Commuter dragged after hand stuck in door

[Failed Unit]

Foolish and reckless, or someone who just made a mistake?

If you honestly think that people who make a mistake should be injured for their errors, then what is the purpose of the member of railway staff employed to safely dispatch the train. Lets get rid of them all, and if a few people die being dragged under trains after making a mistake, then it is their problem.

But it happens all the time, cross the road without looking can result in an injury because of your mistake. Is the the person that hit you fault? Climbing a tree and falling out cause injury because of a mistake? Is that the trees fault?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

But it happens all the time, cross the road without looking can result in an injury because of your mistake. Is the the person that hit you fault? Climbing a tree and falling out cause injury because of a mistake? Is that the trees fault?

Compensation Claim Culture, where there is blame there is a claim...hope the Passenger is insured

 

[Flamingo]

Why do some people have difficulty with the concept that something nasty happening because of a stupid thing they did is not their fault?

 

[causton]

Putting her hand in the door caused no injury.

The member of the railway staff who was employed to check that the train was safe to leave, and who failed to do so caused her injury.

The member of the railway staff who had instructions to stop immediately when the alarm was sounded failed to do so, and also caused her injury.

I fail to see why you cannot understand that if the railway staff had done their job correctly then the passenger would not have been injured.

And also, if the passenger had not stuck her hand in the door the 'not doing their job correctly' would have not happened, as she would have not been invisble to the dispatcher, because of inadequate training due to FCC.

IMO this is in no way the staff members' fault - they clearly haven't been told enough to do their job properly. FCC seem to have given them a 'Quick Start' guide and ran away, in essence...!

 

[jon0844]

Climbing a tree and falling out cause injury because of a mistake? Is that the trees fault?

Probably the fault of the council or land owner for having a tree that could be climbed... Wouldn't surprise me that someone would claim that.

Where there's ignorance or stupidity, there's a claim.

 

[Flamingo]

Foolish and reckless, or someone who just made a mistake?

If you honestly think that people who make a mistake should be injured for their errors, then what is the purpose of the member of railway staff employed to safely dispatch the train. Lets get rid of them all, and if a few people die being dragged under trains after making a mistake, then it is their problem.

So, she was foolish and reckless. If she did sue, do you think her actions should be taken into account in deciding the level of compensation (if any) she is awarded, or should any award be punitive on the train staff?

 

[PTF62]

But it happens all the time, cross the road without looking can result in an injury because of your mistake. Is the the person that hit you fault?

If the person driving ignored all their training, and could have stopped before hitting you but decided not to, but to carry on regardless and run you over, then yes.

The person dispatching the train decided not to following their training.

The person driving the train decided not to follow the rules.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, she was foolish and reckless. If she did sue, do you think her actions should be taken into account in deciding the level of compensation (if any) she is awarded, or should any award be punitive on the train staff?

From reading the report it appears that she made a mistake, rather than as some believe foolish and reckless, so no I would not consider her actions should have any impact on the level of compensation.

UK courts do not award punitive compensation.

 

[AlterEgo]

I really don't understand the level of discussion in this thread. The RAIB have made a very thorough report which succinctly identifies all of the causal factors.

Paragraphs 48 and 49 sum things up perfectly well.

Remuneration and staff benefits in the rail industry are generally very good - and this is precisely because those who work in it need to nurture a quality culture. Safety critical staff are paid to stop people from being hurt, or worse, killed. Two safety critical staff are identified in this report as having not followed the rules, and that their actions under different circumstances may have had much more grave consequences.

The problem (as the report does state) is not with those individual members of staff necessarily, but that there was a belief that "custom and practice", and even suggestions that FCC's own guidance (allegedly) went contrary to the Rule Book.

I do not consider myself fully qualified to make sweeping statements about railway safety, but what I pick up from reading the report written in plain English is this: This is a staff training and safety culture issue. These two members of staff were not "renegades" nor were they necessarily reckless - look instead at the training and guidance they received from management.

 

[313103]

Perhaps PTF 62 should have been on shift with me tonight, because he would have seen at least 30 people try what this lady did. I wonder what he would of made of it?

The way to overcome all this nonsense in future is to not allow a train to move in a platform where passengers are, just in case they try to get on or worse still run alongside of. Not to allow any passenger on the platform until those that have alighted have left the platform. To Fence in all the stations and have a system like that on parts of the Jubilee Line.

Yes I can think of stupid things as well, after all I am not responsible for my own actions; someone else is!

Of course we are as yet unaware if she had ever done this kind of thing before and got away with it!

 

[Ferret]

PTF 62 - yes she was foolish and reckless. Of all the stupid things to do?! Yes it's a byelaw offence she's committed, but she could quite easily have fallen down the gap before either member of staff had chance to react! It would send a message if she was prosecuted but of course, that won't happen.

