Level crossing stupidity...

[kevinlms]

20 hours ago, 25kV said:

 

There was (in my opinion) a very effective crossing safety video from Australia (I think) some years ago, which did show a fatal crossing incident, albeit you didn't see the consequences because the individual was obscured by the train at the moment of impact.  Even as a railway enthusiast, since seeing that I've made doubly sure to check both ways when using foot crossings... 

 

This is from memory, but what I recall is the unfortunate chap running over the crossing to catch his train (stood in the adjacent platform on the opposite line), and failed to notice another train approaching from the other direction.  The footage was particularly effective because we instinctively expect to see some kind of visual consequence during footage of a collision - a visible jolt, smashing glass, deceleration - there was nothing.  The guy was gone in an instant - the train continued as if he wasn't there. 

This one wasn't killed, but his life is changed forever!

 

 

[Davexoc]

Latest Network Rail release of foot crossing at Burton Joyce, Notts.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c98qpwxvv3jo

[Michael Hodgson]

Idiocy knows no limits.

[33C]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You WON'T hear me coming...

[Michael Hodgson]

16 minutes ago, 33C said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You WON'T hear me coming...

 

Time you learned to drive Ballast Cleaners and Stone Blowers!🤣

[33C]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Time you learned to drive Ballast Cleaners and Stone Blowers!🤣

And rail grinders! You can see, hear and smell them coming....and where they've been by the sleeper fires!!

[corneliuslundie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe2r3mj03vo

I have not heard of crossings being closed like this before but I may just be ignorant.

Jonathan

[Wickham Green too]

If it's a public right of way it won't be easy to close it ........ 'someone' might have to pay for a footbridge - fully accessible, of course.

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

If it's a public right of way it won't be easy to close it ........ 'someone' might have to pay for a footbridge - fully accessible, of course.

 

I wonder if they would have to. Looking at the photo there are stiles so it currently isn't accessible. If it's a footpath it currently might not be accessible so that requirement wouldn't be applicable.

[Wickham Green too]

I accept the logic of that but I don't think disability legislation works that way .......... for instance, you can either have trains with ( a percentage of ) accessible toilets or you can have trains with no toilets at all - so no footbridge or an accessible one.

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

If it's a public right of way it won't be easy to close it ........ 'someone' might have to pay for a footbridge - fully accessible, of course.

 

Already closed on OpenStreetMap. It was a public right of way on foot -- in order to close it the local Highway Authority will have made a Public Path Diversion Order (over the bridge most likely).

 

 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

If it's a public right of way it won't be easy to close it ........ 'someone' might have to pay for a footbridge - fully accessible, of course.

Aren't rights of way under the control of the local council? If the local council want to close it, as seems to be the case here, it will probably be difficult to stop them. If the local council want to keep the crossing open but NR deem it unsafe, then NR will presumably have to build a bridge.

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Aren't rights of way under the control of the local council? If the local council want to close it, as seems to be the case here, it will probably be difficult to stop them. If the local council want to keep the crossing open but NR deem it unsafe, then NR will presumably have to build a bridge.

 

Public rights of way are administered by the local Highways Authority -- which is usually the County Council.

 

They are legal rights of way -- obstructing one is a criminal offence. If the Highways Authority want to close or divert one they have to go through the proper legal process. That means publishing their intention to make a Closure or Diversion Order, and inviting public comments/objections. If there are objections it might lead to a public enquiry. More details, see:

 

 https://www.ramblers.org.uk/what-we-care-about/closures-and-diversions-rights-way-network

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I accept the logic of that but I don't think disability legislation works that way

 

In actual fact thats exactly how it works.

 

Now while, obviously for things like stations or as a replacement of a level crossing in an urban area where the surrounding area means its extremely likely that a persons of reduced mobility may wish to cross the railway then a accessible footbridge is a legal requirement, the same does not hold true of a  foot crossings out in the countryside surrounded by farmers fields or one which has inaccessible terrain (e.g. steep steps down a rock face on one side or requires multiple styles between field boundaries to be negotiated.

 

In effect the law recognises that lines have to be drawn somewhere - its why it is technically possible to discriminate against persons with certain disabilities when it comes to employment (i.e. baring a permanent wheelchair user from being a front line firefighter for example)

 

Edited July 28 by phil-b259

[Michael Hodgson]

22 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

In effect the law recognises that lines have to be drawn somewhere - its why it is technically possible to discriminate against persons with certain disabilities when it comes to employment (i.e. baring a wheelchair user from being a front line firefighter for example)

 

From what I have heard, blindness isn't a bar to being a football referee

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

From what I have heard, blindness isn't a bar to being a football referee

 

Given 'blindness' comes in many forms / severity and advances in technology over the decades have continually seen avenues previous closed to those with a disability open up then I wouldn't be surprised.

