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.

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.

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?

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

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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

--
Spud

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.

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

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.

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.