Network Rail admits safety breaches over girls' deaths

[DAnDan]

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.

Never underestimate people's ability to be stupid. No matter how good your safety systems are, there will always be somebody who is stupid enough to think they know better, and end up causing something like this to happen.

Just because someone was stupid enough to break the system, is not reason to declare the system inadequate.

 

[Glaucus]

Anyone know if the sign said, if warning persists train on opposite road. Or what ever the usuall wording is?

It's setting precedence for all 6000+ to be massively upgraded. Plenty only have styles with no warnings at all.
NWR would like nothing more than to close them all down or build bridges/tunnels. They aren't allowed to do the first and they can't afford the latter.

 

[Strife212]

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.

Nothing they could do could stop them. The alarms were going off. They opened the gate and walked through it, why wouldn't they have just climbed over it if it was locked?

 

[Nitefly]

Never underestimate people's ability to be stupid. No matter how good your safety systems are, there will always be somebody who is stupid enough to think they know better, and end up causing something like this to happen.

Just because someone was stupid enough to break the system, is not reason to declare the system inadequate.

I agree with you final statement, but it doesn't mean that because a foolish person breaks your system that the system wasn't inadequate either.

If they were playing on the train tracks, had to damage property to access the tracks or had climbed over a fence, then I would I be less critical of national rail, but as far as I can tell that wasn't the case. They simply crossed the track in the same way as if there wasn't a train approaching at all. National rail had already identified the risk and hadn't done anything about it, which is pretty damning.

 

[scorza]

Never underestimate people's ability to be stupid. No matter how good your safety systems are, there will always be somebody who is stupid enough to think they know better, and end up causing something like this to happen.

Which is why we have laws in this country to make sure that proper risk assessments are carried out, and companies have a duty of care towards their staff, customers and the general public. If you have something that you know risks injury or death to any of these stakeholders, it's not good enough to say "hey we didn't fix it because it was too expensive and/or too much hassle".

Just because someone was stupid enough to break the system, is not reason to declare the system inadequate.

So do underestimate people's ability to be stupid then? Make your mind up.

 

[Nitefly]

Nothing they could do could stop them. The alarms were going off. They opened the gate and walked through it, why wouldn't they have just climbed over it if it was locked?

That's a different factual scenario and isn't worth considering.

 

[Glaucus]

. National rail had already identified the risk and hadn't done anything about it, which is pretty damning.

They deem all level crossings a major hazard. So should they be liable for every death? As they've identified the risk and there's ways to mitigate it.

 

[Dolph]

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

Pleading guilty can simply mean an acknowledgement of the law. No point fighting for being right if the law is clearly not on your side.

What this case clearly shows is that our health and safety laws are not fit for purpose and are unnecessarily burdensome.

I prefer to think of myself as pro-humanity.

You never come across that way.

 

[Nitefly]

They deem all level crossings a major hazard. So should they be liable for every death? As they've identified the risk and there's ways to mitigate it.

That's not what I said.

 

[DAnDan]

Which is why we have laws in this country to make sure that proper risk assessments are carried out, and companies have a duty of care towards their staff, customers and the general public. If you have something that you know risks injury or death to any of these stakeholders, it's not good enough to say "hey we didn't fix it because it was too expensive and/or too much hassle".



So do underestimate people's ability to be stupid then? Make your mind up.

Not sure what you mean by make my mind up, my point is perfectly clear.

I've also no said that they shouldn't put up safety features to negate the risk. All I've said was that no matter how good your safety system is, somebody will be stupid enough to break it.

If you've done a good amount of safety work (flashing barriers, warning signs, etc etc), as was the case here, then the only people to blame are those who choose (key word!) to ignore them.

 

[Glaucus]

That's not what I said.

They Know the risk, they haven't mitigated it. So what's the difference?

 

[Pudney]

If they were playing on the train tracks, had to damage property to access the tracks or had climbed over a fence, then I would I be less critical of national rail, but as far as I can tell that wasn't the case. They simply crossed the track in the same way as if there wasn't a train approaching at all. National rail had already identified the risk and hadn't done anything about it, which is pretty damning.

People crossing at that crossing isn't unusual, what's more amazing is that there aren't more deaths there. Kids have a sense of invulnerability, and that particular school has always banged on about safety round the railway tracks but after a few messages it gets boring. I should know, for the best part of 7 years I went to that school, went on that train line and ignored most safety messages given.

 

[vicisthebest]

I'm wondering if, as the lights and sirens stayed on for a long time, the girls thought that they were perhaps stuck on, so decided to just risk it.

I wonder if the sirens stopped for say, 2 seconds, then started again, they would have realised it was for a different train, without giving them time to start opening the gate and crossing?

