|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 21, 2012 12:25:36 GMT
trt/aslefshrugged - if the definition of what is reasonable hasn't moved then frontline staff like the police and railway operating staff will not complain; their judgements will continue to apply to the same context as before. If the definition is perceived (would underline this, but can't) to have moved then we will face extra caution by operating staff. If the definition has actually moved then we are all in the soup... The worst case would be if staff are obligated to deliver absolute safety, although from what trt reports, that fortunately hasn't been the case here.
GH
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2012 13:52:18 GMT
The same standards apply today as when I joined LUL in the late 90s and to the best of my knowledge nothing has changed on other railways in the UK.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Nov 21, 2012 14:09:50 GMT
The same standards apply today as when I joined LUL in the late 90s and to the best of my knowledge nothing has changed on other railways in the UK. Did you join LUL before or after Southall?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2012 14:17:21 GMT
I joined a few months after Southall.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on Nov 21, 2012 14:22:04 GMT
trt/aslefshrugged - if the definition of what is reasonable hasn't moved then frontline staff like the police and railway operating staff will not complain; their judgements will continue to apply to the same context as before. If the definition is perceived (would underline this, but can't) to have moved then we will face extra caution by operating staff. If the definition has actually moved then we are all in the soup... The worst case would be if staff are obligated to deliver absolute safety, although from what trt reports, that fortunately hasn't been the case here. GH "If the definition is perceived (would underline this, but can't)" Surround the text you wish to underline with (u) text (/u) - replacing round brackets with square.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 21, 2012 15:27:34 GMT
I have to agree with ChrisW. I remember reading about the incident at Finchley Road where a Jubilee Line T/op checked his monitor just prior to starting the train (in ATO remember) to see a small child had fallen down between the train and the platform. He left the train and went to help the child - saving her life. Why did the guard not get out of his cab and get the girl away from the train (or onto it/off the station? Why did he allow the train to leave with a person so near a hazard? It's an very sad situation all round, but it could have been avoided. It's easy to criticise the actions of the guard from the comfort of the armchair, however one has to bear in mind the unpredictable behaviour of drunks in general. Notwithstanding the previous incident at Meols when the girl had got off the train, at James Street the guard was confronted with a situation which he had probably encountered many times before - a passenger who has got off a train and is now banging on the window at her mates. With the great benefit of hindsight, starting the train turned out to be a major mistake, however I don't believe the guard should have been punished (as well as vilified by the mother) for that mistake in the way that he has. Perhaps the best outcome that could come from this is for a culture change in the general culture of behaviour on our railways on Friday and Saturday nights. However I don't expect this to happen, as this incident now appears to have been wrapped up in a neat little package blaming the guard, with nothing done to address the underlying causes which led to the guard being placed in that situation. I hope the guard in question appeals. (And it is worth adding, that under the latest procedures used on London Underground, if the in-cab monitors are not working, providing the Train Operator can see the entire platform from his open cab door, he can close the doors and then depart. If, after closing his door, someone leans against the train, the outcome could well be the same as at James Street.) Clearly. if the facts are as stated. the guard is to blame for the fatality. No doubt the CCTV footage is the determining factor in the order of events and probably led the jury to the correct verdict as it must've shown the victim leaning against the train as it departed. As for LU I have no doubt whatsoever that drivers would be convicted or not on the basis of clear CCTV images, modern LU CCTV being well placed to cover the whole platform and record events for evidence except perhaps in the busiest of rush hours when what is occurring at the platform edge may be obscured by the volume of passengers. Drunks are a headache and a nuisance as are drug addicts and it is true that in today's PC world it is all too easy to blame others for one's own lack of care. Personally my view is that the guard was rightly convicted but it is also true that he made himself liable even though he was not the cause of the incapable state of the victim or the initial circumstances. However, there are others who should also be facing prosecution and perhaps it is not only those who fed the poor unfortunate underage victim the drugs and the alcohol, some responsibility must also be borne by her parents.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 21, 2012 15:37:11 GMT
However, there are others who should also be facing prosecution and perhaps it is not only those who fed the poor unfortunate underage victim the drugs and the alcohol, some responsibility must also be borne by her parents. I'm sorry to say that her parents have paid a price far greater than the courts could ever dish out.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Nov 22, 2012 9:48:37 GMT
Although I do agree that the young lady should never have been in the state she was - and that more needs to be done to stop people thinking it's acceptable to act as she did - the guard ultimately failed in his duties.
