Cast_Iron deftly scribbled:

"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.

There have been many instances of trains jumping tracks or running into
stations where all the so-called 'safety features' failed in some way or
other. Maybe the train crashes were caused by series of calamitous events,
but still innocent people were killed. If a train hits anyone then
basically that's it. If a car hits anyone they at least still have a chance
of living.

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.

And the answer to the question you continually avoid "What other 'sensible
method' would
you employ ?" is ?


--
Digweed