[kevinlms]

57 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

From what I have heard, blindness isn't a bar to being a football referee

But only in the opinion of one side!

[corneliuslundie]

So it will be interesting to see if the relevant authority in this case went through the required procedure. Presumably there ought to be evidence on the county council website.

Jonathan

[Hobby]

12 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I accept the logic of that but I don't think disability legislation works that way .......... for instance, you can either have trains with ( a percentage of ) accessible toilets or you can have trains with no toilets at all - so no footbridge or an accessible one.

 

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

In actual fact thats exactly how it works.

 

Thanks, Phil, that's why I posted it. As my other half is disabled we see this often. Shops, for instance, don't always have to provide access (i.e. ramps), many do try, but most don't, the National Trust is known for poor access to their houses, they always quote the "listed building" reason, though I can (and have) given them examples of Grade 1 listed buildings that have been converted so they have full access but they don't want to know, in their case it's about money. In this case if it's a typical footpath it's very unlikely it would be wheelchair accessible and therefore falls outside the guidelines. If it would have had flat access (via a gate, not a style) and wheelchairs were known to use it then it would have required a suitable bridge. The Act isn't as far reaching as many think it is, there are many disabled people think it could go a lot further than it does, but we accept that there has to be some compromise.

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

So it will be interesting to see if the relevant authority in this case went through the required procedure. Presumably there ought to be evidence on the county council website.

Jonathan

 

The web site is not up to date (there is no legal requirement for it to be so -- write, phone or email):

 

https://greenspacescaerphilly.co.uk/public-rights-of-way

https://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/CaerphillyDocs/ROW/Closures-and-restrictions-register.aspx

 

Contact Information

Rights of Way Section, Ty Bargoed, 1 Gladys Way, Bargoed, CF81 8AB

Tel: 01443 866645/866669

Email: rightsofway@caerphilly.gov.uk

 

[KingEdwardII]

11 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Public rights of way are administered by the local Highways Authority

Moving or closing a public footpath generally requires an application to be approved by the relevant government minister.

 

Within the last 10 years, an attempt to reroute an awkwardly sited footpath in our parish failed, while a different rerouting of another footpath succeeded. It can be a bit of a lottery. The number of local objections to the proposal counts quite heavily, to our surprise.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

..., the National Trust is known for poor access to their houses, they always quote the "listed building" reason, though I can (and have) given them examples of Grade 1 listed buildings that have been converted ...

Rather dep[ends whether you want an historic building or a butchered modernised one ...... I was at Stokesay Castle* a week or so ago and the spiral staircases were narrow for a person of fairly 'normal' shape and size - I don't think there'd be much of the original fabric left if the upper tower was made wheelchair accessible. 

 

* English Heritage rather than NT

[PhilJ W]

8 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Moving or closing a public footpath generally requires an application to be approved by the relevant government minister.

 

Within the last 10 years, an attempt to reroute an awkwardly sited footpath in our parish failed, while a different rerouting of another footpath succeeded. It can be a bit of a lottery. The number of local objections to the proposal counts quite heavily, to our surprise.

 

Yours, Mike.

I know of a footpath that was proposed for closure. The reason was that it was narrow (for wheelchairs) and there was an alternative. A pressure group arose and objected* and the council gave up the fight. Now that footpath is so overgrown from lack of use that it's impassable. *One of the objectors when asked to show on a map where the footpath was couldn't find it, eventually pointing out the alternative path.

[martin_wynne]

4 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I know of a footpath that was proposed for closure. The reason was that it was narrow (for wheelchairs) and there was an alternative.

 

Why not have both?

 

[Hobby]

14 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Rather dep[ends whether you want an historic building or a butchered modernised one ...... I was at Stokesay Castle* a week or so ago and the spiral staircases were narrow for a person of fairly 'normal' shape and size - I don't think there'd be much of the original fabric left if the upper tower was made wheelchair accessible. 

 

* English Heritage rather than NT

 

There are some places that can't be without major modifications, but there are "ways and means" if the willingness is there. You don't have to butcher them. Also you've taken my comment to extremes, I didn't suggest them to be made fully accessible, just more than they are at the moment. If you look there are very few NT houses where there is access to more than the ground floor for anyone in a wheelchair, and those that are already had a lift installed by their previous owners.

 

As an example of lateral thinking we go to Germany regularly and one place, which was definitely the equivalent of a Grade 1 listed building, had taken two small rooms which were in the same place on the ground and first floors (they were storage rooms if I remember rightly) and a lift had been placed in the rooms to allow access to the upper floor, the doors were left in place so if you walked down the corridor you wouldn't know. I wouldn't call that "butchered", would you?

 

 

Edited July 29 by Hobby