... They simply aren't needed because when the lights flash and the sirens sound, people do as they are supposed to and stop.
OK, there is a speed restriction on the line and it's not a "main line" but we even have many crossings which are just manual gates with no warnings whatsoever... We use common sense and the old fashioned "Stop, Look and Listen" technique ::)
It is a tragedy that anyone has lost their life, perhaps more so for the families they have left behind, but this is an accident caused by their lack of attention.
Are the Highways Agency/Councils to be responsible for any loss of life when people get run over crossing the road? It's the same situation IMO
I had deleted a whole section I'd typed that ran along these lines(pardon the pun) if we manage something it has to work, it may be arguable its better not to manage it at all. But clearly management of the issue is in place....equally clearly a pedestrian crossing on a road is not the same.
I guess there's no no need for the adverts on tv asking for care at crossings then? There's numerous cases of accidents on crossings for drivers and pedestrians alike.
...and by that I mean, if we are all to adopt the stop look listen approach at rail crossings and nothing else, there must be no need for alarms, lights, gates, adverts on tv and all those accidents at crossings must be some sort of weird freak of nature. Some of which resulted in de railed trains as I recall.
My understanding is, in this case, somebody decided the gates should lock. There by accepting there must be a need for them to lock, for what ever reason. If the lock mechanism fails....
-
where I live there used to be a few colliery lines and the main sheffield to leeds line..when my children where young I told them the story of Rag-arm who was an old gentleman who saw some children playing on railway lines and as he was trying to chase the children off he fell and a train hit him chopping off both his arms.He died and his ghost wonders the rail lines looking for children playing and when he catches you your arms are torn off and he tries your arms to see if they fit his stumps.. ;D ;D ;D ;D it worked a treat and they never played near the lines..
-
Chris,
As you know, we don't even have barriers on many of our crossings in our area... They simply aren't needed because when the lights flash and the sirens sound, people do as they are supposed to and stop.
OK, there is a speed restriction on the line and it's not a "main line" but we even have many crossings which are just manual gates with no warnings whatsoever... We use common sense and the old fashioned "Stop, Look and Listen" technique ::)
It is a tragedy that anyone has lost their life, perhaps more so for the families they have left behind, but this is an accident caused by their lack of attention.
Are the Highways Agency/Councils to be responsible for any loss of life when people get run over crossing the road? It's the same situation IMO
I had deleted a whole section I'd typed that ran along these lines(pardon the pun) if we manage something it has to work, it may be arguable its better not to manage it at all. But clearly management of the issue is in place....equally clearly a pedestrian crossing on a road is not the same.
I guess there's no no need for the adverts on tv asking for care at crossings then? There's numerous cases of accidents on crossings for drivers and pedestrians alike.
...and by that I mean, if we are all to adopt the stop look listen approach at rail crossings and nothing else, there must be no need for alarms, lights, gates, adverts on tv and all those accidents at crossings must be some sort of weird freak of nature. Some of which resulted in de railed trains as I recall.
My understanding is, in this case, somebody decided the gates should lock. There by accepting there must be a need for them to lock, for what ever reason. If the lock mechanism fails....
As already stated, the lock mechanism was not fitted at the time of the incident (despite what the media report).
-
Is it just me or are Network Rail being used as scape goats on this one.
for info, the report is here:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf (http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf)
These girls crossed the line whilst the warning lights and sirens were still sounding, they were consequently hit by a train. The signs state:
'cross only when green light shows'
'cross quickly'
The lights and warning buzzer were working.
The 'clause' Network rail were hung on was that there has been a recommendation for some years to fit locking gates where possible. However these have big issues as they can potentialy lock pedestrians inside the crossing.
I hate to say it but, it looks very much like a case of miss adventure rather than a man slaughter issue.
when I checked the report my eyes popped off :o :o
hats off to the staff who write the report :y :y :y
The reports they produce are very good and very readable!
Plus all in the public domain.
-
Survival of the fittest. If you are too stupid to cross prematurely, and not look - even at 125mph you'd see it coming - then that can only be a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool.
But in the current culture, an organisation needs to take the flack...
-
Is it just me or are Network Rail being used as scape goats on this one.
for info, the report is here:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf (http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf)
These girls crossed the line whilst the warning lights and sirens were still sounding, they were consequently hit by a train. The signs state:
'cross only when green light shows'
'cross quickly'
The lights and warning buzzer were working.
The 'clause' Network rail were hung on was that there has been a recommendation for some years to fit locking gates where possible. However these have big issues as they can potentialy lock pedestrians inside the crossing.
I hate to say it but, it looks very much like a case of miss adventure rather than a man slaughter issue.
when I checked the report my eyes popped off :o :o
hats off to the staff who write the report :y :y :y
The reports they produce are very good and very readable!
Plus all in the public domain.
imo, we still have many things to learn from Brits :y
-
Survival of the fittest. If you are too stupid to cross prematurely, and not look - even at 125mph you'd see it coming - then that can only be a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool.
But in the current culture, an organisation needs to take the flack...
Unfortunately I agree with that.
-
Survival of the fittest. If you are too stupid to cross prematurely, and not look - even at 125mph you'd see it coming - then that can only be a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool.
But in the current culture, an organisation needs to take the flack...
Unfortunately I agree with that.
To a point, yes, but even geniuses *uck up from time to time.
... And made mistakes while young and learning. Not sure what gene pool 14 year olds qualify for....?
-
Survival of the fittest. If you are too stupid to cross prematurely, and not look - even at 125mph you'd see it coming - then that can only be a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool.
But in the current culture, an organisation needs to take the flack...
I find that comment despicable in these circumstances frankly. >:(
I listened to a programme dedicated to this tragedy on the radio today.Railtrack buried the reports their own inspectors had made regarding this station, which were written in 2000 and 2002.The reports stated that the setup was inherently unsafe, and was an accident waiting to happen.It was when, not if.