Not that I excuse FCC here - from the report, it sounds as though the training was poor. No way should a passcom ever be over-ridden when leaving a platform.

 

[BestWestern]

Foolish and reckless, or someone who just made a mistake?

If you honestly think that people who make a mistake should be injured for their errors, then what is the purpose of the member of railway staff employed to safely dispatch the train. Lets get rid of them all, and if a few people die being dragged under trains after making a mistake, then it is their problem.

Yes, it was foolish and reckless. Everybody knows that you don't enter a train when the doors are closing, it is common knowledge and common sense. There is fairly comprehensive signage on trains, and there is also an ingenious warning device which makes a loud, unmistakable beeping sound before and during the doors closing. I believe there were also warnings shouted directly at the individual specifically instructing her not to attempt to enter the train. And yet, despite all of this, the individual concerned STILL deliberately obstructed the closing doors and tried to force her way into the train. That is not an 'accident', it is somebody being intentionally ignorant of what is plain to see, because she couldn't possibly wait for the next train. Irrespective of any mistakes/negligence that subsequently followed on the part of the staff, this woman thoroughly deserved any injuries she received. She put herself in that position, any arrogant expectation that the world would stop for a moment to let her carry on regardless were misplaced, let's hope she now realises that at the very least.

 

[island]

So, she was foolish and reckless. If she did sue, do you think her actions should be taken into account in deciding the level of compensation (if any) she is awarded, or should any award be punitive on the train staff?

The courts would be very likely to apply contributory negligence to cut the damages, if any, by a percentage.

As it would be FCC that would be the defendant, there would not be damages "punitive on the train staff", although UK courts absolutely can award punitive or exemplary damages in certain circumstances.

We seem to be leaving behind the fact that there are people going around who utterly refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and believe the world revolves around them.

 

[Ferret]

And there lies a problem Island. The unintelligent argument put forward by PTF62 would have us having to take responsibility for the actions of the foolish and terminally stupid, on the grounds that they are unable to think for themselves.

To say that this woman made a mistake is at best an understatement. She injured herself while committing an offence through her own stupidity - it seems that some people are happy to gloss over that. One wonders where their sympathies would lie if a thief injured himself whilst in the act of breaking into a property?

 

[Failed Unit]

We have lost survival of the fittest, where the stupid just die. Luckily we still have the Darwin awards.

 

[whhistle]

Hi,
I read this article today in the London Evening Standard.

There will be more frequent public address announcements warning passengers of the dangers of trying to board trains when the doors are closing.

And good luck to them.
Just today I witnessed passengers alighting a train to catch another from a non-interchange platform. However:

• The announcer told everyone to stay on the train and change at the next station.
• The screen no longer showed the train everyone was running for.
• The platform dispatcher shouted for everyone to stay on the train.

Did the passengers listen? No. Instead, they blamed the dispatcher of the train they were running for, then didn't have time to get back on the one they just got off!

Perhaps it would be a good idea to also have passenger alarms on train exteriors, to allow people on the platform to stop a train in an emergency?

While I agree with the thought, this is a terrible idea. People will be smashing them all the time just because the train is pulling out. It'll catch on that the train will have to be stopped and doors released. The "fine for improper use" for the internal ones is a joke.

 

[cjp]

Putting her hand in the door caused no injury.

The member of the railway staff who was employed to check that the train was safe to leave, and who failed to do so caused her injury.

The member of the railway staff who had instructions to stop immediately when the alarm was sounded failed to do so, and also caused her injury.

Please read the report which although concerned that the driver did not follow the rules is clear that their failure did not make things worse as the woman had freed herself.

Furthermore the woman suffered bruising of her fingers when the compressible rubber strips on the edges of the doors gripped the fingers she had put in to try to make then open. The woman caused her own injuries which were aggravated by the RA signal being given when it ought not to have been.
The report is quite clear if you take the time to read it.
Please do not make up your own conclusions

 

[GadgetMan]

Some people are pretty quick to hang the staff out to dry. If we delayed despatch everytime someone was running towards a train that was about to leave or stood at the doors continuously pressing the open button after the train doors were locked then the network would pretty quickly grind to a halt.

Yes the platform staff should not have given the RA to driver, but in their defence it would be pretty difficult from several carriage lengths away to distinguish between a passenger with fingers trapped in a door to someone pressing the open button or even talking to a friend they are seeing off through the train window; following which some people then do walk/run alongside the train. Add to that other factors that can affect the view like direct sunlight, other passengers in the way etc. I would guess alarm bells rang when this woman must've started screaming.

 

[Aictos]

Putting her hand in the door caused no injury.

Rubbish, you seem to have no idea how strong train doors can be and can cause injuries if not used properly :roll:

She was in the wrong as she caused herself the injury so she only has herself to blame for her actions.

