But why should they? Who will endd up paying for all these bridges etc? WE WILL!!
And why? Just because the terminally stupid don't understand that barriers are down for a reason-A BLUDDY GREAT TRAIN IS COMING!!!!!
AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? Because the current ones put people in danger. We are not computers (yet) - we make mistakes and several tonnes of steel are always going to win.
Who will pay? Not me, I don't use trains - I guess it should be everyone who currently pays for other train safety systems. Of course if they would prefer lower ticket prices then fine - just don't pretend that they care.
But...I think the rail companies are entirely to blame here. They keep tying to shift the blame with campaigns like this but the truth is these crossing are unsafe because they take the cheap option and install unsafe barriers. Had the crossing a full barrier then it would be unlikely to happen.
If they really have our interests at heart and not profits make a bloody bridge or tunnel.
How on earth can it be anyone but the idiot road user's fault?
The barriers are down on the driver/cyclist's side of the road. If you approach the level crossing on the correct side of the road you stop at the barrier. If you choose to approach on the wrong side of the road then ultimately it's YOUR fault.
If you overtake or drive on the wrong side of the road and collide with something heading the other way, it's not the council's fault for preventing you driving like an idiot or the car manufacturer's fault for allowing you to drive like a moron, it's YOUR fault and YOUR fault only.
Jeez, when did people stop accepting blame for their own actions and start looking everywhere else
Had the crossing a full barrier then it would be unlikely to happen.
True, but it doesn't stop a mindless idiot from leaping over the full barriers and trying to get across. A massive 10 foot high steel barrier with razor wire would stop that, but then someone might injure themselves trying to climb it, so that's not an option either.
Oooh, what a conundrum this is, thinking up ways to prevent morons from endangering themselves.
Why? Because the current ones put people in danger. We are not computers (yet) - we make mistakes and several tonnes of steel are always going to win.
Who will pay? Not me, I don't use trains - I guess it should be everyone who currently pays for other train safety systems. Of course if they would prefer lower ticket prices then fine - just don't pretend that they care.
But do you ever use roads where there are these crossings?
They should be the ones who pay, folks on the trains are, for the most part, safe.
True, but it doesn't stop a mindless idiot from leaping over the full barriers and trying to get across. A massive 10 foot high steel barrier with razor wire would stop that, but then someone might injure themselves trying to climb it, so that's not an option either.
I know - how about people take a bit of responsibility for themselves...?
True, but it doesn't stop a mindless idiot from leaping over the full barriers and trying to get across. A massive 10 foot high steel barrier with razor wire would stop that, but then someone might injure themselves trying to climb it, so that's not an option either.
True - but then I would blame the individual and have sympathy with a campaign to stop idiots.
I know - how about people take a bit of responsibility for themselves...?
Sure, but people make mistakes and (in my opinion) the rail operators have just as much responsibility to ensure mistakes are non-fatal.
But...I think the rail companies are entirely to blame here. They keep tying to shift the blame with campaigns like this but the truth is these crossing are unsafe because they take the cheap option and install unsafe barriers. Had the crossing a full barrier then it would be unlikely to happen.
If they really have our interests at heart and not profits make a bloody bridge or tunnel.
No, I think that idiots who make a choice to try to cross the line when the barriers are down are entirely to blame. There's nothing unsafe about a barrier - when it's down you do not cross it - and it's claims that barriers are unsafe that are "shifting the blame".
But...I think the rail companies are entirely to blame here. They keep tying to shift the blame with campaigns like this but the truth is these crossing are unsafe because they take the cheap option and install unsafe barriers. Had the crossing a full barrier then it would be unlikely to happen.
If they really have our interests at heart and not profits make a bloody bridge or tunnel.
What utter rubbish, the barriers and lights are perfectly safe. Do we have a barrier at traffic lights to stop people crossing them at red?
Lights flash, barrier comes down = stop at barrier. Barrier up, no lights flashing = safe to cross. What could be more straightforward and simple to understand?
Bridge or a tunnel — get real, please, what at every level crossing in the country? What next will you suggest a 12 foot fence around every railway line with barbed wire at the top and warning notices stuck on it ever 2 metres.
A typical example with that woman that "instructions and basic rules of the road apply to everyone else except me, I will do what I like".
No, I think that idiots who make a choice to try to cross the line when the barriers are down are entirely to blame. There's nothing unsafe about a barrier - when it's down you do not cross it - and it's claims that barriers are unsafe that are "shifting the blame".
No, I think that idiots who make a choice to try to cross the line when the barriers are down are entirely to blame. There's nothing unsafe about a barrier - when it's down you do not cross it - and it's claims that barriers are unsafe that are "shifting the blame".
ETA:
To reiterate: It's not a mistake. It's a choice.
She did not cross a barrier - the way was clear. The barrier did not fully block the road.
Neither of us know truly if it was a mistake or intentional - only she knows that.
What utter rubbish, the barriers and lights are perfectly safe. Do we have a barrier at traffic lights to stop people crossing them at red?
Lights flash, barrier comes down = stop at barrier. Barrier up, no lights flashing = safe to cross. What could be more straightforward and simple to understand?
Bridge or a tunnel — get real, please, what at every level crossing in the country? What next will you suggest a 12 foot fence around every railway line with barbed wire at the top and warning notices stuck on it ever 2 metres.
A typical example with that woman that "instructions and basic rules of the road apply to everyone else except me, I will do what I like".
