To think this mum is BU?

[Gibbous]

www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/9778500.Mother___s_horror_after_daughter___s_near_miss/?ref=mr

Whoops sorry, ignore previous message, I misread, actually agree with you Yesterday!

squeaky has it spot on. She is BU and both child and dog should have been secure long before she reached the crossing.

The crossings to the villages either side of mine have no fence type structure beneath the barrier - there's just the barrier pole alone. The electronic gate to one of them locked fast recently, trapping a teen betweeen the barrier and a train. Not least because of this I'd love to see level crossings done away with altogether but it just isn't going to happen so the best we can all do is to use common sense when approaching them. That woman didn't.

SIBU. But I agree with cake loads of people have momentary lapses in concentration.

Thats not National Rails fault though!

"This has only happened because it has been changed this system after previously being staffed, this is for cost cutting reasons.

"The parish council were opposed to the change and according to the article they have expressed concern over the gaps.

It will probably take a death of a child, or dog, over the school summer holidays to change."

So the new fence was not something that could have escaped her notice then? And are we to accept the cost of staffing it so parents/dog walkers don't have to keep an eye on their kids/pets?

Even if it were staffed, what difference would it make?

I may be unusual, but when my DDs were of a similar age to this girl I kept hold of their hands. Of course I was B completely U , according to those around me, but whatever shopping etc I may have had could be replaced, DCs can't.

So the new fence was not something that could have escaped her notice then? And are we to accept the cost of staffing it so parents/dog walkers don't have to keep an eye on their kids/pets?

Quite.

And i'm somewhat perplexed as to why people think a manned crossing would be any safer. They're not going to react any quicker than a CCTV operative.

The mother is being unreasonable and entirely irresponsible, but the fact is that we know there are parents like that out there. British Rail has a responsibility to make the dangerous thing they run as safe as possible, because they should know that there is a risk of parents being irresponsible.

British Rail has a responsibility to make the dangerous thing they run as safe as possible, because they should know that there is a risk of parents being irresponsible.

But the logical conclusion to that would be that all councils should erect 7 foot high fences between all paths that have a road running next to them.

The rule of thumb the HSE and any court apply is that measures are " reasonably practicable".

For my money they were. She's a twunt, and even bigger one for publicly trying to absolve herself of any blame.

It would be reasonably practical to have smaller gaps between the bars on the barrier though wouldn't it?

Not that most people would allow their child to get anywhere near to a barrier anyway when theres a high speed train going past, but I do think that precautions should be taken for the sake of small children who's parents aren't very good.

yes, of course everyone has lapses in concentration. and we all make errors of judgement sometimes

but we don't have to go to the papers and blame it all on someone else.

and i think that is the issue here isn't it? if the mum had come on here for example, and said "omg i did the stupidest thing today and i feel awful" I bet she'd have had a lot of replies saying "these things happen, try not to feel too bad at least dd is ok"

but she didn't. she is trying to absolve herself of any blame, and trying to accuse someone else and make it their responsibility and that is not on

Yet again a feckless parent wanting to blame the world (and her dog) that SHE didn't watch her child while near a train crossing.

*It would be reasonably practical to have smaller gaps between the bars on the barrier though wouldn't it?

Not that most people would allow their child to get anywhere near to a barrier anyway when theres a high speed train going past, but I do think that precautions should be taken for the sake of small children who's parents aren't very good.*

Maybe , maybe not. There may be practical reasons the bars are spaced as they are.

But i'm assuming this crossing is no different to thousands of others so you'd imagine they are generally accepted as safe.

"It will probably take a death of a child, or dog, over the school summer holidays to change."

That won't make any difference, btw. One of the crossings local to me is considered by the authorities to be one of the most dangerous in the county. One of the parish councillors tells me that he's been campaigning for a more safe alternative for over 40 years.

"It would be reasonably practical to have smaller gaps between the bars on the barrier though wouldn't it?"

Would it? Or do they need to be there to make the thing moveable or within a reasonable budget and resources?

I would argue it's at least as reasonably practical to keep an eye on kids while walking next to a high speed line when the barrier is down and therefore a train is clearly imminent.

That won't make any difference, btw. One of the crossings local to me is considered by the authorities to be one of the most dangerous in the county. One of the parish councillors tells me that he's been campaigning for a more safe alternative for over 40 years.

I don't understand this. Unless the barrier is failing to function properly how is the crossing itself any more dangerous than any other?

It can only be the people clearly not using it properly that are dangerous.

I don't think she is bu at all. She has pointed out a potential hazard.
It should be sorted.
Crossings should be safe.
If it wasn't for the hard work and campaigning of the father of a teenager who died on an unsafe crossing there would be even more deaths.
One of those deaths could have been your distracted teenager smashed to bits buy a train they didn't know was coming.
The train companies were at fault in that case and had to be forced to admit it.
What is stopping them fro making this crossing safe?
It's not only toddlers who can squeeze through in seconds, dogs and livestock could be at risk too.
I can't believe the rubbish being posted on here.
We all should watch our children but we are not infallible which is why h&s is so I portant.
And it's being erroded by this government.

YANBU Silly woman! "I wasn't too concerned" when the toddler approached the gates!

she should not expect there to be safety in place...she should HOPE.

Some of you are really naive about the safety of crossings.

We've all made mistakes and let our attention wander for a while, of course, but we don't try to insinuate it's anyone's fault but ours.
It's her insistence that the rail company bear the responsibility for what happened that is so objectionable. The child could hardly have just walked straight through, or the gap would have been obvious, so how long did she actually spend foostering around with the bloody dog's lead? It was hardly seconds.

but mrsdevere how can they make the entire crossing completely gap-free?

ok, they can fence the bit of gap between the barrier and the existing fence.

but what if a child climbed over? or a dog jumped over? what if the child had gone underneath?

you can't make a barrier that is impermeable to everyhing. people do need to take some responsibility for their own, and their children's safety

Some of you are really naive about the safety of crossings.

The flashing lights, the big red and white barrier?

It's not the crossing that's dangerous, it's the people not using it correctly and they're flagrant lack of duty of care for the people on the train.

Let alone the poor train driver who'd have to live with killing someone.

Yes, we've all had moments when concentration has lapsed. But the problem with this instance is that the woman was in control of neither the dog, nor the child and while I wouldn't wish the awful, heart-stopping shock she must have suffered on anyone, she's got to take some responsibility. There are some places where you can get away with a lack of concentration but level crossings are never going to be one of them. Complaining to the press about Network Rail is very silly too because yes, she has opened herself to criticism.

I live by a level crossing - it is unmanned, has half barriers and there's a gap of seconds between the barriers coming down and the trains coming through. Over the years I've seen cattle fry on the third rail, dogs explode by standing next to it and a series of fuckwits drive through while the gates are coming down. So I treat it with absolute respect. You don't often get a second chance.

The poor women has a four month old baby and is probably functioning on a huge sleep debt.
We all know what that is like, don't we?

It's not National Rail's responsibility to toddler-proof their level-crossings.

This woman irritates me, not because she wasn't keeping an eye on her dc near a railway track, but because she's abrogated her responsibility as a parent and shows no self-awareness of her part in dc's near-miss. Maybe she has so much confidence in 'elf and safety she ditched her common-sense.