idiots on the line (photters and filmers)

[90019]

Thats correct. I'm not sure why Yorkie is having a hard time processing it.

Probably the same reason he has yet to answer my questions.

 

[yorkie]

Looks to me like most of these could well be ignorant crossing abusers rather than trainspotters given the absence of cameras. Good evidence of the need to reduce the number of crossings where the public can put themselves in danger.

Yes, you could well be right. Anyone know what that black box is, does it contain lights? The guy in the background at least is surely waiting in a safe place. Is there a sign that says something like "When red light shows, stand behind this sign" or similar? I'd imagine so. I reckon there's 6 people ahead of where they 'should' be, and of those, only 2 or 3 look like being "spotters" (although the absense of notebooks and 2 of them having cameras suggests "photters" may be more appropriate!)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Probably the same reason he has yet to answer my questions.

And mine.

 

[Chester025]

How is it trespass if he was "allowed" to go there? (Or are you accusing him of lying?)

It's only in the UK where people get so wound up by such things, mainland Europe has a more sensible view.

Exactly, and FYI Scotsboy, yes we were allowed to go there by someone. Now why on earth you have made such a big deal I don't know. Do you know the layout at Kingussie?

 

[kyrano]

OK lets examine that logic then....

Well everytime I see a BTP officer they are stood about with there arms folded,also at Newark there was a police car outside the station,have Newark got a footy team ?these spotters who trespass need naming and shaming in the local paper.

 

[scotsman]

Exactly, and FYI Scotsboy, yes we were allowed to go there by someone. Now why on earth you have made such a big deal I don't know. Do you know the layout at Kingussie?

Because myself and a number of my friends are SRPS Stewards, and yes, I am familiar with the layout at Kingussie.

 

[yorkie]

Probably the same reason he has yet to answer my questions.

I did actually already answer.

The answer is a). Standing in / crossing a siding is trespassing in this country. Standing in / crossing a busy main road is not trespassing.

As I said earlier, just because something is trespassing does not make it unsafe, and just because something is not trespassing, does not make it safe.

Well, that's blatantly incorrect. Standing in a siding of course is trespassing (if not given permission or have authority to be there ) but trespassing doesn't necessarily mean that you are in danger, and just because crossing a road isn't trespassing doesn't mean it is not dangerous. The woman who stood in front of a Pacer the other week was trespassing but she was probably safer stood there (the driver was hardly going to run her over) than if she stood in the middle of a main road (where some drivers, you wouldn't trust not to run her over!) If you think crossing a main road is safer than doing what Chester025 did (whether trespassing or not) then you don't realise how dangerous it is to cross a main road.

I have highlighted the specific answer to your question, yes if Chester025 did not receive permission he was trespassing. But that does not automatically mean Chester025 was not safe, and what he did is perfectly acceptable in most of mainland Europe. Someone crossing a main road is in more potential danger than he was.

Enthusiasts being allowed on running lines will only go to one extreme. You couldn't possibly regulate a middle ground.

You say running lines, but it's still equally "trespassing" to be on sidings, and that is what Scotsman is so unhappy with Chester025 about, and that is what is meant by "common sense" applying in mainland Europe. Over there, they may not treat a siding the same as a high speed line, in a similar way (yes I know they're not "the same" before anyone starts) that a motorway is not the same as a side road.

 

[90019]

I did actually already answer.

The answer is a). Standing in / crossing a siding is trespassing in this country. Standing in / crossing a busy main road is not trespassing.

And the answer to the other two questions?

 

[yorkie]

And mine.

That's ludicrous. Why is the onus on me to say that charters are not exempt from the legislation requiring NR to give paths? I have stated I do now know the details about the legislation but you are the one who is telling us NR have authority to do this, so surely the onus is on you to back up that statement?

If you are specifically asking me to provide a quote stating NR have to run charters, I am unable to do that. But that hardly means you have 'won' your argument that NR can stop charters because you are unable to backup your claim.

I find the claim unlikely, and it would be utterly unfair and cause a backlash against NR. I would certainly hope that many people would call for NR to be dealt with appropriately if NR banned all charters, and NR must be reminded that, like Railtrack, they are not invincible.