There was only one ticket office which was at the southbound side of the track,so people who needed to travel north had to cross to buy a ticket,then cross back again after they had done so.
Iirc the two young girls were travelling northbound (to Cambridge ?) on a shopping trip.after buying tickets, the lights etc. were flashing at the gates,their train had just come into the station and came to a stop.It seems they wrongly assumed that to be the reason the lights were warning not to cross and decided to cross back to get on the train. At that moment another train appeared from the opposite direction and hit them. I can only take bobs word for the visibilty,but how long would it take a southbound train travelling at high speed (over 100mph ?) from becoming visible from the gates,to actually being present at the gates ?
The train drivers had been banned from sounding their horns when approaching this station,as it was said to cause annoyance to local residents.
To me,the fact that railtrack hid their own safety reports from the coroner,family solicitors and all other interested parties speaks volumes. Once the reports were discovered,they had effectively hung themselves and rightly so.
I listened to the father of one of the girls being interviewed on the radio today,and tbh,it was just heartbreaking to listen to.
-
A tragic event without doubt but one the causation of which can't be assessed in absolute terms;
The comments - found at section 9 under the heading 'Conclusions' (page 45) - from this Enquiry demonstrates this very well.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/Elsenham-report.pdf
This statement, made by NR chief executive David Higgins, effectively recognises that a problem existed and that such crossings continue to pose a danger;
"This was a deeply tragic event.
"Since this accident in 2005 we have launched a major programme to update the assessments of all our 7,000 level crossings, improving risk management and safety, and we have closed over 500 crossings since 2009.
"When it comes to safety, we will never be complacent and we continue to work alongside local communities, all the relevant authorities and other stakeholders to make our level crossings safer still."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/network-rail-to-be-prosecuted-over-level-crossing-deaths-6267823.html
Whether or not Network Rail should have had the charges levied as they were very much depends on whatever side of the track people choose to inhabit but it must be important, surely, to demonstrate that when people lose their lives - especially in controversial circumstances - that someone or some organisation must be called to answer for it and sanctioned if they were found to have been negligent or contributory in any way.
-
Survival of the fittest. If you are too stupid to cross prematurely, and not look - even at 125mph you'd see it coming - then that can only be a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool.
But in the current culture, an organisation needs to take the flack...
I find that comment despicable in these circumstances frankly. >:(
Why? Are you a believer in people not having to take responsibility for themselves, and having to be wet nursed all the time.
If these kids were not responsible enough to deal with the path across a railway line, they should not have been out unaccompanied. No IFs or BUTs.
The lights were flashing, I presume that means the sirens were on, and the road barriers were down. Why did these idiots feel they should cross? Without looking? I'm just the stupid kid from the local comprehensive, but at 14, nae, 5 years old, I had the common sense to cross railway lines and cross roads.
We live in a twisted culture where there always has to be blame, and that that blame has to lie with a corporation. I'm sure the parents are progressing it, mainly to shift the guilt off them. Maybe they will get some cash to go with it. Our cash.
-
I wasn't saying that there is no need for lights and sirens... Quite the opposite actually ;) With lights and sirens going there is no reason for them to have crossed ;)
At the end of the day, the only real failing here, IMO, lies with the girls who chose to ignore the rather blatant warnings and paid the ultimate, tragic price. In addition, the train driver has probably had his life ruined too :-\
-
In addition, the train driver has probably had his life ruined too :-\
Indeed, he is the one I have the most sympathy for, followed by the track walkers and maintence peeps who have to gather and scrape off all the bits, and ensure they go in the right bags :'(
-
If you spend the time to study all the facts of the case,you may conclude that it is nowhere near as simplistic as your saying it is.
One fact of many. - Railtracks own safety inspectors said that the gates should have locks installed, years before the girls were killed. They were completely ignored.Then when the girls were killed,Railtrack hid this info from anyone who had an interest in investigating the incident. For that reason alone,they should bve rather gassed.
-
If you spend the time to study all the facts of the case,you may conclude that it is nowhere near as simplistic as your saying it is.
One fact of many. - Railtracks own safety inspectors said that the gates should have locks installed, years before the girls were killed. They were completely ignored.Then when the girls were killed,Railtrack hid this info from anyone who had an interest in investigating the incident. For that reason alone,they should bve rather gassed.
No, it is simplistic. Like crossing the road, which nowadays always seems to be the drivers fault when the little brats walk out into road without looking, concentrating on sending messages on their gooseberrys.
Crossing gatelocks were never fitted when I was young. I managed to attain the single digit IQ needed to cross safely.
We pander to stupid people, which degenerates into a society of even more stupid people, and ultimately end up with a nanny state. Not the direction I want to see the once Great Britain go in.
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
-
there are always 2 sides of coin.. in that case , the officials didnt take the necessary precaution , as understood from the report.. and the girls unfortunately made the deadly mistake.. sadly there is no way to bring them back, but I hope they dont die for nothing and the officials do everything necessary..
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
Wouldn't be the end of the world Albs.
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
I think your hatred of large, faceless companies is outweighing your views on nanny states. In fact, your arguments seem to be in favour of nanny states :-\
Whatever Network Rail are guilty of - my dislike of trains is well known, so I'd love to see them taken to the cleaners and ultimately shut down - doesn't take away from the fact that these young ladies (teenagers, not toddlers) ignored all the lights, sirens and the fact the barriers wouldn't let traffic through, and decided to cross anyway. Clearly without looking. Thats the simplistic facts.
Lack of common sense got them killed. Not NR. Not a suit. Just lack of any sense. Probably because they are used to the nanny state, where everything remotely dangerous needs so much beaurocracy around, its unworkable.
