But the reason people are allowed to walk alongside roads, and not
alongside
railways, is that roads are inherently safer because the vehicles can stop
much more quickly than rail vehicles, and also steer out of the way of
danger.

The view that roads are inherently safer cannot be supported statistically
in this country as the only people on the rails are people breaking the
rules, perhaps with a desire not to get out of the way of trains, whereas
lots of people walk along roads, and lots are killed.

However, a comparison with countries like Germany, where railways are often
crossed and even used as footpaths by the general population, suggests this
contention may be very wrong.

Most of the 300-odd "trespassers and suicides" who die on the railways
each
year would not die on the roads in the same circumstances because drivers
would stop or steer around them.

No way of testing that argument, proving it or disproving it. Although road
users are fond of claiming that collisions are due to 'pedestrians running
out in front of them'(!), suicidal behaviour which they are unable to steer
around or stop prior to.

"Richard" wrote in message
...

The view that roads are inherently safer cannot be supported statistically
in this country as the only people on the rails are people breaking the
rules, perhaps with a desire not to get out of the way of trains, whereas
lots of people walk along roads, and lots are killed.

However, a comparison with countries like Germany, where railways are often
crossed and even used as footpaths by the general population, suggests this
contention may be very wrong.

You can also consider countries like Lancashire.