|
|
Post by nickf on Sept 1, 2018 8:26:09 GMT
I had one of the early Sony portable CD players and to avoid it being stolen from my parked car I took it into the West Country pub I was honouring with my presence. It was spotted by a local and I was persuaded to give a demonstration. It was as if I had brought in the Ark of the Covenant: eyes widened with surprise, then narrowed with distrust; this was clearly the Devil's work. The pub went quiet, I finished my pint quickly and departed. They don't care for strangers around those parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Sept 1, 2018 8:55:00 GMT
I had one of the early Sony portable CD players and to avoid it being stolen from my parked car I took it into the West Country pub I was honouring with my presence. It was spotted by a local and I was persuaded to give a demonstration. It was as if I had brought in the Ark of the Covenant: eyes widened with surprise, then narrowed with distrust; this was clearly the Devil's work. The pub went quiet, I finished my pint quickly and departed. They don't care for strangers around those parts. Welcome to the Twilight Zone  |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Sept 1, 2018 12:36:09 GMT
Sounds like little Britain to me.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 25, 2018 14:42:04 GMT
For those thinking that technology alone is the answer to stopping trap and drag incidents, the RAIB are now investigating one that happened at Elsetree and Borehamwood station involving a Class 700. www.gov.uk/government/news/train-door-accident-at-elstree-borehamwood-stationThe Class 700 doors feature a modern sensitive edge system. The passenger does not appear (from the information above) to have been deliberately obstructing the doors. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 25, 2018 23:58:48 GMT
Under TfL's Conditions of Carriage passengers are only allowed as much luggage as they can carry up a flight of stairs, I'm not sure what the restrictions are on the TOC'S but an undpecified amount of luggage, a dog and a walking frame sounds like more than the passenger could manage on their own.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 26, 2018 9:52:16 GMT
It seems unlikely that this person was using stairs (the station has lifts), but even if she was there can be a big difference between a flight of stairs and a large step to a train. There are a great many people travelling every day on the tube who have large cases that they cannot manage on stairs but are perfectly able to safely navigate the system with using lifts. Some of these people need to take themselves and their case on or off a train in separate movements when there is a large step - I've never used Elsetree & Borehamwood station but this photo suggests there is quite a large gap. In my present condition I would likely have to put any hand luggage down on the train first so I could use the handle to get up the step (even a bag of shopping). It would not cross my mind that this indicated I could not manage that luggage on my own. However even if the passenger had more luggage than they could safely manage alone, all this means is that at worst the train should have left with her luggage but not her or her dog. While getting something trapped in the doors is on some occasions the fault of a passenger, a drag cannot be anything other than the fault of the railway and I'm sorry, but your post reads to me like an attempt to find some reason blame the passenger. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 26, 2018 12:47:01 GMT
Whether the journey actually involves stairs or escalators is irrelevant, the idea is that passengers shouldn't travelling on the Tube with excessive amounts of luggage, the idea being if a passenger can't carry all their luggage at the same time its too much. It's a passenger service not freight.
Section 23 of the Network Rail Conditions of Travel states "Taking luggage and other articles with you on your journey" states "23.1 You may take up to three items of luggage into the passenger accommodation of a train." The section "Luggage & animals" on the National Rail website says that "Customers may take up to three items of personal luggage free of charge, this includes two large items (such as suitcases or rucksacks) and one item of smaller hand luggage (such as a briefcase)" and "Passengers may take with them, free of charge and subject to conditions below, dogs, cats and other small animals (maximum two per passenger)".
Not quite as restrictive as the Tube.
