Not me, someone else wrote:
Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

Consider the predicament of people walking alongside both
a road and a railway.

Is this a sensible method of ensurring the safety of the
people of this country?

What other 'sensible method' would you employ ?

If these 'people' took sufficient or due care and attention
then they are sufficiently likely to walk alongside a
roadway or railway in a degree of safety and with a high
probability of finishing their walk or journey. Very, very
few people actually go out with the intention to crash or
be involved in an 'accident'.

Your viewpoint appears to disregard convenience.

My viewpoint is concerned with the difference in treatment between the
modes. Convenience in this narrow context is not relevant.

Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

Not me, someone else wrote:
Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

Consider the predicament of people walking alongside both
a road and a railway.

Is this a sensible method of ensurring the safety of the
people of this country?

What other 'sensible method' would you employ ?

If these 'people' took sufficient or due care and attention
then they are sufficiently likely to walk alongside a
roadway or railway in a degree of safety and with a high
probability of finishing their walk or journey. Very, very
few people actually go out with the intention to crash or
be involved in an 'accident'.

Your viewpoint appears to disregard convenience.

My viewpoint is concerned with the difference in treatment between the
modes. Convenience in this narrow context is not relevant.

And the answer to the question I posed "What other 'sensible method' would
you employ ?" is ?

It seems to me that people take very little care at railway lines, and even
with the amount of fencing and notices posted, people still get killed. I
expect the death or injury rate would be way, way higher if these fences and
notices were removed. A train that stops automatically doesn't stop for a
'SMIDSY' stepping or driving onto the railway lines just 'cos they've
misjudged the distance away and the speed of the approaching train.

Responsibility ought to be taken by people themselves, not absolved and
passed over to more signage or fencing.

--
Digweed

"Not me, someone else" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

Not me, someone else wrote:
Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

Consider the predicament of people walking alongside both
a road and a railway.

Is this a sensible method of ensurring the safety of the
people of this country?

What other 'sensible method' would you employ ?

If these 'people' took sufficient or due care and attention
then they are sufficiently likely to walk alongside a
roadway or railway in a degree of safety and with a high
probability of finishing their walk or journey. Very, very
few people actually go out with the intention to crash or
be involved in an 'accident'.

Your viewpoint appears to disregard convenience.

My viewpoint is concerned with the difference in treatment between the
modes. Convenience in this narrow context is not relevant.

And the answer to the question I posed "What other 'sensible method' would
you employ ?" is ?

It seems to me that people take very little care at railway lines, and
even
with the amount of fencing and notices posted, people still get killed. I
expect the death or injury rate would be way, way higher if these fences
and
notices were removed. A train that stops automatically doesn't stop for a
'SMIDSY' stepping or driving onto the railway lines just 'cos they've
misjudged the distance away and the speed of the approaching train.

Responsibility ought to be taken by people themselves, not absolved and
passed over to more signage or fencing.

Which is why your initial point is I believe "wring" ish. If there were no
fences or sign and if railways were not considered any more dangerous than
roads other thna than trains travel faster and have a longer stopping
distance, there would be no more deaths o injuries to people walking
alongside railways than roads. It's about education and experience. But we
were the first to have railways, so people had to be "protected" from these
monsters which totally ignored the fact that id people didn't get in their
way then no harm would come to them.

Unlike now when a juggernaught driver can "lose it" and run into a shop
front squashing a pavement full of women and children on the way.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

Unlike now when a juggernaught driver can "lose it" and run into a shop
front squashing a pavement full of women and children on the way.

Which is why motorways don't have any pedestrians, and one of the reasons
why many shopping streets have been pedestrianised, where it has been
practicable to provide an alternative route for vehicles.

Peter

Unlike now when a juggernaught driver can "lose it" and run into a shop
front squashing a pavement full of women and children on the way.

Which is why motorways don't have any pedestrians, and one of the reasons
why many shopping streets have been pedestrianised, where it has been
practicable to provide an alternative route for vehicles.

