BBC Documentary 'The Railways'

[dmacw]

Tosh. If you substitute the term "responsibility" for the often mis-used expression "duty of care" then, in the circumstances described above, it is very difficult to see why a TM should have responsibility for the actions of the person who throws himself under the next train, or trips up the subway steps. This would be like saying that the person who sold a pax a ticket at the booking office has a duty of care for that pax until such time as he (the pax) gets home (and maybe even, then too!).

A duty of care will exist if there is a relationship created whereby one person/body has a legal responsibility for the safety of another and that responsibility has not ended or been superseded by another intervening act. The pax getting off the train, voluntarily or otherwise, will be such an intervening act (novus actus interveniens for you Latin scholars).

In my eyes, I have a duty of care if the passenger has a ticket.

 

[GNER 373]

In my eyes, I have a duty of care if the passenger has a ticket.

Ticket or not, if your on a train the guard has duty of care. Would you refuse First Aid to a person not carrying a valid ticket?

 

[reb0118]

Ticket or not, if your on a train the guard has duty of care. Would you refuse First Aid to a person not carrying a valid ticket?

I know of a guard who insisted on selling a ticket to a passenger who had caught his hand in the slam door mechanism prior to giving first aid. It was a pay train & the passenger had boarded at an unstaffed station in pre TVM days. The guard's reason was that the passenger was not a bona fide passenger until he had a ticket. The guard was also of the belief that the passenger was not insured to travel unless he held a ticket nor would he be entitled to claim for compensation. This incident happened in BR days.

As an aside the injured party was a retired Church of Scotland clergyman and the guard in question had never heard such virulent language.

 

[RJ]

Got it!

Well that is a shame, Seems a little more education needed on the guards part however if RJ is seen as being smug with them this may get the guards backs up therefore leading to them not believing/not listening and trying to throw him off, which technically is still wrong but not in the guards eyes at the time.

Trying to see it from both angles, not to say RJ is smug or anything

From the comments I read, it's almost as if people want me to be the rude, antagonistic fare evader who is forcing staff to react in the way they do! People want me to be the smug, pedantic individual who will belittle guards who are trying their best to understand the situation at every opportunity. That is not the reality. I'm polite, softly spoken and empathetic to all staff I come across. Regardless of who is right or wrong, I will always uphold my integrity. Perhaps we should try working with the way it actually is, rather than what one might want the situation to be!

It doesn't matter how polite/patient/willing to explain I am - when someone has a "What I say is correct and what I say goes" mentality, it is nigh on impossible for a passenger like myself to overcome it. Anybody with this mentality is going to get annoyed if I do anything other than pay them. Not everybody subscribes to that mentality - many guards I encounter don't and I certainly don't! I've made well over 100 trips on their trains since late 2011 and have had 6 UFNs, 1 PF and paid up for a new ticket once (which was refunded in full.)

Therefore, it's only a small minority of staff who are actually getting "wound up." I feel the root cause of the problem in these cases is the undesirable combination of an inappropriate mentality and insufficient training. Rather than trying to apportion blame on a passenger who is not doing anything wrong, it is the conduct of those staff who are getting it wrong that should be addressed. It is in the railway industry's best interests not to purvey the image that its own staff don't know about the system they work with daily - and in the TOCs' best interests not to have to deal with the aftermath of easily avoidable bad judgement calls.

I personally believe that in this day and age, it is not impossible for roving retail/revenue protection staff to carry a copy of the Conditions of Carriage. It can be loaded onto company PDAs, or provided in paper format. For those who feel that it's asking too much to learn all of it's contents, I'd look into promoting a culture of taking a step back where ticketing disputes are involved, taking the passengers details and forwarding the details to the appropriate colleague who has the required knowledge to investigate. This is surely much easier and more efficient than demanding money for new tickets, becoming wound up and creating problems for other colleagues on the front line, the police and back office staff?

I'm not afraid to say there is something fundamentally wrong with the presently acceptable situation of "give me your money and if you're right, you'll get it back after appealing" - nor am I afraid to say that it's wrong to try desperately pin something on the customer before acknowledging that a comrade made a bad decision. As I say, the situation is what it is and it's best for all concerned if someone does something about it!

Except when he doesnt have his railcard with him!

