The normalisation of trespass?

whisky_galore

Carawaystick wrote: »

What if he swam and happened to cross the railway?

If IÉ said there's bus substitutions due to the railway being blocked by flooding, then it's hard to see how there's any safety issue.

If a train could pass, then IÉ have misled potential customers, ad would be guilty of a criminal offence.

Oh please, what if, what if, what if he parachuted onto the line...

The problem with this is that the less educated may say to themselves "if he can do it, so can I" irrespective of circumstances. Then you have vandals, sorry 'street artists' plastering retaining walls and equipment with 'art' under the impression that they can do this at night when regular passenger services have ceased. Have heard of one instance when artistic endeavours were interrupted by an unexpected train.

n97 mini

Aagh pet hate: mixing imperial and metric. 1.75 miles of track is under 1.4 metres of water. Much bigger sin than standing on a track that's not in use.

savagethegoat

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

lets be real for a second here, there is not going to be a train travelling through the water here at speed.
there is the tiniest possibility of a maint / inspection train approaching at very low speed, hardly an actual danger. I don't agree with him trespassing but the actual risk is zero.

the particular spot and the likelihood of a train coming is immaterial . It's an important tenet that everyone needs to be aware of , especially public representatives, you do not walk on a railway without the training and safety gear necessary and the permission and knowledge of the operators. Anywhere. Anytime.

whisky_galore

monument wrote: »

I don't think he can -- A picture is worth a thousand words.



Public ownership and making a political point.

The law isn't black and white. For example, people accused of attacking aircraft in Shannon we not convicted because they successively argued that they were coming to the defence of others.

Just because the railway is owned by the State and 'public' does not give a member of the public carte blanche to do whatever he or she likes on that property.
If he got onto the track through a per way access gate, he could not have failed to notice signs warning him not to trespass there, whether there are services running or not. There are very good reasons as to why the public should be discouraged to use the railway as a footpath or a playground or whatever.

Perhaps the Shannon people had a good legal team and a sympathetic jury, I don't know.

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

the particular spot and the likelihood of a train coming is immaterial . It's an important tenet that everyone needs to be aware of , especially public representatives, you do not walk on a railway without the training and safety gear necessary and the permission and knowledge of the operators. Anywhere. Anytime.

The operators have been walking railways lines with little safety training for 100 years without too much trouble

Do not mix up a safety culture with safety

savagethegoat

BoatMad wrote: »

The operators have been walking railways lines with little safety training for 100 years without too much trouble

Do not mix up a safety culture with safety

What nonsense. Just because something was done in an alleged dangerous way 100 years ago does not mean that this guy or anyone else can walk on a railway without obeying todays rules.

Hundreds of railway employees have died on the tracks over the years, todays "safety culture" is there to try and make the track a safer place than it was. How is that a bad thing as you imply?

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

What nonsense. Just because something was done in an alleged dangerous way 100 years ago does not mean that this guy or anyone else can walk on a railway without obeying todays rules.

Hundreds of railway employees have died on the tracks over the years, todays "safety culture" is there to try and make the track a safer place than it was. How is that a bad thing as you imply?

Simply because an " untrained " person is standing on a flodded track , safe in the knowledge that no train can traverse it ( which is a true and undeniable fact ) does not make it unsafe. It's certainly flouts a safety culture that replaces common sense with sometimes irrational directives many of which are a function of the prevention of lawsuits then the application of safety.

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

Simply because an " untrained " person is standing on a flodded track , safe in the knowledge that no train can traverse it ( which is a true and undeniable fact ) does not make it unsafe. It's certainly flouts a safety culture that replaces common sense with sometimes irrational directives many of which are a function of the prevention of lawsuits then the application of safety.

How does he know? Did he contact IE to find out beforehand?

That no train can traverse it does not necessarily mean that nothing at all can travel over all of it or a part of it.

savagethegoat

exactly. Believing that one knows something and actually knowing it are two different things.

What if a pw wagon in a siding along the line had it's handbrake tampered with by vandals? it isn't a true and undeniable fact!
That's just one train that could appear unexpectedly and it's just one reason why ie would have had a lookout stationed if this guy was there with permission.

You aren't there safe in the knowledge of anything unless you have followed the rules as standardised. To state otherwise is totally bogus.

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

How does he know? Did he contact IE to find out beforehand?

That no train can traverse it does not necessarily mean that nothing at all can travel over all of it or a part of it.

maybe he did contact IE ( or a friendly signalman , thats all you need to talk to to know what will or will not run on a line )

in effect nothing can travel over it , the diesel electrics cant wade water once above the height of the rail head

a stream engine could attempt it, with potential damage to its firebox, so I suppose you are right , a steam engine could run him down

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

exactly. Believing that one knows something and actually knowing it are two different things.

