On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:47:49 +0100 someone who may be "PeterE"
wrote this:-

If railways had pavements running alongside them, and frequent open
crossings unprotected by gates or signals, they would kill *a lot* more
periods.

Incorrect. Railways on the Mainland are generally not fenced, with
the exception of TGV lines. *A lot* more people are not killed on
them.

Railways are fenced because they are dangerous.

Incorrect. The fences on UK railways are provided for the following
reasons:

1) To deter humans on the railway trespassing onto the landowner's
property on either side of the railway.

2) To deter large farm animals from getting onto the railway. Both
of these requirements date from the earliest days and were imposed
on the railways by landowners protecting their interests. Note that
I do not necessarily criticise the landowners for this.

3) Where the railway is electrified using the conductor rail system
an "unclimbable" fence must be provided. This is a legal term, in
the real world there is no such fence.

4) Following the Herrington case the railways have responsibilities
to repair damaged fences where the damage may allow children easy
access to the line. The case ignores the fact that there are few
fences that cannot be climbed by a determined child. They are better
at climbing fences than adults.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.