“Yes, Mr. Mann, you forgot to specify where you get your facts. Also, I would love to know why you hate railways. I never travel by train, but I don't hate railways.”

“No, Kay, it's not amazed you are.

Do you also think "How can it possibly be the fault of a car driver if he hits someone who should not be crossing the road according to the pedestrians section of the Highway Code and / or the laws on Obstruction of the Highway and / or the laws on crossings when there is a car approaching?" As in the case of most road pedestrian fatalities?

Do you think that road drivers should be able to use the same defence as rail road drivers:

"I was going too fast to stop!"?

As for my facts, I get them from the same place as the anti-car, sorry, pro-rail, sorry, road "safety" lobby.

It's just that they compare apples and pears and compare the numbers of passengers who get killed cocooned in their 100s of tons solid steel and cast iron rail mounted battering rams, that can plough through cars vans and trucks, never mind pedestrians push chairs and prams, without spilling their passengers tea, on eleven thousand miles of rail road with the total of all deaths on hundreds of thousands of miles of road.

Or, at best, they;ll compare the total number of pedestrians killed who were invited onto the tracks at the time, and ignore all those taking short cuts or otherwise on the tracks in breach of the rules.

Strangely, though, they will complain about roads supposedly dividing communities.

But then go on to list all road fatalities, regardless of whether they broke the rules of the road and / or were acting suicidally.

Which reminds me, they will, if pinned down with the actual figures then try to make out that the majority of rail deaths are suicides (not true) and that they don't count (which goes to show how concerned they are with public safety).

Have I missed anything, Kay?”

“I am just amazed at the nonsensical contributions of B.J.Mann. How can it possibly be the fault of a train driver if he hits someone who should not be crossing the line when there is a train approaching? And where does B.J.Mann get his "facts"?”

“The only "correction" this poster is going to make is that you seem to have forgotten to explain why pedestrians and trains can 't co-exist, as they are expected to on the roads.

In fact, why, as on the roads, isn't "Twenty Plenty!" *anywhere* there there is a *CHANCE* that a pedestrian *MIGHT* get onto the rail *ROAD*

After all, if the ordinary roads divide communities, surely we need to do much more to stop the rail roads dividing them even more?

After all, if it saves just one life.”

“A correction. Sorry, I put an e in sadly; before anyone corrects me. Oh dear I am getting like someone else we know and multi posting.”

“Hear Hear! Bill”

“At my age I do find the new ramped bridges a barrier because of the long progression to gain hight and the stress on arthritic knees, poor old so and so I hear you saying, that is why I prefer a safe and well designed level pedestrian crossing. Sadely bridges also provide yet another vantage point for yobs to drop missiles on train drivers.

I do not think that the problem cannot be solved but that it is safety is so often a matter of common sense, responsible behaviour and a respect for others. Road and rail can and do exist well together and are necessary to us all. I am now reliant on public transport having driven hundreds of thousands of miles both here and abroad, and am just thankful that there are trains, buses and trams.”

“Bill:

I assume you interprete footbridges as those with steps either side which have to be climbed, this is not the case. Bridge designs vary, their designs being limitless, in most countries they form the abutments for the bridges and build between them, they then form gradual banks on either side to form a flat and gradual incline to these bridges.
Disabled buggies, elderly people, mothers with prams, and many more can use them; who ordinarily and practicably could not use steps.

Should this cater for the majority of people, then it would be beneficial as the grades are so shallow that virtually anyone mobile could use them.”

“Sorry, Bill, are you bored with the *FACT* that comparable numbers of pedestrians are killed on the rail roads as on the ordinary ones?

I *DO* apologise!

Would you prefer me to point out that pro rata probably as many pedestrians are killed by trains as the *TOTAL* killed on the roads?

Or, perhaps, that *SEVERAL* TIMES* as many people are probably killed per vehicle mile on the rail roads as on the ordinary ones?

And the drivers get away scot-free!

Funny how the anti-car, sorry, pro rail, sorry, road "safety" lobby never ever tire of seeing:

"Speed Kills - It's Simple Physics!"

"Kill Your Speed - Not That Child!"

"If it Saves Just One Life"

And:

"There Is No Such Thing As An Accident - It's Always The Drivers Fault".

On the backs of buses, on posters, in the papers, in TV and Radio, on websites, in forums........

In fact, they love seeing them so much they like to see several slight variations on the theme occuring again and again and again in a "discussion".

But only applied to the roads.

But tell them the truth twice about people getting killed on the rail roads and *they* get *bored* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“Oh dear cut and paste man strikes again. You were right FW he isn't worth the effort he has his own odd agenda and dredges the same boring passenger mile figures ad nauseam. I shall just leave him to his own haunted world.”