Just (lack of) pure common sense. Whether that blame belongs to the young ladies, or their parents is undecided, but while we have a frenzy over "lets kick NR, as they are a big, easy target", that debate is seemingly sidelined.
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
Wouldn't be the end of the world Albs.
If I have read the intentions of that remark correctly, I think you could be close to a ban chrisgixer >:(
(apologies if I have misread the meaning)
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
Wouldn't be the end of the world Albs.
If I have read the intentions of that remark correctly, I think you could be close to a ban chrisgixer >:(
(apologies if I have misread the meaning)
...from Albs's point of view. Should we shy away from our opinions to please an Admin. I think not.
-
::) imo tonight most people here have too much static electric.. :-\
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
Wouldn't be the end of the world Albs.
If I have read the intentions of that remark correctly, I think you could be close to a ban chrisgixer >:(
(apologies if I have misread the meaning)
...from Albs's point of view. Should we shy away from our opinions to please an Admin. I think not.
Not sure I understand what you are getting at, sorry :-[. Remember I'm just the stupid kid from the local comp, just intelligent enough to cross a level crossing ::)
Also, please bear in mind, here I am a member just like anyone else. Moderator hat only goes on when required. You know that better than most. My views are no more important or unimportant than anyone elses.
Alb's viewpoint is absolutely as valid as mine. We just happen to differ on which is the correct viewpoint. But we are both allowed to share our sides of the debate, as long as its not outside expected behaviour here.
Seems I misread your tone, sorry for that. Truely :-[
-
Had quite a lot of rather strong Chilean wine,and about to watch the film about the TT starring Guy Martin.
Will leave this for the moment,but Im sure will revisit it later,and reply where apt. ::)
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
Wouldn't be the end of the world Albs.
If I have read the intentions of that remark correctly, I think you could be close to a ban chrisgixer >:(
(apologies if I have misread the meaning)
...from Albs's point of view. Should we shy away from our opinions to please an Admin. I think not.
Not sure I understand what you are getting at, sorry :-[. Remember I'm just the stupid kid from the local comp, just intelligent enough to cross a level crossing ::)
Also, please bear in mind, here I am a member just like anyone else. Moderator hat only goes on when required. You know that better than most. My views are no more important or unimportant than anyone elses.
Alb's viewpoint is absolutely as valid as mine. We just happen to differ on which is the correct viewpoint. But we are both allowed to share our sides of the debate, as long as its not outside expected behaviour here.
Seems I misread your tone, sorry for that. Truely :-[
;D we where all fine til you came on ;) :P ... ;D
-
there are always 2 sides of coin.. in that case , the officials didnt take the necessary precaution , as understood from the report.. and the girls unfortunately made the deadly mistake.. sadly there is no way to bring them back, but I hope they dont die for nothing and the officials do everything necessary..
Whilst I fully understand, and to some extent agree with what you are saying, I have to, errrrr, disagree ;D. To an extent.
Here is a not dissimilar scenario.
About 5yrs ago, in Oxford, a woman had taken her kids, and some others, to a birthday party. At some point, they had to change venue (can't remember specifics, maybe from McDonalds to the birthday boy's house??), but there were only 2 adults/cars. So one of the women packed about 10 kids in her people carrier, and proceeded along the Oxford ringroad, a fast dual carriageway, with no central barrier, as the verge between carriageways was very wide.
Anyway, as she approached the MINI plant, she was obviously distracted by one of the kids in the back, and she swerved, crossed the reservation, into oncoming traffic. All killed. Sadly. Tradgically.
Because it had to be somebody's fault, and it couldn't possibly be the parent being wholly irresponsible having that many kids in the car (insured for 7, not 11), and not concentrating on driving, the end result is it had to be the fault of the authorities, so now its a 50mph limit (and a central barrier of concrete K rails built).
Ridiculous.
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
Wouldn't be the end of the world Albs.
If I have read the intentions of that remark correctly, I think you could be close to a ban chrisgixer >:(
(apologies if I have misread the meaning)
...from Albs's point of view. Should we shy away from our opinions to please an Admin. I think not.
Not sure I understand what you are getting at, sorry :-[. Remember I'm just the stupid kid from the local comp, just intelligent enough to cross a level crossing ::)
Also, please bear in mind, here I am a member just like anyone else. Moderator hat only goes on when required. You know that better than most. My views are no more important or unimportant than anyone elses.
Alb's viewpoint is absolutely as valid as mine. We just happen to differ on which is the correct viewpoint. But we are both allowed to share our sides of the debate, as long as its not outside expected behaviour here.
Seems I misread your tone, sorry for that. Truely :-[
;D we where all fine til you came on ;) :P ... ;D
Sorreeeee :-[
-
there are always 2 sides of coin.. in that case , the officials didnt take the necessary precaution , as understood from the report.. and the girls unfortunately made the deadly mistake.. sadly there is no way to bring them back, but I hope they dont die for nothing and the officials do everything necessary..
Whilst I fully understand, and to some extent agree with what you are saying, I have to, errrrr, disagree ;D . To an extent.
Here is a not dissimilar scenario.
About 5yrs ago, in Oxford, a woman had taken her kids, and some others, to a birthday party. At some point, they had to change venue (can't remember specifics, maybe from McDonalds to the birthday boy's house??), but there were only 2 adults/cars. So one of the women packed about 10 kids in her people carrier, and proceeded along the Oxford ringroad, a fast dual carriageway, with no central barrier, as the verge between carriageways was very wide.
Anyway, as she approached the MINI plant, she was obviously distracted by one of the kids in the back, and she swerved, crossed the reservation, into oncoming traffic. All killed. Sadly. Tradgically.