It is noticable how quiet the unions are on this. The railway unions will call a strike if the biscuits in the tea room are changed, so it might be implied that they quietly agree with the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 22, 2012 12:40:38 GMT
@tomcakes - I think this answers my initial question as to whether the judgement will change matters - presumably not.
GH
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 22, 2012 12:44:02 GMT
it might be implied that they quietly agree with the verdict. perhaps because, if you support the contention that the guard couldn't have prevented the accident, that would undermine the argument for having guards at all. On the sentencing, there are parallels with this incident www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-19935644and this one news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7037186.stm(I do not know the outcoem of any legal proceedings in the latter case) Some of the scenarios suggested above would probably be much less likely to result in charges - people making a dash for the train, or leaning on the train after the doors close, etc. But in this case she was, according to the CCTV, already leaning on the train before the guard gave the starting signal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2012 17:20:30 GMT
I am currently in San Francisco and witnessed a near accident on the F line on Monday evening . A cyclist with no lights decided to undertake an F car trolley as it started off near pier 39 at this point the track has kink in it so that the tram moves nearing to the curb. The driver rang the bell and did an emergency stop. So if the trolley had it the cyclist I assume it would be the operators fault under UK law at least!
We have removed personal responsibility in the UK and have lawyer based blame culture I really hate the UK now and wish I did not have to return to a country where feckless morons rule!
XF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2012 17:21:28 GMT
I’ve just spotted this thread and some of the comments are stunning. The state of the victim is irrelevant; the same principles apply as down here on the Tube, if it isn’t safe to move the train then the train doesn’t move. We inform whoever we need to inform and go sort out the problem, safety is always, always the number one consideration. If we don’t we all know that something like this can happen and in a worst case scenario we could end up getting our collars felt by BTP. The jury brought a unanimous verdict, according to the sentencing guidelines the maximum penalty for manslaughter by gross negligence is life so it would seem that the judge was quite lenient. The safety of passengers was his responsibility, he didn't do his job and now he's suffering the consequences. Yet another thing that those who've never worked on the railway fail to understand. Quite honestly I find your comments astounding. What is it exactly that you're suggesting those who've never worked on the railway don't understand?
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 22, 2012 17:30:09 GMT
I am currently in San Francisco and witnessed a near accident on the F line on Monday evening . A cyclist with no lights decided to undertake an F car trolley as it started off near pier 39 at this point the track has kink in it so that the tram moves nearing to the curb. The driver rang the bell and did an emergency stop. So if the trolley had it the cyclist I assume it would be the operators fault under UK law at least! We have removed personal responsibility in the UK and have lawyer based blame culture I really hate the UK now and wish I did not have to return to a country where feckless morons rule! XF That is not comparable at all, XF. If the driver had seen the cyclist and decided not to stop then yes, they would be liable and rightly so. It is not a matter of removing personal responsibility - the driver of the tram and the guard in this case under discussion here both have overriding and personal responsibilities to the safety of public and passengers alike. If the driver of the tram didn't stop then THEY would be the "feckless moron"! This case is not a nanny state case at all, and I cannot see why people are confusing it with one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2012 20:59:22 GMT
I am currently in San Francisco and witnessed a near accident on the F line on Monday evening . A cyclist with no lights decided to undertake an F car trolley as it started off near pier 39 at this point the track has kink in it so that the tram moves nearing to the curb. The driver rang the bell and did an emergency stop. So if the trolley had it the cyclist I assume it would be the operators fault under UK law at least! We have removed personal responsibility in the UK and have lawyer based blame culture I really hate the UK now and wish I did not have to return to a country where feckless morons rule! XF That is not comparable at all, XF. If the driver had seen the cyclist and decided not to stop then yes, they would be liable and rightly so. It is not a matter of removing personal responsibility - the driver of the tram and the guard in this case under discussion here both have overriding and personal responsibilities to the safety of public and passengers alike. If the driver of the tram didn't stop then THEY would be the "feckless moron"! This case is not a nanny state case at all, and I cannot see why people are confusing it with one. I disagree and cyclists are a good example of a significant change in the culture of blame in the UK. If you are a motorist and have an accident involving a bike you as the motorist are to blame. It does not matter if the cyclist did not have lights and jumped the lights it would be assumed that the driver had seen the cyclist and had failed to stop. in the the case in Merseyside it is assumed that the guard saw the girl and what is the point of jailing him he is not a danger to society after all suspected terrorists roam the streets of London because of their human rights. XF
