Search results

I was thinking about it from an engineering point of view, where you might compare the risk of somebody being killed to the additional cost of diverting to the nearest alternative. In that equation use of the crossing would weigh pretty equally on both sides. That probably doesn't come into it...

Oh good, those actually make sense. Presumably reduced usage also counts against the argument for keeping the crossing open? I'm legitimately interested in this sort of thing by the way, I'm not just being an arsehole for the sake of it. I know the general movement is to get rid of level...

To be fair to Network Rail, if there were an incident at that level crossing which led to anywhere between one person and a couple of hundred people being killed, they'd then have to go to a public meeting and explain why they hadn't closed the level crossing to remove the risk of it happening...

Alternatively, their current dickheads are arrogant enough to assume they definitely don't have anything to learn from what went wrong.