I find the notion that all charters can be banned because of some people stood inappropriately at a crossing or a siding to be absurd, and I am struggling to understand why rail charters can be victimised in this way?

For example I was at the Tesco car park at Hull one evening and it was used as a hangout for boy racers driving at inappropriate and dangerous speeds in the car park in the vicinity of pedestrians. Does that mean that all cars of the type that boy racers use can be banned from the UK roads? I wish!

It is up to those who say NR can do what they wish to back up their claims. So over to you...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You say running lines, but it's still equally "trespassing" to be on sidings, and that is what Scotsman is so unhappy with Chester025 about, and that is what is meant by "common sense" applying in mainland Europe. Over there, they may not treat a siding the same as a high speed line, in a similar way (yes I know they're not "the same" before anyone starts) that a motorway is not the same as a side road.

I was using the PTS definition. As it on or near the line being within three metres of a line.

 

[yorkie]

There is no difinitive answer to your question, it is all relative to what road and what siding you compare.

In fact, if what he says about the siding is true, and it was closed, then your question is only relevant when it is compared to a closed road.

Surely we are arguing for the same thing then? If indeed it is a closed siding, then my point is entirely that there is no 'common sense' treating a siding (whether disused or not, but more so if it is disused) as the same as a running line, and is this not your point too? If not, what is it?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That's ludicrous. Why is the onus on me to say that charters are not exempt from the legislation requiring NR to give paths? I have stated I do now know the details about the legislation but you are the one who is telling us NR have authority to do this, so surely the onus is on you to back up that statement?

You posted a link to an incredibly flabby document. I am asking you to point out where it supports your claims. Why is that so ludicrous?

 

[yorkie]

Simple question: Which is trespassing and which isn't?
a) Chester025 taking the photo he took at Kingussie
b) someone crossing a main road?

Also, which is more likely to be able to stop when the driver sees someone in the way; a car or a train?
Which one can take evasive action?

Ah, you want me to answer the last bits, specifically in relation to the sidings at Kingussie?

I am not sure if a train driver driving at approx 15mph at a siding in Kingussie is more or less able to stop in time compared to a car driving at up to 40mph on a main road (obviously if the speeds were equal the car can stop a lot quicker!), although if the siding is indeed disused then I guess the question is not relevant? The ability for a car to take evasive action doesn't necessarily make crossing the road safer, as evasive action can in itself cause further problems (e.g. the car swerving to avoid a pedestrian may swerve into the path of another vehicle), a train cannot take evasive action but if there is no chance of a train going to be using that siding then I am unsure what the relevance of the question is. I would suggest our time would be better spent elsewhere than this sort of question.

 

[YorkshireBear]

why have i just had to read 4 pages of an arguement over absolutely f.all ?

is it not just, dont trespass its against the law end of?

 

[GB]

why have i just had to read 4 pages of an arguement over absolutely f.all ?

is it not just, dont trespass its against the law end of?

you would think so wouldn't you. But some people seem to hold the believe that just becuase its a siding or lightly used line its ok:roll:

 

[MidnightFlyer]

why have i just had to read 4 pages of an arguement over absolutely f.all ?

is it not just, dont trespass its against the law end of?

Exactly, at the end of the day, the law's the law and you've got to obey it. These people clearly didn't, but someone was trying to bring something about a siding in Scotland: it was trepass, it was illegal, end of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

you would think so wouldn't you. But some people seem to hold the believe that just becuase its a siding or lightly used line its ok:roll:

I suspect I know which two people you are reffering to (or at least in my mind )

 

[ralphchadkirk]

you would think so wouldn't you. But some people seem to hold the believe that just becuase its a siding or lightly used line its ok:roll:

Well they will say that until they get hit, seriously injured, or killed and then sue NR.

 

[GB]

oops, just noticed a spelling mistake. Thats what you get for watching a film, eating a bowl of cornflakes and being on here at the same time

 

[yorkie]

You posted a link to an incredibly flabby document. I am asking you to point out where it supports your claims. Why is that so ludicrous?