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 22, 2012 21:30:23 GMT
I disagree and cyclists are a good example of a significant change in the culture of blame in the UK. If you are a motorist and have an accident involving a bike you as the motorist are to blame. It does not matter if the cyclist did not have lights and jumped the lights it would be assumed that the driver had seen the cyclist and had failed to stop. Prove it. Go on. And I bet you can't because that is a fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 22, 2012 21:41:16 GMT
That is not comparable at all, XF. If the driver had seen the cyclist and decided not to stop then yes, they would be liable and rightly so. It is not a matter of removing personal responsibility - the driver of the tram and the guard in this case under discussion here both have overriding and personal responsibilities to the safety of public and passengers alike. If the driver of the tram didn't stop then THEY would be the "feckless moron"! This case is not a nanny state case at all, and I cannot see why people are confusing it with one. I disagree and cyclists are a good example of a significant change in the culture of blame in the UK. If you are a motorist and have an accident involving a bike you as the motorist are to blame. It does not matter if the cyclist did not have lights and jumped the lights it would be assumed that the driver had seen the cyclist and had failed to stop. Why do you think this is the case? If the cyclist is doing such dangerous things as overtaking on the inside, riding in the motorist's blind spot, riding without lights or jumping the lights, then the cyclist is mostly to blame. Sure there will be cases which are not clear cut, but the Highway Code is quite clear what both parties should be doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2012 22:04:27 GMT
Why do you think this is the case? If the cyclist is doing such dangerous things as overtaking on the inside, riding in the motorist's blind spot, riding without lights or jumping the lights, then the cyclist is mostly to blame. Sure there will be cases which are not clear cut, but the Highway Code is quite clear what both parties should be doing. I agree with your reasoning however there are countless cases of cyclists coming up on the inside of a vehicle and getting injured or worse and the car/ van/coach driver getting prosecuted. When I took my cycling proficiency test all those years ago it was a drilled into you that a the near side of a car/van/bus was a blind spot and not to get in the position on your bike. XF
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 22, 2012 22:35:14 GMT
I agree with your reasoning however there are countless cases of cyclists coming up on the inside of a vehicle and getting injured or worse and the car/ van/coach driver getting prosecuted. Depends on the circumstances - I was on a Boris Bike last night and stopped behind a bus waiting, and indicating, to turn left at some traffic lights - there was not enough space to go up its inside even if I had thought it safe to do so - nor up the outside. White van and car then stopped behind. Lights changed - bus moved off, I followed, going straight on. Both the van and the car turned left across me, the car almost clipping me. Had I ended up udner the bus, that would have been my fault. had the car hit me, that surely would have been his.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 22, 2012 22:39:27 GMT
Calm down, calm down.
OK, my scouse isn't as good as londonstuff's.
This is "District Dave's London Underground Forum", can we please bring the relevance back to railways or better still the UndergrounD.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 22, 2012 22:53:29 GMT
In this case, the charges were criminal negligence, with an associated increase in burden of proof and robustness of evidence required. In a civil case, such as suing a motorist who has caused an injury to a cyclist, the burden of proof is less, but fault or blame is partitioned to all parties and then weighted according to the destructive disparities of the parties. What this means is that a car driver, or, indeed, a train driver, being in charge of a vehicle where any fault has the potential to cause proportionally greater damage, is expected to exercise proportionally more care. Another two phrases to look out for are causative potency and relative blameworthiness. In other words, whose actions contributed most to the incident and how much did those actions relatively contribute to the outcome.
EDIT after rincew1nd's post. The relevance to railway matters is that transport staff MUST understand that the potential outcomes of their actions, if at fault, are magnified many hundred-fold. I believe that most rail-staff are acutely aware of this, and I'm interested in hearing if, how and why they may feel under pressure to make decisions which, in their opinion, reduce the margin of safety in favour of operational matters (efficiency).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 2:36:28 GMT
The political and legal landscape has changed a lot over the last 20 years or so and this relevant to railways. It was never my intention to end end up with a bike/motorist thread as it is always a heated debate but rather to use the bike/trolley an area when a member or the transport staff could potentially find themselves in a similar situation to this specific tragic incident.
