More stupidity.

A truely sad and distressing story.

Given that "The Kirknewton crossing has in the past been labelled the most
notorious in Scotland due to the high instances of accidents and motorists
jumping red lights." it does raise the question what else really does need
to be done in addition to the *technical* safety measures - some mechanism
for raising the social, cultural and emotional engagement in the risks
concerned.

Graham

"soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While I feel sorry for the girl concerned and her family it is hard to
see what Railtrack (?) could do to make this crossing any safer
have cycled across it many times ,in both directions and have
never felt it was at all risky,mind you I do stop if the lights are
flashing, barriers are coming down etc.

Full story at :-
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=285742005&20050317093650
or

http://tinyurl.com/3nvcm
--
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

Graham Dean said:

A truely sad and distressing story.

Given that "The Kirknewton crossing has in the past been labelled the most
notorious in Scotland due to the high instances of accidents and motorists
jumping red lights." it does raise the question what else really does need
to be done in addition to the *technical* safety measures - some mechanism
for raising the social, cultural and emotional engagement in the risks
concerned.

Unfortunately, an incident like this often does just that.

R.

Yep, sad and very true.

I guess the message needs to be sustained in someway as well.

Graham

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graham Dean said:

A truely sad and distressing story.

Given that "The Kirknewton crossing has in the past been labelled the

most

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

notorious in Scotland due to the high instances of accidents and

motorists

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

jumping red lights." it does raise the question what else really does

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to be done in addition to the *technical* safety measures - some

mechanism

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for raising the social, cultural and emotional engagement in the risks
concerned.

Unfortunately, an incident like this often does just that.

R.

soup said:

While I feel sorry for the girl concerned and her family it is hard to
see what Railtrack (?) could do to make this crossing any safer

They could build a bridge. Or an underpass. I understand that other
countries have ongoing programmes to replace their level crossings. When I
lived in Germany three local level crossings were replaced by bridges at
considerable expense.

--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

They could build a bridge. Or an underpass.

But there again, if people are dumb enough to ignore red lights,
physical barriers and audible alarms backed up with known incidences of
death and mutilation to save several /whole seconds/, is a bridge
ultimately going to help any further than the next right of way conflict
where they can sacrifice safety for possibly a little time?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Michael MacClancy said:

soup said:

While I feel sorry for the girl concerned and her family it is hard to
see what Railtrack (?) could do to make this crossing any safer

They could build a bridge. Or an underpass. I understand that other
countries have ongoing programmes to replace their level crossings. When I
lived in Germany three local level crossings were replaced by bridges at
considerable expense.

Pedestrians wouldn't use it.

In my (admittedly limited) data sample of one level crossing I used to
cycle over twice a day, there was a pedestrian bridge right beside the
crossing. In two years of daily commute, during which time I was
reasonably frequently stopped at the crossing by trains, I never *ever*
saw anyone walking over it; the pedestrians preferred to wait at the
barrier for the train to pass. (It was an old SR lattice bridge, so no
worries about dark concealed corners where unpleasant characters might
lurk).

R.

Peter Clinch said:

Michael MacClancy said:

They could build a bridge. Or an underpass.

But there again, if people are dumb enough to ignore red lights,
physical barriers and audible alarms backed up with known incidences of
death and mutilation to save several /whole seconds/, is a bridge
ultimately going to help any further than the next right of way conflict
where they can sacrifice safety for possibly a little time?

I don't think anyone has a complete answer. It's not in human nature to
always be careful, always follow instructions and so on. Teenagers are
notoriously reckless with their own safety and welfare.

Perhaps the monetary and social costs (loss of freedom and personal
responsibility) of eliminating all such risks (if it's even possible -
probaly not) are so high that it makes more sense to say the risks
should be fixed at a level we can live with. Which means there will be
some accidents/incidents; terrible for those involved, but it's
inevitable for as long as there is risk.

