Train driver mental health

[ralphchadkirk]

Striker is a man of common sense. He can see Tosh when he reads it!

He hasn't picked up on your posts then.

Trying to compare killing someone on the road, and killing someone by a train are very different.

Coincidentally, I was talking to a friend of mine who is in the emergency healthcare field, and this topic cropped up. He was of the opinion that drivers of cars are not as affected as they have a limit of control over the car - they can brake in a far shorter distance than a train from the same speed, are lighter and can swerve. The driver of a train cannot to anything about it about from hit the brakes and look away.
In his words, not mine, car accidents are better as the victim is usually in one piece. With railway fatalities the victim is usually spread in many bits along the track for a distance, or caught in various orifices underneath.

 

[strange6]

He hasn't picked up on your posts then.

Trying to compare killing someone on the road, and killing someone by a train are very different.

Coincidentally, I was talking to a friend of mine who is in the emergency healthcare field, and this topic cropped up. He was of the opinion that drivers of cars are not as affected as they have a limit of control over the car - they can brake in a far shorter distance than a train from the same speed, are lighter and can swerve. The driver of a train cannot to anything about it about from hit the brakes and look away.
In his words, not mine, car accidents are better as the victim is usually in one piece. With railway fatalities the victim is usually spread in many bits along the track for a distance, or caught in various orifices underneath.

Yes he has because that's why he said 'hear hear' to one of my posts so please try reading the thread properly

Secondly, anybody who believes that 'car accidents are better as the victim is usually in one piece' really is... well, let's just say, not with it.

This is my last post on this thread because some people are just taking the p*ss now.

 

[Striker]

Maybe everyone on here should just back off on this one. This started out as a perfectly good thread, but has since descended into utter rubbish, especially since my favourite member joined in.

I'll assume you mean me then?

Why do my previous posts mean that whatever I post now it's wrong, when in fact in this thread I have explained, coherently, why suicides are rare in the grand scheme of things?

The "back of a napkin" statistics show that on average a driver would need to drive 75 years before having a death. Why is this so ridiculous, and secondly, why do these facts imply that I am being insensitive, as is the accusation from some people? I would really like someone attempt to answer these questions instead of taking the easy option of pack mentality and having a go at me. :roll:

Sorry Striker but we will have to agree to disagree with your definition of rare. I have just looked on the national logs for the entire network and since the start of the year there has been at least 30 odd fatalities recorded. To me that says fatalities as an event on the network are fairly common place.

This is exactly what I am talking about! Your complete lack of understanding when it comes to statistics! Firstly, based on the figures you have quoted, i.e. 30 odd fatalities recorded since the start of the year, that means in two months there have been around 30 people killed. Multiply that figure to project 2011 figures and you get (30 x 6) 180 deaths, which is below the figure of 258 for 2010! That means at 30 deaths so far, it is actually below the trend set for the previous year!

Secondly, and this is something which you fail to understand, is that statistics will be skewed towards higher deaths during winter months when there is less daylight. So, although the figure is 30 so far this year, when summer comes the average will drop.

As I said, a complete lack of understanding on your part.

I know there are more people on this forum who realise that just coming up with a "raw" figure of 30 deaths means absolutely NOTHING unless you take into account the number of train movements, but they're not coming forward because they don't want to be seen siding with me, someone who is perceived as a complete baffoon. I tried to explain to you your lack of understanding by showing you the example of births in the UK, but you seem to have even failed to grasp that! Unbelievable!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Secondly, anybody who believes that 'car accidents are better as the victim is usually in one piece' really is... well, let's just say, not with it.

Are you trying to say that seeing someone in bits after being hit by 400t at 125mph is less shocking than someone hit by 1t at 70mph? You really have lost it! Come back when you know more about mechanics of injury.

 

[westcoaster]

He hasn't picked up on your posts then.

Trying to compare killing someone on the road, and killing someone by a train are very different.

Coincidentally, I was talking to a friend of mine who is in the emergency healthcare field, and this topic cropped up. He was of the opinion that drivers of cars are not as affected as they have a limit of control over the car - they can brake in a far shorter distance than a train from the same speed, are lighter and can swerve. The driver of a train cannot to anything about it about from hit the brakes and look away.
In his words, not mine, car accidents are better as the victim is usually in one piece. With railway fatalities the victim is usually spread in many bits along the track for a distance, or caught in various orifices underneath.