XF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 22:12:26 GMT
It is a factor certainly, but the fact he gave the signal to the driver that it was safe to depart knowing she was drunk and using the side of the train to balance herself outweighs everything else. Agree, the guard should not of given the signal to the driver to depart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 22:52:26 GMT
I think the issue with cyclists on the near side is irrelevant to this issue, mainly because the guard DID see the woman against the train and then gave the signal to the driver to depart, meaning it is safe to do.
At the end of the day, this is a terrible accident on both sides. Yes, the woman was drunk and under the influence of drugs, but, the guard did not know this - she could have been sober and if you see someone leaning against a train, do you then give the all clear signal and tell the driver it is safe to proceed?
I think the problem here is that this guard saw this woman, leaning on the train and assumed as the train began to move away, she would stop leaning and stand away from the train.
What beggers belief however is; if she missed her stop and was leaning against the train as it was departing - what were her friends doing while all this was going on? Did none of them notice her getting off and think to sound the alarm as she became caught between the train and the platform? Did none of them think to alert her to the fact this is not her stop and tell her to reboard while the train was stationary for 2 minutes?
I think blame ultimately rests on both sides - the guard should not have given the all clear just as she should not have gotten her self in such a state she could not look after herself.
My thoughts rest with her family.
Toby.
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Nov 23, 2012 23:15:57 GMT
My thoughts rest with her family. Toby. I won't go into full details my views on this subject but it's interesting that there seems to have been no note of contrition from the girl's parents. They've blamed the guard but it appears they haven't looked at themselves: where were they that night while their sixteen year old daughter was literally off her face miles from home? At some point people themselves must realise that being so totally out of control is going to lead to catastrophic results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 23:45:29 GMT
For my two penneth; I also find this case as setting a very worrying and inappropriate precedent! I also hope an appeal will be lodged and successful. I suspect a few contributors have no idea just how frequent someone leaning on the side of a train is, it is a DAILY occurrence, at the front the view of whats going on is limited. These people are sometimes "kissing" or talking to people in the train, often they are trying to intimidate the driver into reopening the doors. However one thing they have, hitherto, had in common is they move away from the train when it pulls off! However with a waffer thin view of the train side, even a small movement can mean the view of what they were doing is lost. It seems the general view at work has been that they shouldn't be there and in doing so accept the risks associated with their actions! What now: frankly I fear we must simply wait until the persons decide to move away from the train. Do we go back and see what is going on??? Well we know very well what happened when one of our own consultant's here did that at Barking! I fear this court judgement has put all railway staff in a difficult position until it is overturned. ASLEF, presumably appreciating the difficulties all round has issued a notice to us stating they are seeking advice before issuing guidance to members. Meanwhile the message seems to be get drunk and absolve your self of responsibility for your own actions!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2012 7:16:19 GMT
For my two penneth; I also find this case as setting a very worrying and inappropriate precedent! I also hope an appeal will be lodged and successful. I suspect a few contributors have no idea just how frequent someone leaning on the side of a train is, it is a DAILY occurrence, at the front the view of whats going on is limited. These people are sometimes "kissing" or talking to people in the train, often they are trying to intimidate the driver into reopening the doors. However one thing they have, hitherto, had in common is they move away from the train when it pulls off! However with a waffer thin view of the train side, even a small movement can mean the view of what they were doing is lost. It seems the general view at work has been that they shouldn't be there and in doing so accept the risks associated with their actions! What now: frankly I fear we must simply wait until the persons decide to move away from the train. Do we go back and see what is going on??? Well we know very well what happened when one of our own consultant's here did that at Barking! I fear this court judgement has put all railway staff in a difficult position until it is overturned. ASLEF, presumably appreciating the difficulties all round has issued a notice to us stating they are seeking advice before issuing guidance to members. Meanwhile the message seems to be get drunk and absolve your self of responsibility for your own actions! We'll said that man I thought I was in a parallel universe until i read your post! XF
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on Nov 24, 2012 7:37:59 GMT
We'll said that man I thought I was in a parallel universe until i read your post! I made some very similar points in my post at the top of page 2 but they were completely ignored. I have seen people literally holding each other through the windows on slam door stock as the train pulls away. What no one seems to have noticed or articulated was that this was a freak accident. You simply would not expect someone to come to harm in that way. The platform appeared to be dead straight so there should not have been much of a gap. I have a strong suspicion that, in reality, there must have been hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of occasions when a train has started moving whilst someone outside is touching it. I have certainly had the experience of a train starting to move whilst I was still getting on. As I said in my earlier post, how long before some group realises that they can seriously disrupt the rush hour simply by having people stand against trains that are waiting to depart?
