Claverton is a User Worked Crossing, i.e. is it provided for "users" who are the inheritors of the occupiers for whom the accommodation crossing was built.  Its purpose includes users crossing with animals and vehicles. It also provides a foot crossing that is not padlocked, and for which public access depends on the status of the footpath.

The obvious problem with the signage is that it is addressed to several different groups of potential users. There are "users" in the technical sense, who have keys to the gates and may cross with vehicles or animals. There might be other such users (e.g. drivers of vehicles) who need to get a "user" to unlock the gate for them - but the railway does not regard it as their business to tell them that.

There are people of foot, who may also have animals with them (but perhaps not in the legal sense of "users crossing with animals"), who need different instructions. However, signage does not usually identify its audience. Nor does the signage clarify who has what right of access, you are expected to know that.

 
Crossings for road traffic that have instructions as to the process when crossing with vehicles or animals but also are unstaffed and have the gates padlocked - the two qualities are in conflict and I'm wondering what is the status of these crossings and whether something needs to be formalised. Crofton level crossing is another example.

Mark

 

Indeed there does and in my view the rail industry has fulfilled that duty by providing, as evidenced by the picture, instructions regarding how to use the crossing safely. If some individuals choose to wilfully ignore those instructions then that is on them not the railway.

 
I was there a few years ago. Whilst I was there, a chap crossed the line with a loose, young labrador dog.  The dog was clearly out of control as it ran off down the track. The chap called out frantically for the dog to return - sadly, the next thing I heard was a thump as a unit passed.

 
I use this crossing very occasionally as one of a class of users termed 'Encumbered pedestrian'. (It's on a useful portage route between the canal and the river.) Every time I've encountered it, it's very trim and well maintained. Many people don't treat these as though they're stepping across one blade of a pair of scissors though. And then there's the issue of the 'Second train on the other line' as well. Thinking back to school, I can't recall the sort of safety talks about this that hopefully happen now.

Oh, and when I passed the driving test back in the day, one of the oral questions from the examiner concerned the approach flags for a level crossing - the 'Three stripe/two stripe/one stripe' sequence. They must have been feeling merciful as despite passing these many times on a road I used regularly on a bike, I replied that I had no idea, but they were obviously a count down to some severe hazard or other...

Mark

 
Whilst it may be 'dangerous misuse' (although I'm not sure Network Rail would use such language) there still remains a duty of care to the public who use the crossing.

 

Not necessarily; the attached image is of the only 'footpath' across the railway anywhere near Warleigh Weir - it is towards the end of Ferry Lane - and if it is being subjected to dangerous misuse then the fault lies entirely with the general public and not the railway (unless of course if the crossing has been significantly downgraded since 2012 which is the date on Google Maps).



 

 

Yes, I do.

That apparent BTP response to the specific issue raised completely misses the point.

Near Nailsea, for example, there is a public footpath / right of way, which crosses the main line from Bristol to Exeter. The line speed here is 100 mph, there is no third rail / electrification and no question of 'trespassing' by those pedestrians using it.

The BTP need to focus more on specific issues, not give a generic answer to any raised concern (if that is what they did).

CfN. 

 
BBC has article saying how popular wild swimming spot Warleigh weir (south of Bathampton) requires footpath crossing railway and it is being misused


Then British Transport Police have a statement (bear in mind this is a non-electrified line operated by noisy diesel 158, 165, 166 units and freight locos, and has relatively low speed limit in area

Whilst I am all for improving safety at rural footpath crossings, I don't think the BTP statement which appears to have been cut and paste from an urban mainline crossing, was most helpful way to remind how to use a foot crossing either.  Does anyone else think BTP issued less than ideal statement here