My point is that obviously the crossing was dangerous.
not appropriate
Last edited:
My point is that obviously the crossing was dangerous.
Maybe. If used incorrectly. If used correctly I would say it was probably perfectly safe
The two scenario are completely incomparable.The giirls ignored the warnings and yet the company gets prosecuted. It can be argued that the families should get prosecuted for the distress caused to the the train driver and the maintenance gang who had to clean up and the passengers who were disrupted.
I wonder what would ahppen if 2 teenage girls ignored warnings and ran across a busy motorway and were hit by a truck and killed?
The two scenario are completely incomparable.
There was a clear history of misuse of the crossing and as such Network Rail had a clear duty of care to prevent access to the railway when a train was approaching, in the same way that level crossings in Lincolnshire and other areas, had locking wicket gates.
.
No this was not the safest way.The safest action to take was to shut the crossing, why was this not taken up?
There has always been a "Duty of Care" however in recent years the public have become far more avaricious, goaded on by the "No Win No Fee" reptiles who will try even when there is little chance of success, simply on the basis that the Insurance Company will try to settle out of Court, firstly because it costs an absolute fortune to instruct a defence, and secondly because of the risk of creating a precedent.Well, I see your point. But I think the Country seems to be moving towards a situation where people expect to be protected from themselves (just look at all of the difficulties a few years back due to those seemingly unable to use train doors !).
There has always been a "Duty of Care" however in recent years the public have become far more avaricious, goaded on by the "No Win No Fee" reptiles who will try even when there is little chance of success, simply on the basis that the Insurance Company will try to settle out of Court, firstly because it costs an absolute fortune to instruct a defence, and secondly because of the risk of creating a precedent.
As we have seen with the rocketing cost of motor insurance, there is no such thing as a free lunch and ultimately those who pay in the long term will be the customers themselves.
It is hard to say, however the pressure to reduce the operation of the warning horns has come from the general public, and their Parliamentary/Local Council representatives with threats of issuing noise enforcement orders. Again another case of peoples lowered tolerance thresholds.I just want to say something from a slightly different angle.
Just before this sad accident the rule book was changed with regards to drivers sounding the horn. Before the rule change it was a requirement to sound the horn when passing through a station with a train standing on an adjacent platform. The rule change made this no longer a requirement. I wonder if this had still been in the rule book the driver of the Stansted train would have blown the horn on approach to the station and maybe, just maybe, those girls would have heard that and not crossed the track
It is hard to say, however the pressure to reduce the operation of the warning horns has come from the generla public, and their Parliamentary/Local Council representatives. Again another case of peoples lowered tolerance thresholds.
not appropriateNo this was not the safest way.
The safest means of operation has now been implemented, which is the gates locked by track occupancy, and a footbridge provided.
.
Where a motorist is responsible, there will be a claim against their Insurance.Indeed, although in the case of level crossings, I wonder how much farepayers will be expected to pay for the sins of motorists !
A sign has little relevance in situations such as this. The Courts will not accept these as being adequate when there are other systems that can be put in place.But then it wouldn't be Network Rail's fault if they say "Do not cross here!" The joys of a blame soc.
It can be argued that the families should get prosecuted for the distress caused to the the train driver and the maintenance gang who had to clean up and the passengers who were disrupted.
I just want to say something from a slightly different angle.
Just before this sad accident the rule book was changed with regards to drivers sounding the horn. Before the rule change it was a requirement to sound the horn when passing through a station with a train standing on an adjacent platform. The rule change made this no longer a requirement. I wonder if this had still been in the rule book the driver of the Stansted train would have blown the horn on approach to the station and maybe, just maybe, those girls would have heard that and not crossed the track
The actions of the girls
312 It is likely that during the 20 seconds before the accident the girls’ attention was focused on train 2H14, the train to Cambridge. During much of this period they were standing beside or just beyond the miniature stop light display. They would have continued to hear the ‘warble’ alarm at the crossing but it is possible they assumed it applied only to train 2H14.
313 The timings provided at Table 8, and the recollection of witnesses, indicate that the girls held the gate open whilst train 2H14 was passing and then ran out onto the crossing as its rear cab passed in front of them.
314 The most likely explanation for the behaviour of the girls is that their strong motivation to catch the train to Cambridge, and a high degree of distraction, made them temporarily unaware of the risks posed by the Up line. In addition, it is likely that the girls assumed that the audible alarm they could hear related only to the train that was passing ahead of them.
315 Motivation and distraction are behavioural traits commonly associated with accident causation. In particular, they are often linked to road accidents involving teenagers and children [Ref. Appendix H, 5, 10, 11 and 12].
316 The problem of level crossing users disregarding the second train to arrive at a vehicular level crossing has been identified by Network Rail as a significant contributor to risk. It is therefore clear that the accident at Elsenham is not unprecedented but instead can be seen as a typical example of human error at a level crossing.