Because it had to be somebody's fault, and it couldn't possibly be the parent being wholly irresponsible having that many kids in the car (insured for 7, not 11), and not concentrating on driving, the end result is it had to be the fault of the authorities, so now its a 50mph limit (and a central barrier of concrete K rails built).
Ridiculous.
yep.. seen your point of view, but this is rather an extreme case where repeating occasions can be hardly found though not impossible..however, in most of those events, personally I prefer the officials take the precautions for people even lower than avg perception.. trust me even you or I could be in the same position when our heads are busy with job, or sad from some problem .. or anyone.. :-\
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-16786369
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9051569/Network-Rail-pleads-guilty-over-girls-deaths.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094340/Network-Rail-admits-health-safety-breach-Essex-level-crossing-deaths.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15929209
-
Yep, I know what you mean TB & what you've also got to think is how far exactly do you go with 'safety measures' these days? For example - IF the gates lock automatically it may have stopped the 2 girls from crossing, but who's to say someone else wouldn't have jumped the fence? I've seen it done on many a CCTV video. Car drivers drive through the barriers going down. So how high are the fences / gates built? How many flashing signs & warnings do you put up? If you lock the gates how do you make sure no one gets locked on the wrong side? The list goes on..... Common sense should prevail.
-
So what sort of society doesn't cater for all? Similar could have happened from a blow out or mechanical failure (could, I hate that word in this context) although in your example I take your point.
I agree the idiots seem to be winning. ( sirFred Goodwin)
Edit.
Bah, meant to quote TB's example
-
locking the gates may lock them on the track between the gates.
-
I have a hatred of the nanny state which runs at least as deep as it does with you,but, this is nothing to do with that.Your simply jumping to the conclusion that it is.I repeat - if you take the time to study the facts of the case,you just might not make ludicrous,crassly insensitive statements about the horrific deaths of two poor little girls. I think I ought to try to stay away from this thread for a while,as I may well say something which initiates a ban.
Wouldn't be the end of the world Albs.
If I have read the intentions of that remark correctly, I think you could be close to a ban chrisgixer >:(
(apologies if I have misread the meaning)
...from Albs's point of view. Should we shy away from our opinions to please an Admin. I think not.
Not sure I understand what you are getting at, sorry :-[. Remember I'm just the stupid kid from the local comp, just intelligent enough to cross a level crossing ::)
Also, please bear in mind, here I am a member just like anyone else. Moderator hat only goes on when required. You know that better than most. My views are no more important or unimportant than anyone elses.
Alb's viewpoint is absolutely as valid as mine. We just happen to differ on which is the correct viewpoint. But we are both allowed to share our sides of the debate, as long as its not outside expected behaviour here.
Seems I misread your tone, sorry for that. Truely :-[
;D we where all fine til you came on ;) :P ... ;D
Sorreeeee :-[
That's ok, now take a days ban and behave in future. :D ;)
-
now you will laugh, but when in London the signs "Look right" saved my arse many times ;D
-
now you will laugh, but when in London the signs "Look right" saved my arse many times ;D
There ya go see. Don't get that in Europe for us pondy Brits do we...? ;D
-
yep.. seen your point of view, but this is rather an extreme case where repeating occasions can be hardly found though not impossible..however, in most of those events, personally I prefer the officials take the precautions for people even lower than avg perception.. trust me even you or I could be in the same position when our heads are busy with job, or sad from some problem .. or anyone.. :-\
Not sure, in this case, it could. There were enough clues - flashing lights, sirens, barriers down on road. Surely anyone would look before crossing no matter what the lights/sirens etc doing anyway? Moreso with all the warnings going off.
I accept that many youngsters are too occupied with their electronic gadgets, and have no awareness of there surroundings. This happens on roads in the UK now, as well. Kids just walk straight out. Only that rarely hits the national headlines. Rarely hits the local news TBH.
IMHO, its not difficult to bring back our long lost friend, common sense. It just needs a change of culture, away from blame/compensation, and towards personal responsibility.
-
now you will laugh, but when in London the signs "Look right" saved my arse many times ;D
There ya go see. Don't get that in Europe for us pondy Brits do we...? ;D
here we dont have.. and you will be really in danger.. habits not that easy to change :(
-
now you will laugh, but when in London the signs "Look right" saved my arse many times ;D
There ya go see. Don't get that in Europe for us pondy Brits do we...? ;D
I've never got knocked down in Europe either (probably will now ;D). My brother's youngest nearly did 6 or 7yrs ago - was too busy playing on a handheld gayStation, was just about to walk out into a busy road without looking, fortunately we saw what was happening with about a yard to go. Absolutely no common sense (then).
-
yep.. seen your point of view, but this is rather an extreme case where repeating occasions can be hardly found though not impossible..however, in most of those events, personally I prefer the officials take the precautions for people even lower than avg perception.. trust me even you or I could be in the same position when our heads are busy with job, or sad from some problem .. or anyone.. :-\
Not sure, in this case, it could. There were enough clues - flashing lights, sirens, barriers down on road. Surely anyone would look before crossing no matter what the lights/sirens etc doing anyway? Moreso with all the warnings going off.
I accept that many youngsters are too occupied with their electronic gadgets, and have no awareness of there surroundings. This happens on roads in the UK now, as well. Kids just walk straight out. Only that rarely hits the national headlines. Rarely hits the local news TBH.
IMHO, its not difficult to bring back our long lost friend, common sense. It just needs a change of culture, away from blame/compensation, and towards personal responsibility.
must say I cant be objective on these subjects.. I have lost my 18 year old cousin (she was about to marry) on a similiar traffic accident when she was passing the road .. :( she was coming back from another city searching for job..
-
Don't know about others, but as a kid, i did some pretty stupid things. At the time it was a laugh. You got away with it and no one (or yourself) got hurt. When you get older, you realize how stupid your actions were and are grateful to have the privilege of life experience.
