Seatbelts on Trains

[Lawman]

May sound weird,but are there any trains that have seatbelts fitted.I know that the chances of a head on crash are limited,but obstructions on the line,level crossing incidents and poor tracks can cause accidents.

Could it ever happen,and has it ever been discussed by dft?

 

[Fincra5]

S*** storm incoming....

There is no need at all for Seatbelts on trains, i'm sure 99% of people on here would agree.

 

[WestCoast]

It's bad enough that you are now forced to use uncomfortable three point seat belts on some coaches, to have them on trains wouldn't be good.

Seat belts save lives in cars (and possibly coaches) but on trains I doubt they would make much difference...

I have heard some reports that they would actually hinder in an emergency situation.

 

[Waddon]

Maybe they could be installed but only as an optional thing... It just wouldn't work if it was compulsory... how do you check everyone in a 12 coach train is wearing their belt when the train makes station stops every 5-10mins? not to mention standing passengers... not feasible

 

[wintonian]

They were looked into at some point by the RAIB I have previously linked to the report on here somewhere, but it was decided that they wouldn't have much if any benefit.

 

[pablo]

At what level of deceleration are seat belts intended to save the wearer from injury? In what circumstances could trains achieve this, ever?

 

[ainsworth74]

The report after Ufton Nevet (at least I think it was that accident) included a study on whether seatbelts would have helped improve peoples chances of a) survival and b) avoiding serious injury. That study concluded that the benefits were minor and the costs enormous so it was not worthwhile pursuing further. I think the Germans also conducted a similar study after the Eschede crash and came to the same conclusions.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I'm no mathematician but the inertia exerted by a train's mass surely means that the rate of declaration will invariably be too little to make a tension-seatbelt effective.

For more serious incidents, where the coach is unstable, surely there's as much risk of being hit by luggage / belongings / broken glass, regardless whether a belt is worn or not?

And, thank goodness, the deadman's treadle prevents the rail equivalent of a lorry-driver or a coach-driver falling asleep at the wheel.

 

[OxtedL]

It's bad enough that you are now forced to use uncomfortable three point seat belts on some coaches, to have them on trains wouldn't be good.

Am I the only person who ever actually used / uses these on coaches? I do it by default and always feel a bit of a ninny. Still, coach crashes when they happen are nasty...

I am pretty sure that almost noone would use them on trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

Report from RSSB here:

http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/press/2007/310707.pdf

Our survey said... NO

 

[WestCoast]

Am I the only person who ever actually used / uses these on coaches? I do it by default and always feel a bit of a ninny.

It depends really, some of the private operators are pretty strict (and some couldn't care less). The fine for not wearing a seat belt lies with the adult passenger. The regulation on coaches is that there either has to be

1) Visible "fasten your seatbelt" signs or
2) Announcements made after a new passenger has joined the coach.

No prizes for guessing which one most companies choose!

 

[strange6]

It depends really, some of the private operators are pretty strict (and some couldn't care less). The fine for not wearing a seat belt lies with the adult passenger. The regulation on coaches is that there either has to be

1) Visible "fasten your seatbelt" signs or
2) Announcements made after a new passenger has joined the coach.

No prizes for guessing which one most companies choose!

can't see this happening. You would have to do away with the meal services, ticket checks, shops etc

 

[WestCoast]

can't see this happening. You would have to do away with the meal services, ticket checks, shops etc

One of the major benefits of train travel is that you can (within reason) move around the train. I don't want to see trains becoming more like coaches or planes in this respect.

However, you are still allowed to get up and go to the toilet on a coach (if there is one), so knowing sod's law the accident would be at this point...:?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35965

I started the above thread (with the same name) last year, it included a letter in the Dialy Express calling for them.

I sincerely hope this never, ever happens.

 

[me123]

It will never happen, and we've had plenty of discussions about this before. For one thing, you're implying to people that standing on trains is somehow unsafe (which is a laughable statement given just how prevalent it is and how few people die as a result of it).

 

[wintonian]

It will never happen, and we've had plenty of discussions about this before. For one thing, you're implying to people that standing on trains is somehow unsafe (which is a laughable statement given just how prevalent it is and how few people die as a result of it).

Well if it were to become compulsory then all morning and evening peak services in the SE (and some other parts of the network) would become reservation mandatory trains as I doubt any one would put enough investment in to sufficiently increase capacity.

Of course in this case there would be less commuters due to a, not being able to fit them all in and b, an unwillingness and/or inability to once a week ring up or stop at the ticket office and book seats for specific trains in advance. This lack flexibility would lead to commuters not willing to travel by rail and possibly working closer to home and lead to trains running under capacity in turn leading to the railways not bringing enough revenue in and eventually the end of life as we know it.

 

[moggie]

Unlike road transport where there are no systems in place to control distance between road vehicles and enforce separation (i.e control systems that prevent collision) at junctions, other than the person driving the road vehicle, rail transport has a number of enforcement systems that either dictate a 'safe' distance between trains or enforce collision protection at junctions that are independent of the driver.

