Network Rail admits safety breaches over girls' deaths

[neil_g]

I kid you not, there is a local senior that has a zebra crossing outside the gates and there is a Lollipop man that walks onto it to stop the traffic.

Senior school is that?

On my commute there is a twin pelican crossing (one per each side of a 40 limit dual carriageway), each side has its own high vis wearing button pressing and walking into the middle of the road person.

 

[Dolph]

Didn't Network Rail themselves say that the level crossing in question needed an automatic locking gate prior to these tragic deaths?

Why did it need it? It seems to comply with excessive legislation rather than for any other reason.

Why should companies be held responsible for poor decision making on the part of the public?

 

[mattyfez]

As tragic as it is, the girls crossed a railway crossing whilst the warning signals were still activated, and presumably assumed *the* train had passed, and so then proceeded to cross a railway without bothering to look (at all) for trains...

You could say they had it comming anyway...

 

[Justintime]

This is a classic example of Health and Safety gone mad. Network rail have effectively been forced to admit liability for the bad choices of the girls for ignoring the warning signs.

It should not have required a locked gate to prevent this, all it required was for the two girls not to be idiots.

As much as i don't like to speak ill of the dead, you are right. No one to blame but themselves.

 

[Dolph]

The fact they admitted liability makes me think that there must be more to this than has been reported.

Saying that, it was still the fault of the girls.

They admitted liability because, by the letter of the law, they were guilty, and hence a guilty plea means a reduced punishment, and they knew this.

It doesn't mean the law is correct or sensible. In fact, this case is a classic example of health and safety gone mad.

 

[mattyfez]

No wonder the price of train travel is a joke with this kind of idiocy.

 

[Efour]

Rather bemusing outcome to this, does it bring closure to the families?

There is a set of traffic lights near my house that has a lollipop lady on it during school hours. Its close to a bus stop so lots of mums and dads will often cross through moving traffic with their kids, as not to miss a bus.

I dont know what kind of example it sets. She is a miserable so and so tho.

 

[Nitefly]

I assume the idea behind the law is that a railway is such a dangerous thing that those responsible must do the absolute maximum possible to ensure no-one is harmed. On that reasoning, you could say they failed in their duty.

It is rather steep though.

 

[Strife212]

I agree that this verdict seems silly.

Well, by verdict, I know they admitted guilt but the whole thing is silly.

 

[Brookert]

blame culture at its finest.

 

[bluDawg]

If they are stupid enough to ignore the warning lights and sound then the family should see it as there own stupid fault and not network rail's

 

[mattyfez]

I assume the idea behind the law is that a railway is such a dangerous thing that those responsible must do the absolute maximum possible to ensure no-one is harmed. On that reasoning, you could say they failed in their duty.

It is rather steep though.

The absolute maximum in this case would be to ban trains all together. They are obviously a threat to the very fabric of society

 

[Danthus]

Easier to blame Network Rail rather than admit your child is an idiot.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[scorza]

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.

Costs and practicality are raised against risk, the risk of someone getting killed in this case. It doesn't sound particularly expensive or impractical to fit an automatic locking level crossing when lives are at stake, Network Rail made a bad business decision because it will now cost them a lot more, and it cost two young girls their lives.

 

[Dolph]

I assume the idea behind the law is that a railway is such a dangerous thing that those responsible must do the absolute maximum possible to ensure no-one is harmed. On that reasoning, you could say they failed in their duty.

It is rather steep though.

Definitely a law that needs amending if that is the case, it sounds like the railway hasn't moved on since the days of cars having a red flag man...

 

[DAnDan]

Easier to blame Network Rail rather than admit your child is an idiot.

*Was.

 

[Dolph]

Costs and practicality are raised against risk, the risk of someone getting killed in this case. It doesn't sound particularly expensive or impractical to fit an automatic locking level crossing when lives are at stake, Network Rail made a bad business decision because it will now cost them a lot more, and it cost two young girls their lives.

The only people responsible for the death of the girls who ignored the warnings and crossed the line when the alarms were going off are the girls who ignored the warnings and crossed the line when the alarms were going off.

I know you're irrationally anti-business in everything you do, but a little bit of common sense goes a long way.

 

[scorza]

The only people responsible for the death of the girls who ignored the warnings and crossed the line when the alarms were going off are the girls who ignored the warnings and crossed the line when the alarms were going off.

Not according to Network Rail, or the law. What is it about the right that makes such thoroughly unpleasant people?

I know you're irrationally anti-business in everything you do, but a little bit of common sense goes a long way.

I prefer to think of myself as pro-humanity.

 

[Nitefly]

The only people responsible for the death of the girls who ignored the warnings and crossed the line when the alarms were going off are the girls who ignored the warnings and crossed the line when the alarms were going off.

I know you're irrationally anti-business in everything you do, but a little bit of common sense goes a long way.

Actually I don't entirely disagree with him. The warnings present at that time clearly weren't overly sufficient as two people died. Even if the girls were foolish, something like that shouldn't really have been able to have happened, especially when the problem had already been identified by national rail and it's not something overly burdensome to have accomplished.

Network Rail said it would plead guilty to failing to carry out a sufficient risk assessment, failing to properly control protective measures at the level crossing and failing to prevent the girls from being exposed to the risks which led to their deaths.

On face value it doesn't seem to me that any of that is out of place, although that is not so say that there hasn't been ample contributory negligence.