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 24, 2012 7:54:31 GMT
I think the issue with cyclists on the near side is irrelevant to this issue, mainly because the guard DID see the woman against the train and then gave the signal to the driver to depart, meaning it is safe to do. At the end of the day, this is a terrible accident on both sides. Yes, the woman was drunk and under the influence of drugs, but, the guard did not know this - she could have been sober and if you see someone leaning against a train, do you then give the all clear signal and tell the driver it is safe to proceed? I think the problem here is that this guard saw this woman, leaning on the train and assumed as the train began to move away, she would stop leaning and stand away from the train. What beggers belief however is; if she missed her stop and was leaning against the train as it was departing - what were her friends doing while all this was going on? Did none of them notice her getting off and think to sound the alarm as she became caught between the train and the platform? Did none of them think to alert her to the fact this is not her stop and tell her to reboard while the train was stationary for 2 minutes? I think blame ultimately rests on both sides - the guard should not have given the all clear just as she should not have gotten her self in such a state she could not look after herself. My thoughts rest with her family. Toby. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, let's ditch the smoke and mirrors and see the reality. One can argue until the cows come home about the factors that led to a stoned teenager being where she was. Her friends were probably stoned too but whether they were or were not is irrelevant to the cause of the fatality. The bottom line quite simply is that it was up to the guard to ensure that passengers remaining on the platform were standing clear before giving the signal to the driver to move and she wasn't. The question is whether this was a simple misjudgement or a clear case of negligence. The reported evidence says the latter but even if it was not the guard is still to blame. His defence hung upon alleging that she was not leaning on the train when he gave the signal to depart and the CCTV proved it not to be so. At the end of the day the guard was responsible for the safety of the passengers and failed in his duty. Now there may be all sorts of excuses for wanting to get the train away, we'll never know. However, put yourself in his shoes and think of the responsibilities, would it ever be worth not taking an extra few seconds to keep passengers safe. What is a life worth? IMHO that's rather subjective and can have many answers but in the scenario in question, why chance one's livelihood and liberty on keeping the service on time, which can be the only possible reason for the guard's action if it was not wilfulness, incompetence or negligence. Perhaps there is something to smoke and mirrors after all, what pressures perhaps had the management placed upon the guard's shoulders other than those written into his job description.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on Nov 24, 2012 8:26:09 GMT
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, let's ditch the smoke and mirrors and see the reality. One can argue until the cows come home about the factors that led to a stoned teenager being where she was. Her friends were probably stoned too but whether they were or were not is irrelevant to the cause of the fatality. The bottom line quite simply is that it was up to the guard to ensure that passengers remaining on the platform were standing clear before giving the signal to the driver to move and she wasn't. The question is whether this was a simple misjudgement or a clear case of negligence. The reported evidence says the latter but even if it was not the guard is still to blame. His defence hung upon alleging that she was not leaning on the train when he gave the signal to depart and the CCTV proved it not to be so. At the end of the day the guard was responsible for the safety of the passengers and failed in his duty. Now there may be all sorts of excuses for wanting to get the train away, we'll never know. However, put yourself in his shoes and think of the responsibilities, would it ever be worth not taking an extra few seconds to keep passengers safe. What is a life worth? IMHO that's rather subjective and can have many answers but in the scenario in question, why chance one's livelihood and liberty on keeping the service on time, which can be the only possible reason for the guard's action if it was not wilfulness, incompetence or negligence. Perhaps there is something to smoke and mirrors after all, what pressures perhaps had the management placed upon the guard's shoulders other than those written into his job description. You've once again completely ignored what have to be three of the fundamental issues of this case: 1) There is nothing in the least unusual about a train departing when people are touching it - or, in the days of slam door stock, in contact with people in it. 2) If a train cannot depart because someone is touching it (or so close that the guard will not take the risk that they may touch it as it starts to depart) then it is only a matter of time before some action group cottons on to a way to completely disrupt the rail service. 3) This was a completely freak accident. People used to stand against the doors of departing trains all the time (and I've seen people with their faces pressed against the window as a train with their g/f or b/f departs), without anyone coming to grief. This seems to be the elephant in the room as far as this forum is concerned. No one else seems prepared to say that this sort of thing happens all the time. Then there is a freak accident and the unfortunate guard who happened to be involved gets a long prison sentence.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Nov 24, 2012 8:54:50 GMT
