To think this mum is BU?

[Gibbous]

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

Frida, of course we do. But that is why reins for kids and leads for dogs were invented.

Oh, so we are blaming lack of sleep now??

Always some excuse.... They are getting lamer

"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?"

Despite having had a toddler and a newborn, not to the extent that I'd leave my dog off-lead and my child not holding my hands or on reins near a level crossing, nor to the extent that I'd blame someone else for my sheer irresponsibility, no, fridakhlo.

"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."

Is that about the automatic locks on gates? Because if so that is a completely different kettle of fish.

I don't know if you can make this crossing safer without compromising its workings or have to go beyond reasonable allocation of resources. It is reasonable to expect a parent to watch their toddler near a level crossing when a high speed train is imminent. If she didn't and it was a near miss but hadn't laid the blame elsewhere and had clearly taken heed of the experience that is understandable but she hasn't.

Maybe she has so much confidence in 'elf and safety she ditched her common-sense.

There is research to suggest that the H&S culture has actually gone too far in some cases. Effectively people are now wrapped in cotton wool and are unable to assess risk for themselves.

Our record on industrial accidents would suggest otherwise sparks.

"There is research to suggest that the H&S culture has actually gone too far in some cases. Effectively people are now wrapped in cotton wool and are unable to assess risk for themselves."

Agree with that completely. I work for the NHS and I think it's the same mentality that results in people calling 999 for a toothache or a broken finger when they have someone with a car who can take them to A&E then complain to the local paper they didn't get a double-staffed ambulance (which might, be going to a, yanno, cardiac arrest or something) to taxi them down there instead.

Not really Gibbous in that people assumed those crossings were safe.
They had a right to,assume that IME.
If a company has a few hundred ton of metal going through a populated area at 200 mph I think they have a responsibilty to make pretty solid safety arrangements.

Our record on industrial accidents would suggest otherwise sparks.

In comparison to what though? Other countries?

Working in construction ( one of the most dangerous sectors in the UK ) i can tell you there is an ever increasing movement to behavioural safety and not useless practical measures.

The point is this woman spectacularly failed to assess the true risk herself. Had she done so it wouldn't matter what barriers were in place, they'd be a moot point.

"I think they have a responsibilty to make pretty solid safety arrangements."

And I think in this case (not the previous one you've referred to) they have within reasonable expectation.

Sorry about my first post, it was a it umm blunt. I was typing and trying to do something else. I am sorry if I was rude.
But.. Why make a barrier that is not child proof? Even the most careful of parents can be distracted and we know that many people are not careful.
The child will e the dead one, not the parent.
Hardly fair on the child is it?
In the other case I mentioned, do you not think the girls were lamed? The parents blamed? It was all their fault until it was proved not to be.
The same sort of comments were made then as now.

We have laws about the height of balconies, the width of cot bars, the way banisters are designed etc. to keep people and particularly children safe. That doesn't mean we don't watch our kids when they are on a balcony or on the stairs. But we all have an expectation of a certain amont o safety.

Howcn I be a bad thing to make dagerous things as safe as posible?

*We have laws about the height of balconies, the width of cot bars, the way banisters are designed etc. to keep people and particularly children safe. That doesn't mean we don't watch our kids when they are on a balcony or on the stairs. But we all have an expectation of a certain amont o safety.

Howcn I be a bad thing to make dagerous things as safe as possible?*

Accepted. But those are in home environments.

" As safe as possible " is a fallacy though. How far do you go? Should all cliffs have barrier protection too?

Again, it all comes down to the term " reasonably Practicable". Because that ultimately is what the law states.

Fair point Mrs DeVere, and don't worry you weren't blunt! I think it's more that there seems to be no acknowledgement whatsover by the mum, to the point of going to the papers, that she could perhaps have done something.

*whatsoever.

Having lived near an unmanned level crossing in the past, and having seen what happens when someone is killed on one, I have a very healthy level of respect for safety around level crossings.

I would NOT have a 2yo running around "to watch the trains", they would be holding my hand, picked up and carried on my hip, or on reins.

I would not have an unleashed dog either, dogs can slip through surprisingly small gaps.

It only takes a tiny bit of common sense to understand that you don't fuck around with safety when faced with 1,000 tons of metal flying at you at 75MPH.

My Stepdad works in signalling now, but 20 years ago he was a 'relief' signalman. Part of his duties included collecting all the body parts from collisions with people. And I do mean body PARTS. They get spread up to 4+ miles by the train, by the power of the collision.

He has had to make sure that he has picked up two arms, two legs, a head and a torso on many occasions.

1. This stays with the person clearing up, and the driver involved FOR EVER.

2. It's not that hard to make a sensible risk assessment and hold onto your toddler / young child / dog until the train has passed and you are safely across the other side of the level crossing.

3. Level crossings themselves are not inherently unsafe - countries around the world have them with NO barriers or warning lights, and they manage not to let their DC get reduced to a collection of body parts - it is the people using them improperly and not giving them due care and attention that is unsafe.

I think the mother needs to take a good, long hard look at herself and her behaviour surrounding this incident, rather than complaining in the national press about something that would have been totally avoidable had she held her toddler's hand!

SHe stopped to put the dog on a lead but didn't worry about the child

I cannot take her seriously after that.

You cannot take her seriously, a mother out walking with her toddler and dog who took her eyes off her child for a second? That seems harsh. Amazing how many on here cut such slack for the 'mistake' the mccanns made, night after night with their eyes off their kids for hours, yet this mother is rounded on.

Mumsnet puzzles me.

She is NBU to want the gap closed.

She is BU to blame them for her not having control of her child.

I would dispute that Couthy.
They are inherently unsafe. Anything involving fast moving and hard to stop vehicles is going to be inherently unsafe when in close proximity with human beings.
Going by the road death rate in many countries compared to ours, I wouldnt be too confident about their rail safety records.

Cliffs and natural hazards are different Sparks because they are not designed, they are just there in all their natural glory.
Which is why we have different rules for swimming in pools than we do in the sea.
We all have a responsibilty to look after ourselves but big businesses do not have a good track record in keeping their side of the bargain because safety is seen as expensive.

All the Daily Wailing buys into that stuff with its rehashing of urban mythology.

*You cannot take her seriously, a mother out walking with her toddler and dog who took her eyes off her child for a second? That seems harsh. Amazing how many on here cut such slack for the 'mistake' the mccanns made, night after night with their eyes off their kids for hours, yet this mother is rounded on.

Mumsnet puzzles me.*

The two are not comparable. And there is nothing in the article to suggest her lack of awareness lasted seconds.

And clearly roads and train tracks and their associated risks puzzle this woman.

Why are they not comparable? Adult in charge taking eyes off their dc. Looks similar to me.

It may not suggest seconds but it's unlikely to be hours.

The McCanns didn't blame the hotel for not having prison bars at the windows.

No, they couldn't blame the hotel when they themselves left the door unlocked.

Whether Madeline McCann went out via door or window my point is the same. This mum is trying to shift blame with absolutely no awareness of her own actions. The McCanns didn't go to the papers blaming the hotel for not having stringent enough safety measures to ensure children couldn't escape/be abducted.

Well they did go to the papers, they did blame someone other than themselves, they did leave the door unlocked so how could they possibly blame the hotel for not having stringent safety measures? There were shutters on the windows that wouldn't open from outside.

I'm not trying to turn this into another boring mccann thread. I just don't see why this mother is being unreasonable for alerting others to danger and the need for vigilance.