Its not just luggage and pets, a few years ago there was an incident at Edgware Road (Met) I believe where a passenger with luggage and a baby in a buggy was boarding a train while the drivers were changing over. She got on with the buggy then got off to get the luggage, the relieving driver hadn't seen her get on but saw her get off on the CCTV, closed the doors and drove off with the baby on board leaving her on the platform with the luggage. Another example of trying to take too much stuff on public transport.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 26, 2018 13:17:41 GMT
Under TfL's Conditions of Carriage passengers are only allowed as much luggage as they can carry up a flight of stairs, I'm not sure what the restrictions are on the TOC'S but an undpecified amount of luggage, a dog and a walking frame sounds like more than the passenger could manage on their own. I'd be careful about classifying the walking frame as luggage - you get dangerously close to taking a position that says someone with a disability cannot carry the same as an able-bodied passenger, which would be a breach of their legal rights, not to mention awful customer service. Similarly, in the Edgware Road buggy example, I'd be careful about how you view the passenger with the buggy. From experience, there sometimes just isn't a choice in how you have to manage with children, and blaming the passenger is more than a tad unreasonable. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 26, 2018 16:09:53 GMT
Whether the journey actually involves stairs or escalators is irrelevant, the idea is that passengers shouldn't travelling on the Tube with excessive amounts of luggage, the idea being if a passenger can't carry all their luggage at the same time its too much. It's a passenger service not freight. Section 23 of the Network Rail Conditions of Travel states "Taking luggage and other articles with you on your journey" states "23.1 You may take up to three items of luggage into the passenger accommodation of a train." The section "Luggage & animals" on the National Rail website says that "Customers may take up to three items of personal luggage free of charge, this includes two large items (such as suitcases or rucksacks) and one item of smaller hand luggage (such as a briefcase)" and "Passengers may take with them, free of charge and subject to conditions below, dogs, cats and other small animals (maximum two per passenger)". Not quite as restrictive as the Tube. Its not just luggage and pets, a few years ago there was an incident at Edgware Road (Met) I believe where a passenger with luggage and a baby in a buggy was boarding a train while the drivers were changing over. She got on with the buggy then got off to get the luggage, the relieving driver hadn't seen her get on but saw her get off on the CCTV, closed the doors and drove off with the baby on board leaving her on the platform with the luggage. Another example of trying to take too much stuff on public transport. From the details available she had one item of luggage and one dog. Hardly excessive. Nor is it reasonable to state that just because you cannot carry luggage at the same time as climbing a large step that you are carrying too much to manage. Even when I was fully able bodied I would have struggled to carry two suitcases onto a train at the same time and there is no way I could do it now. Indeed now I couldn't get myself and a single suitcase onto a train at the same time. I'm perfectly able to safely navigate the system though. Anyway this is all a distraction from the main issue, which is that once again a train has departed with an item trapped in the doors. It doesn't matter what the item was or why it was trapped - the systems and processes that should have prevented a dragging failed, and this is entirely the fault of the railway and/or one (or more) of its employees because it is not possible for a dragging incident to be the fault of a passenger, regardless of why they became trapped. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 26, 2018 16:16:28 GMT
Whether the journey actually involves stairs or escalators is irrelevant, the idea is that passengers shouldn't travelling on the Tube with excessive amounts of luggage, the idea being if a passenger can't carry all their luggage at the same time its too much. It's a passenger service not freight. Section 23 of the Network Rail Conditions of Travel states "Taking luggage and other articles with you on your journey" states "23.1 You may take up to three items of luggage into the passenger accommodation of a train." The section "Luggage & animals" on the National Rail website says that "Customers may take up to three items of personal luggage free of charge, this includes two large items (such as suitcases or rucksacks) and one item of smaller hand luggage (such as a briefcase)" and "Passengers may take with them, free of charge and subject to conditions below, dogs, cats and other small animals (maximum two per passenger)". Not quite as restrictive as the Tube. Its not just luggage and pets, a few years ago there was an incident at Edgware Road (Met) I believe where a passenger with luggage and a baby in a buggy was boarding a train while the drivers were changing over. She got on with the buggy then got off to get the luggage, the relieving driver hadn't seen her get on but saw her get off on the CCTV, closed the doors and drove off with the baby on board leaving her on the platform with the luggage. Another example of trying to take too much stuff on public transport. From the details available she had one item of luggage and one dog. Hardly excessive. Nor is it reasonable to state that just because you cannot carry luggage at the same time as climbing a large step that you are carrying too much to manage. Even when I was fully able bodied I would have struggled to carry two suitcases onto a train at the same time and there is no way I could do it now. Indeed now I couldn't get myself and a single suitcase onto a train at the same time. I'm perfectly able to safely navigate the system though. Anyway this is all a distraction from the main issue, which is that once again a train has departed with an item trapped in the doors. It doesn't matter what the item was or why it was trapped - the systems and processes that should have prevented a dragging failed, and this is entirely the fault of the railway and/or one (or more) of its employees because it is not possible for a dragging incident to be the fault of a passenger, regardless of why they became trapped. Hear, hear. As a passenger, I observe a worrying tendency to confuse the failure of people to conform to expectations with failure to obey the rules. There's a significant difference, and it ill behoves those providing the service to seem like they're blaming the victim by making that confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Sept 27, 2018 11:06:45 GMT
Isn't this drifting into speculation before the report is published?
