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