Do British people expect everything they are allowed to touch to be inherently safe?

[Holly]

Moderator note: split from
My suggestion to increase the prices charged by on-board trolleys

Self service urns of scalding hot water on moving trains sound like a really practical, safety conscious idea for Britain’s railways.
You should immediately write to your local TOC and suggest it.

Well that's the problem isn't it?
Something that works well in other countries is ridiculed in Britain.

Are British people so very careless about their own welfare? Do British people expect everything they are allowed to touch to be inherently safe?
Perhaps they are and there is a lesson in that.

Next will we see for sale kitchen knives that are inherently safe (i.e. no sharp edge)?

 

[takno]

Well that's the problem isn't it?
Something that works well in other countries is ridiculed in Britain.

Are British people so very careless about their own welfare? Do British people expect everything they are allowed to touch to be inherently safe?
Perhaps they are and there is a lesson in that.

Next will we see for sale kitchen knives that are inherently safe (i.e. no sharp edge)?

I'm less concerned about my own welfare than the welfare of the passengers I'll end up spilling the drink over on the way back to my seat.

 

[Bromley boy]

Are British people so very careless about their own welfare? Do British people expect everything they are allowed to touch to be inherently safe?
Perhaps they are and there is a lesson in that.

Next will we see for sale kitchen knives that are inherently safe (i.e. no sharp edge)?

Well to a large extent I agree with your sentiment.

However, like it or lump it, the U.K. is increasingly litigious and wrapped in cotton wool. If you’re providing any kind of service to the public you need to make sure everything is inherently safe (even though running trains in the first place is arguably inherently unsafe).

I’m not saying I agree with that. In fact I’m on the “at your own risk” side of the fence but even I can see urns of boiling water aren’t a good idea - who gets the blame when a druggy/drunk/child scalds themselves?

 

[Starmill]

However, like it or lump it, the U.K. is increasingly litigious and wrapped in cotton wool.

I suggest you create a new thread, and use it to expand upon this statement and provide some kind of evidence, with a range of examples...

For completeness you'll need to compare and contrast the situation in the UK with that of other relevant countries...

 

[Bromley boy]

I suggest you create a new thread, and use it to expand upon this statement and provide some kind of evidence, with a range of examples...

Off the top of my head:

- "caution contents is hot" written on cups of coffee;
- "duty of care" owed by the railway to drunk adults who choose to act in an unsafe manner;
- when the police pursue scrotes on mopeds and said scrotes come a cropper it's now the fault of the police.

I could go on but I expect most people who read my previous post will have known immediately what I was talking about.

 

[MCSHF007]

Off the top of my head:

- "caution contents is hot" written on cups of coffee;
- "duty of care" owed by the railway to drunk adults who choose to act in an unsafe manner;
- when the police pursue scrotes on mopeds and said scrotes come a cropper it's now the fault of the police.

I could go on but I expect most people who read my previous post will have known immediately what I was talking about.

Exactly. I'm surprised that there aren't signs or even announcements in train toilets to the effect of "Do not forget to wipe your ar*e after taking a dump. Harmful bacteria may be present".

 

[Bromley boy]

For completeness you'll need to compare and contrast the situation in the UK with that of other relevant countries...

Ok.

How about these supposed countries where trains have urns of boiling water on board...?!

 

[Holly]

https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2011/12/09/143445891/russia-by-rail-getting-into-hot-water

The hot water boiler on the Trans-Siberian Railway is a social gathering place, as well as a convenient way to prepare tea, coffee, oatmeal or instant meals.

In American offices, it's the water cooler.
On Russian trains? The boiler.
It's where passengers gather to make tea, coffee, oatmeal, soup, instant pasta or instant anything whose preparation demands hot water.
The boiler – standing proud and tall near the train attendant's compartment in each rail car – is a metal canister keeping water scalding and available at any hour.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm less concerned about my own welfare than the welfare of the passengers I'll end up spilling the drink over on the way back to my seat.

My wife still bears a scar from about 1972 gained while standing on a train from Euston to Preston and having scalding hot tea spilled on her by a passenger returning to his seat.

 

[Starmill]

- "caution contents is hot" written on cups of coffee;

Is the contents of the cup hot? What temperature is coffee usually served at, and what do you think might happen to someone if liquid at that temperature dropped onto your clothing or skin? What was the 'litigation' that you refer to that was linked to this warning?