I shared TPE's response to my complaint on the matter - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1387254&postcount=18

 

[martybabes]

If you put them off a train for any reason, including for ticketless travel, you then fail to except the 'responsibility' of safely carrying a passenger between points A & B. and I like the sound of 'Duty of Care' anyway!

But they have travelled from A to B - the only difference is that B turned up a little earlier than they were expecting!

However, and on the basis that you think your duty of care continues to exist when you have prematurely detrained the ticketless pax, tell me when your duty expires.
Is it when you are miles away and therefore cannot exercise any care? If so, how many miles?
Is it when the pax formally acknowledges to you that your duty has now been supplanted by someone else (and presumably gives you a written discharge to evidence this)?
Is it when a given period of time elapses, and if so, how long?
None of the above?

Maybe now, you will agree with me and confirm the pax is now outside your duty. If not, why not?

Over to you...

 

[GNER 373]

But they have travelled from A to B - the only difference is that B turned up a little earlier than they were expecting!

However, and on the basis that you think your duty of care continues to exist when you have prematurely detrained the ticketless pax, tell me when your duty expires.
Is it when you are miles away and therefore cannot exercise any care? If so, how many miles?
Is it when the pax formally acknowledges to you that your duty has now been supplanted by someone else (and presumably gives you a written discharge to evidence this)?
Is it when a given period of time elapses, and if so, how long?
None of the above?

Maybe now, you will agree with me and confirm the pax is now outside your duty. If not, why not?

Over to you...

If a person intends to travel between point A and C and you detraining them at B for instance, then you have failed your duty of care.

It doesn't matter how far away you travel or for how long, if that person then ends up having an accident or worse then in the investigation into why this happened you would be asked why you threw off a person at a station they did not board at or intended to travel to. The person may not know the area, or maybe mentally challenged and hurt themselves and you would be accountable for your choice of action not to get them to where ever they need to be. If they don't have a ticket and refuse to give you details then you can call the BTP for assistance and pass on the duty of care to them. If they give you details and they can't pay for a ticket then a UPFN is issued to allow them to travel to their destination. Duty of care complete. If a TIR is required then you issue zero fare tickets to them so they can complete thier journey. Duty of care complete.

There's enough instances of being able to help said ticketless passenger before the choice is made to detrain them all within Duty of Care.

Yes, guards don't always have the time or the patience for this but it doesn't deflect the fact that if you detrain the person and they befall an accident on Railway Property then your accountable in the eyes of the law.

Just because they're buggers doesn't mean you don't have the responsibility of looking after that person.

I can probably dig something in writing up about this with some legal bumpf if you prefer but just you know it'll take me far too long to find and it's nearly my bedtime!

Plus I don't believe it's right either!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As an aside the injured party was a retired Church of Scotland clergyman and the guard in question had never heard such virulent language.

Good story!

It's always the quiet ones!

 

[RJ]

And why would so many different TM's all see the same need to make you leave the train? Clearly there is some issue that you are generating that is causing this

If I use an off peak ticket that is valid on the first train of the day, am I supposed to pre-empt that a TM who has access to a machine which will provide him with details of the restriction, will refuse to look up the restriction, ignore the copy I have of that restriction but use that machine to try and flog me a new ticket?

A passenger who has paid their fare should be able to travel in peace and if their ticket is to be inspected, it should be by a professional who knows what they are doing...right? I don't see why the indefensible should be defended and the blame lumped on the passenger!

 

[Monty]

Ticket or not, if your on a train the guard has duty of care. Would you refuse First Aid to a person not carrying a valid ticket?

I would, but then I'm not first aid trained...

And while we are on the subject of de-training passengers, I personally as a guard, would never forcibly remove a passenger from my train. However I will invite them to leave and if they alight on their own accord then that's where my duty of care ends if not, it's a call to the BTP to remove them and duty of care passes on to the Police.

Simples

 

[GNER 373]

I would, but then I'm not first aid trained...

And while we are on the subject of de-training passengers, I personally as a guard, would never forcibly remove a passenger from my train. However I will invite them to leave and if they alight on their own accord then that's where my duty of care ends if not, it's a call to the BTP to remove them and duty of care passes on to the Police.

Simples

And that's the way to do it! If they leave by their 'own accord' they have made that choice and Duty of Care ends.

It's is a bit wrong that you have to do this as they shouldn't be on the bloody train without a ticket in the first place!

 

[richw]

But they have travelled from A to B - the only difference is that B turned up a little earlier than they were expecting!