It was not me who came up with the claims! First was kyrano , followed by MattE2010, who claimed specials may be stopped. I asked if there is evidence to back up this claim. You replied by also repeating their claim that "Network Rail will just stop allowing and pathing charters and specials."

I asked for evidence of this claim, and that request remains.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It was not me who came up with the claims! First was kyrano , followed by MattE2010, who claimed specials may be stopped. I asked if there is evidence to back up this claim. You replied by also repeating their claim that "Network Rail will just stop allowing and pathing charters and specials."

I asked for evidence of this claim, and that request remains.

Why are you so reluctant to point out your proof? I am asking you to point it out in the document, because, I believe it does not exist.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I asked for evidence of this claim, and that request remains.

THEY WOULD JUST DO IT. What do you want us to do, phone them up adn ask to speak to the Operations manager just to confirm. We all know they would do it if they wanted to, you don't need proof, they (or someone like them) said the same about people on tour leaning out of the windows...

 

[yorkie]

why have i just had to read 4 pages of an arguement over absolutely f.all ?

is it not just, dont trespass its against the law end of?

You don't 'have' to read anything. And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed!

 

[kyrano]

The bloke in the white top looking at the camera was filming until our train came to a stop,what annoyes me is the women with the child ,now the child will think its the norm to play on the lines ,so next thing she goes there without her parents and gets killed ,then the family sues the railway.

 

[jimrbrobinson]

Oh, well, that's about five minutes of my life I'll never get back. Have to agree with Jimmyowl, tresspassing on the railway is illegal. There's no grey area and no ambiguity. If you are there without proper lawful authorisation then it's trespassing. As to the photo in question. There is a clear indication of where the crossing path is - anything off that pathway is trespass. Further, the crossing is provided to do only that - cross directly from one side to the other. It is not an access point to loiter. You enter - you cross when it's safe to do so - you leave railway property by the opposite gateway. Seems pretty straight forward to me. I understand that our European brethren are more lax about such issues, as they are about a lot of things, which may explain why Britain has higher death rates from stress-related conditions, but UK law is UK law, so unless they change the law, trespass is trespass is trespass, and that's the name of that tune.

(Under trespass I'm referring only to those in the photograph as part of this thread. I am of the same understanding as Yorkie, that Chester has been given permission to be where he was, and therefore was not trespassing.)

 

[YorkshireBear]

You don't 'have' to read anything. And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed!

im not going to argue with you about whether i 'have' to read anything.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You don't 'have' to read anything. And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed!

With all due respect, do you believe evrything everyone tells you? Maybe the person who gave him permission had a similar mentally of some on here, thinking, 'Yeah, it'll be ok, just the once, what's the worst that could happen?' etc

 

[jimrbrobinson]

The bloke in the white top looking at the camera was filming until our train came to a stop,what annoyes me is the women with the child ,now the child will think its the norm to play on the lines ,so next thing she goes there without her parents and gets killed ,then the family sues the railway.

Completely agree - kids need to be educated to keep off the railway and to only use authorised crossing points safely and responsibly.

 

[GB]

And if Chester025 states he had permission to be at that siding, then I believe him. End of indeed

But thats not what he said.

 

[90019]

Ah, you want me to answer the last bits, specifically in relation to the sidings at Kingussie?

I am not sure if a train driver driving at approx 15mph at a siding in Kingussie is more or less able to stop in time compared to a car driving at up to 40mph on a main road (obviously if the speeds were equal the car can stop a lot quicker!), although if the siding is indeed disused then I guess the question is not relevant? The ability for a car to take evasive action doesn't necessarily make crossing the road safer, as evasive action can in itself cause further problems (e.g. the car swerving to avoid a pedestrian may swerve into the path of another vehicle), a train cannot take evasive action but if there is no chance of a train going to be using that siding then I am unsure what the relevance of the question is. I would suggest our time would be better spent elsewhere than this sort of question.

Because I am not talking about the siding at Kingussie, I am talking about things like the photo posted at the start of this thread.

 

[the sniper]

Has it been established who gave Chester025 'permission' to trespass? A priest or postman could have given him 'permission' for all we know.

I highly doubt he was quickly issued a PTS certificate and a load of orange gear for him to put on...