For my two penneth; I also find this case as setting a very worrying and inappropriate precedent! I also hope an appeal will be lodged and successful. I suspect a few contributors have no idea just how frequent someone leaning on the side of a train is, it is a DAILY occurrence, at the front the view of whats going on is limited. These people are sometimes "kissing" or talking to people in the train, often they are trying to intimidate the driver into reopening the doors. However one thing they have, hitherto, had in common is they move away from the train when it pulls off! However with a waffer thin view of the train side, even a small movement can mean the view of what they were doing is lost. It seems the general view at work has been that they shouldn't be there and in doing so accept the risks associated with their actions! What now: frankly I fear we must simply wait until the persons decide to move away from the train. Do we go back and see what is going on??? Well we know very well what happened when one of our own consultant's here did that at Barking! I fear this court judgement has put all railway staff in a difficult position until it is overturned. ASLEF, presumably appreciating the difficulties all round has issued a notice to us stating they are seeking advice before issuing guidance to members. Meanwhile the message seems to be get drunk and absolve your self of responsibility for your own actions! Very valid comment, people don't take enough care of themselves these days, a result of the 'soft' approach to life fostered in our politically correct H&S conscious society by an overprotective generation in the last decade or so. Drunks have been around ever since alcohol was discovered and existed on the Underground long before I began my LT career. I saw plenty of drunken tomfoolery in my many years on nightshift, idiots playing 'chicken' at Whitechapel running across the tracks between the platforms while awaiting last trains and others pushing each other around on the end of a Northern platform at Moorgate until one fell onto the track as the last train was approaching. For that kind of behaviour idiots deserve what they get because they should expect to come to some harm. I was also around when fatalities occurred to the alcoholically impaired, one was due to a fall down the stairs at Blackfriars. For the former I'm afraid I have always had a can't care, won't care attitude to such wilful disrespect for danger in terms of the outcome for the participants, particularly as the drivers especially are traumatised by such events whether accidental or deliberate. For the latter, accidents can and do happen and that's what the mitigation of risk is there to prevent. While drunkenness is not to be condoned there is no doubt that most of us have been there at least once and done something stupid as a result in our lives but that should not normally result in death and rarely does because inherent commonsense saves us from ourselves. For those times when that is not enough we have to relay upon safety systems to prevent avoidable accidents and have enough commonsense to trust and defer to them eg waiting for the green man at a Pelican crossing, taking a cab home from the pub instead of staggering along unlit country roads at midnight in a dark suit, or relying upon LU staff and safety systems to get us from A to B safely. Having been in cab myself on many occasions on late turn I wouldn't be a driver for all the money in the world, it can be a thankless task especially when having to detrain the passengers because the train has become defective. Even as an observer one could feel one's blood pressure increasing on approaches to crowded platforms with so many people so close to the platform edge. I have to say for those that have never experienced it, I would rather be in a tube tunnel dealing with signal failures with trains approaching at full speed, as I sometimes was, than being a driver at any time of day because on the balance of probability the odds against having a nasty incident are so much better! For my ten penn'orth the answer is to put staff back on the platforms unless or until all platforms are gated, this is long overdue and one part of the system where safety has been long overlooked. PEDs are not the answer, being expensive and complicated to introduce but simple three foot high gated barriers 600mm from the platform edge would be affordable and installable without disruption to service. They don't have to be overcomplicated masterpieces of engineering design, they simply have to be fit for purpose and functional. One can't help but think how useful all the door motors of the recently scrapped stocks might be now! Once gates are fitted I wouldn't have any concerns at all about idiots vaulting them, on their own head be it, it is the sort of thing that should be enshrined in law rather than protecting the wilful against themselves. As I was a one time installer of LU CCTV systems I know their limitations, with the best will in the world they will never be more than an excellent aid to crowd control and have to be supplemented by other safety systems. In the past the 'other' safety systems were the station staff but though they have been disappearing off stations for decades now they have not been effectively replaced by anything else.
|
|