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.

--
Digweed

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

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.

"Bagpuss" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jul 2003 07:41:59 GMT, 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?

I think its the first proper instance of Hugh's Law in action.

It was a bus queue. Its even more silly to try to get emotive about people
who want to go places by bus.

The lorry did cross a road though, so perhaps you could get emotive about it
potentially scratching someone's car.
Having said that, the incident demolished a house too, but only some
northern terraced thing.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:41:52 +0000 (UTC), "W K"
wrote:


"Bagpuss" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Jul 2003 07:41:59 GMT, 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?

I think its the first proper instance of Hugh's Law in action.

It was a bus queue. Its even more silly to try to get emotive about people
who want to go places by bus.

The lorry did cross a road though, so perhaps you could get emotive about it
potentially scratching someone's car.

No, cos I really would't give a flying feck if it crushed a few cars
or so. Thats the sort of thing anti car weenies like to think car
drivers would get upset about. I don't know many who would give a
stuff. Insurance would sort the mess out anyhow.

Personally the more the merrrier. At least it would provide a 15
second slot on kirsty's home videos.

Having said that, the incident demolished a house too, but only some
northern terraced thing.

Pitty the truck wasn't darn sarf. Poor darlings would be crying about
the devaluation of property. Some places near here a manged truck
lying in the front room would probably double the value of the house.
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

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).