To be fair I have no knowledge that any misuse of passcoms has resulted in a court appearance but I am very sure that the above defences, sound or otherwise, you state above are no defence in law. In fact I would counter that one would be proving their guilt by admitting to deliberately using the passcom when there was no real emergency.
I must reiterate that the passcom is only for emergency use, e.g a person trapped in the door when the train is moving, the train is on fire, &c., &c.. Not you are going to be late for the dentists. The acceptance of deliberate misuse of the passcom in non emergency situations has the potential to weaken its effect in a true emergency therefore I can not and will not accept its use for a passenger being overcarried.
Train operators do take door faults seriously and we are constantly reminded as traincrew that we must timeously report the fault and label any such door found, the use of public address is encouraged to inform the travelling public to give themselves extra time to alight due to any door fault, and we would be justified in allowing extra dwell time (a 1/4 minute would probably suffice) to ensure this happens. Ensuring that arrival announcements are made prior to stations helps those passengers who are not so familiar with the line get ready to alight before their stop. Traincrew are authorised to move any item that in their opinion is causing an obstruction to the doors or in fact any other passageway on the train - this helps the free movement of passengers and speeds up boarding & alighting considerably. Not only that in creates a much more pleasant travelling environment for all.
Passengers must also take responsibility for their own actions and give themselves plenty of time to alight. It always amazes me so that many do not and also that so many pay no attention to the door opening instructions nor to the hustle alarms.
The above really does not warrant a response but do you have any examples of successful prosecutions for "assault by train door"?
I'll assume that you haven't read fully or maybe just misunderstood the comments in my post #30 and Neil Williams in post #31. Both posts explain that there are circumstances that, trivial as it may seem to a guard/driver, are serious issues for the passenger who through no fault of their own may be forced to travel beyond their destination. If you think that the examples that I have given
(a court hearing, an important hospital appointment, an important academic examination, etc..) would be frivolous reasons to pull the lever then so be it. I would imagine that any TOC who had the stupidity to take a legitimate passenger to law for that would not only be lambasted by the local media, but a court would ask questions as to what the emegency alarm is for then. As somebody has already posted here, if the TOCs can't (won't) give some formal guidance on what is an emegency and what isn't, then they can hardly complain if the public, who are not interested in details of rail operations, decide what an emergency is themselves. If a passenger didn't pull the lever because 'a TOC member of staff' said "you can't use it for that", and there were serious consequences, I can't see the TOC automatically supporting that employee in every circumstance.
The bottom line is that the emergency alarm is there to be used when the passenger feels it is necessary. As far as he/she is concerned, all it does is stop the train. The operational consequences would be relevant in the case of abuse of this safety feature, but as you say, you haven't heard of any TOC taking a passenger to court, and nor have I. I doubt that in the circumstance being discussed, a TOC would take the risk of a court exposing their lack of foresight.
You should note that I am not lambasting the guard/driver/dispatcher here who are just trying to keep the trains running to time. They do have unreasoanble passenger behaviour to deal with, and probably get no sympathy from their employer when it happens. Placed in that situation, if I couldn't cope with it, I would consider my employment options. I wouldn't take it out on all passengers by assuming that the TOC's financial interests in avoiding penalties for late running took priority over all passengers needs.
As far as what you erroneously call 'assault by door', (or even 'TOC employee assaults passenger by closing doors on him/her') cases, please just read what I said again: "could also be considered as assault". Where do you get the idea from that I said there has been any actual case brought to court?