However, and on the basis that you think your duty of care continues to exist when you have prematurely detrained the ticketless pax, tell me when your duty expires.
Is it when you are miles away and therefore cannot exercise any care? If so, how many miles?
Is it when the pax formally acknowledges to you that your duty has now been supplanted by someone else (and presumably gives you a written discharge to evidence this)?
Is it when a given period of time elapses, and if so, how long?
None of the above?

Maybe now, you will agree with me and confirm the pax is now outside your duty. If not, why not?

Over to you...

I suspect if a passenger is travelling A to C, and are detrained at B, the TOC may well have a duty of care until they reach C by whatever means they use from B to C. If something happens between B and C when the passenger could have been safe on that train, but instead they have an accident/ victim to crime etc the TOC could well find themselves blamed.

 

[GNER 373]

I suspect if a passenger is travelling A to C, and are detrained at B, the TOC may well have a duty of care until they reach C by whatever means they use from B to C. If something happens between B and C when the passenger could have been safe on that train, but instead they have an accident/ victim to crime etc the TOC could well find themselves blamed.

That's what we've been told by the powers that be. You managed to say what I wanted to in much less waffle!

 

[martybabes]

I suspect if a passenger is travelling A to C, and are detrained at B, the TOC may well have a duty of care until they reach C by whatever means they use from B to C. If something happens between B and C when the passenger could have been safe on that train, but instead they have an accident/ victim to crime etc the TOC could well find themselves blamed.

More tosh. Don't rely on your suspicions - rely on the law.

Just suppose, in your scenario, pax is detrained at B while on his way to C. In trying to get to C;
(i) he calls in at his Auntie who is having a satellite dish installed but, while approaching the front door, the dish falls and hits him on the head. Has the TM failed in his duty of care, and does he have any legal liability?
(ii) he takes a taxi, but the taxi-driver, not the safest driver in the world, collides with a tree injuring the pax. Has the TM failed in his duty of care, and does he have any legal liability?
(iii) he calls in at a local solicitors' office seeking an interview (with yours truly, perhaps ) and advice as to his rights. He fails to see an ill-fitting rug just inside the door, falls and breaks his arm. On the way to hospital, the ambulance crashes into a car and the unfortunate pax suffers further injuries. Has the TM failed in his duty of care, and does he have any legal liability?
(iv) he calls in at a travel agent and decides to go to Spain for three weeks instead, but halfway in to his holiday he gets food poisoning from the paella at a local taverna. Has the TM failed in his duty of care, and does he have any legal liability?

Do not forget what I said earlier about an actus novus interveniens.

Answers must be in less than 300 words - quote legal authorities where appropriate.

 

[Kneedown]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, it's a long thread, but i thought it was a bit of a cringeworthy moment when the Virgin Driver mentioned that sometimes he's up to 125 with heavy braking, and other times he's more chilled out and gives the passengers a comfortable ride.

<Facepalm>

 

[jon0844]

I think there are plenty of misconceptions, or cases where the law might suggest one thing but ultimately it wouldn't get anywhere if actually tested.

Just like the constant belief that giving first aid might land you in court.

If it's not terrible weather, the person doesn't look particularly vulnerable and it's not the last train, I doubt any TM would be found guilty of anything - even if the press might still see it as a great story.

 

[tsr]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, it's a long thread, but i thought it was a bit of a cringeworthy moment when the Virgin Driver mentioned that sometimes he's up to 125 with heavy braking, and other times he's more chilled out and gives the passengers a comfortable ride.

<Facepalm>

I imagine there must have been some exaggeration - the driver probably only drives with differences in behaviour which are safe and which would be noticeable to experts and himself. Otherwise he'd probably get a P45.

Just like the signallers who said they could tell when a bell was being rung "sarcastically" - whether or not this was a little bit OTT as a description of it - it goes to show that technical equipment can betray emotions in all sorts of aspects of railway life without danger but with meaning to staff. If you see what I mean...

 

[martybabes]

I think there are plenty of misconceptions, or cases where the law might suggest one thing but ultimately it wouldn't get anywhere if actually tested.

For it to be the law, it HAS been tested. The Act may say one thing (and any Regs made thereunder may say one thing too) but when it goes to court and the Judges have ruled on it, THAT is what the law is.

Happy to help!

