What should we do

If as I suspect it's an established right of way then I question how the railway is allowed to get away with not building a proper crossing. Just closing it is too easy an option for them to have.

Tempting as it is to just say the idiots should just let themselves get splatted and Darwinism will improve the species, these accidents are devastating for the train drivers some of who never work again. More cameras, more identification and proper penalties for those being stupid.

The problem is that you'd have to build so many bridges for long lines it'd be economically unviable, there must be a cheaper/easier way to promote safety. I'm sure you can make level crossings a little safer without having to build an entire bridge

Are you also open for me to take cheap shots at you, or is that not proper? 

Build a bridge with public money.

I think dappy's is a fair question, and if it isn't we can put that down to him still being a bit on edge having survived the Plymouth riots last night.

The level crossing provides a pathway, there's no toll (that we know of) for using it, and you can weigh the risks versus the convenience. If there's demand for a covered walkway that provides you with a complimentary coffee and piped music, then a private contractor can build it and sell tickets for its use.

Leisure facilities that could benefit from a fire extinguisher, to many of us might imply a facility that you have to pay to use. It's almost always better to include the cost of provision of fire extinguishers within the entrance fee. Given the bulkiness and heaviness of carting around a fire-extinguisher, customers (with a concern over fire) would soon indicate their willingness to have that safety option provided at a nominal extra cost.

The real losers will be those who want to pay less in return for having fewer safety facilities. The same with the crossing, those who want to rely on their own common sense and sensible precautions when using the crossing, may compulsorily have to pay more Council Tax to have an all singing all dancing Nanny State facility built by the local authority.

As I recall there are quite a few “walkway” crossings of railways in Cambridge area - perhaps because of the generally flat land.

If we are going to look at this seriously, the “cross at your own risk” sign may be adequate warning for adults but perhaps less so for kids.

The answer here then is a risk assessment - is there a materially increased risk from Zany’s quieter trains, what are sight lines like - plainly a long straight track is likely to be safer than a crossing just after a bend, what speed do trains on this track do. Once risk is assessed balance that against benefit - if say there is a bridge 100 yards up the line then there would be less need than if there was no alternative crossing and what is on each side of the track.

As always with H&S, it is bloody obvious that the crossing in use without incident by the local community for fifty years should be left in place until of course the tragic incident when two kids are mown down by an express at which point it is bloody obvious it should have been closed years ago.