DANGER on railways. How depressing to read the above on your outside-of-shops headlines only to find the story on about page five.

And was it about railway safety? No, instead it was about railway fences and the underlying message that our society now demands that "it's always somebody else's job to protect the individual from themselves".

The lady from Wootton Bassett appears typical in commenting that the 'railway' should do more to keep children (and one supposes especially her own) off the lines, at no direct cost to her or her community, and to therefore reduce any effort needed personally from her.

Why must we demand the nanny state like this when it suits, then despise it when it doesn't suit us (eg road speed cameras)? This country is perhaps the only one world wide that has saddled itself with the exorbitant cost of fencing its railways. Are we surely so uncivilised and stupid that we consider our own people unable to do this for themselves and their families. Taking our own responsibility for educating ourselves and our children about harm and the application of sensible controls, then supervising the younger or less public spirited, is what being a family is.

The truth is that the near impossible task of keeping the mindless vandal and trespasser off the line comes at an extremely high cost, paid for only by the tax payer and the fare paying public, and therefore increases overall costs such that users are encouraged onto the much less safe roadways.

While the photo of the child, carrying teddy bear was unnecessarily emotive, it did serve as a great graphical criticism of thoughtless rail staff leaving a gate open, but such an aged child should not be wandering and allowed near such danger. It should not be acceptable to expect society to do this job, you should know where your children are, especially when that young.

The time has come to allow providers of public services only to have to prevent danger in reasonable ways, not being required to go out of their way to disproportionately stop the idiot who climbs into a lion's den.

The legal system should not then appear to accept that the idiot should be able to claim afterwards that the lion should have had all its teeth removed, and claim compensation. The railway is dangerous, but it is for each of us to take the primary role in preventing unwarranted access, with the transport provider only having to sensibly mark the boundary.

G Christmas

Greywethers Avenue

Swindon