Useful things to know if your right-of-way is under threat from Network Rail:
Network Rail
Network Rail is on a mission to get rid of every level crossing, reducing their future running costs and liabilities.
Zero-risk: Network Rail will argue 'There is always risk where people cross railways, so closure is always our preferred option'. This is equally true of beaches 'There is always risk where people enter deep water, so closure of beaches is always our preferred option'
The Health and Safety Executive distances itself from the absurdities of zero-risk policies, but the Department for Transport's Rail Safety Advisor does not.
Distorting the facts: Network Rail will try to exaggerate everything it can to close your crossing. e.g.
Tunnel vision: Network Rail will completely ignore the benefits of the crossing to users, and any wider risks created off-rail by closures. Network Rail's policy on this is a disgraceful abuse of their position.
Public safety: Network Rail will continually claim to be acting for public safety, but its total tunnel vision shows this is untrue.
Broken promises: Network Rail makes offers of briges, tunnels etc. to get crossings closed and then fails to deliver for years or for ever.
For more see Case Studies ...
Zero-risk: Network Rail will argue 'There is always risk where people cross railways, so closure is always our preferred option'. This is equally true of beaches 'There is always risk where people enter deep water, so closure of beaches is always our preferred option'
The Health and Safety Executive distances itself from the absurdities of zero-risk policies, but the Department for Transport's Rail Safety Advisor does not.
Distorting the facts: Network Rail will try to exaggerate everything it can to close your crossing. e.g.
- Likely suicides will be treated as accidents;
- Network Rail will try to claim that your crossing is a permissive right of way when it has no evidence of that;
- Collective risk will be used to justify closure, when the appropriate measure is individaul risk;
- Risk will be exaggerated - We were told 'Risks are graded A to M. Your crossing is C, which makes it high risk'. Actually for a footpath crossing M is so safe that every person in Britain could cross every minute, night and day, for a year with a predicted death rate of less than 1, although more than half a million would die from other causes in that time! Network Rail put closed crossings in 'M' and use the argument that it is safer!
- Distances will be changed to suit NR's case. At the Mexico Inn crossng NR says ' there is another crossing 200m along the track'. You can't walk along the track! The reality is the other crossing adds over 1km to most round trips to the beach plus unpredictable waits for the gates to open. Here's another example of NR giving wrong distances to suit their case in Essex.
Tunnel vision: Network Rail will completely ignore the benefits of the crossing to users, and any wider risks created off-rail by closures. Network Rail's policy on this is a disgraceful abuse of their position.
Public safety: Network Rail will continually claim to be acting for public safety, but its total tunnel vision shows this is untrue.
Broken promises: Network Rail makes offers of briges, tunnels etc. to get crossings closed and then fails to deliver for years or for ever.
For more see Case Studies ...
Coroners
If there is a death on your rail crossing there will be an inquest, and the Coroner may create serious risk to your rights of way.
There are two problems, that stem from the fact that Coroners have no particular expertise but carry a lot of weight.
1. Suicides are mid-diagnosed in inquests unless there is unequivocal evidence of suicide. Verdicts may be accidental death or an open verdict. Network Rail will misuse the verdict in every way it can to support closer of the crossing.
2. Coroners may make recommendations in the form of a rule 43 letter. This is sent by the Coroner to whoever should take action to reduce future deaths. It is just an opinion, and may be based on little comprehension of the issues, but it will be used by Network Rail as if it comes from a higher authority. You will be unable to challenge it directly, unless your Coroner agrees to talk to you, but in the case here the Cornwall Coroner gives only brush-off replies.
So : GO TO THE INQUEST, IF IT'S NOT TOO LATE - you may get no information later even though the inquest was public. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Coroners.
There are two problems, that stem from the fact that Coroners have no particular expertise but carry a lot of weight.
1. Suicides are mid-diagnosed in inquests unless there is unequivocal evidence of suicide. Verdicts may be accidental death or an open verdict. Network Rail will misuse the verdict in every way it can to support closer of the crossing.
2. Coroners may make recommendations in the form of a rule 43 letter. This is sent by the Coroner to whoever should take action to reduce future deaths. It is just an opinion, and may be based on little comprehension of the issues, but it will be used by Network Rail as if it comes from a higher authority. You will be unable to challenge it directly, unless your Coroner agrees to talk to you, but in the case here the Cornwall Coroner gives only brush-off replies.
So : GO TO THE INQUEST, IF IT'S NOT TOO LATE - you may get no information later even though the inquest was public. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Coroners.
Local government
Local government highways officials may be confused about what their responsibilities are. The Higways Act is badly worded on closures of crossings and this creates scope for a situation in which everyone, except the local authority, assumes that the local authority will make a proper assessment of all the circumstances arising from the closure.