Pedestrianisation has more to do with the fact that cars make public spaces
unpleasant to the majority of people.

Injury accidents were always low per pedestrian as traffic speeds tended to
be very low due to all the pedestrians crossing (or 'running out in front of
cars' as drivers prefer to say).

In article ,
Cast_Iron wrote:
Unlike now when a juggernaught driver can "lose it" and run into a shop
front squashing a pavement full of women and children on the way.

I believe that lorries can kill men too. But that's not as emotive, is
it?

ian

Ian G Batten wrote:
In article ,
Cast_Iron wrote:
Unlike now when a juggernaught driver can "lose it" and
run into a shop front squashing a pavement full of women
and children on the way.

I believe that lorries can kill men too. But that's not as
emotive, is it?

ian

Yes it's true, there is no discrimination in events such as the one
described. However, in the case of the one I was thinking of (at Sowerby
Bridge a few years ago when the vehicle suffered brake failure) it was women
and children who were in the way.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:56:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
"Cast_Iron" wrote this:-

I believe that lorries can kill men too. But that's not as
emotive, is it?

Yes it's true, there is no discrimination in events such as the one
described. However, in the case of the one I was thinking of (at Sowerby
Bridge a few years ago when the vehicle suffered brake failure) it was women
and children who were in the way.

IIRC there was also at least one man in the way. He was in (and
perhaps driving) a British Telecom van.


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

Unlike now when a juggernaught driver can "lose it" and run into a shop
front squashing a pavement full of women and children on the way.

I believe that lorries can kill men too. But that's not as emotive, is
it?

Can you answer the point rather than criticising the person?

If you have a valid answer, write it - if not, don't resort to criticising
the poster.

We are all aware of the tendency to construct emotive examples, you've used
it as much as anyone else.

Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

"Not me, someone else" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

Not me, someone else wrote:
Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

Consider the predicament of people walking alongside both
a road and a railway.

Is this a sensible method of ensurring the safety of the
people of this country?

What other 'sensible method' would you employ ?

If these 'people' took sufficient or due care and attention
then they are sufficiently likely to walk alongside a
roadway or railway in a degree of safety and with a high
probability of finishing their walk or journey. Very, very
few people actually go out with the intention to crash or
be involved in an 'accident'.

Your viewpoint appears to disregard convenience.

My viewpoint is concerned with the difference in treatment between
the modes. Convenience in this narrow context is not relevant.

And the answer to the question I posed "What other 'sensible method'
would you employ ?" is ?

It seems to me that people take very little care at railway lines,
and even with the amount of fencing and notices posted, people still
get killed. I expect the death or injury rate would be way, way
higher if these fences and notices were removed. A train that stops
automatically doesn't stop for a 'SMIDSY' stepping or driving onto
the railway lines just 'cos they've misjudged the distance away and
the speed of the approaching train.

Responsibility ought to be taken by people themselves, not absolved
and passed over to more signage or fencing.

Which is why your initial point is I believe "wring" ish. If there
were no fences or sign and if railways were not considered any more
dangerous than roads other thna than trains travel faster and have a
longer stopping distance, there would be no more deaths o injuries to
people walking alongside railways than roads. It's about education
and experience. But we were the first to have railways, so people had
to be "protected" from these monsters which totally ignored the fact
that id people didn't get in their way then no harm would come to
them.

There have been many instances of trains jumping tracks or running into
stations where all the so-called 'safety features' failed in some way or
other. Maybe the train crashes were caused by series of calamitous events,
but still innocent people were killed. If a train hits anyone then
basically that's it. If a car hits anyone they at least still have a chance
of living.

Unlike now when a juggernaught driver can "lose it" and run into a
shop front squashing a pavement full of women and children on the way.

And the answer to the question you continually avoid "What other 'sensible
method' would
you employ ?" is ?


--
Digweed