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Sept 27, 2018 15:26:47 GMT
Under TfL's Conditions of Carriage passengers are only allowed as much luggage as they can carry up a flight of stairs, I'm not sure what the restrictions are on the TOC'S but an undpecified amount of luggage, a dog and a walking frame sounds like more than the passenger could manage on their own. I'd be careful about classifying the walking frame as luggage - you get dangerously close to taking a position that says someone with a disability cannot carry the same as an able-bodied passenger, which would be a breach of their legal rights, not to mention awful customer service. Similarly, in the Edgware Road buggy example, I'd be careful about how you view the passenger with the buggy. From experience, there sometimes just isn't a choice in how you have to manage with children, and blaming the passenger is more than a tad unreasonable. Whichever way you look at it that is true. That is not the same as saying that they cannot travel with the same amount of luggage as an able bodied person, presumably assistance would have been able if requested. People need to make allowances for their disabilities whatever they are, I cannot read a book without glasses on so I don't even bother trying, this lady could not board a train unaided with a walking frome Suitcase and dog so similarly she should not have tried to. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 27, 2018 16:16:06 GMT
I'd be careful about classifying the walking frame as luggage - you get dangerously close to taking a position that says someone with a disability cannot carry the same as an able-bodied passenger, which would be a breach of their legal rights, not to mention awful customer service. Similarly, in the Edgware Road buggy example, I'd be careful about how you view the passenger with the buggy. From experience, there sometimes just isn't a choice in how you have to manage with children, and blaming the passenger is more than a tad unreasonable. Whichever way you look at it that is true. That is not the same as saying that they cannot travel with the same amount of luggage as an able bodied person, presumably assistance would have been able if requested. People need to make allowances for their disabilities whatever they are, I cannot read a book without glasses on so I don't even bother trying, this lady could not board a train unaided with a walking frome Suitcase and dog so similarly she should not have tried to. The implication of that is that the mobility impaired must not try to travel without assistance. The Equalities Act 2010 puts the onus on service providers to make reasonable adjustments, and has little time for the argument that the onus is on the prospective passenger to make such adjustments. One such adjustment might be to allow more time for the less mobile to board - and that requirement would as I understand it take precedence over maintaining the timetable. We don’t have the details of what happened here, but the onus is on the provider to ensure the safety of the customer. It would appear from the RAIB summary that the processes in place on GTR to ensure safety failed in this case, with fatal consequences; there is no suggestion in that summary that the lady in question was acting in an unsafe manner. However, the details of what happened and, more importantly, why, are not yet clear. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 27, 2018 17:20:54 GMT
this lady could not board a train unaided with a walking frome Suitcase and dog so similarly she should not have tried to. How do you know she could not? - We do not know the nature of the luggage.
- We do not know whether this was the first time she made this journey, whether she is a regular traveller or somewhere in between (e.g. this was the return journey)
- We do not know how much time was allowed for boarding, nor how long she took.
- We do not know whether the time allowed for boarding on this occasion was different to that normally allowed (generally or in this passenger's experience).
- We do not know whether she required assistance, and if she did whether this was booked, and if it was whether it was provided (plenty of stories on social media of booked assistance not materialising).
On the other hand we do know that: - Items get trapped in the doors when passengers are behaving according to the rules (both those that actually exist and those that some in the rail industry assume exist without communicating this in any way to passengers).