While all safety systems have limitations, the risk of a train collision compared with road transport is controlled to what is deemed as low as reasonably practical for each rail installation. Therefore the risk of collision is vastly decreased on rail compared with road transport. So seatbelts add little EXTRA protection when the risk of collision is already reduced which is why their fitment is considered unnecessary.

There is then of course the factors of passenger movement within the train which adds another dimension to the practicality of fitment.

 

[TDK]

Rediculous idea, if there was a train accident there would be more fatalities if seat belts were compusory on trains due to difficulty with egress from the train

 

[merlodlliw]

Bizarre idea, no doubt some consultant sees money in it as usual, who would Police it, I have a friend who due to illness as an exemption from wearing a car seatbelt,surprising how many Police are not even aware of this exemption.


Bob

 

[fairlie]

Surely chronic overcrowding creates a greater risk to passengers in the event of an accident than the lack of seatbelts?

 

[notadriver]

There's only one type of train that requires that passengers wear seatbelts.

Rollercoasters

 

[paulb1973]

Am I the only person who ever actually used / uses these on coaches? I do it by default and always feel a bit of a ninny. Still, coach crashes when they happen are nasty...

I am pretty sure that almost noone would use them on trains.

I caught a clip of a National Express coach driver instructing his passengers to wear the seatbelts provided, on that coach travel programme on BBC3/4 recently. Thought whaaaat, how could that possibly be enforced! Surely when the driver gets moving, you could take it off again! Had thought some coaches have toilets fitted making seat belts a little pointless anyway. Sure some safety study after the Ufton accident concluded they would have been of little benefit (and presumably would be hugely inconvenient and expensive).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's only one type of train that requires that passengers wear seatbelts.

Rollercoasters

..but not the Docklands Light Railway.

 

[me123]

That's been the law for some time on coaches, and hao been in place longer on the continent. Having said that, for people over the age of 14, it's their responsibility to wear their seat belt. Presumably for younger people, making reasonable adjustments, announcements and relying on parental supervision also helps. It's hard to enforce, but common sense says that you should wear a belt where provided on a bus. I have seen a minor incident on a school bus that could have been prevented had they had their seat belt on.

As has been mentioned before, road vehicles are totally different from trains. Trains are on a safe track, with plenty of protective measures. So, before you even set off, you're considerably safer on a train than on the road, where even the best driver can be involved in an accident just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[notadriver]

Let's not forget buses don't need seatbelts for passengers either. Seatbelts are only needed for school buses or for bus/coaches that have a design speed exceeding 60 mph.

There are some motorists who believe travelling by road is safer than travelling by train. One told me he travelled by road as he could always keep an eye on the driver - be it car or coach whereas on a train he couldn't and also he had no idea of what was coming ahead or whether the train driver was speeding.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....There are some motorists who believe travelling by road is safer than travelling by train....

Which is precisely why train travel is safer.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Maybe they could be installed but only as an optional thing... It just wouldn't work if it was compulsory... how do you check everyone in a 12 coach train is wearing their belt when the train makes station stops every 5-10mins? not to mention standing passengers... not feasible

One of the major benefits of train travel is that you can (within reason) move around the train. I don't want to see trains becoming more like coaches or planes in this respect.

However, you are still allowed to get up and go to the toilet on a coach (if there is one), so knowing sod's law the accident would be at this point...:?

WAG are threatening to do this for buses (indirectly, they are targeting school buses but since many school buses are also used on public services this will have implications). It just wouldn't work if it was compulsory, being able to move around the bus is one reason why I like them. Having to wear a seat belt on my hour and a half bus journey would be very anoying, thankfully there are currently no seat-belt fitted buses on my route at the moment. As far as I know it is a legal requirement to use the seat belts on a bus if the bus has them (there are enough signs on such vehicles telling you you must wear the seat belt).

 

[moggie]

Surely chronic overcrowding creates a greater risk to passengers in the event of an accident than the lack of seatbelts?

Yes, but the same logic applies if you spend your available funds in trying to prevent an accident (high integrity permanent way, sophisticated signalling systems and rolling stock design) in the first place. This I presume is why such high levels of crowding are tolerated despite the fact that longer trains would elliviate crowding issues in some areas.

I feel a bigger risk to health on crowded trains is when there is major disruption which leaves trains stranded without power and rapidly overheating interiors such has occurred on hot summer days with the wires down.

 

[Flamingo]

Read this: http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/6 CCS - Containment.pdf

The key quote is

it was estimated that for every one person saved in a train accident with a seat belt, there would be eight additional fatalities.

The introduction of unbreakable windows to HST's (and removal of the "escape window" and hammer) was the key safety improvement after Ufton Nervit.

 

[moggie]

Yes, i agree, that is a key safety justification for not fitting safety belts.

From the same report;

"In addition, had there been a safety benefit from fitting seat belts, a high
level analysis showed that it would not have been reasonably practicable
to do so. This is because of the very significant capacity, operational and
commercial consequences that would flow from the use of seat belts".

The two unfortunately go hand in hand much as some find this difficult to comprehend.

 

[wintonian]

Surely chronic overcrowding creates a greater risk to passengers in the event of an accident than the lack of seatbelts?

You could kill 2 birds with one stone!