Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,106
- Location
- Chengdu
Regardless of the train and the speed it was going, it was the girls fault. Unless network rail staff pushed them onto the line...
Network Rail admits safety breaches over girls' deaths
- Thread starter jumpy
- Start date
possibly, but
When this used to happen, the lights and sirens would continue to sound, even though an approaching train might not have been immediately apparent. I remember standing there for a couple of minutes once, waiting around for the warnings to stop. It was only after another intercity had flashed through the station, going in the opposite direction, that the crossing was reopened.
EDIT:
Looking back again at the google image above, the station still has an overhead foot bridge!
Last edited:
People are idiots. Idiots do stupid things, including killing themselves by accident. It really is the company's responsibility to ensure idiots can't kill themselves when using their equipment/facilities/whatever. They didn't do this, and if there was an automatic barrier in place, this probably wouldn't have happened. I can't see it any other way. Yes, they should have been more careful, but they weren't and it's tragic that there wasn't an extra layer of safety in place to prevent this.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Where do you draw the line? Shall we invest in a huge metal cage over every railway line in the country to physically prevent people from going onto the line?
And why not roads? Why are there no barriers on pedestrian crossings? Far more dangerous, those?
Network Rail isn't a typical company. It's effectively a nationalised organisation so you are basically suggesting the taxpayer should pay for automatic self-locking barriers on every single foot crossing in the entire country. And there are THOUSANDS.
A risk report highlighted that gates would be a good idea, yes.
But good ideas are weighed up against cost and practicality. It would be a good idea, for example, to limit traffic speed on rural roads to 30mph. It would save countless lives. But the practicality side of sucg a suggestion makes it low priority.
But good ideas are weighed up against cost and practicality. It would be a good idea, for example, to limit traffic speed on rural roads to 30mph. It would save countless lives. But the practicality side of sucg a suggestion makes it low priority.
If only there was a system in place to warn them of the danger.
Perhaps two?
It's not the company's responsibility at all, at least it shouldn't be. There was more than the bare minimum safety in place. If you're still stupid enough to get yourself plastered on the front of a train, then it's a shame, but you have nobody to blame but yourself.
People need to learn that they are responsible for their own actions. The rest of us can't be around 24/7 to stop them all hurting themselves from their own stupidity.
It's now somebody else's job, and if they don't do it well enough, well you can just sue them and get your "compensation" instead.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,150
I don't understand how Network Rail can be held responsible unless certain individuals within the company have done something specifically wrong. It's very strange.
There must be more to this than has been released.
There must be more to this than has been released.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,150
Never seen a GD thread with so much agreement on a potentially controversial topic.