Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by editor, Sep 8, 2017.
Not even just actual death, but witnessing something that they believe might result in death.
You mean the guys that jumped off the bridge?
Do you really not get it?
I just don't see a massive difference between what they did and Alain Robert, Danny MacAskill or the latest parkour star.
I don't know who those other people are or what the circumstances were, but if they were in danger of killing themselves or putting other people in danger or distress in a public area without any back up or safety provisions put in place then they should also be fined.
All I know is that what those two lads did was stupid and I wish they had been fined more. I hope they had to have long talks to the people that drag dead tombstoners out of the river, and how they feel about that when they go home at night.
There is nothing that's so stupid and dangerous that men between the ages of 16 to 25 won't attempt it. We're programmed to do it. No amount of middle aged clucking is going to change that.
Definitely, this is true - there's what's probably an innate tendency in most people to do some amount of risktaking.
Personally, I think we go too far in "protecting" young people (particularly, but not exclusively, men) from learning how to take risks, with the result that, for some of them, they have no basis for calculating or judging risk, and that inevitably results in much more dangerous chances being taken. The other thing we do, in our overprotectiveness, is to deny them the opportunity to learn that actions have consequences, and not just for them directly, so a lot of this risk-taking behaviour is done without any thought at all to the effects on people witnessing it, or having to deal with the fallout.
But, as you say, we more-risk-averse older types are inevitably going to watch the antics of younger people and wince as they take chances, whether well-calculated or not - our task is to try to moderate that reaction so that we can actually be useful in enabling them to take a more measured, but probably nowhere near as averse as ours, approach to risk.
If people want to do dangerous and exciting things, fair enough. People take drugs, go skiing, have sex, drive cars, etc - many of the negative implications of these affect others. I'm not going to judge any of them too much.
Well yeah, let them kill or paralyse themselves, I don't mind people taking risks. Trouble is it affects other people too.
Some proper snowflake bollocks here.
Should Michael Schumacher be fined for the worry he caused mountain rescue when he fucked up doing his dangerous thing?
Skateboarders are always causing danger to themselves, and distress to others; lock 'em up! Flog 'em!
I'm not sure it's "snowflake bollocks", but I'm not sure it's quite as binary as you make it, either!
There's a spectrum of risk-taking, and a lot of where things lie on the spectrum depends on the expectation of risk. So, to take this thread topic as an example, an urban light rail system isn't intended to be used as a means to jump into water, whereas a ski slope carries with it the expectation that people might get hurt, or need to be rescued.
Another example: people drive cars, and occasionally crash them, resulting in the need for someone to come along and pick up the pieces; but we tend, societally, to take a dim view of people racing on the roads, because that's incurring a level of risk we're not prepared to be set up to deal with.
But I think that, by the time we get to disapproving of people taking what we (and we'll all have our own degree of it) consider to be "unacceptable" risk, it's too late. Most young men don't jump off trains: presumably because, somewhere along the way, they've developed enough awareness to know that, despite peer pressure, or the thrill of taking such a risk, the chances of doing themselves some serious harm aren't worth it. In my experience of working with young people, the ones that engage in the riskiest behaviours are not doing it because they're inherently more prone to enjoying risk than others, but because the way they calculate whether or not to do something is either non-existent, or faulty.
What's more, they often end up as traumatised as anyone else when it goes wrong. Tombstoning has been quite popular in this part of the world, with all its cliffs and deep water. Quite a few young people, especially in the more risk-prone groups, have lost friends or witnessed terrible injuries as a result, and their response is almost invariably "I didn't know". Not "I knew what could happen, but we did it anyway", but complete ignorance of the consequences. And I can't believe that's just an innate failing of those people - I think it's more that they are often prevented from taking any risks when they're younger (and the risks are likely to be far smaller), so they never get to experience that "oh shiiiiiiiit" feeling when something nearly goes wrong. So, by the time they hit adolescence, all fired up with hormones, bravado, and peer pressure, there's nothing in them to tell them "this could be a bad idea".
The answer - or one of the answers - is to let them take controlled risks from an early stage in life, and learn not so much where the edges lie, but that there are edges. Then, the calculation of "what might happen if I do this" gets built into their thinking - or is at least more likely to. They'll still take risks, and sometimes it'll go wrong, but there's a much better chance that they'll do so having weighed up, at least partly, what the consequences might be. Rather than find out traumatically, or too late.