Just what I was about to say, there are differences between rail and road.
It's not just the driver, mom, p-way, police ambulance workers and so on, on one occasion last year, a young woman standing on a packed platform, placed her handbag down on the platform ( final demand bills were found inside) and jumped into the path of an express train, there were about 100 commuters on both platforms that witnessed it, so there is a bigger picture in the over all scheme of things.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I
Secondly, and this is something which you fail to understand, is that statistics will be skewed towards higher deaths during winter months when there is less daylight. So, although the figure is 30 so far this year, when summer comes the average will drop.

It would be interesting to see a moving average graph over a couple of decades of it. Not sure where the data would come from though.

 

[westcoaster]

This is exactly what I am talking about! Your complete lack of understanding when it comes to statistics! Firstly, based on the figures you have quoted, i.e. 30 odd fatalities recorded since the start of the year, that means in two months there have been around 30 people killed. Multiply that figure to project 2011 figures and you get (30 x 6) 180 deaths, which is below the figure of 258 for 2010! That means at 30 deaths so far, it is actually below the trend set for the previous year!

Secondly, and this is something which you fail to understand, is that statistics will be skewed towards higher deaths during winter months when there is less daylight. So, although the figure is 30 so far this year, when summer comes the average will drop.

As I said, a complete lack of understanding on your part.

Suicides tend to pick up later in the year, especially at or around Christmas, and between crews is known as silly season.
On our lines it's normally the intercity boys and girls that get the most, but we still get them from time to time.

 

[GB]

As I said, a complete lack of understanding on your part.

OK, maybe I am not a statistical analyst but I have been on the railway long enough to know and see that fatalities are NOT RARE events.

 

[Minilad]

I don't think it really matters about how "rare" or not suicides are. Its the sheer randomness of them which is the more important thing.
Every driver every shift could have one. They equally could have a near miss, things thrown or shot at them, or many other events that are rare. But they still happen. And when things like that happen it will affect the driver, maybe subconsciously, but they will be affected.
All I can do as a driver is hope that when I finish my duty every day nothing untoward has happened, and then I can hope for the same the next day

 

[Striker]

OK, maybe I am not a statistical analyst but I have been on the railway long enough to know and see that fatalities are NOT RARE events.

Without wishing to flog a dead horse, you have just perfectly highlighted the mistake a lot of people make. You seem to be basing your "general feeling" and your own experiences and drawing broad conclusions from it. On what basis do you conclude fatalities are "not rare"? "Being around the railway long enough" is not a sound enough base.

I am using ACTUAL figures, some of which you yourself have provided, to draw the conclusion that suicides are rare when you consider how many journeys are uneventful.

It's like people who say crime is up compared with 30 years ago. Is it? Or is it because we are now bombarded with news 24 hours per day so it just SEEMS crime is up?

 

[scotsman]

Without wishing to flog a dead horse, you have just perfectly highlighted the mistake a lot of people make. You seem to be basing your "general feeling" and your own experiences and drawing broad conclusions from it. On what basis do you conclude fatalities are "not rare"? "Being around the railway long enough" is not a sound enough base.

I am using ACTUAL figures, some of which you yourself have provided, to draw the conclusion that suicides are rare when you consider how many journeys are uneventful.

Yes, but you seem to want to make yourself see as disconnected from the outside world as possible.

 

[Striker]

Yes, but you seem to want to make yourself see as disconnected from the outside world as possible.

Oh give over.

I'm simply saying that based on ACTUAL FIGURES suicides are relatively rare! That doesn't mean that because it's rare it isn't traumatic for all concerned! Stop trying to stir things up! :roll:

Indeed, the fact that it is traumatic experience just demonstrates that it is rare as otherwise it would be an everyday occurance and drivers would either take it in their stride or they would have to retire from the railways due to stress!

 

[scotsman]

Oh give over.

I'm simply saying that based on ACTUAL FIGURES suicides are relatively rare! That doesn't mean that because it's rare it isn't traumatic for all concerned! Stop trying to stir things up! :roll:

Indeed, the fact that it is traumatic experience just demonstrates that it is rare as otherwise it would be an everyday occurance and drivers would either take it in their stride or they would have to retire from the railways due to stress!

Well stop placing so much emphasis on the numbers then! A human life is not a number.

