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

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)

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.