Level crossing stupidity...

[ejstubbs]

10 hours ago, big jim said:

This is doing the rounds on Facebook, Spalding apparently 

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2277593369227219&id=100009297354048

 

not on there myself but hopefully the link will work 

 

Incomprehensible.

 

I mean, why do people video in portrait format?????

[corneliuslundie]

I assume it must have been a body mounted camera, so perhaps the way it is clipped on. But more to the point, I could see no barrier the other side of the track. Was there one?

Jonathan

[Hobby]

According to the discussion on FB it's Spalding and yes it does have gates the other side. Blame it on the quality of the video, they aren't all that clear in still photos either but they are there...

 

I'd love to see what the driver said when he got down there!

[Richard E]

23 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The opening rear window on the Imp being glass would not conduct electricity and IIRC were frameless.

 

Apologies for staying off topic but the Imp window is steel framed, it was the Talbot Sunbeam (Avenger hatchback) that had a frameless hatch.

 

Imp has the battery in the offside rear corner of the engine bay:

 

 

And, yes, I know that isn't an Imp engine in there. It's a BMW K1200 motorbike engine, about 140bhp compared to the 39bhp of a production Imp.

 

[PhilJ W]

13 hours ago, big jim said:

This is doing the rounds on Facebook, Spalding apparently 

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2277593369227219&id=100009297354048

 

not on there myself but hopefully the link will work 

I viewed this on Facebook were it became obvious that there were schoolchildren waiting to cross. What sort of message does it give them? Even worse what if they saw him being hit by a train.

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, Richard E said:

 

Apologies for staying off topic but the Imp window is steel framed, it was the Talbot Sunbeam (Avenger hatchback) that had a frameless hatch.

 

Imp has the battery in the offside rear corner of the engine bay:

 

 

And, yes, I know that isn't an Imp engine in there. It's a BMW K1200 motorbike engine, about 140bhp compared to the 39bhp of a production Imp.

 

 

What ave you done to the front end to stop it taking off? Even with a standard Imp engine the front end would lift at about 80mph.

[Reorte]

On 25/03/2019 at 09:58, jim.snowdon said:

Much of the basis for DB's fine was that they were aware that trespass into the yard was occurring and had done nothing to prevent such access.

 

If people chose to trespass and do something stupid it's entirely on them, not DB. Too much protecting people from themselves. DB's motivation to stop trespass should be only to prevent the damage and obstruction that directly affects them, not to protect idiots.

[Titan]

I suspect the guy has a mental health issue. 

[PhilJ W]

11 minutes ago, Richard E said:

 

Apologies for staying off topic but the Imp window is steel framed, it was the Talbot Sunbeam (Avenger hatchback) that had a frameless hatch.

 

Imp has the battery in the offside rear corner of the engine bay:

 

 

And, yes, I know that isn't an Imp engine in there. It's a BMW K1200 motorbike engine, about 140bhp compared to the 39bhp of a production Imp.

 

Surely the gearbox has been replaced as well but with what?

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

What ave you done to the front end to stop it taking off? Even with a standard Imp engine the front end would lift at about 80mph.

A common modification was to fit a Fiesta Mk. I/II radiator in the front but as the BMW engine is air cooled it isn't necessary.  

[Richard E]

43 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Surely the gearbox has been replaced as well but with what?

A common modification was to fit a Fiesta Mk. I/II radiator in the front but as the BMW engine is air cooled it isn't necessary.  

 

Bike engine is water cooled, using an MX5 radiator. Front end now contains radiator, heater box cut out and bottom of spare wheel well removed to vent air to the low pressure area under the car. Suspension is lowered by 40mm all round, disc brakes fitted, the suspension change is enough to cure the front end 'lightness'.

 

The Imp I ran back in the 1970's with the Imp engine still fitted had no problems even at 100mph plus when treated in a similar way.

[ejstubbs]

49 minutes ago, Reorte said:

If people chose to trespass and do something stupid it's entirely on them, not DB.

 

The law says otherwise.  And in the DB instance the case was held before a jury, so it wasn't just a bunch of out-of-touch judges making an obscure interpretation of the statutes.

[peanuts]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

What ave you done to the front end to stop it taking off? Even with a standard Imp engine the front end would lift at about 80mph.

paving slab or offcut of rail usualy helps with that it did with my skoda 

[Reorte]

52 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

The law says otherwise.  And in the DB instance the case was held before a jury, so it wasn't just a bunch of out-of-touch judges making an obscure interpretation of the statutes.

 

Perhaps I should've clarified that I was talking about my opinion on the matter, not the law's. Obviously DB have to operate within the law but there's no reason I should have a positive opinion about the law (which doesn't mean I'm going to break it either).

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

If people chose to trespass and do something stupid it's entirely on them, not DB. Too much protecting people from themselves. DB's motivation to stop trespass should be only to prevent the damage and obstruction that directly affects them, not to protect idiots.

 

This people involved in this incident were actually children and it is the responsibility of adults to protect them, as far as is possible, from their immaturity, ignorance and stupidity. DB have been found guilty by a court of law of failing to do that.

 

[Reorte]

Just now, caradoc said:

 

This people involved in this incident were actually children and it is the responsibility of adults to protect them, as far as is possible, from their immaturity, ignorance and stupidity. DB have been found guilty by a court of law of failing to do that.

 

That responsibility should lie with their parents or guardians, not DB.

 

I take the view that people are either fit to go about the world unsupervised and are therefore responsible for themselves, or they're not and need to be looked after personally rather than have the world adjusted to accommodate them (that doesn't rule out a need for e.g. warning about hazards people couldn't reasonably expect to be aware of, or rules to stop employers pressuring employees into unacceptable situations).