- "duty of care" owed by the railway to drunk adults who choose to act in an unsafe manner;

Who does the railway have a duty of care to and why? What litigation was brought that was related to their duty of care to someone who was drunk? If your proposal is that the railway should not have this duty of care, why not? At what point should the duty of care end? How might this affect the railway, its reputation and its customers?

- when the police pursue scrotes on mopeds and said scrotes come a cropper it's now the fault of the police.

Is there any actual evidence of this taking place? What was the litigation and what was the result? How often do the police chase mopeds? Should the police no longer have a duty of care too? What effect might that have on policing and the reputation of police forces?

How about these supposed countries where trains have urns of boiling water on board...?!

Vending machines are available on a wide variety of trains serving hot drinks throughout Europe. What's the problem with that?

 

[AM9]

https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2011/12/09/143445891/russia-by-rail-getting-into-hot-water

I don't hink that Russia's attitude to the safety of its ordinary citizens is representative of the world's developed countries. That's also true of many of the former eastern bloc nations who often seem to be the back markers in implementing EU H&S directives.

 

[Starmill]

I don't hink that Russia's attitude to the safety of its ordinary citizens is representative of the world's developed countries. That's also true of many of the former eastern bloc nations who often seem to be the back markers in implementing EU H&S directives.

Does that include Italy too?

Vending machines
You can easily and conveniently buy an espresso coffee, a cold drink or a snack from our vending machines located in Coach 3 and in Coach 7 on th AGV trainsand in Coach 3 and Coach 6 on the EVO trains.

https://www.seat61.com/images/Italy-italo-coffee.jpg
https://www.italotreno.it/en/the-train

 

[yorksrob]

On the public highway, we're trusted not to open our car door into oncoming traffic.

On the railway, we're apparently not capable of deciding whether to open our train door into the path of an oncoming train.

A fairly obvious double standard as far as I'm concerned.

The public obviously expect the railway to be "safe" but they have a laughably laissez-faire attitude to other forms of transport such as private motoring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve long thought that it would actually be worth diverting railway safety spending into road safety spending as we have reached a rather de minimis state of tiny improvements for lots of money.

 

[Starmill]

The public obviously expect the railway to be "safe" but they have a laughably laissez-faire attitude to other forms of transport such as private motoring.

I agree and I have long thought it is a serious problem that so many people die on our roads and we all just accept it. It's difficult to make saving those lives economically viable, true, but the same applies on the railway and yet the money is still spent. If it were up to me there would be a comprehensive review of road safety in this country and significant public money made available to implement the recommendations that would most effectively reduce deaths and injuries. There is also a wider need to take seriously the effects of road transport on air pollution and carbon emissions, which are critical issues for all of us.

 

[SS4]

IMO it's mostly to do with risk assessment and how practical it is to reduce said risks. There may always be the (real or imagined) fear of being sued but why not take steps where they can be done easily?

Putting a lid on hot drinks makes sense - cardboard or plastic tops are cheap albeit come with an environmental cost in that they can't easily be recycled and greatly reduce the chance of spillage.

Restricting the opening of train doors to trained personnel only also makes sense - I know a lot of forum members are nostalgic about slam door stock but how often were they left often for the guard to shut? It's much too impractical to do the same with car doors (at least until driverless cars evolve to that point) and both can be forced open in an emergency.

Cars are inherently dangerous but what alternative is there? There are risks (a sad new one we saw at London Bridge earlier in the year) but the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Common to almost all forms of transport the internal combustion engine is an extremely dangerous concept - imaging actually igniting fuel in the vehicle you're moving in! But again, the benefits outweigh the risks and the technology is grandfathered in

 

[yorksrob]

I agree and I have long thought it is a serious problem that so many people die on our roads and we all just accept it. It's difficult to make saving those lives economically viable, true, but the same applies on the railway and yet the money is still spent. If it were up to me there would be a comprehensive review of road safety in this country and significant public money made available to implement the recommendations that would most effectively reduce deaths and injuries. There is also a wider need to take seriously the effects of road transport on air pollution and carbon emissions, which are critical issues for all of us.