 

[strange6]

Are you trying to say that seeing someone in bits after being hit by 400t at 125mph is less shocking than someone hit by 1t at 70mph? You really have lost it! Come back when you know more about mechanics of injury.

mechanics of injury? Are you for real? What on earth are you talking about?
Can the moderators or the admins please review this thread and tell me when have I ever mentioned anything disrepectful in this thread please? How the hell have we got on to this stupid topic of which death is worse - railways or road? Some people on this board seem hell bent on p'ing people off.

 

[Striker]

Well stop placing so much emphasis on the numbers then! A human life is not a number.

Oh for God's sake stop steaming into a thread halfway through and getting out of your depth!

This all stems from this post by O L Leigh accusing Strange6 of making a "stupid" comment when in actual fact Strange6 was talking complete sense. My argument is that one event in 75 years is RARE and the fact that it's suicides is irrelevent. Haley's comet comes round roughly once every 75 years and that is deemed "rare", so what difference does it make if we're talking about suicides? :roll:

Now. What are you going to come back with now?

 

[strange6]

Oh for God's sake stop steaming into a thread halfway through and getting out of your depth!

This all stems from this post by O L Leigh accusing Strange6 of making a "stupid" comment when in actual fact Strange6 was talking complete sense. My argument is that one event in 75 years is RARE and the fact that it's suicides is irrelevent. Haley's comet comes round roughly once every 75 years and that is deemed "rare", so what difference does it make if we're talking about suicides? :roll:

Now. What are you going to come back with now?

Thank you, Striker. I just can't believe how some people interpret completely rational comments. I would love some moderator or admin input here

 

[1V53]

Yes he has because that's why he said 'hear hear' to one of my posts so please try reading the thread properly

Secondly, anybody who believes that 'car accidents are better as the victim is usually in one piece' really is... well, let's just say, not with it.

This is my last post on this thread because some people are just taking the p*ss now.

Has someone else logged into your account then? You started this thread and simply don't like the responses. To be honest I feel you deserve (most of) the criticism you have had.

I described a fatality earlier in this thread. Let me continue then with the graphic description. The guy was thrown into the level crossing gates in a mass of blood and flesh. At the gates there were schoolkids waiting to cross who were covered in... The driver stopped his train and instantly went into auto mode - first job, contact the signaller. The signalbox at Wem is by the LC gates. He gets through and all he can hear is the sound of schoolgirls screaming. He has to take his train onwards eventually and has a mass of slime on the windscreen.

To this day he sometimes has to drive the same train through the same point.

I am sure some car accidents are horrid. However in most car accidents the car sustains some impact as most are made of thin steel or fibreglass or whetever - it 'gives' and absorbs the impact. Yes a dead person is a dead person whatever, and I have heard horrific stories of speeding cars going under a bus and screams from the dying underneath. I didn't sleep much after hearing that one either. But the gory car accidents are rarer, many casualties die in hospital.

If you are hit by a braking steering car you have some chance of survival or reduced injury. If you are hit by a speeding train you have none.

 

[Striker]

I am amazed that some people have turned this into a p***ing contest as to which is the most gory way to die, train or car. :roll:

Utterly amazing.

 

[1V53]

I am amazed that some people have turned this into a p***ing contest as to which is the most gory way to die, train or car. :roll:

Utterly amazing.

I am amazed that those with nothing to add to the subject still insist on posting purely to criticise those that do, but there we go.

 

[Mojo]

Can the moderators or the admins please review this thread and tell me when have I ever mentioned anything disrepectful in this thread please? How the hell have we got on to this stupid topic of which death is worse - railways or road? Some people on this board seem hell bent on p'ing people off.

You haven't.

Unfortunately some people can't accept that others have a differing opinion and are rude against those who choose to give one and it should stop here. This is an emotive subject and if certain individuals understand that then it's probably best to move on.

 

[scotsman]

Oh for God's sake stop steaming into a thread halfway through and getting out of your depth!

This all stems from this post by O L Leigh accusing Strange6 of making a "stupid" comment when in actual fact Strange6 was talking complete sense. My argument is that one event in 75 years is RARE and the fact that it's suicides is irrelevent. Haley's comet comes round roughly once every 75 years and that is deemed "rare", so what difference does it make if we're talking about suicides? :roll:

Now. What are you going to come back with now?

You're not addressing my point, I am asking you to stop turning people into numbers! I have not questioned the cause of death, or whether it is rare. All I am saying is, while it may be rare, it does not mean that one death is not enough.

