Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Anna B]

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Is that really true T ?

If so the world is even madder than I suspect.

Why can't they all just **** off and leave us alone......

 

Because there's a growing tendency towards Fascism.

[Chekhov]

7 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

So in conclusion, he was leaving details out to make it sound worse than it actually is 

Ballcox.

 

"Where a public crossing is closed, users will be diverted to a suitable and safe alternative route if it already exists. Where a suitable and safe alternative does not currently exist, a new public route will be provided prior to closure. We will work with landowners and councils to agree designs for any new alternative route. "

 

Almost by definition any alternative crossing will be less convenient, the question is how much less convenient, and who decides what is convenient ?

I have been caught out by this before when I have been out hiking and reached a rail crossing which had been "closed", and a sign pointing half a mile back down the line to the next one, a road bridge over the line. And it was in the wrong direction, so that would have been a one mile walk out of my way and I was late anyway. I just climbed over the fence and walked across the line but the problem is they are spending many millions of pounds putting "Security Palisade Fencing" alongside more and more lines which is rather more difficult to get over, as well as being an absolute eyesore.....

It's all total BS anyway because compared to crossing Pensitone Rd (which is perfectly legal) walking across almost any rail line is actually safer.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Chekhov

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

Ballcox.

 

"Where a public crossing is closed, users will be diverted to a suitable and safe alternative route if it already exists. Where a suitable and safe alternative does not currently exist, a new public route will be provided prior to closure. We will work with landowners and councils to agree designs for any new alternative route. "

 

Almost by definition any alternative crossing will be less convenient, the question is how much less convenient, and who decides what is convenient.

I have been caught out by tis before when I have been out hiking and reached a rail crossing which had been "closed, and a sign pointing half a mile back down the line to the next one. And it was in the wrong direction, so that would have been a one mile walk out of my way and I was late anyway. I just climbed over the fence and walked across the line but the problem is they are spending many millions of pounds putting "Security Palisade Fencing" alongside more and more lines which is rather more difficult to get over.

It's all BS anyway, compared to crossing Pensitone Rd (which is perfectly legal) walking across almost an rail line is actually safer.

 

 

Just hope it isn't a 'third rail' electrified one.

[Chekhov]

Just now, RollingJ said:

Just hope it isn't a 'third rail' electrified one.

I'll go with that (it wasn't anyway).

[HeHasRisen]

Alternatives might be more convenient for some people also. Swings and roundabouts.

[Annie Bynnol]

On 19/08/2022 at 18:07, Chekhov said:

More Modern Life is becoming more and more (restrictive read rubbish) :

 

Railway Magazine reports that "approval from the Secretary of State for Transport will allow Network Rail to close or modify 37 crossings in Essex, Hertfordshire and the London Borough of Havering. Where a crossing is closed users will be diverted to a suitable alternative route".

 

They do not care if anyone will be inconvenienced by these railway crossings being closed, just so long as there is some possibility it will "keep us all safe".

Meanwhile anyone can cross any road (apart from motorways) with no restriction, not that I am arguing for any of the latter.

 

It's cobblers anyway, one wonders if these rail crossing closures simply result in more road crossings being forced upon the hapless pedestrians as they have to find new longer routes round. Or indeed it just encourages people to drive if the walk is significantly further...

Discusse at length on RailUKforums.

Summed up best in reply #34.

[Chekhov]

1 minute ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Discusse at length on RailUKforums.

Summed up best in reply #34.

Unanswered in post 34 you mean.

Since you appear to want arguments from that thread to be more widely read, this is a killer point :

 

Footbridges were provided so a crossing could be made regardless of if a train is coming. I cannot help wondering if, on average, one is at more risk of injury falling down the stairs of a footbridge than crossing most railway lines. That said, stairs are actually dangerous things, relatively speaking, I am not joking here, most people will get injured (some seriously) falling down the stairs at some point in their lives.

The nub of the issue is most people know little about risk probability, and many people these days have an excessive risk aversion (as demonstrated by most of the world's reaction to Covid, even now when they are vaccinated....). The example of a poor grasp of risk probability are the aforementioned stairs. Few people ever think about how dangerous stairs are, but in actual fact, forget walking across a rail line, stairs are the thing most likely to injure them. I found an old article in the Daily Telegraph (dated 5 Jan 2013) on a RoSPA report which stated that twice as many people die from "domestic trips" than in car accidents.....