Indeed. Such a review would be well overdue, and it should be able to restrict road building on account of "catastrophic conflicts" on the road network in the same way that level crossing risk is allowed to restrict railway construction.

 

[Holly]

My wife still bears a scar from about 1972 gained while standing on a train from Euston to Preston and having scalding hot tea spilled on her by a passenger returning to his seat.

I believe it!
Overcrowding detracts from safety in a number of ways, including that way.
Money for safety would be well spent if spent on providing longer or more trains so as to reduce overcrowding and on increasing space per passenger to Mk.II coach levels or better.

 

[yorksrob]

Restricting the opening of train doors to trained personnel only also makes sense - I know a lot of forum members are nostalgic about slam door stock but how often were they left often for the guard to shut? It's much too impractical to do the same with car doors (at least until driverless cars evolve to that point) and both can be forced open in an emergency.

Cars are inherently dangerous but what alternative is there? There are risks (a sad new one we saw at London Bridge earlier in the year) but the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Just because it's impractical to fix the risks inherent in motor transport, why should railways be treated differently. We build new stock with driver controlled doors, but why should heritage stock on railtours have to experience restrictions that the cars people drive to catch the railtour aren't restricted to, in a frankly much more dangerous theatre of operations anyway. The so called "arguments"make no sense, just a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

I'm sick of hearing the excuses made for road transport, and the resultant decisions made.

Don't get me started on the railway budget paying for level crossing improvements made necessary by motorists who can't be trusted to drive properly.

 

[Bromley boy]

Is the contents of the cup hot? What temperature is coffee usually served at, and what do you think might happen to someone if liquid at that temperature dropped onto your clothing or skin?

I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound quite as patronising as it does...

As radical as it sounds, when I order a hot drink, I expect the contents of the cup to be hot. I don't need a warning. Now you mention it I normally have to ask for coffee to be served "extra hot" because otherwise it comes out at the temperature of bath water.

If you do a google search on this topic you'll find plenty of idiots who've ordered hot drinks, scalded themselves and then look for someone to sue - starting with a case against McDonalds in the US in 1994.

Who does the railway have a duty of care to and why? What litigation was brought that was related to their duty of care to someone who was drunk?

Lots of examples of this. "Health and safety" legislation in place these days means that if your dog drags you onto a railway line and you're hit by a train its Network Rail's fault.

Even Ruby Wax's brother in law is getting in on the action:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...er-wife-killed-at-level-crossing-8206230.html

It is believed that Mrs Canning, 55, went onto the track after being pulled by one of the dogs. The coroner heard that since the death, the crossing surface had been improved and boards erected instructing drivers to sound their whistle when approaching.

Mr Canning is suing Network Rail for negligence. He said: “It was responsible for health and safety breaches and that was proved in court. That convinced me to pursue a civil action.”

And of course many posters on here will remember the infamous James Street case where a guard was sent to prison for manslaughter after a teenager, high on drink and drugs, leaned on the side of the train he was dispatching and fell between the train and platform.

I'm not saying the guard didn't make a big mistake in this case but another school of thought is that, if you get off of your face on drink and drugs and go around leaning on trains, what then happens to you is nobody's fault but your own.

Is there any actual evidence of this taking place? What was the litigation and what was the result? How often do the police chase mopeds? Should the police no longer have a duty of care too? What effect might that have on policing and the reputation of police forces?

Loads of instances where this has happened recently. So much so that the police themselves are calling for a change in the law to give them more protection:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-reviewed-amid-fears-officers-unable-tackle/

Now however, police chiefs are calling for a change in the law, amid claims that the regime is hampering the the ability of officers to pursue suspects, particularly if those being sought are not wearing helmets.

Commenting, Tim Rogers of the Police Federation said: "Momentum has been gathering in recent months and this marks a significant step in bringing about the change we feel is necessary.

"Trained professionals are being judged by the same standards as a member of the public in any normal driving situation with no differentiation in law to recognise the professional training emergency response drivers undertake."

Vending machines are available on a wide variety of trains serving hot drinks throughout Europe. What's the problem with that?

It is urns of boiling water being discussed here, not vending machines. Having said that I can see issue with vending machines serving hot drinks on trains given the posts above about injuries due to hot water spilled by other passengers.