 

[the sniper]

Haley's comet comes round roughly once every 75 years and that is deemed "rare", so what difference does it make if we're talking about suicides? :roll:

I was with you to an extent, but that's a rather tenuous comparison to make. There's a suicide on the railway every couple of days, we know that, not one every 75 years. Haley's comet isn't going to turn variable either, there's no chance of it suddenly coming around four times in 10 or 20 years, so it's not comparable to how often a driver might be involved in a suicide or fatality.

 

[1V53]

You haven't.

I think the problem is some people here have been involved in fatalities which have affected their lives, and feel they are having that trauma belittled by those who haven't experienced it.

If you got 50 car drivers in a room I would be surprised if one had experienced a fatal RTA. I could randomly pick 50 train drivers at my company and you'd have 2 or 3.

258 fatalities a year x 10 2580.

Compare that to the number of train drivers driving in a 10 year period and thats quite a high ratio.

 

[Mojo]

Of course maybe the use of the word ''rare'' is what can cause the trouble. After all at what %age to you say something switches between common, frequent, average, infrequent and rare?

It's all relative though. A train arriving on time is a common occurrence, roughly 90% do. Is a train arriving late a frequent occurrence even though only 10% do? I wouldn't say it's infrequent as statistically that means a commuter is late at least once per week, although that of course is not uniform (I've only ever been late twice in a year).

 

[strange6]

Has someone else logged into your account then? You started this thread and simply don't like the responses. To be honest I feel you deserve (most of) the criticism you have had.

I described a fatality earlier in this thread. Let me continue then with the graphic description. The guy was thrown into the level crossing gates in a mass of blood and flesh. At the gates there were schoolkids waiting to cross who were covered in... The driver stopped his train and instantly went into auto mode - first job, contact the signaller. The signalbox at Wem is by the LC gates. He gets through and all he can hear is the sound of schoolgirls screaming. He has to take his train onwards eventually and has a mass of slime on the windscreen.

To this day he sometimes has to drive the same train through the same point.

I am sure some car accidents are horrid. However in most car accidents the car sustains some impact as most are made of thin steel or fibreglass or whetever - it 'gives' and absorbs the impact. Yes a dead person is a dead person whatever, and I have heard horrific stories of speeding cars going under a bus and screams from the dying underneath. I didn't sleep much after hearing that one either. But the gory car accidents are rarer, many casualties die in hospital.

If you are hit by a braking steering car you have some chance of survival or reduced injury. If you are hit by a speeding train you have none.

I give up. This topic has turned into a subject that I never orignally intended to debate through no fault of my own because other 'railway people' have put a negative spin on the comments that I have made for some reason, as they have done with other people in other threads. What a joke!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You haven't.

Unfortunately some people can't accept that others have a differing opinion and are rude against those who choose to give one and it should stop here. This is an emotive subject and if certain individuals understand that then it's probably best to move on.

Thanks, Mojo. Can we please delete this pathetic thread and move on please?

 

[1V53]

If you start a discussion on a fatality then don't criticise those who discuss areas of fatalities! How you can say this is an area you never intended to discuss I don't know, unless you don't understand how discussions work!

For someone who had their 'last post' on the subject some time ago you still seem to want to contribute to the discussion.

If you don't want a discussion to cover all areas of a topic then don't start threads on discussion boards my friend.

 

[strange6]

I think the problem is some people here have been involved in fatalities which have affected their lives, and feel they are having that trauma belittled by those who haven't experienced it.

If you got 50 car drivers in a room I would be surprised if one had experienced a fatal RTA. I could randomly pick 50 train drivers at my company and you'd have 2 or 3.

258 fatalities a year x 10 2580.

Compare that to the number of train drivers driving in a 10 year period and thats quite a high ratio.

Yeah, that may be right or wrong but whenever have I shown any disrepect in this thread to these poor people and yet I'm being made to look like some sort of villain for bringing the topic up in the first place.

 

[1V53]

Just to add that I would find it hard as a railway person or not to put a positive spin on a negative issue like strikes or fatalities.

 

[strange6]

If you start a discussion on a fatality then don't criticise those who discuss areas of fatalities!

?????? Please read through this thread properly and see who's been criticising who!

 

[1V53]

Yeah, that may be right or wrong but whenever have I shown any disrepect in this thread to these poor people and yet I'm being made to look like some sort of villain for bringing the topic up in the first place.

No, but I wouldn't go to a colleague who had had a fatality and seek to discuss how this affects his mental health. Some subjects are taboo and not talked about. Disrespectful is the wrong word, but a little (inadvertently) thoughtless and insensitive perhaps given the number of staff here.