Sometimes, regardless of what your 17 year old tells you, they don't know everything.
-
must say I cant be objective on these subjects.. I have lost my 18 year old cousin (she was about to marry) on a similiar traffic accident when she was passing the road .. :( she was coming back from another city searching for job..
Its a skill & curse I have learnt, being able to step back and try to see things from everyone's viewpoint.
Whilst it can be extremely useful in some scenarios, esp in my working life, it can also make one appear heartless and cold.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-16786369
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9051569/Network-Rail-pleads-guilty-over-girls-deaths.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094340/Network-Rail-admits-health-safety-breach-Essex-level-crossing-deaths.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15929209
Yes, it cannot be denied that the reports existed. Or that they didn't bring them into the open/hid them.
But the fact remains that the girls chose to ignore the posted signs, lights, sirens and the fact the barriers were down and cross the tracks without looking. The blame cannot be entirely heaped at NR door when there were safety devices in place that they chose to ignore ???
-
Don't know about others, but as a kid, i did some pretty stupid things. At the time it was a laugh. You got away with it and no one (or yourself) got hurt. When you get older, you realize how stupid your actions were and are grateful to have the privilege of life experience.
Too true. And when it did go wrong, and my little bro and I got hurt, Dad would make it hurt more, and tell us it was our own stupid fault. Not go complaining to the building site manager that they should prevent us being able to get onto the site (I grew up on a building site, a kids dream playground, much to the annoyance of the workers, who would give us a good clip around the ear when they caught us - again Dad would do likewise, rather than report the workman for abuse or whatever crap some parents would do now if little johnny got a hiding for misbehaving).
-
Sad though this event is, we must find a donkey to pin the tail on.
Once we distill all the info around this down into basic fractions and its bottom line, the deceased MUST shoulder a greater proportion - if not all - the blame.
Yes, railtrack should have been potentially more reponsible in having fences 2 or 3 metres higher around the rails. Yes, they should have had some kind of interlock on the gate to prevent unsafe progress. Yes, parents (and schools, heaven forbid) should have instilled a greater sense of self preservation on said deceased.
But, to be blunt, the (sadly) deceased should have used a small portion of the brains they were born with and assessed whether what they were collectively doing that day was going to get them cut/burnt/slapped/squished. And acted accordingly.
Apologies to those to whom I appear hard hearted but I have also had to attend 300 yard plus locii and use marked binbags to ensure the correct burnt/stretched/squished bits get repatriated to correct families.
And yes, I support the Darwin awards....
Will say nowt more on this. :-X
-
Albs, the whole situation is tragic. However to continue to cross when the lights and sirens are still flashing/blaring with an assumption that there are no further trains was a risk that these children took. As a parent I can not even begin to imagine the grief that afflicts a family in a situation like this. I have also seen families in these circumstances chase something else in the hope of transferring/placing guilt on something or someone else. Its quite common.
The question is how far can we nanny people around. I remember being 6 and bring told never to cross when the level crossing lights were flashing. Or when the pedestrian light was red. I dont cross red lights period. Yet teenagers and adults (esp in London) choose to cross when there are clear signs shouting do not cross! Should we be putting locked gates at pedestrian crossings next. After all more people get run over by cars than by trains and surely this would be the area to focus?
These were not 5 or 6 yr olds, they were older children who would have been hopefully taught to be responsible and careful and the way I understand it is that they choose to ignore very clear signs. I do apologise if I have got that bit wrong, but I have not been able to read all the details in that report. I am sure NR had shortcomings but placing everything on them is not correct in my view.
Yes we all make mistakes when we are young, most survive, some dont, its the way of life.
The saddest part is probably the train driver who had no fault at all but will have to live with this till the end.
-
Don't know about others, but as a kid, i did some pretty stupid things. At the time it was a laugh. You got away with it and no one (or yourself) got hurt. When you get older, you realize how stupid your actions were and are grateful to have the privilege of life experience.
Too true. And when it did go wrong, and my little bro and I got hurt, Dad would make it hurt more, and tell us it was our own stupid fault. Not go complaining to the building site manager that they should prevent us being able to get onto the site (I grew up on a building site, a kids dream playground, much to the annoyance of the workers, who would give us a good clip around the ear when they caught us - again Dad would do likewise, rather than report the workman for abuse or whatever crap some parents would do now if little johnny got a hiding for misbehaving).
I'm glad somebody said this, I completely agree - we lived in fear of what our parents would do to us if we did something wrong when we were out and about as kids, or in school. There would be no question of our parents arguing with a teacher, if we did something wrong in school we were in for a hiding or grounding. This is the attitude that I've adopted for our kids as well. I'm pretty much on my own though :-\
-
I'm glad somebody said this, I completely agree - we lived in fear of what our parents would do to us if we did something wrong when we were out and about as kids, or in school. There would be no question of our parents arguing with a teacher, if we did something wrong in school we were in for a hiding or grounding. This is the attitude that I've adopted for our kids as well. I'm pretty much on my own though :-\
Agree, you need to be responsible for your actions. Nowadays if a teacher rebukes a student they would probably loose their job. Which I think directly reflects on the general state of affairs/recent public behaviour during the riots.
Sorry if I am digressing.
-
Don't know about others, but as a kid, i did some pretty stupid things. At the time it was a laugh. You got away with it and no one (or yourself) got hurt. When you get older, you realize how stupid your actions were and are grateful to have the privilege of life experience.
Too true. And when it did go wrong, and my little bro and I got hurt, Dad would make it hurt more, and tell us it was our own stupid fault. Not go complaining to the building site manager that they should prevent us being able to get onto the site (I grew up on a building site, a kids dream playground, much to the annoyance of the workers, who would give us a good clip around the ear when they caught us - again Dad would do likewise, rather than report the workman for abuse or whatever crap some parents would do now if little johnny got a hiding for misbehaving).