The member of the railway staff who was employed to check that the train was safe to leave, and who failed to do so caused her injury.

If the woman hadn't done such a stupid and selfish act, she would wouldn't have injured herself and she could have stopped before hand and ask any staff member for the next train.

The fact that it was the difference between the 17:53 and the 18:14 is 10 minutes arrival time at Royston which is nothing.

This staff member did NOT cause her injury!

The member of the railway staff who had instructions to stop immediately when the alarm was sounded failed to do so, and also caused her injury.

I fail to see why you cannot understand that if the railway staff had done their job correctly then the passenger would not have been injured.

As what has been said before the driver had to take a split second decision, their actions did NOT cause her injury.

From reading your postings, it seems everyone else is at fault but her :roll:
She has to take responsibility for her own actions but then again it's the fault of the existing no win no fee culture!

 

[rdwarr]

Sometimes it's a bit more complicated than A v B. It's a bit of both.

 

[sbt]

Whether or not the passenger concerned was doing something stupid is really immaterial to the conclusions of the investigation. Several issues were turned up that needed correcting.

You can't rely on it being the 'Passengers Fault' next time something makes a train unsafe to dispatch. For example I was once left with clothing outside the train after being pushed back by another passenger as the doors were closing. I pulled it clear but I rather like the idea that if I hadn't the train would have been stopped and I would have remained uninjured. So I think that the idea of taking steps to make sure dispatching is done as safely as possible, as suggested by the RAIB report, is a good one.

Having experienced this and two other incidents where I assisted fellow passengers to recover luggage straps into the train I'm also quite in favour of seals that allow items they don't detect to be withdrawn.

You can't rely on the next Passenger Alarm activation when leaving a station being the 'Fault' of a Passenger or Dispatcher or that the reason isn't something that could put the whole train, including the Driver, at risk. So I rather like the idea that the RAIB highlighted some issues that, if corrected or acted upon, should make sure that a train is stopped as soon as is safe to do so.

The objective is not to identify who is 'At Fault' but to run a safe railway. Pointing the finger at a particular passenger or member of staff doesn't do much to enhance safety on the railway, identifying what needs to be fixed does a lot.

Passengers will do stupid things. The problem is that ultimately the stupid things they do may place not only themselves but others at risk - think of the aggressive idiot who pushed me back so my clothing was shut in the door. Consider the passengers inside the train who pulled open the seal from the inside to help the woman free her fingers, they had no real way to know if that would expose them to danger. Consider the number of times over the decades I was body-checked by a door on a 'Slammer' being swung into me as I left behind an inattentive fellow passenger. Consider the possible risk to staff of recovering the passenger in this incident had she been dragged onto the tracks and injured - small but non-zero (and that's ignoring stress and distress).

It is not enough to say 'Passenger Fault - Do Nothing'. You HAVE to allow for the fools of this world, the distracted, the forgetful because, not only is foolishness not a capital crime, if you don't then it may be more than the 'Responsible Party' that gets hurt. The biggest 'Duty of Care' is to the Innocent Bystander[1].

Not all passengers sue, we are not all 'out to get' rail staff and TOCs, just as we are not all fare evaders. But there are Rail Staff who assume that we are, some of whom seem to post here, and that attitude does nothing to make us inclined to be more helpful, vigilant and safety conscious.

Finally, no the rail staff involved didn't start the incident, they didn't cause the injuries. But they didn't do those things they were supposed to do that would have made the injuries less and in doing so they created the risk that the outcome could have been much worse. But the really important thing is that the things not done, and the reasons they were not done, could have led to other types of accident that might be more serious (eg dispatch with metal item projecting from side of train) and by identifying those issues and dealing with them the safety of EVERYBODY on the railway is enhanced.

Rick

[1] And that duty falls on passengers as well as staff.

 

[Firestarter]

If either a guard or dispatcher could fail to notice someone caught up, it would surely make no difference? If a guard shut the doors and was in another part of the train - how much quicker could the alarm be raised? To me, a dispatcher is a perfectly safe way of doing things - as long as they're checking properly. Perhaps the time from CD to RA is too quick, not allowing for people rushing to come away having realised they're too late - and giving time for the person that doesn't come away to stand out (or say something).

The problem here seems to be that passengers, not staff, couldn't do anything. The last line of defence so to speak. That's presumably why a driver is instructed to stop if any part of the train is still on the platform.

Now, one thing I know dispatchers will do after giving the RA is radio back to say that the train is gone. Surely this time, this didn't happen and I wonder if s/he said on the radio that something had happened? If so, what can control do to notify the driver over the radio and get the train stopped that way?

I'm asking as a novice here, so don't know what systems are already in place.

Why? Dosent happen on thameslink side.

 

[jon0844]

Why? Dosent happen on thameslink side.

I don't know why. They'll often radio to get the platform number put up on the boards too.