What utter rubbish, the barriers and lights are perfectly safe. Do we have a barrier at traffic lights to stop people crossing them at red?
Lights flash, barrier comes down = stop at barrier. Barrier up, no lights flashing = safe to cross. What could be more straightforward and simple to understand?
Bridge or a tunnel — get real, please, what at every level crossing in the country? What next will you suggest a 12 foot fence around every railway line with barbed wire at the top and warning notices stuck on it ever 2 metres.
A typical example with that woman that "instructions and basic rules of the road apply to everyone else except me, I will do what I like".
What a silly assumption - you don't know that. She may have been tired, she may have been distracted. She may have been confused - she may even not have understood the warnings - yet she was not physically prevented from crossing the line.
What a silly assumption - you don't know that. She may have been tired, she may have been distracted. She may have been confused - she may even not have understood the warnings - yet she was not physically prevented from crossing the line.
The barriers are on the side of the road of oncoming traffic. The barrier was down ON HER SIDE OF THE ROAD. She went round it.
The woman was entirely at fault. The barrier was down on the right side of the road, there were flashing lights, and cars, other cyclists and pedestrians waiting at the barrier. Anyone not blind, stupid and selfishly reckless would have known a train was on the way and not try and cross. She was extremely lucky.
She did not cross a barrier - the way was clear. The barrier did not fully block the road.
Neither of us know truly if it was a mistake or intentional - only she knows that.
Seriously, though, I think we both know what "cross" means in this context.
As for the second point, I really do find it difficult to conceive of any scenario whereby going onto the crossing was a "mistake", but I am prepared to concede that it might have been a case of criminal negligence rather than intent.
What a silly assumption - you don't know that. She may have been tired, she may have been distracted. She may have been confused - she may even not have understood the warnings - yet she was not physically prevented from crossing the line.
Saw this on the news. Stupid stupid woman. How the hell could she not have heard the train or felt the vibrations of it approaching? Poor train driver.
But...I think the rail companies are entirely to blame here. They keep tying to shift the blame with campaigns like this but the truth is these crossing are unsafe because they take the cheap option and install unsafe barriers. Had the crossing a full barrier then it would be unlikely to happen.
If they really have our interests at heart and not profits make a bloody bridge or tunnel.
Half barriers are safer because if they start coming down the person on the crossing can get off.
Comments
That was my first thought on watching the footage. She didn't "go through" the barriers as reported - there was no barrier in her way.
Half-arsed safety measures and stupid people are not a happy combination.
Why? Because the current ones put people in danger. We are not computers (yet) - we make mistakes and several tonnes of steel are always going to win.
Who will pay? Not me, I don't use trains - I guess it should be everyone who currently pays for other train safety systems. Of course if they would prefer lower ticket prices then fine - just don't pretend that they care.
How on earth can it be anyone but the idiot road user's fault?
The barriers are down on the driver/cyclist's side of the road. If you approach the level crossing on the correct side of the road you stop at the barrier. If you choose to approach on the wrong side of the road then ultimately it's YOUR fault.
If you overtake or drive on the wrong side of the road and collide with something heading the other way, it's not the council's fault for preventing you driving like an idiot or the car manufacturer's fault for allowing you to drive like a moron, it's YOUR fault and YOUR fault only.
Jeez, when did people stop accepting blame for their own actions and start looking everywhere else
Oooh, what a conundrum this is, thinking up ways to prevent morons from endangering themselves.
But do you ever use roads where there are these crossings?
They should be the ones who pay, folks on the trains are, for the most part, safe.
Wow, that's a bit radical!!
No, I think that idiots who make a choice to try to cross the line when the barriers are down are entirely to blame. There's nothing unsafe about a barrier - when it's down you do not cross it - and it's claims that barriers are unsafe that are "shifting the blame".
ETA:
To reiterate: It's not a mistake. It's a choice.
What utter rubbish, the barriers and lights are perfectly safe. Do we have a barrier at traffic lights to stop people crossing them at red?
Lights flash, barrier comes down = stop at barrier. Barrier up, no lights flashing = safe to cross. What could be more straightforward and simple to understand?
Bridge or a tunnel — get real, please, what at every level crossing in the country? What next will you suggest a 12 foot fence around every railway line with barbed wire at the top and warning notices stuck on it ever 2 metres.
A typical example with that woman that "instructions and basic rules of the road apply to everyone else except me, I will do what I like".
Precisely!!
She did not cross a barrier - the way was clear. The barrier did not fully block the road.
Neither of us know truly if it was a mistake or intentional - only she knows that.
Absolutely!!!
Nanny state? It's time she was retired!
What a silly assumption - you don't know that. She may have been tired, she may have been distracted. She may have been confused - she may even not have understood the warnings - yet she was not physically prevented from crossing the line.
The barriers are on the side of the road of oncoming traffic. The barrier was down ON HER SIDE OF THE ROAD. She went round it.
Her choice.
Her mistake.
Her responsibility.
Seriously, though, I think we both know what "cross" means in this context.
As for the second point, I really do find it difficult to conceive of any scenario whereby going onto the crossing was a "mistake", but I am prepared to concede that it might have been a case of criminal negligence rather than intent.
**guffaws**
You were the cyclist weren't you?
http://goo.gl/maps/An45H
Half barriers are safer because if they start coming down the person on the crossing can get off.
"Hey, let's make love on this staircase...blimey the handrails are low."