I'm glad somebody said this, I completely agree - we lived in fear of what our parents would do to us if we did something wrong when we were out and about as kids, or in school. There would be no question of our parents arguing with a teacher, if we did something wrong in school we were in for a hiding or grounding. This is the attitude that I've adopted for our kids as well. I'm pretty much on my own though :-\
No you're not dear boy .......... the same responsible [grand]parental approach is apparent here. ;)
And I have to deal with some of these miscreants for a living ............ >:(
Several of my colleagues have been involved in similar fatalities, and one was so badly affected that he never returned to work. Whilst the aftermath of such an incident is certainly devastating, it's also devastating to see your colleagues completely traumatised.
-
must say I cant be objective on these subjects.. I have lost my 18 year old cousin (she was about to marry) on a similiar traffic accident when she was passing the road .. :( she was coming back from another city searching for job..
Its a skill & curse I have learnt, being able to step back and try to see things from everyone's viewpoint.
Whilst it can be extremely useful in some scenarios, esp in my working life, it can also make one appear heartless and cold.
must say not easy.. I personally cant..
however, once you live in an event like this one, - wish no one will face- you simply cant accept for long time..
-
now you will laugh, but when in London the signs "Look right" saved my arse many times ;D
There ya go see. Don't get that in Europe for us pondy Brits do we...? ;D
I've never got knocked down in Europe either (probably will now ;D). My brother's youngest nearly did 6 or 7yrs ago - was too busy playing on a handheld gayStation, was just about to walk out into a busy road without looking, fortunately we saw what was happening with about a yard to go. Absolutely no common sense (then).
Too many posts to try to answer(although Im seriously tempted to mention the very fast back pedalling when the ban was mentioned) ::),but - in reply to the highlighted part above.If you hadnt seen what was about to happen and the kid had stepped into the road and got killed.I presume your over riding feeling about the incident would have been "survival of the fittest.If your too stupid to cross prematurely and not look,then that can only have been a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool" ? If not,then why not ?
-
Not sure where your understanding of the ban/backpeddling goes Albs. You are not in the frame for that one this time. ;D
-
I presume your over riding feeling about the incident would have been "survival of the fittest.If your too stupid to cross prematurely and not look,then that can only have been a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool" ? If not,then why not ?
I have to say, personally, that I agree with the survival of the fittest type scenario, unfortunately. Goes back to the biblical 'reap what you sow' type thinking. If parents/grandparents/rellies cannot instill basic survival techniques in their progeny, why should the state take on the reponsibility on their behalf? Just means that the forbears rest on the collective family laurels and watch someone else take on their responsibilities - then bleat when it goes Pete Tong.
-
It is a sad fact of life that the most dangerous thing we all do every day is travelling around where a few seconds inattention, making a wrong or bad decision, or just being plain unlucky by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, can cost you or a third party their lives.
It is very sad, that two 14 year old girls paid the ultimate price and their families have had to suffer the consequences, that they broke the rules that you should NEVER cross a railway crossing when the lights and sirens are sounding. The bad decision was that they assumed the lights and sirens were sounding for their train stopped in the station and not also for one coming in the opposite direction. We all make mistakes in life and it is very sad when it results in deaths.
Is network rail guilty of this as they broke the rules IMHO no. But I think it is totally unacceptable for an organisation to hide and information relevant to the case and what lessons can be learn from it and improvements made, but in this must blame somebody, claim compensation culture, people and companies are going to try to cover their butts. In this culture, an entirely justifiable defence, is no longer considered acceptable, which is that they have a finite budget and have to use their judgement on where to allocate resources, which might have been right or wrong in this case. We are now seeing this sort of perversion of justice as a result of this culture. If we had a sensible system, then all of this could and should be out in the open from day one, so the coroner could make objective conclusions. Unfortunately in this I must blame / fine / compensation culture we now live in, common sense and sensible justice are now out of the window, so we are getting the sort of justice, this perversion of society encourages and deserves.
What has been forgotten is that infinite safety costs infinite money and is of course impossible, so we must accept with a finite amount of money is available for a finite amount of safety and under these conditions, judgments and decisions have to be made.
-
What has been forgotten is that infinite safety costs infinite money and is of course impossible, so we must accept with a finite amount of money is available for a finite amount of safety and under these conditions, judgments and decisions have to be made.
Well said, i could not agree more
-
It is a sad fact of life that the most dangerous thing we all do every day is travelling around where a few seconds inattention, making a wrong or bad decision, or just being plain unlucky by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, can cost you or a third party their lives.
It is very sad, that two 14 year old girls paid the ultimate price and their families have had to suffer the consequences, that they broke the rules that you should NEVER cross a railway crossing when the lights and sirens are sounding. The bad decision was that they assumed the lights and sirens were sounding for their train stopped in the station and not also for one coming in the opposite direction. We all make mistakes in life and it is very sad when it results in deaths.
Is network rail guilty of this as they broke the rules IMHO no. But I think it is totally unacceptable for an organisation to hide and information relevant to the case and what lessons can be learn from it and improvements made, but in this must blame somebody, claim compensation culture, people and companies are going to try to cover their butts. In this culture, an entirely justifiable defence, is no longer considered acceptable, which is that they have a finite budget and have to use their judgement on where to allocate resources, which might have been right or wrong in this case. We are now seeing this sort of perversion of justice as a result of this culture. If we had a sensible system, then all of this could and should be out in the open from day one, so the coroner could make objective conclusions. Unfortunately in this I must blame / fine / compensation culture we now live in, common sense and sensible justice are now out of the window, so we are getting the sort of justice, this perversion of society encourages and deserves.
