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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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!

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.

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