|
DLR - no collision detect?
I see that a woman with epilepsy fell in front of a DLR train and was
killed (in 2013). "DLR director Rory O'Neill told the inquest that DLR trains are driven through a computer and monitored through CCTV cameras by control centre officers. "Mr O'Neill said that even if there was a driver who could have applied an emergency brake there is no proof the train would have stopped in time. There have been just two fatal accidents on the DLR in the last 10 years." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...having-5563014 E. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 22/04/2015 20:55, eastender wrote:
I see that a woman with epilepsy fell in front of a DLR train and was killed (in 2013). "DLR director Rory O'Neill told the inquest that DLR trains are driven through a computer and monitored through CCTV cameras by control centre officers. "Mr O'Neill said that even if there was a driver who could have applied an emergency brake there is no proof the train would have stopped in time. There have been just two fatal accidents on the DLR in the last 10 years." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...having-5563014 E. Surely you'd need a "pre-collision detect" as once you've been hit by several tonnes of train moving at some speed any detection system is going to take more time to stop the vehicle than it does to pulverise your vital bits? Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. |
DLR - no collision detect?
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 22/04/2015 20:55, eastender wrote: I see that a woman with epilepsy fell in front of a DLR train and was killed (in 2013). "DLR director Rory O'Neill told the inquest that DLR trains are driven through a computer and monitored through CCTV cameras by control centre officers. "Mr O'Neill said that even if there was a driver who could have applied an emergency brake there is no proof the train would have stopped in time. There have been just two fatal accidents on the DLR in the last 10 years." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...having-5563014 E. Surely you'd need a "pre-collision detect" as once you've been hit by several tonnes of train moving at some speed any detection system is going to take more time to stop the vehicle than it does to pulverise your vital bits? Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
|
DLR - no collision detect?
On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:35:32 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. How many incidents have there been? How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. E. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:13:35 +0100
eastender wrote: On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. Didn't know that it had surfers. Still, its just natural selection in action - the stupid die young and so can't procreate. Doing us all a favour really. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 2015-04-24 11:26:02 +0000, d said:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:13:35 +0100 eastender wrote: On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. Didn't know that it had surfers. Still, its just natural selection in action - the stupid die young and so can't procreate. Doing us all a favour really. No I meant kids who sit at the front of the train and who would see people hit by trains. There have been a few on the DLR: The DLR figures for passengers being struck by a train are as follows: Date Outcome Cause 26/10/2001 Passenger Fatality Unknown 29/01/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 26/06/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 01/11/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 22/12/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 16/01/2003 Non Fatal Not a suicide attempt 28/03/2003 Non Fatal Suicide attempt 08/12/2004 Non Fatal Suicide attempt 27/12/2006 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 02/04/2007 Passenger Fatality Not suicide attempt 12/10/2007 Passenger Fatality Not a suicide attempt 08/02/2011 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 06/05/2011 Passenger Fatality Not a suicide attempt https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...s_under_trains E. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:26:02 +0000 (UTC),
d wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:13:35 +0100 eastender wrote: On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. Didn't know that it had surfers. Still, its just natural selection in action - the stupid die young and so can't procreate. Doing us all a favour really. I think he meant the kids who rush to sit in the front seats. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk