News - Safety Row
 

http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2087064
What is the Centre Line?
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the
Award Winning Railways
Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
**ANYONE WITH MY SITE IN THEIR FAVOURITES MAY NEED TO UPDATE LINKS BECAUSE
OF FILE CHANGE**

News - Safety Row
 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:31:49 +0100, Joe wrote:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2087064

"but LU accused the RMT of exaggerating the incident."

wouldn't surprise me

When was the last tube derailment that killed someone? Hoe many people are
derailed per 1,000,000 commuters?

News - Safety Row
 

From: Paul Weaver
Date: 24/10/2003 01:37 GMT Daylight Time

"but LU accused the RMT of exaggerating the incident."

wouldn't surprise me

When was the last tube derailment that killed someone? Hoe many people are
derailed per 1,000,000 commuters?

Oh dear! Expectations of safety on the tube have clearly fallen lower than many
of us had imagined. At one time transport operators were eager not even to
injure passengers, but now it seems the important thing is not killing them.

News - Safety Row
 

"Acrosticus" wrote in message
...
From: Paul Weaver
Date: 24/10/2003 01:37 GMT Daylight Time

"but LU accused the RMT of exaggerating the incident."

wouldn't surprise me

When was the last tube derailment that killed someone? Hoe many people
are
derailed per 1,000,000 commuters?

Oh dear! Expectations of safety on the tube have clearly fallen lower than
many
of us had imagined. At one time transport operators were eager not even to
injure passengers, but now it seems the important thing is not killing
them.

Even aiming not to injure them is too lenient a standard. What they should
be aiming at (and be penalised for falling short of) is zero faults, no
matter whether these causes delays, injuries or deaths.

It's like the NHS targets which endeavour not to keep anyone waiting in
Casualty longer than X hours or waiting more than Y days for an operation.
Right idea, but the numbers are woefully lax.

News - Safety Row
 

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:49:37 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


Even aiming not to injure them is too lenient a standard. What they should
be aiming at (and be penalised for falling short of) is zero faults, no
matter whether these causes delays, injuries or deaths.


I can give you a total safe transport system.

No injuries or deaths.


A transport system where nothing moves.

Is that ok?


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

News - Safety Row
 

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:10:58 +0000, Acrosticus wrote:
Oh dear! Expectations of safety on the tube have clearly fallen lower
than many of us had imagined. At one time transport operators were eager
not even to injure passengers, but now it seems the important thing is
not killing them.

Point is you're more likely to be run over by a bus on the walk to the
tube then to be injured underground. 40 injuries this year? With about 80
million journeys? Thats a 1 in 2 million chance per year of being injured.

In comparrison you have about a 1 in 100,000 chance - 20 times more likely
- of a major injury at work (HSE figures 2000/1)

A bit of perspective would be nice. I'd rather they spent the money on
building new lines, or quadrupling (overnight running, more peak trains,
longer maintenence periods, route around broken trains etc).

News - Safety Row
 

Point is you're more likely to be run over by a bus on the walk to the
tube then to be injured underground. 40 injuries this year? With about 80
million journeys? Thats a 1 in 2 million chance per year of being injured.

You are more likely to be struck by lightening or find a pearl inside an
oyster that you are eating than being injured on the tube.
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the
Award Winning Railways
Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
**ANYONE WITH MY SITE IN THEIR FAVOURITES MAY NEED TO UPDATE LINKS BECAUSE
OF FILE CHANGE**

News - Safety Row
 

From: "Joe"
Date: 24/10/2003 20:44 GMT Daylight Time

You are more likely to be struck by lightening or find a pearl inside an
oyster that you are eating than being injured on the tube.

Is that because you're more likely to be killed? That's how this thread was
reading earlier!

News - Safety Row
 

News - Safety Row
 

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:38:52 +0000, Acrosticus wrote:
You are more likely to be struck by lightening or find a pearl inside an
oyster that you are eating than being injured on the tube.

Is that because you're more likely to be killed? That's how this thread was
reading earlier!

How many people were accidentally killed on the underground network in the
last 5 years?

News - Safety Row
 

Acrosticus wrote:
Oh dear! Expectations of safety on the tube have clearly fallen lower than many
of us had imagined. At one time transport operators were eager not even to
injure passengers, but now it seems the important thing is not killing them.

Seems to me that 100-1000 times safer than driving is good enough. And
no, I don't know the actual figures.


Colin McKenzie

News - Safety Row
 

From: Paul Weaver
Date: 25/10/2003 11:47 GMT Daylight Time

How many people were accidentally killed on the underground network in the
last 5 years?

My God! Do the underground kill people on purpose too?

News - Safety Row
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:45:35 +0000, Acrosticus wrote:

From: Paul Weaver
Date: 25/10/2003 11:47 GMT Daylight Time

How many people were accidentally killed on the underground network in the
last 5 years?