- No person or animal can be dragged without the train moving
- Trains cannot move without positive action from one or more railway employees
- Passengers are not trained in railway safety, emergency procedures, etc.
- It is the responsibility of railway employees to ensure that trains do not depart unless it is safe to do so
So why the rush to blame the passenger? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 27, 2018 19:33:19 GMT
Thanks Chris M for posting the link to the report. Although aslefshrugged makes a valid point about "luggage", the bye laws of railways are very liberally interpreted and hardly, if ever, applied in practice. Does having to put two items of luggage into a train separately automatically classes as "having too much"? Unless railway operators are going to take a stand in stopping passengers and enforcing this rule, then the argument has less weight. Isn't this drifting into speculation before the report is published?
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Sept 28, 2018 6:14:46 GMT
this lady could not board a train unaided with a walking frome Suitcase and dog so similarly she should not have tried to. How do you know she could not? - We do not know the nature of the luggage.
- We do not know whether this was the first time she made this journey, whether she is a regular traveller or somewhere in between (e.g. this was the return journey)
- We do not know how much time was allowed for boarding, nor how long she took.
- We do not know whether the time allowed for boarding on this occasion was different to that normally allowed (generally or in this passenger's experience).
- We do not know whether she required assistance, and if she did whether this was booked, and if it was whether it was provided (plenty of stories on social media of booked assistance not materialising).
On the other hand we do know that: - Items get trapped in the doors when passengers are behaving according to the rules (both those that actually exist and those that some in the rail industry assume exist without communicating this in any way to passengers).
- No person or animal can be dragged without the train moving
- Trains cannot move without positive action from one or more railway employees
- Passengers are not trained in railway safety, emergency procedures, etc.
- It is the responsibility of railway employees to ensure that trains do not depart unless it is safe to do so
So why the rush to blame the passenger? I will concede most of your points, however, imagine trying to board a train with a walking frame, small suitcase and dog. (small suitcase to try and make things easy. The frame will take tow hands and a seperate journey onto the train to get it there, if the lady can manage with one then she almost certainly dosen't need it.then she has to get back off the train to get her case, dog on and off the train twice. She needed assistance, as anyone trying to board a train with frame luggage and dog would, you can reasnably argue that her difficulties should have been spotted and help offered, theough you are going into nanny state territory there, she should have asked for help which would then have been made available. People have to take responsibility for their own decisions, neither safety systems or procedures will ever become 100% failsafe so should be used as backup not initial accident prevention. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 28, 2018 6:45:26 GMT
Under TfL's Conditions of Carriage passengers are only allowed as much luggage as they can carry up a flight of stairs, I'm not sure what the restrictions are on the TOC'S but an undpecified amount of luggage, a dog and a walking frame sounds like more than the passenger could manage on their own. I'd be careful about classifying the walking frame as luggage - you get dangerously close to taking a position that says someone with a disability cannot carry the same as an able-bodied passenger, which would be a breach of their legal rights, not to mention awful customer service. Similarly, in the Edgware Road buggy example, I'd be careful about how you view the passenger with the buggy. From experience, there sometimes just isn't a choice in how you have to manage with children, and blaming the passenger is more than a tad unreasonable. If someone needs a walking frame then it is quite possible they CANNOT carry as much as an able-bodied passenger and they would need assistance, either from station staff or from someone travelling with them. The passenger in this case clearly needed assistance, whether that was the fault of Thameslink for not having station staff available or the passengers for not requesting assistance is unknown, hopefully the report will clarify the issue. With the Edgware Road incident the passenger was travelling with more items than they could manage and they did not seek assistance. I certainly don't think its unreasonable to expect passengers (or anyone else) to take responsibility for their decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 28, 2018 8:53:17 GMT
I have several times travelled without formal or informal assistance, and relied on being able to load possessions and/or children in more than one pass, stepping on and back off the train at intermediate stops. That includes journeys under DOO and not. Was I wrong to do so? Ought I to have sought assistance?
I repeat, it is not reasonable to place blame on a passenger for not complying with expectations of what constitutes “normal” behaviour.
|
|
