|
|
Post by q8 on Jul 9, 2005 18:27:51 GMT
The Rail unions have called on the Government to increase security on the capitals transport system.
What do YOU consider the thing most important thing to do to achieve this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2005 18:37:42 GMT
platform staff
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jul 9, 2005 18:39:31 GMT
I voted for CCTV, but I think guards would be a great help too. What if they could monitor the CCTV from their position on the train? Wouldn't that be a good idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jul 9, 2005 18:45:46 GMT
Ideally every passenger would be strip searched! Obviously that woud be time consuming, costly and somewhat absurd. CCTV in carrigaes would be good, but who's going to watch every trains individual carriage for the hundred on the network. Gaurds would help with petty things like vandalism and fare evaders. Platform staff sound good, but they may just be standing around being seen. From a business point of view thats not econmic. General surveillance is not bad. Can't do an awful lot to stop a security risk in the process.
I think every passenger and member of staff should be responsible for each other, keeping an eye open for anything out of the ordinary. The body scanners they are introducing at the stations may work. It's a sad thought that innocent people can't go to work and school without risk of death.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jul 9, 2005 18:49:38 GMT
Regular station closures and service suspensions which 9 times out of 10 result in someone's sandwiches being found shows we are in no way "un-secure." We have acted on everyone's vigilance as far as possible, so that should anything be found, people are moved away from it.
Whatever caused the bombs to not be noticed will no doubt be revealed as the days and weeks progress, but in the current climate, you would imagine they were pretty well hidden for them not to be noticed. A loose empty plastic bag has been enough in recent years to trigger a security alert.
I don't think there is any more that can be done. Would a guard or conductor really have noticed any more than the passengers? Do we begin to search every passenger that enters the city. Much as we have been the target this week, should this prove to be the start of a campaign, next week it could be my local shop, or cinema, or anywhere. Everyone was far from complacent before the attack, and it is certain that everyone will be even more on alert now.
Regrettably, the people behind these attacks will always find a way around any increased security, while the rest of us lead increasingly restricted lives through that same security. I am sure the unions had their reasons in calling on the government, but I would like to hear their own honest and realistic proposals to prevent what every citizen in this land has been trying to prevent anyway.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jul 9, 2005 18:50:04 GMT
Platform staff will not stop travellers leaving things on trains, nor will guards without CCTV. Even CCTV has previously only helped AFTER the event, but if monitored (such as by guards mentioned above) might help. I voted for CCTV but the best deterrent is vigilance by the public (as said many times before).
|
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jul 9, 2005 19:03:05 GMT
CCTV was installed in all the trains on the Newcastle Metro a few years back. As well as making passengers feel safer, there has been a marked reduction in vandalism and other petty crimes committed on trains, mostly by the local youth.
The main problem with CCTV is that it tends to be at a fixed position, and will be rendered pretty much useless (especially in tube stock) as soon as passengers start having to stand, blocking the camera's view of the rest of the carriage.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Jul 9, 2005 19:16:24 GMT
What will any of this achieve Q8?
Don't get me wrong, I can see why you are asking - but all of your options are only any good after the event. All the 'experts' and authority type people have admitted that our only prevention measure is inteligence. At 8.50 in the morning there were so many people on the trains that no bag would have looked unattended.
You can only be so vigilant.
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jul 9, 2005 19:21:31 GMT
The main problem with CCTV is that it tends to be at a fixed position, and will be rendered pretty much useless (especially in tube stock) as soon as passengers start having to stand, blocking the camera's view of the rest of the carriage. If you had a guard on board, you could give him/her some means of moving the camera remotely, a bit like at the security desk of a large office building etc. The other benefit of giving guards the ability to watch CCTV live, is that he/she could just keep the doors shut at the next station and wait for the BTP to arrive if something happens. That way, the guards wouldn't be at any risk of attack (unless the criminal works out what has happened). |
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jul 9, 2005 19:42:21 GMT
The cameras I referred to in Newcastle are mounted almost at ceiling height on the back of the driver's cab (every metrocar has a cab at each end), and can see the whole carriage. This only works because the ceiling is high enough that the camera can see over the passengers' heads.
On tube stock it is likely that standing passengers will get in the way of any camera which was mounted on a side wall. This leaves the ceiling. Cameras which are designed to be attached to ceilings exist, but again they rely on height to give them a reasonable field of view.
With regard to alerting the BTP, would creating a fake [insert reason for underground delay] until the BTP were waiting on the platform not be more effective (and arouse less suspicion) than imprisoning the passengers in a train at a station?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2005 19:47:13 GMT
In light of recent events, I think it might be wise if staff were careful with internal documents about thier possession. Only today, when walking through the train at a terminal station, I came across such an internal document. I'm not going to say what this related to, but ANYONE can pick up such documentation. I don't want to cause offence to anyone, but would just like to remind staff, NOT to leave such sensitive information casually lying about in public areas.
