The normalisation of trespass?

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

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

The public must be protected from itself, esp. those members of the public who think they know better and *think* a location is safe.

One person's interpretation of what is safe may differ wildly from another's.

BoatMad

flyingsnail wrote: »

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

If he was trespassing the law makes it very difficult to sue for any actions that might befall him, IE would be far better protected if he was trespassing then if he was there by invite

while its entirely possible that the line was under engineers possession, we do not know if he checked before hand to see if there was scheduled activity. Trains do not appear willy nilly on any track

equally in engineers possession all track based equipment is driven on the basis that the driver can stop in advance of unexpected obstructions . There is no risk that he would be run over

this is the nonsense of this argument , there is no "normalisation of trespass ", the trespass may or may not have occurred , we dont know. what is clear is that it was not an unsafe act in itself

savagethegoat

the Rules have to be the Rules for everywhere. You cannot have someone interpreting them as unnecessary for a particular location.

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

The public must be protected from itself, esp. those members of the public who think they know better and *think* a location is safe.

One person's interpretation of what is safe may differ wildly from another's.

That is a function of law. if you trespass , you have very little recourse to legal compensation in the effect of an accident occurring

the main reason " people must be protected from themselves " is that in Ireland , the duty of care falls heavily on the owner of the premises , hence most "safety " procedures are not there for reason of definable safety risk, but in fact to demonstrate the " reasonable care" has been taken

Railway lines are not new, people have been accessing them ( illegally or otherwise ) for generations, I think we can assume an reasonable person can determine if it is safe in a situation where there is clearly no normal traffic

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

Railway lines are not new, people have been accessing them ( illegally or otherwise ) for generations, I think we can assume an reasonable person can determine if it is safe in a situation where there is clearly no normal traffic

Assumption is the mother of all f--- ups.

Like savage said rules have to be a one-size-fits-all as an apparently inactive line may become active at very short notice (not necessarily a scheduled service) and the public may or may not be aware of when that happens.

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

Assumption is the mother of all f--- ups.

Like savage said rules have to be a one-size-fits-all as an apparently inactive line may become active at very short notice (not necessarily a scheduled service) and the public may or may not be aware of when that happens.

yes yes , but the point is that in the circumstances it is a reasonable assumption that to stand in a flooded track to make a political point for the duration of a photo shot is ostensively safe ( enough)

savagethegoat

no it isn't reasonable, it's irresponsible.

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

no it isn't reasonable, it's irresponsible.

in what way, is it materially irresponsible

ED E

nelly17 wrote: »

The HSE inspector would have the PPE

HSE dont inspect sites, they inspect hospitals. :pac: And they would probably wear the hard hat despite zero chance of falling objects.

flyingsnail wrote: »

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

I'm no train nerd but the railway could be considered a workplace and thus probably falls under the jurisdiction of both.


Anyways this is a silly thread, IE and populace of this sub have a lot more pressing concerns than a lad posing by a puddle.

Cookie_Monster

one of these days we'll need PPE and a permit to cross a level crossing...

savagethegoat

BoatMad wrote: »

in what way, is it materially irresponsible

because impressionable people seeing the picture in print will think it's OK for them to do the same.

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

because impressionable people seeing the picture in print will think it's OK for them to do the same.

Oh for gods sake ,you sound like a 1960s catholic priest on a pulpit

savagethegoat

is that the best you can do? resort to insults?

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

Oh for gods sake ,you sound like a 1960s catholic priest on a pulpit

For 'impressionable people', read 'stupid people'.

Carawaystick

savagethegoat wrote: »

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

What if the person suffered an injury that needed the safety gear to be removed? Just to pick a circumstance
Or if the person was standing here

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

is that the best you can do? resort to insults?

is the only logic you can advance , one based around " impressionable people"

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

For 'impressionable people', read 'stupid people'.

then darwins law applies

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

then darwins law applies

From the sublime to the ridiculous...

BoatMad

whisky_galore wrote: »

From the sublime to the ridiculous...

no rules protect against " stupidity "