 

[Kneedown]

I imagine there must have been some exaggeration - the driver probably only drives with differences in behaviour which are safe and which would be noticeable to experts and himself. Otherwise he'd probably get a P45.

You and i know that, as well as many more, but there are plenty who will take an off the cuff comment literally and scream about it, especially when railways are concerned. I remember a front page photo in the Sun some years ago purporting a VirginXC Driver to be reading a paper on the move, when the train was stood at a signal.
When the media are concerned, it always appears to be open season on railways and staff.

 

[455driver]

Got me But lets not start that again

I agree, it was an open goal though!

 

[Broken Viking]

I suspect if a passenger is travelling A to C, and are detrained at B, the TOC may well have a duty of care until they reach C by whatever means they use from B to C. If something happens between B and C when the passenger could have been safe on that train, but instead they have an accident/ victim to crime etc the TOC could well find themselves blamed.

That's definitely a tricky one...Personally, I would imagine that DoC ends once the passenger has been detrained at B and then leaves railway property for whatever reason. Don't forget that leaving railway property would include wandering off for food or drink, to find a public convenience, or even to smoke - If ownership of the station forecourt could be contested (Look at Farnborough and Basingstoke for two examples - Are they NR, private or council?) and it can be argued that in standing outside for a smoke, the pax has left the station.

Back to the A-B-C problem though; What if the pax detrained at B decides to reach C by walking along the track/cess? That'd definitely be a trespass job, but what DoC (If any) would be placed upon the railway in such circumstances?

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, it's a long thread, but i thought it was a bit of a cringeworthy moment when the Virgin Driver mentioned that sometimes he's up to 125 with heavy braking, and other times he's more chilled out and gives the passengers a comfortable ride.

Personally speaking, I Love it when a driver uses the former approach! My last run to Preston was driven in that style, and - Upon arrival at PRE - I simply couldn't thank our driver and guard enough for giving me such a fast and enjoyable journey!

Don't forget: Heavy acceleration and braking aren't as good for the environment...BUT they do mean more running at top speeds, pleasantly stronger linear G-force, and shorter journey times as a result!

 

[High Dyke]

The missus was treated to that sort of 'full on' experience with one of the drivers she works with the other day... Though i doubt the same sensation of speed can be achieved on a 'Dogbox'.

 

[Zoidberg]

The missus was treated to that sort of 'full on' experience with one of the drivers she works with the other day... Though i doubt the same sensation of speed can be achieved on a 'Dogbox'.

My friend "Google" has let me down - what class of locomotive/unit is affectionately known by the slang term "Dogbox"?

 

[Pumbaa]

153.

Aka Scud, Flying Kipper, piece of sh*t etc.

 

[Broken Viking]

If ye look carefully at the bodywork of a 153, ye can see a quite worrying resemblance to a Pacer... hock:

 

[Zoidberg]

153.

Aka Scud, Flying Kipper, piece of sh*t etc.

Ah, thank you. I note that the Wiki article does not include the slang term.

 

[RJ]

Been nattering to an East Coast employee this morning who tells me that (from episode one), the cleaner who moaned about well, just about everything has had the sack, the singing platform information woman has been disciplined over something from the show, and David Brent received a promotion and is now working as a Manager of all East Coast stations.

....... That is incredibly odd. Sure he wasn't talking rubbish? It just seems very weird to me.

There is a new station manager at Kings Cross so it must be true regarding the other manager's promotion.

I also suspect if the lady was disciplined, it would have been for telling passengers to run. In this day and age, saying things like that, even in a light hearted manner, is deemed as irresponsible.

As for the cleaner, it's never a good idea to talk about your customers in a perjorative manner.

 

[sarahj]

As I once told passengers, 'please dont run, but dont dilly dally on the way' Got a smile

 

[The Big Boo]

the old Kings X Tramp appears to have moved up the road to Euston now.

29 mins in last week- all in white as usual with his handbag.

 

[Kt]

Looking forward to tonight's episode as a friend of mine is on the show dealing with fly tipping, and we all get to wind him up afterwards ha ha!

 

[YorkshireRider]

As for the cleaner, it's never a good idea to talk about your customers in a perjorative manner.

Maybe, but i can assure you Ronnie is still there cleaning the trains, i was talking to her last night, now and again she brings me some eggs in from her chickens.

 

[Qwerty133]

153.

Aka Scud, Flying Kipper, piece of sh*t etc.

Last one is the most appropriate