What has been forgotten is that infinite safety costs infinite money and is of course impossible, so we must accept with a finite amount of money is available for a finite amount of safety and under these conditions, judgments and decisions have to be made.
As they say in time of bad weather conditions, "don't travel unless absolutely necessary" will soon be quoted, every day of the week.
-
now you will laugh, but when in London the signs "Look right" saved my arse many times ;D
There ya go see. Don't get that in Europe for us pondy Brits do we...? ;D
I've never got knocked down in Europe either (probably will now ;D). My brother's youngest nearly did 6 or 7yrs ago - was too busy playing on a handheld gayStation, was just about to walk out into a busy road without looking, fortunately we saw what was happening with about a yard to go. Absolutely no common sense (then).
Too many posts to try to answer(although Im seriously tempted to mention the very fast back pedalling when the ban was mentioned) ::),but - in reply to the highlighted part above.If you hadnt seen what was about to happen and the kid had stepped into the road and got killed.I presume your over riding feeling about the incident would have been "survival of the fittest.If your too stupid to cross prematurely and not look,then that can only have been a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool" ? If not,then why not ?
Agreed, but then there would be a phase where you would try to transfer the guilt onto someone/something else, be it the highway authority for not fixing barriers, etc etc. Is that the right thing to do though?
-
The father of one of the girls said much the same thing on the radio today Rod.He was an intelligent professional person who understood that budgets are finite and that everything cant always be made absolutely safe. He was also adamant that many areas of this particular station were wholly unsafe and the company were fully aware of this,but they made a decision to do nothing about it even though their own inspectors had informed them of at least some of them years before,and then went to great efforts to cover up the facts after the girls were killed.
The combination of various factors including-
Trains banned from using horns as a warning
Short distance of visibility (although Bob Dent seems to think this isnt the case,and he is a local)
Non locking gates.
No way of warning that there is more than one train approaching from more than one direction
The need to cross the track to obtain ticket, and then cross again to go to the direction of travel - which in busy times could easily lead to people wandering around in the track going in different directions to each other.....
It sounds like an accident waiting to happen. They knew all this, and did nothing until after the event,when the budget suddenly got much bigger and all sorts of improvements took place. Including a footbridge I believe.
-
now you will laugh, but when in London the signs "Look right" saved my arse many times ;D
There ya go see. Don't get that in Europe for us pondy Brits do we...? ;D
I've never got knocked down in Europe either (probably will now ;D). My brother's youngest nearly did 6 or 7yrs ago - was too busy playing on a handheld gayStation, was just about to walk out into a busy road without looking, fortunately we saw what was happening with about a yard to go. Absolutely no common sense (then).
Too many posts to try to answer(although Im seriously tempted to mention the very fast back pedalling when the ban was mentioned) ::),but - in reply to the highlighted part above.If you hadnt seen what was about to happen and the kid had stepped into the road and got killed.I presume your over riding feeling about the incident would have been "survival of the fittest.If your too stupid to cross prematurely and not look,then that can only have been a good thing for the seriously deplenished gene pool" ? If not,then why not ?
Agreed, but then there would be a phase where you would try to transfer the guilt onto someone/something else, be it the highway authority for not fixing barriers, etc etc. Is that the right thing to do though?
The fact is that it went to court,and the evidence against Railtrack was so overwhelming that they pleaded guilty.Thats nothing to do with guilt transferrence. They were criminally negligent and will hopefully suffer the consequences.
To my mind, genuine health and safety is a vital part of everyday life,but it has been given a bad name by the loony left who hijacked it for th purposes of their own agenda. That doesnt make it any less inportant when there is a genuine problem.
Bruce.If we were talking about grown adults I would tend to agree,but it was a couple of kids.Girls just into their teens, whose lives had hardly begun.Even if it was purely a matter of them making a mistake (which by all accounts it wasnt) it cannot to any reasonable person mean that the gene pool has been done a favour by them being removed from it.Thats just beneath contempt imo. Any copper I have spoken to in the past has always said,they get used to (up to a point) accidents etc. where adults get killed,but the ones with kids always get to them no matter how often it happens and what the circumstances are.
-
Causal factors relevant to the accident at Elsenham on 3 December 2005
395 The immediate cause of the accident was the two teenage girls stepping into the path of
an approaching train despite the continued display of a red light and the sounding of an
audible alarm.
396 It is likely that the accident occurred due to the girls’ focus of attention on a train to
Cambridge (the Down train) and the consequent failure to perceive the risk from trains in
the opposite direction. This focus of attention on the Down train to the exclusion of Up
trains was likely to have been created by a strong motivation to catch their intended train
combined with an erroneous belief that the audible alarm related only to the train that was
passing ahead of them.
I think that is enough for me. The rest of it is part of a blame culture IMHO.
With regards to NR suffering the consequences, you will probably find that it is the hard working ordinary person who will suffer as a result of increased fares etc. NR and its mangement will continue to get their bonuses as usual. The intention may be good, but..!
-
Those opinions may or may not be accurate,but they are opinions. No facts involved there,and I would imagine they were pronounced before the new evidence came to light three weeks ago.
Imo the members of management who ignored the previous warnings and advice from their own inspectors,and subsequently conspired to cover it up should be behind bars for a very long time. As you say though - unlikely.
-
Bruce.If we were talking about grown adults I would tend to agree,but it was a couple of kids.Girls just into their teens, whose lives had hardly begun.Even if it was purely a matter of them making a mistake (which by all accounts it wasnt) it cannot to any reasonable person mean that the gene pool has been done a favour by them being removed from it.Thats just beneath contempt imo. Any copper I have spoken to in the past has always said,they get used to (up to a point) accidents etc. where adults get killed,but the ones with kids always get to them no matter how often it happens and what the circumstances are.