Fine people who take drugs illegally
Yes, if they are jumping off things in public and endangering their lives and others, causing distress etc. Are you saying because I skateboard, I endorse all anti social and dangerous public skating? I jump off things from time to time, that doesn't mean I endorse jumping off moving trains.
Jesus, the hand wringing in this thread has changed my opinion from "that's pretty cool, but they're idiots and they shouldn't have done that" to considering heading up and attempting it myself.
Some kids took a big risk doing a stupid thing - if they hadn't filmed it, it'd just be another incident the police deal with that you'd never know about. I'm not encouraging people to go and do this, but the most interesting things people do to push art and society forward are often outside the law - and you don't get to pick and choose the ones that are acceptable after the fact.
And yeah, traumatising somebody with seeing their first body would never be an ideal outcome, but I'd take that over a sanitised world where everything has a risk assessment first.
(and even so, it looks like these guys had it pretty planned out anyway)
Railway infrastructure isn’t a playground. Anyone remember this story from four years ago?
Dramatic moment woman climbs on top of train before being hit by
Nobody was laughing then. Videos like the ones these pricks produce encourage this kind of behaviour.
Do you really think she set out to do that, encouraged by this kind of thing? I feel like too much yayo and opportunism is a much more likely explanation.
Nobody sees a video like that, where they have their mates filming at the pre-planned jump point, and thinks "hey next time I'm pissed I'll jump on a random train and try that too!"
Is that the woman who hit the overhead catenary and was knocked off the train at Hackney Wick? (the link is broken, but the headline looked familiar).
I always wondered what happened to her in the end - she was taken to hospital alive, but I imagine she must have suffered the most appalling injuries.
If that's the story, this is the link: Dramatic moment woman climbs on top of train before being hit by
The point is how dangerous the railway is before you get to thinking you’re James fucking Bond. And of course japesy videos encourage copycat stunts.
It’s not only the same story but the same source.
It would be interesting to know - if it were even possible - what effect those horrific public safety films about messing around on the railway might have had. I think they might have been a little too traumatic, but did they make kids thing "fuck, no, that's a bit too dangerous", or did they just fuel the desire of some to take the risks anyway?
It's probably too easy just to give a personal view - I'm pretty sure that, had I seen them, it would have scared the shit out of me and made damn sure I never did mess around with substations or railway tracks, but I'm not everybody. I didn't see them as a kid, but I was sufficiently risk-averse to manage not to do any of those really dangerous things anyway.
I did fall out of trees, give myself electric shocks dismantling mains appliances, melt old lead pipes into ingots in the frogs of bricks (and caught a few burns along the way), but maybe it was doing those things that gave me the risk-averseness that kept me off the live rail, etc.
I wonder why they stopped making them. Weren’t they under national ownership when those films were produced?
I thought it probably was - my guess is you copied the Google link to the article, rather than the article link itself. That would have worked on your computer, but probably doesn't on anyone else's . That story prompted me to do a lot of reading around the topic, and from what I could tell, anyone who survived a contact like that was quite likely to lose limbs to burning, or at the very least suffer extensive scarring.
Not only were those two twats on railway infrastructure (itself a dangerous place to be, even if you work there!) they were jumping off into water - ever heard of cold water / sudden immersion shock, which is something the RNLI have been banging a drum about recently - but I doubt they knew exactly what was under the water in their target zone.
So three lots of dangerous activity for the price of one.
The police were laughing and pointing at the wet footprints at one point
I don't think BR made them. Some of the more notable ones were made by British Transport Films, which was a separate body, and I think the Central Office of Information had some commissioning input.
I’m sure all those calling those who object miserable cunts would be perfectly fine if their kids were climbing on and jumping off moving trains.
Incredible they made it out without so much as a scratch then
No-one's called anyone a miserable cunt.
Well as someone who lived right next to a sun station and played in a field with those pylon things (behind a fence with danger just like that public information film with the Frisbee). The temptation to go where we where not supposed to was unbearable, and yes we would get in. That film with the kid getting fried scared the willies out of us, as we thought it could have been us, and we didn't go in again.
One kid still wanted to, but we all said no, and nobody (in my group) ever went in again.
No children died.
Falling from a height
Falling under moving rail traffic
Falling onto electrified tracks
Falling into water
Falling onto concrete
It wouldn’t pass any risk assessment but these turds know best according to some on here.
Separate names with a comma.