What if a pw wagon in a siding along the line had it's handbrake tampered with by vandals? it isn't a true and undeniable fact!
That's just one train that could appear unexpectedly and it's just one reason why ie would have had a lookout stationed if this guy was there with permission.

You aren't there safe in the knowledge of anything unless you have followed the rules as standardised. To state otherwise is totally bogus.

and a jet engine could detach and hit him on the head, a car could leap three hedges and hit him in the back

lookouts are stationed on track that has active traffic and not under engineers possession

This line has no current active traffic , it is in essence closed to traffic and standing on it is as dangerous as standing on the track at wellington bridge

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

maybe he did contact IE ( or a friendly signalman , thats all you need to talk to to know what will or will not run on a line )

in effect nothing can travel over it , the diesel electrics cant wade water once above the height of the rail head

a stream engine could attempt it, with potential damage to its firebox, so I suppose you are right , a steam engine could run him down

One of these perhaps... would be a lot likelier prospect than your 'steam engine'.

https://chasewaterstuff.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rubber-duck.jpg

Following your logic, would it be advisable to wander into a building site, on a Sunday?

There seems to be no-one there, no machinery working. Sure what harm could it be? I've watched a few episodes of Bob the Builder and I have a fair idea of what happens in a building site.

Apart from the fact that I have absolutely no permission and no business in the wide earthly world being there.

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

One of these perhaps... would be a lot likelier prospect than your 'steam engine'.

https://chasewaterstuff.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rubber-duck.jpg

aye run down by an excavator doing 20 mph and which i dont believe can operate in the depths of water shown in the flooding

he may have contacted IE signalling , they would be scheduling T3 engineers possessions , which is the only way the excavator would be allowed to access the line anyway

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

One of these perhaps... would be a lot likelier prospect than your 'steam engine'.

https://chasewaterstuff.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rubber-duck.jpg

Following your logic, would it be advisable to wander into a building site, on a Sunday?

There seems to be no-one there, no machinery working. Sure what harm could it be? I've watched a few episodes of Bob the Builder and I have a fair idea of what happens in a building site.

Apart from the fact that I have absolutely no permission and no business in the wide earthly world being there.

Im not denying trespass , Im merely arguing that the trespass in the situation mentioned was not unsafe

a railway line is not a building site

Has anyone actually asked the chap?

I am a photographer (and have been in and out of factories, ports, etc. where hi-vis is essential wear). In many cases, the person being photographed will often be wearing hi-vis, but remove it briefly for the actual taking of the photograph/s.

Not saying that's the case here, of course, as I don't know, but it wouldn't be uncommon for safety gear to be put aside for presentation purposes.

savagethegoat

BoatMad wrote: »

maybe he did contact IE ( or a friendly signalman , thats all you need to talk to to know what will or will not run on a line )

in effect nothing can travel over it , the diesel electrics cant wade water once above the height of the rail head

a stream engine could attempt it, with potential damage to its firebox, so I suppose you are right , a steam engine could run him down

In no circumstances would any IE official give him permission to be on a line without personal safety gear.

nelly17

end of the road wrote: »

a high vis jacket and other safety equipment. it's his duty to wear such if he is there on the permission of irish rail, regardless of whether the railway is open or closed, running or not running.

He needs permission and valid irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification, Orange High Vis vest & boots, a completed risk assessment to be on or near the railway line. Even if its closed.

BoatMad

nelly17 wrote: »

He needs permission and valid irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification, Orange High Vis vest & boots, a completed risk assessment to be on or near the railway line. Even if its closed.

Thats the rules ( and you are not completely correct actually, for thats for unaccompanied access , for all we know he may have been accompanied out off shot )

thats not the same as what is "safe" in the situation and what is not

the railway run very successfully for 100 years without Hi-viz and irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification

safety culture is not the same as safety

The line is in effect closed

nelly17

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats the rules ( and you are not completely correct actually, for thats for unaccompanied access , for all we know he may have been accompanied out off shot )

thats not the same as what is "safe" in the situation and what is not

the railway run very successfully for 100 years without Hi-viz and irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification

safety culture is not the same as safety

The line is in effect closed

If he was accompanied by an IR representative he would have had PSE or he would not have been on the track

flyingsnail

nelly17 wrote: »

If he was accompanied by an IR representative he would have had PSE or he would not have been on the track

PSE ???