My God! Do the underground kill people on purpose too?

I.e not including people jumping onto the tracks etc.

News - Safety Row
 

In message , Paul Weaver
writes
How many people were accidentally killed on the underground network in the
last 5 years?

I've seen posters on platforms indicating that a handful of people are
killed each year (other than murders and suicides). I think the
suggestion was that most of them fell down the stairs, rather than under
a train.
--
Roland Perry

News - Safety Row
 

Roland Perry wrote the following in:


In message , Paul
Weaver writes
How many people were accidentally killed on the underground
network in the last 5 years?

I've seen posters on platforms indicating that a handful of people
are killed each year (other than murders and suicides). I think
the suggestion was that most of them fell down the stairs, rather
than under a train.

And as a result of their own stupidity or lack of caution rather than
as a result of any fundamental flaw in the system

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

News - Safety Row
 

In message , Robin May
writes
I think
the suggestion was that most of them fell down the stairs, rather
than under a train.

And as a result of their own stupidity or lack of caution rather than
as a result of any fundamental flaw in the system

You don't actually know if that's the case. People might have fallen
because the stairs or escalators were overcrowded.
--
Roland Perry

News - Safety Row
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:48:58 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , Robin May
writes
I think
the suggestion was that most of them fell down the stairs, rather
than under a train.

And as a result of their own stupidity or lack of caution rather than
as a result of any fundamental flaw in the system

You don't actually know if that's the case. People might have fallen
because the stairs or escalators were overcrowded.

Which can be solved by building more lines and larger stations. Or perhaps
we could move people off the tube and away from crowds into their own
separate compartments at street level. Perhaps instead of operating
on a hub and spoke system, those compartments could then go direct from
where the occupant was to where they wanted to go? Perhaps they could be
privately owned so the costs are a lot lower? Perhaps they didn't have to
run on that nasty electricity thing?

News - Safety Row
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , Robin May
writes

I think
the suggestion was that most of them fell down the stairs, rather
than under a train.


And as a result of their own stupidity or lack of caution rather than
as a result of any fundamental flaw in the system


You don't actually know if that's the case. People might have fallen
because the stairs or escalators were overcrowded.

If the stairs or escalators were crowded then people are unlikely to be
killed when falling - too many people in the way!

News - Safety Row
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:00:02 +0100, John Watkins wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , Robin May
writes

I think
the suggestion was that most of them fell down the stairs, rather
than under a train.


And as a result of their own stupidity or lack of caution rather than
as a result of any fundamental flaw in the system


You don't actually know if that's the case. People might have fallen
because the stairs or escalators were overcrowded.

If the stairs or escalators were crowded then people are unlikely to be
killed when falling - too many people in the way!

Wasn't there an incident in the East End in WWII? Or Hilsburgh come to
think of it. People at the back push, and people at the front get
squashed. Or get pushed out off the platform.

News - Safety Row
 

In article , Paul Weaver
writes
If the stairs or escalators were crowded then people are unlikely to be
killed when falling - too many people in the way!
Wasn't there an incident in the East End in WWII?

Bethnal Green.

One person tripped on the stairs, and around 150 were killed in the
resulting crush.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

News - Safety Row
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Paul Weaver
writes
If the stairs or escalators were crowded then people are unlikely
to be killed when falling - too many people in the way!
Wasn't there an incident in the East End in WWII?

Bethnal Green.

One person tripped on the stairs, and around 150 were killed in the
resulting crush.

173 actually. Details at
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/metro/03/0303/04/

(Ignore the photo captioned "The worst civilian disaster of the second
world war" which shows an unrelated incident, possibly the bombing of Bank
station.)

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

News - Safety Row
 

Paul Weaver:
Wasn't there an incident in the East End in WWII?

Richard J.:
Details at http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/metro/03/0303/04/

(Ignore the photo captioned "The worst civilian disaster of the second
world war" which shows an unrelated incident...)

Also ignore the part about "For 48 hours prime minister Winston
Churchill withheld information on the tragedy". The disaster
happened on on the evening of Wednesday, 1943-03-03; most of the
details were publicly announced the following evening and reported
in the Times for the day after that.

What was not published at the time was the location of the disaster;
the Times merely described it as "a London tube shelter", withholding
not only the station, but also the district and, probably the most
important thing to conceal, the fact that it was an incomplete station.
A report on the inquest, two weeks later, revealed that it was in
"East London".

Also not published initially, as the web page says, was the part about
what caused the crowd to surge in the first place -- i.e. a new
defensive weapon whose sound was presumably mistaken for a new bomb.
--
Mark Brader | "If I quoted each [part] that had serious problems,
Toronto | [the author] could sue me for copyright infringement."
| -- Steve Summit

My text in this article is in the public domain.