http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-16786373
I think I have a small problem with this one.
This is the pertinent part for me:
I used to cross this railway at elsenham quite often as a kid. Iirc there were lights and sirens back then too, also an unlocked wicket gate. There was a bloke at the station who's job it was to open the road gates to allow vehicles to resume crossing the tracks.
If you weren't a fool, why would you cross a level crossing when the lights and sirens were on?
As far as I can see, the two girls were stupid and crossed the line whilst the lights and sirens were still on (to announce another train).
They crossed when a train was due to pass through the station, against the clearly audible and visible warning signs to alert pedestrians to the approach of a train.
13 & 14 is not too young to know the danger of level crossings. Nor is it too young to know what the warnings mean.
The only time I crossed that line was when the lights and sirens had stopped.
I could believe that network rail were at fault had the girls crossed when there were no lights and sirens and then hit by a train; this would infer some fault with the signalling equipment. Clearly then a danger to the public by not giving reliable notification of the danger of an approaching train.
That was not the case, however.
Is this H&S gone mad? Are the rail operators responsible? Are the parents of the two girls right to be glad that network rail have admitted liability, thereby confirming their lies and actions to 'cover up' certain paperwork relating to proposals to the crossing site? Or are the parents just unable to admit their children were wrong to cross when they did, and wanting to blame anyone but themselves over a dreadful accident that could have been prevented by a little parental common sense?
The outcome of the decisions made by the two girls was tragic and horrible. But I don't think legislating against stupidity, even youthful stupidity, is going to bring them back, nor will such measures protect anyone else idiotic enough to cross a live level crossing. What will be next? Automatically locked gates... but what happens when the next idiot decides to climb over, against all the prohibitive warnings, and is killed? 20ft high chain-link fences? And for how far down the line from the crossing?
Sadly I don't think there will be any positive outcome to any of this. What this shows (if anything) is that young people are not learning the basic necessity of taking responsibility for your own actions and safety. Defying clear warnings not to cross is entirely their fault. That might be painful for their parents, but it is true.
I'll also add that it was not unusual for more than one train to pass the station in quick succession with the crossing remaining closed to traffic and pedestrians during the gap between trains passing. Anyone who crossed that line regularly would know that. I did. I can only think those two girls knew this too, but chose to ignore the dangers. That decision killed them.
I think I have a small problem with this one.
This is the pertinent part for me:
I used to cross this railway at elsenham quite often as a kid. Iirc there were lights and sirens back then too, also an unlocked wicket gate. There was a bloke at the station who's job it was to open the road gates to allow vehicles to resume crossing the tracks.
If you weren't a fool, why would you cross a level crossing when the lights and sirens were on?
As far as I can see, the two girls were stupid and crossed the line whilst the lights and sirens were still on (to announce another train).
They crossed when a train was due to pass through the station, against the clearly audible and visible warning signs to alert pedestrians to the approach of a train.
13 & 14 is not too young to know the danger of level crossings. Nor is it too young to know what the warnings mean.
The only time I crossed that line was when the lights and sirens had stopped.
I could believe that network rail were at fault had the girls crossed when there were no lights and sirens and then hit by a train; this would infer some fault with the signalling equipment. Clearly then a danger to the public by not giving reliable notification of the danger of an approaching train.
That was not the case, however.
Is this H&S gone mad? Are the rail operators responsible? Are the parents of the two girls right to be glad that network rail have admitted liability, thereby confirming their lies and actions to 'cover up' certain paperwork relating to proposals to the crossing site? Or are the parents just unable to admit their children were wrong to cross when they did, and wanting to blame anyone but themselves over a dreadful accident that could have been prevented by a little parental common sense?
The outcome of the decisions made by the two girls was tragic and horrible. But I don't think legislating against stupidity, even youthful stupidity, is going to bring them back, nor will such measures protect anyone else idiotic enough to cross a live level crossing. What will be next? Automatically locked gates... but what happens when the next idiot decides to climb over, against all the prohibitive warnings, and is killed? 20ft high chain-link fences? And for how far down the line from the crossing?
Sadly I don't think there will be any positive outcome to any of this. What this shows (if anything) is that young people are not learning the basic necessity of taking responsibility for your own actions and safety. Defying clear warnings not to cross is entirely their fault. That might be painful for their parents, but it is true.
I'll also add that it was not unusual for more than one train to pass the station in quick succession with the crossing remaining closed to traffic and pedestrians during the gap between trains passing. Anyone who crossed that line regularly would know that. I did. I can only think those two girls knew this too, but chose to ignore the dangers. That decision killed them.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
