Persons hit by train statistics

[Geezertronic]

I have been looking at a day when one station has had two separate incidents of persons hit by a train. Whilst our thoughts should be with the family of the deceased and those involved in the incidents, I was wondering whether there was any statistics for stations that seem to attract this unfortunate circumstance as this particular station seems to have more than it's fair share. Even looking back years it seemed to get a large handful of persons hit by train

This isnt meant to be disrespectful, as my local station it is something I have been wondering about for a while

 

[cactustwirly]

My train was involved in one there in July, so it does look like it's a hotspot.
I don't know about statistics, but I know the worst line for fatalities is the GWML between London Paddington & Reading.

 

[edwin_m]

This is probably of some interest:
https://www.rssb.co.uk/research-development-and-innovation/research-project-catalogue/T845

Network Rail and the Samaritans started a national programme of work to reduce railway suicides in January 2010. Figures from the Annual Safety Performance Report show that suicide on the Great Britain (GB) railway accounts for an average of 210 fatalities annually. This cross-industry research, supported by the Community Safety Steering Group, aims to improve the industry's knowledge of railway suicide and to evaluate a programme of work aimed at reducing the number of suicides on the mainline network in GB, by 20% by 2015. This research project is focusing on two key work streams; 'Improving Knowledge' and 'Evaluating Initiatives'. The first work stream includes a statistical analysis of railway suicide data; a review of the literature; an overview of work that industry partners (TOCs, BTP, and others) are undertaking to improve measures of prevention of suicide across the GB mainline; and the creation of GIS maps to geographically display data. A summary of progress to date is available on the RSSB website. The second work stream consists of a three-year evaluation of the Network Rail and Samaritans joint programme 'Tackling Suicide on the Railways', comprising initiatives covering training, outreach, and communications campaigns.

More details and reports on that link, however the reports require a RSSB/SPARK login. Which probably means I'll get in trouble if I post one here, but I think this quote from the 2013 annual report is relevant:

In 2012, a risk based approach was generated to calculate the priority station list. This approach took into account the suicide history, delay minutes and hazard rating (based on station layout and through traffic at the station). The list of locations can therefore be amended when the risk methodology is completed and locations can change when a suicide occurs or drops out of the qualification period. This risk methodology does not always work for more rural stations which have no delay impact or historical suicides. In these cases a local risk assessment is undertaken.

Perhaps understandably, I don't see any list of "priority locations".

 

[tony_mac]

Here's a bit from a Samaritans leaflet, which explains why such statistics are not made public

Railway stations, railway bridges and level crossings are highly visible locations and risk becoming a known location, especially if they are repeatedly referred to in the media.
It is vital that the media does not contribute to a specific location, on or near the railways, becoming a setting that vulnerable people could identify as an easily accessible place to take their own lives.

 

[Mathew S]

Here's a bit from a Samaritans leaflet, which explains why such statistics are not made public

Indeed. It's taken very seriously by (most of) the media not to report specifics of location, methods, etc. for that exact reason.

I'd imagine such statistics do exist, but that they're unlikely to be made public.

 

[tellytype]

I'd imagine an FOI request to BTP would yield the info.

 

[221129]

I'd imagine an FOI request to BTP would yield the info.

Very unlikely

 

[cactustwirly]

Very unlikely

Why? It would be illegal for them to deny a reasonable request

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Why? It would be illegal for them to deny a reasonable request

And there are many, many exemptions to authorities having to provide information. I'm sure they could find several for a request like this where there is limited public interest.

 

[221129]

Why? It would be illegal for them to deny a reasonable request

That's incorrect.

As ForTheLoveOf these sorts of statistics are exempt under the FOIA.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed. It's taken very seriously by (most of) the media not to report specifics of location, methods, etc. for that exact reason

Not in my experience; these guidelines appear to be largely ignored by the media. Any search for an incident will likely reveal results for an incident in local media, and some receive much wider attention; the recent incident at Doncaster was picked up on by a number of national newspapers and the Metro went into great detail about how the two supposedly did it, even mentioning that they bought tickets to go through the ticket barrier (which was wrong as even the slightest bit of research would have shown Doncaster is ungated).

 

[cactustwirly]

And there are many, many exemptions to authorities having to provide information. I'm sure they could find several for a request like this where there is limited public interest.