 

And this is even better :

 

I can remember when my young child got hold of my phone and threw it on the track at Donny station. I was about to jump down and get it which would have taken about 10 seconds when I remembered the current obsession with not going on the track at any cost, so instead I reported it to a staff member. He eventually got a litter picker and got it that way. After thanking him I asked what would have happened had it been a bit further out and he couldn't reach it, his replied "oh we'd have had to leave it there". I laughed thinking he was joking, but it dawned on me he actually wasn't, fortunately he'd already walked off by then so it was academic.
Dangerous, or safe, is a relative term, so let's say compared with crossing Penistone Rd near where I live, even had it been on one of the straight through line platforms I cannot actually imagine anyone defining it as "dangerous" to retrieve it. But it was actually on P8, which has a pretty low speed limit and almost every train stops on that PF anyway, so I cannot actually think of anything to compare it to which would have resulted in it being defined as dangerous......

[Chekhov]

On 19/08/2022 at 21:34, Tyke02 said:

Where my folks come from there are a couple of isolated pedestrian crossings notorious for teenage suicides. Sure there are other places to do this, but at the moment people don't use those places for this purpose. 

Are you suggesting that closing rail crossings would stop someone bent on suicide from going through with it ?

[Zinger549]

43 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Are you suggesting that closing rail crossings would stop someone bent on suicide from going through with it ?

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what others think. If it stops you from doing something you don't like it.  You don't care how it will effect others, all you care about is the inconvenience to you and your family.

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Unanswered in post 34 you mean.

Since you appear to want arguments from that thread to be more widely read, this is a killer point :

 

Footbridges were provided so a crossing could be made regardless of if a train is coming. I cannot help wondering if, on average, one is at more risk of injury falling down the stairs of a footbridge than crossing most railway lines. That said, stairs are actually dangerous things, relatively speaking, I am not joking here, most people will get injured (some seriously) falling down the stairs at some point in their lives.

The nub of the issue is most people know little about risk probability, and many people these days have an excessive risk aversion (as demonstrated by most of the world's reaction to Covid, even now when they are vaccinated....). The example of a poor grasp of risk probability are the aforementioned stairs. Few people ever think about how dangerous stairs are, but in actual fact, forget walking across a rail line, stairs are the thing most likely to injure them. I found an old article in the Daily Telegraph (dated 5 Jan 2013) on a RoSPA report which stated that twice as many people die from "domestic trips" than in car accidents.....

 

And this is even better :

 

I can remember when my young child got hold of my phone and threw it on the track at Donny station. I was about to jump down and get it which would have taken about 10 seconds when I remembered the current obsession with not going on the track at any cost, so instead I reported it to a staff member. He eventually got a litter picker and got it that way. After thanking him I asked what would have happened had it been a bit further out and he couldn't reach it, his replied "oh we'd have had to leave it there". I laughed thinking he was joking, but it dawned on me he actually wasn't, fortunately he'd already walked off by then so it was academic.
Dangerous, or safe, is a relative term, so let's say compared with crossing Penistone Rd near where I live, even had it been on one of the straight through line platforms I cannot actually imagine anyone defining it as "dangerous" to retrieve it. But it was actually on P8, which has a pretty low speed limit and almost every train stops on that PF anyway, so I cannot actually think of anything to compare it to which would have resulted in it being defined as dangerous......

Your observations have been discarded and ridiculed by many  of the posters (including some railway professionals)on that thread and summed up by post # 34: "Based on previous threads, the OP seems to take literally any 'health and safety' related change as an affront to his personal freedom and won't listen to any other point of view. There really is little point attempting to engage." 

 

As to "But it was actually on P8, which has a pretty low speed limit and almost every train stops on that PF anyway, so I cannot actually think of anything to compare it to which would have resulted in it being defined as dangerous......", in the long history of railway safety has anybody ever come up with such a stupid statement?  How many deaths, injuries, traumas and lengthy disruption have been caused by idiots jumping on tracks thinking they knew better?