[caradoc]

13 minutes ago, Reorte said:

That responsibility should lie with their parents or guardians, not DB.

 

I take the view that people are either fit to go about the world unsupervised and are therefore responsible for themselves, or they're not and need to be looked after personally rather than have the world adjusted to accommodate them (that doesn't rule out a need for e.g. warning about hazards people couldn't reasonably expect to be aware of, or rules to stop employers pressuring employees into unacceptable situations).

 

From the BBC report on the prosecution:

 

'there was no fence or gate stopping people leaving a public bridleway and walking on to the yard, and no warning signs to deter them. Security patrols only worked during daylight hours and CCTV cameras were switched off.'

 

[Reorte]

That doesn't change my opinion at all. Fences, cameras, patrols, they might be needed to protect DBs assets but anyone who needs them to be protected from themselves in that sort of situation is unfit to be out in the world unsupervised.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Reorte

[jamie92208]

2 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

From the BBC report on the prosecution:

 

'there was no fence or gate stopping people leaving a public bridleway and walking on to the yard, and no warning signs to deter them. Security patrols only worked during daylight hours and CCTV cameras were switched off.'

 

There was a similar case at Toton several years ago.  Evidence showed that the owners (Not sure who it was in those days) had been warned several times about a broken fence but had not made any attempt to block up what had almost become a public footpath.  Of course in many of these cases it's the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt as the standard of proof.

 

Jamie

[caradoc]

6 minutes ago, Reorte said:

That doesn't change my opinion at all.

 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally I believe that reasonable measures should be taken to protect people in general, and children in particular, and if a company is so cavalier as to allow unfettered public access to their property at which exist serious hazards to safety, they can expect to face the consequences.

 

 

5 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

There was a similar case at Toton several years ago.  Evidence showed that the owners (Not sure who it was in those days) had been warned several times about a broken fence but had not made any attempt to block up what had almost become a public footpath.  Of course in many of these cases it's the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt as the standard of proof.

 

Jamie

 

In recent years Network Rail Controls have been instructed that where fencing damage likely to lead to trespass is found, it must be repaired immediately, and someone must remain on site until this is done.

 

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally I believe that reasonable measures should be taken to protect people in general, and children in particular, and if a company is so cavalier as to allow unfettered public access to their property at which exist serious hazards to safety, they can expect to face the consequences.

Reasonable measures in my view are parents for protecting children, and self preservation for protecting adults, otherwise you end up going down the path of fencing off every cliff edge, or that it's my responsibility if a drunk climbs on my car and falls off and hurts themselves. I don't regard not protecting the foolish from themselves (other than in explicit cases of being in charge of someone who isn't a responsible adult, e.g. children), or being forced to take responsibility because those who should don't, as cavalier.

 

I'm a strong believer in being entirely responsible for your own actions and consequences of them, and equivalently for not being responsible for the foolish actions of other.

 

I agree we're not going to agree!

[jim.snowdon]

31 minutes ago, Reorte said:

That doesn't change my opinion at all. Fences, cameras, patrols, they might be needed to protect DBs assets but anyone who needs them to be protected from themselves in that sort of situation is unfit to be out in the world unsupervised.

And therein lies the difference between European and UK safety law. In Europe you are presumed to be ultimately responsible for your own safety, and railways are not fenced. In the UK, although the railways were originally fenced for other reasons, safety law now requires that people have to be protected by others from their own actions. I rather prefer the European approach, but we are where we are.

 

Jim

[Hobby]

There have also been lots of examples of fences being vandalised and repaired only for them to be vandalised again very shortly afterwards, whilst the railway company should repair the fence as soon as possible the local population have also to take some responsibility for their actions, I agree with Reorte that at the moment it seems the law is a one way street where the Company is held solely responsible and the individual never at fault...

[Wickham Green]

59 minutes ago, Hobby said:

There have also been lots of examples of fences being vandalised and repaired only for them to be vandalised again very shortly afterwards, whilst the railway company should repair the fence as soon as possible the local population have also to take some responsibility for their actions, I agree with Reorte that at the moment it seems the law is a one way street where the Company is held solely responsible and the individual never at fault...

I wonder if Mr. Trump has included a 'Repair Fund' in his billion dollars ? ..................................... sorry, that's off topic and political and will probably get redacted very shortly.

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, Richard E said:

 

Bike engine is water cooled, using an MX5 radiator. Front end now contains radiator, heater box cut out and bottom of spare wheel well removed to vent air to the low pressure area under the car. Suspension is lowered by 40mm all round, disc brakes fitted, the suspension change is enough to cure the front end 'lightness'.

 

The Imp I ran back in the 1970's with the Imp engine still fitted had no problems even at 100mph plus when treated in a similar way.

I could see that the standard Imp radiator had been removed thats what made me think it was air cooled.

 

[Fat Controller]

3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

And therein lies the difference between European and UK safety law. In Europe you are presumed to be ultimately responsible for your own safety, and railways are not fenced. In the UK, although the railways were originally fenced for other reasons, safety law now requires that people have to be protected by others from their own actions. I rather prefer the European approach, but we are where we are.

 

Jim

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Purpose-built high-speed lines, in France (and probably elsewhere) are fenced, as are lines upgraded for 200 kph running. SNCF have also installed fences in locations where trespass is rife, and where there have previously been fatalities and serious injuries. Perversely, there has been talk of removing some fencing in some isolated areas, as animals have found it easy to leap on to the track when it is at the bottom of a cutting, but impossible to exit again.