But is it right to take a train, with a couple of hundred of people on board, at speeds of up to 90 km/h (56 mph), with gaping apertures out of which human bodies can tumble?
But isn't this an exaggerated concern? After all, London Transport has been operating thousands of open-backed buses for decades (and continues to do so on tourist routes)?
The Smolensk disaster cockpit voice recorder tapes, which were published last week, are remarkable for the fact that there was no one present on the flight deck who piped up with the opinion: "This looks lethal. Let's divert to the nearest alternative airport that's not fog bound".
And consider this fact (provided by Richard Burleigh, head of Skanska S.A.'s Warsaw office): the number of fatal accidents on UK building sites per 10,000 man-years worked is three; in Poland it is 15. We may all mock Britain's obsession with 'Ealf an' safety', but the statistics show that the result is a significant reduction in human misery resulting from preventable accidents.
But isn't common sense enough?
It is in 99% of cases.
But is the restriction on liberties required to prevent that 1% of accidents too high a price to pay? All those notices, officious people telling you off, hours spent in training sessions?
There are places (building sites, aircraft, maritime transport, public transport, public roads) which are by their very nature more prone to catastrophic accidents where a small slip can lead to death - or indeed many deaths. People are more accepting of a stricter health and safety regime here. But there is a fine line in which the state can start rolling back civil liberties in the name of health and safety.
A public debate is needed as to where to draw lines - and how deep to draw them. Should the driver of my train this morning be censured for opening doors while the train was in motion (or indeed taking a defective train out of the depot)? If the train was indeed defective, was it better that it ran rather then being cancelled? (After all, no one fell out of it, and it ran more than 100km from Radom right across Warsaw). At the moment, there's a chaotic situation where in certain circumstances the very highest EU norms are applied (food hygiene being an example). In others, it's old-style nonchalance, niedbalstwo/bezmyślność or carelessness/thoughtlessness, which only comes to light after a major tragedy.
Posts
10 comments:
An what would you have said if the doors were closed only for some elderly people to die of a heart attack? Should perhaps all trains without air conditioning be stopped from running in these high temperatures - or buses and trams for that matter?
As for the comment "The Smolensk disaster cockpit voice recorder tapes, which were published last week, are remarkable for the fact that there was no one present on the flight deck who piped up with the opinion: "This looks lethal. Let's divert to the nearest alternative airport that's not fog bound"." it is is crass in its stupidity. There is no way the pilots would know if the approach is dangerous to the extent that it is outside their ability or the set safety guidelines unless they are so advised. Cloud or fog cannot be seen through whether you're at 500m or 100m. It's ATC and airport control that deny permission as they're on the ground, not pilots who are in the air that announce airports closed. The crucial factor is that there are standards which are applied across the board and there are trained personnel whose job it is to maintain and adhere to these standards. If they do go beyond them they will lose their license/ job etc. If they do not, it's hardly remarkable is it? In this specific case, given the additional factor that the pilots were provided with incorrect distance confirmation and flight path monitoring by ATC, which is evident from the available 'transcript' it's remarkable that someone should expect those on board to be able to assess the situation as dangerous until they've done a fly-by.
If the weather at the airport was too dangerous it was the job of the controller to deny permission,. He permitted a fly-by in order to assess if the plane would be visible at the height limit permitted and the pilot carried out the approach based on the instructions, the instruments he had on board and his pilot training.
If there is anything remarkable, then it is that pilots are issued with 'uprawnienia' that allow them to competently land within certain safety limits, and that the flight took place at all given the Russian's own legal requirements that one of their own navigators be on board.. Either remove these 'uprawnienia', (but perhaps not the skills the pilots are trained to have to land in limited visibility situations) or deny them permission and let them take the consequences of their own illegal actions, even when they do land safely.
Oooof, sorry, but had to get that rant out of my system.
I think that it was incredibly negligent to leave the doors wide open on a public transport operating at high speeds. That operator should be put on some sort of administrative suspension AFAIC. I don't hang around waiting for accidents to happen, though. Like Michael, I usually see them coming a mile ahead. It's an affliction.
As for the elderly folks, if all of the windows are rolled down, the breezes blowing through should be sufficient. When the train stops, the conductor (or whatever he's called there) can then open the doors for air at that time.
I agree Jeannie - there's always a line to be drawn and leaving doors open at high speed is definitely one of them, especially when there are plenty of windows to be opened.
In retrospect I should have said I agree Jeannie and Michał :) But I also agree with your comment about open end buses, the best - but they were designed with bus conductors in mind, 'policing' the open end.
...but this story http://www.dziennik.pl/katastrofa-smolensk/article625607/Gen_Blasik_latal_zuchwale_i_lamal_zasady_.html regarding reckless pilot behaviour and the breaking of standards goes some way in negating and also, funnily enough, confirming my original post.
This is pure stupidity to be running trains with opened doors. When I read your post I had this picture in my mind of crowded trains in India with people standing (more like hanging out) in between opened doors. Is Poland heading that route? Send your video to both Komorowski and Kaczynski and I am sure you’ll see some action.
I remember a journey around Warsaw in the mid-1980s on one of those old EMU trains when passengers opened the doors because of the heat. So public transport today, in 2010, is reminscent still of the communist era? Or the attitudes of passengers anyway?
I travelled from Lublin to Stalowa Wola Rozwardow also on a train with open doors on a very hot day, sitting with some Poles with our feet outside on the footstep. However it was hot, the structural gauge is wide, and a Ty-2 can only haul a train so fast. On one river crossing pedestrians also using the rail bridge hung outside the girders whilst we passed, one precariously holding a bicycle over the water. Do Poles still do this also?
We mock Health & Safety in the UK, however much of the progress comes from making people think about small things - such as eliminating trip hazards - that cause accidents. Much of this comes down to thinking and exercising responsibility. Get the job done right so that no-one is exposed to needless hazard.
Put another way, I work on a major civil engineering project. Statistically, we stand to kill several workers over the next eight years. What can we do to make sure that everyone goes home safely?
Please forgive this repeated churning over of the subject (but having found myself using rather strong language (apologies) to describe your comment I find it necessary to try to be as objective as I can regarding the matter). I've just realised that despite your comment the transcript, in its present state, confirms that the pilots did in fact decide to not land, to do a flyby at 100m on autopilot and to go round again.
Whilst I agree with your points about lack of concern for safety, I can't help think that many, if not most people on the train would have thought it a sensible decision. From your clip and the time, it was and was likely to have been pretty empty.
However, given most people's relaxed views about personal safety - I am sure you will have commented on car driving standards before now, I suspect that 'public debate' would consist of a few speakers filling up vacant slots on morning television with the camera panning regularly over to see what they are doing in the kitchen.
@ Steve
The vast majority of passengers had alighted at the previous stops - W-wa Śródmieście, W-wa Ochota and W-wa Zachodnia, not to mention W-wa Służewiec, where hundreds get off for the tram and bus connection.
The 09:47 service from W-wa Jeziorki is, however a whole lot less crowded than the 07:21, where generally you cannot squeeze a sweaty anchovy in between passengers. A train with over half the doors stuck in the open position would be potentially lethal. Here, it's just dangerous.
@ everyone
I posted this on the railway forum pl.rec.kolej. Apparently, in the 1950s when the rolling stock was designed, no thought was given at all to the fact that people could be so anti-social as to jam doors open. There's no central override, apparently.
Post a Comment