Many Thanks to everyone. Remember - be safe, be aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by banana on Jul 9, 2005 19:50:35 GMT
1, Intelligence by our security services
2. Intelligence by the people of London
3. Being unashamed to ask "who;s bag is this?"
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jul 9, 2005 19:52:08 GMT
With regard to alerting the BTP, would creating a fake [insert reason for underground delay] until the BTP were waiting on the platform not be more effective (and arouse less suspicion) than imprisoning the passengers in a train at a station? I've been on a train on which the 'imprisoning' method was used, and it was very effective. A thug robbed an old lady's bag, someone alerted the driver, who then called the police. The thug was arrested, and the old lady got here bag back - it couldn't have worked better. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowsignal on Jul 9, 2005 19:54:03 GMT
I also chose CCTV in trains. It probably won't stop suicide bombers, but it will deter other forms of terrorism, crime and vandalism because people have a good chance of getting caught after the event.
|
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jul 9, 2005 20:01:48 GMT
I suppose that LU doesn't have big, obvious emergency door release handles that the Metro does, which would be the obvious means of escape in such a situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jul 9, 2005 21:06:23 GMT
I suppose that LU doesn't have big, obvious emergency door release handles that the Metro does, which would be the obvious means of escape in such a situation. It is possible to open the doors from inside the car, but for security reasons I am not willing to disclose how it is done. I will say, however, that it is not possible for a 'regular' passenger to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by tom2506 on Jul 9, 2005 21:16:38 GMT
If an inprisonment emergency procedure was to be brought in then they would probobly have to change that door open procedure.
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jul 9, 2005 21:24:39 GMT
If an inprisonment emergency procedure was to be brought in then they would probobly have to change that door open procedure. Not really, as that would defeat the purpose of 'imprisoning' an offender  . |
|
|
|
Post by tom2506 on Jul 9, 2005 21:27:35 GMT
I mean make the doors more difficult to open from inside the car!
|
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jul 9, 2005 21:50:27 GMT
The handles I refer to are explicitly designed for passanger use in the event of an emergency. They have full instructions printed on them, as do the doors. I believe the logic behind them is that they allow passengers to detrain themselves if e.g. a fire breaks out in a tunnel and the driver is incapacitated for some reason.
As the tunnels are main line gague, have overhead power lines and an emergency walkway along their whole length this is safer than it would be on other systems such as LU.
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jul 9, 2005 22:01:01 GMT
I mean make the doors more difficult to open from inside the car! I can assure you, you couldn't make it any more difficult. Trust me on that one. The handles I refer to are explicitly designed for passanger use in the event of an emergency. They have full instructions printed on them, as do the doors. I believe the logic behind them is that they allow passengers to detrain themselves if e.g. a fire breaks out in a tunnel and the driver is incapacitated for some reason. Nope, LU trains have no such feature. It would be far too dangerous in the deep tubes. As the tunnels are main line gague, have overhead power lines and an emergency walkway along their whole length this is safer than it would be on other systems such as LU. That's another important factor. In the deep tubes, it is not possible to detrain from the saloon doors as there is not enough room. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jul 10, 2005 3:08:20 GMT
What will any of this achieve Q8?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not saying it will achieve anything Colin. It's just that I wanted to see if the other's on the forum had any fixed preference regarding security. As compscii says the Metro here have video camers installed and so do a lot of the bus'es. It is my prefered method to although I have not yet voted on the issue. If the camera's inside the cars could be of the small "bubble" type we see on our local bus'es they will be ceiling mounted and above the heads of the folk in the car.
The recorder for each camera could be DVD type installed in a cabinet at the car end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Jul 10, 2005 4:52:08 GMT
the whole reason why passengers cant get out the saloon doors is there isnt room as pointed out above! imagine the havoc kids would wreak if we put emergency handles in!! we should have a guard on every train anyway, to operate the doors! driving takes up enough concentration without them now making us do 2 jobs. drivers might object to cctv as theyd get caught having a crafty fag in the sidings! i don't think you can make it safe. we just have to be as vigilant as possible...
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Jul 10, 2005 12:26:20 GMT
I take your point Q8.
I would actually say 'all of the above' to your original question. If nothing else, at least CCTV would provide evidence to prosecute the evil bast**ds that carry out these horrific atrocities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2005 13:44:50 GMT
Just as a side issue, I've found a website located in the states. Bruce Schneier is a security professional and has some interesting comments on security in general - from computer data to aircraft and airport protection. Just thought I'd post the link in case anyone was interested - whether you agree with him or not, it does give plenty of food for thought. www.schneier.com/blog/ |
|
.