All in all, as I said before, the UK has a blame culture like never before. People are no longer willing to take responsibility for their own actions. If they burn themselves on hot coffee or are otherwise injured through their own stupidity the first thing they will do is look to blame someone else - especially if InjuryLawyersforIdiots.com persuade them there's a fast buck to be made.

This blame culture is certainly not something I agree with. However it underlines my original point that urns of hot water on trains are going to be pretty problematic!

 

[Bromley boy]

Just because it's impractical to fix the risks inherent in motor transport, why should railways be treated differently. We build new stock with driver controlled doors, but why should heritage stock on railtours have to experience restrictions that the cars people drive to catch the railtour aren't restricted to, in a frankly much more dangerous theatre of operations anyway. The so called "arguments"make no sense, just a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

I'm sick of hearing the excuses made for road transport, and the resultant decisions made.

Don't get me started on the railway budget paying for level crossing improvements made necessary by motorists who can't be trusted to drive properly.

Very well put!

 

[Tetchytyke]

People are no longer willing to take responsibility for their own actions. If they burn themselves on hot coffee or are otherwise injured through their own stupidity the first thing they will do is look to blame someone else

I'm perfectly happy to take responsibility for my own actions. If I burn myself on hot water then I know whose mistake it was.

If I'm sat happily in my seat and someone else tips scalding hot water over me, because of *their* stupidity, then it is an entirely different kettle of fish.

It's why the buffer counters insist on lids and paper bags to carry hot drinks.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm perfectly happy to take responsibility for my own actions. If I burn myself on hot water then I know whose mistake it was.

If I'm sat happily in my seat and someone else tips scalding hot water over me, because of *their* stupidity, then it is an entirely different kettle of fish.

It's why the buffer counters insist on lids and paper bags to carry hot drinks.

Unfortunately not everyone takes your approach, hence the warnings on cups. These are warning the person who just ordered a hot drink that what they are holding might burn them.

I completely agree with your second point which also underlines why urns of hot water aren't a great idea on moving trains.

 

[HSTEd]

THis is the same argument that results in nuclear plants being safety-ratchetted to truly ludicrous levels.

 

[Starmill]

starting with a case against McDonalds in the US in 1994.

The infamous Liebeck vs McDonald's, where the jury were so convinced that the company acted wrongly that Liebeck was awarded almost $3million (not that she ever recieved that much), despite her initial claim for less than $20,000 to cover her medical bills. Furious at their this McDonoald's lawers helped along the infamy of the case as an example of spurious litigation, when the reality was very different. If you spill coffee on yourself at the temperature it was being served at, it could seriously injure you. If you spilled it on a child in particular it could even potentially be fatal. And yet you and so many other people are very very deeply bothered about the changes to coffee cup design and the inclusion of a warning about the temperature of the coffee, when it is hardly a good example of the UK being somehow "increasingly litigious".

And of course many posters on here will remember the infamous James Street case where a guard was sent to prison for manslaughter after a teenager, high on drink and drugs, leaned on the side of the train he was dispatching and fell between the train and platform.

I'm not saying the guard didn't make a big mistake in this case but another school of thought is that, if you get off of your face on drink and drugs and go around leaning on trains, what then happens to you is nobody's fault but your own.

So you are advocating a change in the law, perhaps, but how does any of this demonstrate the UK to be "increasingly litigious"? If you think that there do need to be changes in the law around this how would you develop them? What would your main aims be (given that you acknowledge that the guard in question probably was wrong and that he probably was given a fair trial based on the facts at the time) and how would you like that to be enforced?

All in all, as I said before, the UK has a blame culture like never before.

What you said was that there was a problem with litigation. You do not seem to be able to identify any cases where there is litigation that is unfair in your view, though. It's a common refrain to go on about how people are not willing to take "responsibility for their actions", but invariably when you drill down into the action in question there is a very large risk somewhere that one person by themselves should never have been exposed to by society. Nobody who advances this complaint ever has any ideas about how they would like it changed for the better. I also don't see that it is somehow worse in the UK than in any other developed economy, except that some might have better protection for consumers than we do.