Albs. Sad to say that on this subject we will have to agree to disagree. :'(
The young people in question were, I understand, circa 15 years of age. Old enough to contemplate the world ahead of them and make career binding descisions as regards educational results etc etc as well as a sadly short time away from a whole host of legal responsibilities, en route to a further load at 17 and 18 years of age and beyond.
And a lot of educational responsibilities on behalf of their families and peer group. And the educational system.
And about 10 years into the schooling system, teaching the basic 3 R's and lots of other important things such as basic reading, writing, and personal safety. And that oft forgotten core product, common sense.
As said earlier by me, I am sad to see the demise of young lives but. AND ITS A BIG BUT. We (as a grown up nation) need to ensure that we instill basic core responsibilities into our kids as they grow and develop into young adults, as these victims were. They must take some responsibilty for their own actions, surely. Its no different to to crossing a busy road, picking up a red hot coal fallen from a fire, touching a gas ring, getting too close to the edge of a sheer drop or whatever. I'm sure you can think of a host of similar scenarious as I can.
Yes, the rail track company could/should have also seen to their responsibilities but - where does the line in the sand get drawn? Surely self preservation of the individual takes precedent over corporate responsibility? If it looks dangerous, it probably is, so better take a bit of extra care? As Mum/Dad/Granny/Auntie/Uncle?whatever taught us, not Nanny State?
Sorry, but I think we are at opposites here and unlikely to meet common ground anytime soon.
And I have replied to a post on a thread that I said I wouldn't. :-[
-
Further edit.
I agree that the railtrack companies should not have covered upo notifications of failings etc but the core reasoning to my mind, remains the same.
The responsibility for personal safety is exactly that.
Personal ---- i.e. the sadly deceased.
-
The key thing here is that the crossing was designed and constructed within the safety needs as lai down, it therefore met the required safety.
There had been a document release some years before recommending that locking gates are fitted (not just to this crossing) but, this was a recommendation and not something that highlighted a fault (note these recommendations are always being published with some being extreme including one saying all level crossings should be replaced with bridges!).
There are issues where the locking gates trap people line side, this is very bad news and one could argue, more likely to occur then somebody crossing the line when alrams and lights are flashing. The method to get around this is to create large refuge areas and/or double gates (inner ones not being locking) which sadly can not be done on all sites.
The locking gates system worked well years ago when all crossings were man'ed.
This is a tragic accident but, the route cause is the victims who chose to ignore the warnings....
-
For my 2p'th, everyone seems to be in such a hurry these days, if everyone showed a little patience and slowed down and thought, I'm sure there would be less accidents.
-
Sad as it is and I've not read the details.
The fact is you can make it fool proof but you can't make it idiot proof!
Warnings are there for a reason and if a 14 year old decides to ignore them then that, ultimately, is their responsibility. Kids of that age often have an air of invincibility about them, walking out into traffic etc., who's to say that didn't apply here.
We have a level crossing about half a mile away which is regularly closed to pick up bits of people, sad but their decision.
-
The key thing here is that the crossing was designed and constructed within the safety needs as lai down, it therefore met the required safety.
1. if there occurs another accident similiar or at another point with same safety standards, do community have to think or approve , these standards are adequate because of limited (finite) budget, so its acceptable those people can continue to die ?
There had been a document release some years before recommending that locking gates are fitted (not just to this crossing) but, this was a recommendation and not something that highlighted a fault (note these recommendations are always being published with some being extreme including one saying all level crossings should be replaced with bridges!).
yep.. those crossings must be changed with bridges once and for all..
There are issues where the locking gates trap people line side, this is very bad news and one could argue, more likely to occur then somebody crossing the line when alrams and lights are flashing. The method to get around this is to create large refuge areas and/or double gates (inner ones not being locking) which sadly can not be done on all sites.
The locking gates system worked well years ago when all crossings were man'ed.
very important point, so this means the original desgn factors for the crossing changed!
This is a tragic accident but, the route cause is the victims who chose to ignore the warnings....
there will always be people who will ignore or cant .. they will be the next victims or not depends the decision of community spending more for those points.. (ie bridges)
:y
-
The fact is you can make it fool proof but you can't make it idiot proof!
Invent something idiot proof and someone just invents a better idiot.
Not just a saying but a fact of life.
We have never been as wrapped in cotton wool as we are today. It makes you wonder how anybody survived the early days of electricity and gas in the home, the days of germs in kitchens, threshing machines in fields, two world wars, factories before H&S inspections, underground stations without that irritating "Mind the gap" announcement, etc....
I guess people were more careful and didn't rush around in their own iPod-generated world oblivious and ignorant to anything going on around them.
-
I guess people were more careful and didn't rush around in their own iPod-generated world oblivious and ignorant to anything going on around them.
In general terms, and making no reference to the OP or the unfortunate victims, I couldn't agree more.
-
As I said yesterday, I fail to see anyone from NR suffering:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gBLJqPUjIgurGfe99vQHEcHFS9cQ?docId=N0303051328204454888A (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gBLJqPUjIgurGfe99vQHEcHFS9cQ?docId=N0303051328204454888A)
-
Blame culture every time. The sooner we ALL held responsible for our own actions again, the better.
As sad as it is that 2 people especially children, lost they're lives, there was warning lights flashing AND an audiable alarm. What is the difference between a car driving through a red light on a junction, just because he "thinks" nothing is coming and what these children did?
It was downright stupid....in several countries around the world, rail tracks are not fenced or sealed off, but open for as far as you can see. Do they go round suing the rail networks...I doubt it :-\
-
Didnt sue the rail network afaik.The rail network were prosecuted for serious breaches of the law,and admitted their guilt. ::)