I also wonder if the effects of trying to control and manage other
people's risk taking are almost inevitably cancelled out by the results
of making people less wary. To take an example away from the ones
usually done to death on urc, look at how the government tries to
control and regulate savings and investments. People still get fleeced,
sometimes they lose everything. I am far from convinced that the
government's efforts do any good at all. It would be far cheaper and
easier, and in my view equally effective, if the government said,
"Personal finance is a private matter and it's your money. There are
many people who would like to take your money off you. The world of
finance is a dangerous place, be bloody careful, and if it all goes
wrong don't come crying to us. You are on your own and don't forget it."

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Stupidity it one of the biggest problems we face today. If we take
warning signs away, the problem will eventually solve itself.

The second biggest problem is apathy, but who cares?

--
Hywel

JLB said:

I also wonder if the effects of trying to control and manage other
people's risk taking are almost inevitably cancelled out by the results
of making people less wary.

That's an interesting concept.
We could call it "risk compensation"

BugBear (trolling along)

"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I also wonder if the effects of trying to control and manage other
people's risk taking are almost inevitably cancelled out by the results
of making people less wary. To take an example away from the ones
usually done to death on urc, look at how the government tries to
control and regulate savings and investments. People still get fleeced,
sometimes they lose everything. I am far from convinced that the
government's efforts do any good at all. It would be far cheaper and
easier, and in my view equally effective, if the government said,
"Personal finance is a private matter and it's your money. There are
many people who would like to take your money off you. The world of
finance is a dangerous place, be bloody careful, and if it all goes
wrong don't come crying to us. You are on your own and don't forget it."

If it was a private matter, then fair enough - but the govt are pushing all
these things themselves, if possibly indirectly.

cheers,
clive

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:35:28 +0000 someone who may be Michael
MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

soup said:

While I feel sorry for the girl concerned and her family it is hard to
see what Railtrack (?) could do to make this crossing any safer

Network Rail.

Quoted message said:

They could build a bridge. Or an underpass. I understand that other
countries have ongoing programmes to replace their level crossings. When I
lived in Germany three local level crossings were replaced by bridges at
considerable expense.

There is one in the UK too. Indeed there are plans to do so at
Kirknewton, but West Lothian Council has yet to put the funding in
place. The last I heard the funding was going to be tied to a
"development" near the crossing that will increase road traffic in
the area.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/liveissues/levelcrossings.htm is your
starting point to understand the issues. In my view 9 pedestrian
fatalities at all level crossings in 2003/04 is not something to get
too excited about.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On 17 Mar 2005 03:51:08 -0800 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Stupidity it one of the biggest problems we face today. If we take
warning signs away, the problem will eventually solve itself.

The photograph at the top of
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=139&id=1411842004 shows the
signs the pedestrian will have passed in this case. The red lights
will obviously have been flashing at the time. If the photograph is
not of Kirknewton then it is of a very similar crossing.

It appears that she got off one train and when that had passed over
the crossing walked onto the line, to be struck by a train going the
other way. In this situation when the first train has passed over
the crossing the audible warning sounds a different and more urgent
note specifically to warn pedestrians of the second train. It is
difficult to see what more should be done to protect people from
being the author of their own misfortune. There used to be a big
illuminated sign where the top metal sign is in the photograph,
though it was perhaps on the other side of the line. These had the
words "ANOTHER TRAIN COMING" in red neon letters which flashed on
and off. People ignored these as well.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/liveissues/levelcrossings.htm is your
starting point to understand the issues. In my view 9 pedestrian
fatalities at all level crossings in 2003/04 is not something to get
too excited about.

Thanks. That article says that 18 people were killed in 2003/4. (1 train
driver, 9 pedestrians and 8 vehicle occupants.)

Is that a figure to get excited about?
--
Michael MacClancy

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:35:28 +0000 someone who may be Michael
MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

soup said:

While I feel sorry for the girl concerned and her family it is hard to
see what Railtrack (?) could do to make this crossing any safer

Network Rail.

Quoted message said:

They could build a bridge. Or an underpass. I understand that other
countries have ongoing programmes to replace their level crossings. When I
lived in Germany three local level crossings were replaced by bridges at
considerable expense.