Only thinking on my feet though. I don't think it was Network Rail's fault. Even though it was tragic, ultimately the girls took that decision to ignore all the warnings. RIP to the two girls but I think they hold the majority of the blame here.


I live in Yorkshire where there are very few level crossings (we have lots of bridges and tunnels when the train comes into contact with roads, it's very hilly round here ) so as someone who doesn't come across crossings very often, I wouldn't DARE cross if the sirens and lights were on.

 

[[TW]Fox]

National rail had already identified the risk and hadn't done anything about it, which is pretty damning.

They had fitted lights *and* a siren to the crossing which is not typical of foot crossings like this. Infact it's so atypical that despite travelling many thousands of miles across our network I have not once encountered such a foot crossing.

 

[Tute]

There must be more to this...?

 

[Glaucus]

I'm wondering if, as the lights and sirens stayed on for a long time, the girls thought that they were perhaps stuck on, so decided to just risk it.

.

Every crossing I've seen with a similar set up, has always explained if sirens stay on then there's another train. I'm assuming these signs existed in 2002?

 

[scorza]

Not sure what you mean by make my mind up, my point is perfectly clear.

I've also no said that they shouldn't put up safety features to negate the risk. All I've said was that no matter how good your safety system is, somebody will be stupid enough to break it.

If you've done a good amount of safety work (flashing barriers, warning signs, etc etc), as was the case here, then the only people to blame are those who choose (key word!) to ignore them.

The make your mind up comment is as a result of your incoherent arguments. First you say that you shouldn't underestimate people's ability to be stupid, which is fine - although I'd word it as not underestimating people's ability to make poor decisions. Therefore it's logical that we take every reasonable step to attempt to mitigate those poor decisions. Then you contradict yourself by saying just because people make poor decisions that could result in death, your system is fine.

Paying lip service to health and safety by saying "hey, our system was good - if these children hadn't made that poor decision everything would be OK" isn't good enough imo. Who hasn't made a poor decision in their life? Let's not forget that this is a tragic event that has killed two girls, and I can only begin to imagine the effect on their families, the train driver, the emergency services and the managers at Network Rail who decided not to upgrade this level crossing.

 

[mattyfez]

I'm wondering if, as the lights and sirens stayed on for a long time, the girls thought that they were perhaps stuck on, so decided to just risk it.

I wonder if the sirens stopped for say, 2 seconds, then started again, they would have realised it was for a different train, without giving them time to start opening the gate and crossing?

Only thinking on my feet though. I don't think it was Network Rail's fault. Even though it was tragic, ultimately the girls took that decision to ignore all the warnings. RIP to the two girls but I think they hold the majority of the blame here.


I live in Yorkshire where there are very few level crossings (we have lots of bridges and tunnels when the train comes into contact with roads, it's very hilly round here ) so as someone who doesn't come across crossings very often, I wouldn't DARE cross if the sirens and lights were on.

That's probably exactly what happened, minus the "slight detail" that they crossed a railway without even bothering to look, despite the red lights etc. , I mean... for reals? c'mon : darwin award!

 

[DAnDan]

The make your mind up comment is as a result of your incoherent arguments. First you say that you shouldn't underestimate people's ability to be stupid, which is fine - although I'd word it as not underestimating people's ability to make poor decisions. Therefore it's logical that we take every reasonable step to attempt to mitigate those poor decisions. Then you contradict yourself by saying just because people make poor decisions that could result in death, your system is fine.

Paying lip service to health and safety by saying "hey, our system was good - if these children hadn't made that poor decision everything would be OK" isn't good enough imo. Who hasn't made a poor decision in their life? Let's not forget that this is a tragic event that has killed two girls, and I can only begin to imagine the effect on their families, the train driver, the emergency services and the managers at Network Rail who decided not to upgrade this level crossing.

I still don't see how you think I'm contradicting myself?

People will be stupid, if you've made reasonable attempts to safeguard people from the dangers, then it's not your fault if somebody decides to ignore your safety features and gets themselves killed. No matter what you put in place, somebody will always find a way round it.

And there's a difference between making a mistake (which everyone has done, quite likely more often than they'd like to admit to) and ignoring the safety features of a level crossing and running into a train. A big difference.

 

[Nitefly]

They Know the risk, they haven't mitigated it. So what's the difference?

When a risk is know, deemed to be 'high risk' or a related accident is foreseeable, the danger likely to be extreme, the expense of making amends are low and there isn't any other outstanding reason why not to do it, then it seems a fairly reasonable thing to do. Building a 90ft protective 'train barrier' would obviously be less reasonable.