They can only deny requests if they breach the Data Protection act, or it's not in the public interest.

 

[OwlMan]

They can only deny requests if they breach the Data Protection act, or it's not in the public interest.

suggest you read http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/part/II

 

[221129]

They can only deny requests if they breach the Data Protection act, or it's not in the public interest.

Again, you are incorrect.

 

[Highlandspring]

I'd imagine such statistics do exist, but that they're unlikely to be made public.

They certainly do exist and are sent out, along with some very insightful analysis, to interested parties within the rail industry every period.

 

[rebmcr]

Here's a bit from a Samaritans leaflet, which explains why such statistics are not made public

Railway stations, railway bridges and level crossings are highly visible locations and risk becoming a known location, especially if they are repeatedly referred to in the media.
It is vital that the media does not contribute to a specific location, on or near the railways, becoming a setting that vulnerable people could identify as an easily accessible place to take their own lives.

Might I suggest to the mods (I've tagged this comment using the report button) that given the above, the specific station is removed from the Original Post of this thread?

RailUK gets very high ranking on search engines, so the information could easily show up if someone is seeking that sort of knowledge for unfortunate purposes.

 

[221129]

Might I suggest to the mods (I've tagged this comment using the report button) that given the above, the specific station is removed from the Original Post of this thread?

RailUK gets very high ranking on search engines, so the information could easily show up if someone is seeking that sort of knowledge for unfortunate purposes.

Unfortunately places such as this one are well known about and I don't believe the censoring of them on a specialist forum is going to help the situation.

 

[Geezertronic]

No, pretty pointless censoring it really. The station I named is unfortunately well known for this with it being an almost regular occurrence so whether it is named here or elsewhere makes it highly unavoidable to be honest. Us locals have a right to highlight this and if possible highlight back to Network Rail any failings that may be noted, and more importantly understand why and help if we can. If I cannot do that on a Rail Forum, I don't know where else I can turn to

 

[Mathew S]

Not in my experience; these guidelines appear to be largely ignored by the media. Any search for an incident will likely reveal results for an incident in local media, and some receive much wider attention; the recent incident at Doncaster was picked up on by a number of national newspapers and the Metro went into great detail about how the two supposedly did it, even mentioning that they bought tickets to go through the ticket barrier (which was wrong as even the slightest bit of research would have shown Doncaster is ungated).

I think we may have a different idea of what constitutes 'detail'.

"Person X took their own life at Y station by deliberately walking/jumping in front of the train from A to B," for example, would be completely acceptable. To delve into any more detail than thay would (normally*) be considered unethical for the reasons the Samaritans explain. Some so-called journalists have a habit of ignoring these guidelines, but such is human nature - there are muppets in every profession, which is why I said 'most' in my original post.

*In exceptional circumstances there could be a legitimate public interest served by reporting a greater level of detail than would normally be the case but, by definition, this is very unusual indeed.

 

[greyman42]

I have been looking at a day when one station has had two separate incidents of persons hit by a train. Whilst our thoughts should be with the family of the deceased and those involved in the incidents, I was wondering whether there was any statistics for stations that seem to attract this unfortunate circumstance as this particular station seems to have more than it's fair share. Even looking back years it seemed to get a large handful of persons hit by train

This isnt meant to be disrespectful, as my local station it is something I have been wondering about for a while

Which station are we talking about here? All this cloak and dagger business seems very childish.

 

[TimboM]

Which station are we talking about here? All this cloak and dagger business seems very childish.

It is not childish. There is clear guidance from mental health professionals and charities not to mention specifics about suicides (e.g. location/method etc.) as there's clear evidence it leads to others who may be considering taking their own life "copy catting" (if that's a phrase).

 

[greyman42]

It is not childish. There is clear guidance from mental health professionals and charities not to mention specifics about suicides (e.g. location/method etc.) as there's clear evidence it leads to others who may be considering taking their own life "copy catting" (if that's a phrase).

Absolute rubbish in my opinion.

 

[TimboM]

Absolute rubbish in my opinion.

Your opinion vs extensive studies by mental health professionals (of which I’m closely related to one) - I know which one I’ll choose to give most credence to, but each to their own...