BoatMad

nelly17 wrote: »

If he was accompanied by an IR representative he would have had PSE or he would not have been on the track

agreed , which he may have removed temporarily as mentioned for the picture ( the vest , as we can't see the boots)

nelly17

flyingsnail wrote: »

PSE ???

Personal Safety Equipment - Boots & vest

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats the rules ( and you are not completely correct actually, for thats for unaccompanied access , for all we know he may have been accompanied out off shot )

thats not the same as what is "safe" in the situation and what is not

the railway run very successfully for 100 years without Hi-viz and irish Rail Personal Tracside Safety Certification

safety culture is not the same as safety

The line is in effect closed

Once it was commonplace for enthusiasts to clamber all over signal posts and equipment, cross running lines, etc to get that shot. If you were spotted doing that now, you'd be asked to leave the premises pretty sharpish.

Different times now. The railways are a modern workplace with all the rules and regs that come with that. Companies, not just railways, are less tolerant of Joe Public wandering around their premises in case he hurts himself or otherwise gets up to mischief.
Get used to it.

ED E

flyingsnail wrote: »

PSE ???

nelly17 wrote: »

Personal Safety Equipment - Boots & vest

Maybe I'm wrong but the standard term is PPE not PSE is it not? Personal protective equipment.



Either way there's no reason to be excessively up tight about it, a HSA inspector wouldn't blink at it when the line is 100% impassible.

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

Once it was commonplace for enthusiasts to clamber all over signal posts and equipment, cross running lines, etc to get that shot. If you were spotted doing that now, you'd be asked to leave the premises pretty sharpish.

Different times now. The railways are a modern workplace with all the rules and regs that come with that. Companies, not just railways, are less tolerant of Joe Public wandering around their premises in case he hurts himself or otherwise gets up to mischief.
Get used to it.

Again , I am not arguing that it was not trespass . Im arguing that it was demonstrably safe. the imposition of the safety culture which is more to do with litigation concerns then actual safety is a major factor in this

In the US , the railways are not fenced and people on or near the line is commonplace .

safety is a view of the risk of danger and the implementation of measure to mitigate that danger

in this case there was no danger ( other then maybe drowning ) hence it was " safe" , even if it contravened various rules etc


As I said , standing there is as safe as standing on a track in Wellington Bridge

nelly17

ED E wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but the standard term is PPE not PSE is it not? Personal protective equipment.



Either way there's no reason to be excessively up tight about it, a HSA inspector wouldn't blink at it when the line is 100% impassible.

The HSE inspector would have the PPE

whisky_galore

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone actually asked the chap?

I am a photographer (and have been in and out of factories, ports, etc. where hi-vis is essential wear). In many cases, the person being photographed will often be wearing hi-vis, but remove it briefly for the actual taking of the photograph/s.

Not saying that's the case here, of course, as I don't know, but it wouldn't be uncommon for safety gear to be put aside for presentation purposes.

Then it would make sense to add a note to the effect that 'this photo was taken with the permission of IE' or some such, as an ass-covering measure. But this is not something like an official pic in a trade magazine, just a local paper so an element of doubt must be cast about whether IE or a rep of IE granted permission for it.

flyingsnail

ED E wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but the standard term is PPE not PSE is it not? Personal protective equipment.



Either way there's no reason to be excessively up tight about it, a HSA inspector wouldn't blink at it when the line is 100% impassible.

nelly17 wrote: »

The HSE inspector would have the PPE

I would have thought it would be more the area of the CRR (Previously the RSC) rather than the HSA

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

Then it would make sense to add a note to the effect that 'this photo was taken with the permission of IE' or some such, as an ass-covering measure. But this is not something like an official pic in a trade magazine, just a local paper so an element of doubt must be cast about whether IE or a rep of IE granted permission for it.

again , while i mentioned it, its not clear what the status of the visit is ( and papers tend not to mention what you said anyway )

all I was arguing that in the specific circumstance , it was not, using any reasonable common sense view of safety, an unsafe act

it may have been trespass or it may not have been, but it was not unsafe in regards to railway dangers , it may have been unsafe in relation to drowning of course !!!:p

flyingsnail

Just a few things to add, While the line was closed to passenger trains there was quite a lot of work ongoing on the line taking advantage of the closure, so the idea of a train, inspection car or on track plant appearing is not unbelievable.
Second Trains are not the only risk associated with the railway. There are a lot of other way you could hurt yourself and unfortunately we live in a society where if this guy had fallen and broken a leg he probably would have sued Irish Rail