There is one in the UK too. Indeed there are plans to do so at
Kirknewton, but West Lothian Council has yet to put the funding in
place. The last I heard the funding was going to be tied to a
"development" near the crossing that will increase road traffic in
the area.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/liveissues/levelcrossings.htm is your
starting point to understand the issues. In my view 9 pedestrian
fatalities at all level crossings in 2003/04 is not something to get
too excited about.

Although considering the number of train/pedestrian interactions compared
with car/cyclists interactions each year it's obviously far more
dangerous than cycling - 10-15 times as many cyclists are killed
each year but the number of interactions (cars passing bikes, etc)
must be way way more than 10-15 times as many as trains passing
pedestrians crossing the rails.

I guess that makes cyclist deaths nothing to get too excited about,
too, eh?

--
Trevor Barton

JLB said:

I don't think anyone has a complete answer. It's not in human nature to
always be careful, always follow instructions and so on. Teenagers are
notoriously reckless with their own safety and welfare.

I question your assesment of human nature.

It might be this society's typical nature, but it's not necesarily
universal human nature. I've had some (indirect) dealings with a
high-speed-rail design produced by Japanese. They have a tendency to
install astonishingly dangerous stuff on platforms with a sign saying
"don't touch". When we query whether this ought to have a fence round
it, or even a complete enclosure, the response sometimes tends towards
"there's a sign telling no-one to touch it, so what's the point of
goingh to teh expense of a fence (and consequent loss of useful
platform space)?"

Some societies manage better at following instructions.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:50:02 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian
Smith <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I question your assesment of human nature.

It might be this society's typical nature, but it's not necesarily
universal human nature. I've had some (indirect) dealings with a
high-speed-rail design produced by Japanese. They have a tendency to
install astonishingly dangerous stuff on platforms with a sign saying
"don't touch".

There are different parts of society too.

If you enter the military estate then you will see things like
electricity sub-stations with no fence around them, just a sign
saying not to touch. All the equipment is enclosed, but that is the
case with similar installations outside. Fences are only provided at
married quarters, where children may well find the equipment
irresistible.

The main electricity intake at one large base is at 33,000V. There
is a low fence around this, which one could easily climb over and
make contact with the bare conductors. Outside there would be an
"unclimbable" fence.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:50:02 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian
Smith <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I question your assesment of human nature.

It might be this society's typical nature, but it's not necesarily
universal human nature. I've had some (indirect) dealings with a
high-speed-rail design produced by Japanese. They have a tendency to
install astonishingly dangerous stuff on platforms with a sign saying
"don't touch".

There are different parts of society too.

If you enter the military estate then you will see things like
electricity sub-stations with no fence around them, just a sign
saying not to touch. All the equipment is enclosed, but that is the
case with similar installations outside. Fences are only provided at
married quarters, where children may well find the equipment
irresistible.

Some children are not as daft as people think. I was walking past a
farm in the depths of the Lake District; there was a small
substation/transformer unit there, behind a low stone wall which had a
"Danger of Death" sign on the gate. The small child I was accompanying
(not mine) turned to me and said seriously, "Don't go in there. The
electricity will kill you dead." He was all of five at the time.

R.

On 17 Mar 2005 12:34:02 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Although considering the number of train/pedestrian interactions compared
with car/cyclists interactions each year it's obviously far more
dangerous than cycling

It would be more illuminating to compare train/cyle interactions
with car/cycle interactions and train/pedestrian interactions with
car/pedestrian interactions. One should do this at road/road level
crossings and rail/road level crossings on public roads, to ensure
one is making a reasonable comparison.

From such comparisons one might conclude that there is merit in
having all extra warning equipment at rail/road level crossings (or
severe limitations on the speed of trains), but that extra money
would best be spent on the road/road level crossings because that
would have the greatest benefits.

Quoted message said:

I guess that makes cyclist deaths nothing to get too excited about,
too, eh?

That rather depends on whether the cyclist was the author of their
own misfortune or not.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:31:32 +0000 someone who may be Michael
MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Thanks. That article says that 18 people were killed in 2003/4. (1 train
driver, 9 pedestrians and 8 vehicle occupants.)

Is that a figure to get excited about?

One is looking at two systems with grossly different attitudes to
safety. If 3000 people died on the railways every year there would
be uproar.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.