On platforms 9-11, some trains are hidden if there's a train in front still to leave. Passengers can get frustrated waiting for their train, especially if the one in front is delayed.

I presume dispatch are there to say the train has gone and it's okay to announce the next one.

I realise that as I write this it perhaps suggests they only radio for these circumstances. If the train here was 8-cars then perhaps they don't radio! Maybe I've answered my own question - but it would be good to hear from someone that knows for sure.

 

[Aictos]

I don't know why. They'll often radio to get the platform number put up on the boards too.

On platforms 9-11, some trains are hidden if there's a train in front still to leave. Passengers can get frustrated waiting for their train, especially if the one in front is delayed.

I presume dispatch are there to say the train has gone and it's okay to announce the next one.

I realise that as I write this it perhaps suggests they only radio for these circumstances. If the train here was 8-cars then perhaps they don't radio! Maybe I've answered my own question - but it would be good to hear from someone that knows for sure.

When FCC services are ready to be boarded, staff radio though to the office where the CIS is controlled from to have the service announced equally staff radio though when services have departed.

It is the only location that I am aware this is done on the East Coast, not sure if York, Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh do something similar?

 

[Gareth]

It's called a door interlock circuit, so not baloney.

The problem here was that the doors WERE all closed and that the lady's fingers were trapped in the rubber door seals which had deformed around her hand. Basically, the obstruction was not sufficiently large to prevent the doors from closing.

O L Leigh

Ah, thanks for the info. Goes to show that the system is not entirely failsafe but what could be done?

 

[ex-railwayman]

I hope she does sue, and given the RAIB report it is difficult to see how she could fail to win.

Hmm, I don't know personally, I would hazard a guess that a good Judge would find it difficult to find her defence totally inexcusable. However, would this be a civil case, or, a criminal one, because they're two completely separate entities.

Even though the lady was hospitalised, she didn't receive any significant injuries, bruising is different to breaking a bone, so, what could she claim for, distress and time off work, what about the train driver and dispatcher, they could claim exactly the same against her.

If it went to Court there could be a proper case to answer to, however, she was a regular commuter, there are photographs in the RAIB which quite clearly indicate the warning stickers both internally and externally on the Class 365 carriages that should be memorised to the fact that you cannot board a train when the doors are closing, a Railway Byelaw is in place to this extent, which she quite clearly broke. She walked past a few coaches before attempting to even board the train even though she knew what time the train was due to depart and the doors about to close and the dispatcher had blown his whistle. Was she on her mobile phone, or, distracted by something else, it wasn't reported in the RAIB and would be a prosecution/defence counsellors' question in Court.

The RAIB is only an investigation of the facts of the incident -

1. The purpose of a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigation is to improve railway safety by preventing future railway accidents or by mitigating their consequences.
2. The RAIB does not establish blame or liability, or carry out prosecutions.

Surely then, by default, the RAIB cannot be used to establish criminal behaviour, or, negligence, this can only be done by a Police investigation and through a Court's Process.

If the lady loses the case, would she be liable for any costs, and possibly a fine, but, a mute point here, is that would she therefore have a criminal record against her name, yes/no?? If she was to go abroad and fill in a Visa Waiver form she would have to declare this criminal act, and maybe possible rejection from a country to which she might wish to visit in the future, therefore, I would say that she might have a case to prosecute, but, if she lost, the after effects could be totally against her, would her employer keep her on the books with a criminal conviction, even though she hasn't be imprisoned, maybe the odds are stacked against her on this principal, in which case it would be more practical to accept the incident as a scary one, learn from it, and move on.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.

 

[Ferret]

Ex-railwayman - it's only a byelaw offence which won't be recordable. Pity really! That said, I bet she copped the fright of her life when this incident happened!!!!! One could argue that requiring a change of underwear is punishment enough

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's a criminal offence, and intent does not need to be proved. So the only question needed to be asked was did the defendant interfere with the operation of the doors? Clearly. Case closed.

 

[Failed Unit]

Ok - this was all the railways fault.

Next we will be seeing people sue bars for letting them get drunk when they injure / kill themselves as a result. I suspect the do not obstruct the doors as it can be dangerous and cause delay notices are just for fun.

 

[142094]

If I was at home, I wouldn't stick my arm in a door when it was closing. I don't think I've ever done it by mistake as I know I'll hurt myself if I did.

So why is it that people lose all common sense as soon as they step outside their homes?

 

[GB]

It's a criminal offence, and intent does not need to be proved. So the only question needed to be asked was did the defendant interfere with the operation of the doors? Clearly. Case closed.

I don't know. Though stupid what she did, it could be argued she didn't actually interfere with the doors. The doors closed as normal, and the train departed as normal (albeit for 20 metres or so).

Is there a specific offence for boarding while the doors are closing?