317 The investigation also has considered the girls’ state of mind and how this may have contributed to the actions taken. Witnesses have stated that the girls appeared happy and excited when they were in the booking office. On arrival at the gate the girls appeared happy. A witness with a close view of the gate on platform 1 said the girls stood at the gate for some time but did not appear agitated.
318 Given the above, it is not possible to state with any degree of certainty how the girls’ general demeanour and state of mind contributed to their subsequent error.
No, the case will be about Network Rail's failure to have taken apropriate action to prevent the accident occurring. In the case of additional warning arrangements I imagine that the Prosecution would argue that the lomg history of abuse by passengers, and their abuse of Railway staff who challenged them, means that passive measures were not suitable.So, is the case surrounding no sign stating "do not cross until alarm discontinues and light dims"? Or is the case surrounding the lack of a physical barrier to prevent crossing?
It really does make me sad and angry to see the total denial of self responsibility that afflicts our society today. I harbour no ill thoughts towards the two young people who lost their lives in this sad incident, but if indeed they chose to ignore warnings then that is, sadly, their own fault The lawyers, judges, HSE, media and whatever other vultures have been circling this can launch all the prosecutions they like, but I find it hard to see how NR can justifiably be at blame over and above two perhaps slightly foolish individuals who made a conscious decision to disregard the warnings not to do exactly what they decided to do.
A 'history of misuse' does not transfer the blame from those who are misusing it to Network Rail. Idiots in vehicles jump half-barriers on a regular basis up and down the country, is that NR's fault as well?! People trespass, walking off the end of platforms to go and vandalise the lineside or steal cabling, is that NR's fault for not installing 8 foot high platform doors at every station on the network? It is high time we as a society stopped looking to blame the 'big guy' every time somebody pushes their luck and gets it wrong, and this would seem to apply particularly to the railways. I'm tired of hearing that it's NR or the TOC or whoever who is at fault because they didn't make it physically impossible for somebody to deliberately do something stupid. If there's a sign telling you not to do something, you have two choices. Obey it and be safe, or ignore it and take responsibility for your own misguided actions :roll:
I am simply stating the situation as it now is in Law.Quite agree, Network Rail (or any big organisation) can't be held accountable for everyone elses behavoir, its tragic that the girls died, but it was an accident.
I read Old Timers comments and can do a certain degree see where hes coming from, but it just seems wrong to me to blame NR.
I am simply stating the situation as it now is in Law.
Any property owner (including you incidentally) has a duty of care towards anyone who comes onto your property, be they authorised or not. There is NO warning sign which denies liability that is worth its salt. For example IF you put up a warning about a dog and someone gets bitten it will be you who is held accountable and can be sued because the sign is evidence of you knowing that the dog was liable to bite someone.
None of this is new as such, but all this information is there in a variety of legal websites.
As I said previous, the Legislature has taken the view that people are unable to look out for themselves anymore. Crazy I know but that is mostly to blame upon those who use and abuse the "Claims Culture". As a demonstration of that simply walk into your local and tell those there that you slipped over on the pavement (especially in Liverpool !) and they will be rushing to tell you to claim compensation.
Yes, I know I was just trying to give you an indication of why we are where we are. I don't disagree with you at all.Oh im not saying your wrong Old Timer, just i think the system is wrong.
Bodie
As I said in anearlier post the current arrangements would have been implemented under BR long before an accident occurred, and the cost of now having done so will be minor compared to what is to come. Such is the way that Companies with a poor safety outlook have to learn.
Because there has been an exponential increase in services since BR days - as explained in the report. BR did undertake the installation of the warning bells, however the use of the crossing has increased considerably since BR.So why after fifty years of BR ownership, was there no footbridge when RT/NR took over?
BBC News said:The girls, who were about to catch another train for a Christmas shopping trip to Cambridge, opened the unlocked wicket gates and walked on to the crossing. They were both struck by the Stansted train and killed.
Outside court, Reg Thompson, Charlotte's father, said: "The horror of that day is always with us and the huge hole in our lives left by Charlie will never be filled.
"In the aftermath of the accident, Network Rail claimed the girls had acted recklessly and that somehow their youthful exuberance led directly to their deaths.
"I never believed that they were the architects of their own terrible end. It has taken six years to reveal the truth of what happened."
Safety features, including locked gates, were introduced in September 2006.
Bodie
This section from the Report may be worth reading.
Like all professional Railwaymen and women I find such fatalities particularly distressing. A suicide has the intention, the girls in this particular case did not.
The report is very clear in where it lays the blame, and deservedly so. Network Rail has a long history of not treating safety with the respect it requires, hence why a number of senior safety staff who held that view were removed from post and their employment terminated under "Compromise Agreements" - which have effectively prevented them from revealing the history behind their dismissal. Hopefully the ORR will consider calling these people to testify.
As I said in anearlier post the current arrangements would have been implemented under BR long before an accident occurred, and the cost of now having done so will be minor compared to what is to come. Such is the way that Companies with a poor safety outlook have to learn.