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**

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?

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.

"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.

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

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).

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**

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!

are (Acrosticus) wrote the following in:


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!

No, that's how you read it earlier.

--
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.

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?