There often is blame to dish out, especially to a private company which is not complying with the law because it would be inconvenient or unprofitable for them to do so, and anyone who is attempting to ensure that the law actually is complied with or who suffers a serious loss as a result of the non-compliance is branded as a participant in "blame culture". If lots of people are complaining about a high risk or making claims as a result of being exposed to it, is it really better to go with your approach of just blaming the victims, rather than addressing the risk?

 

[GusB]

I recall a few years ago that one of the pubs in town here had a stove fitted at one end of the bar. We were rather amused one day when a notice appeared on the wall saying "Please Do Not Sit on the Stove. Because it's HOT, and you'll burn your arse".

Common sense to most people, I'm sure, but sadly there are some who lack that quality, and with so many "no-claim, no-fee" legal firms around, it's little wonder that businesses are afraid of being sued.

 

[Starmill]

THis is the same argument that results in nuclear plants being safety-ratchetted to truly ludicrous levels.

I don't really follow, but are you suggesting there should be less security for Nuclear Power Plants? If so, what's your basis for that?

 

[HSTEd]

I don't really follow, but are you suggesting there should be less security for Nuclear Power Plants? If so, what's your basis for that?

I was referring to safety and not security as such.

But there has never been a significant accident at a British civil power reactor.

We learned our lesson early for Windscale - unfortunately despite the fact that even a Magnox plant would be one of the safest plans in the world if built today, the Government continues to insist on ever more increasing 'safety'.

Safety which has rapidly become meaningless because we are chasing tiny increments at great cost, and we have an regulatory regime that means that if the regulatory representative doesn't like you, you will not get permission to build a plant with no real recourse. There is no rulebook, which they might be called upon to defend, they simply command you add more safety equipment until they are satisfied.

This, combined with energy 'privatisation', is the primary reason why the nuclear industry is unable to turn out reasonably priced reactors.

 

[Starmill]

If I burn myself on hot water then I know whose mistake it was.

I recently put my hands under the tap in the sink on a Northern train. The water was scalding - much too hot to touch and I quickly pulled them back away and was unable to wash my hands as a result. They were only slightly burned, but a few more seconds and there could have been more damage. There was no sign saying that the water might be hot. Usually when I use those trains the water comes out cold and gradually warms up to a bearable temperature. If my hands had been more seriously injured, are we really arguing that I should be taking responsibility for that? This way madness lies - if I have to worry that the water coming out of the tap in a toilet might injure me and take precautions against that, what other risks do I have to worry about mitigating against? Hot water is very dangerous. The fact that most people are happy to ignore that or complaining when someone does not ignore the risk it poses does not reduce that.

 

[Bromley boy]

If you spill coffee on yourself at the temperature it was being served at, it could seriously injure you. If you spilled it on a child in particular it could even potentially be fatal.

Good. When I order a cup of tea or coffee I want it to be scalding hot. If I then throw it onto myself or someone else it's down to me and no one else.

On the other hand if I'm sitting on a train and someone else is injured when I trip and spill my drink onto them it becomes rather more complicated, as other posters have noted. Therefore I'd consider very carefully whether it was sensible to serve this type of product in certain environments, much less in unprotected cups, and it's right that there is protection for third parties in this situation.

So you are advocating a change in the law, perhaps, but how does any of this demonstrate the UK to be "increasingly litigious"? If you think that there do need to be changes in the law around this how would you develop them? What would your main aims be (given that you acknowledge that the guard in question probably was wrong and that he probably was given a fair trial based on the facts at the time) and how would you like that to be enforced?

James Street was a criminal trial rather than a example of civil litigiousness, but is indicative of the cultural shift that has taken place. I somehow doubt that case would have been prosecuted twenty or thirty years ago. I'm not sure a change in the law around manslaughter is necessary but the process by which the CPS reaches charging decisions needs to be reviewed, in my view. There have been a number of dubious prosecutions of rail staff recently which have resulted acquittals but arguably shouldn't have been brought to court in the first place.

I'd like a cultural shift where the CPS requires a very high evidentiary threshold before prosecuting those acting in the course of their employment. The same kind of cultural shift needs to be applied to cases of police officers pursuing helmetless moped riders (I note you have ignored the linked story in my previous post).

As for civil litigiousness, I pointed to an example of someone suing network rail in my post above. There are dozens and dozens of examples of this over the last few years, if you do a google search. Often involving level crossings of various types.

What you said was that there was a problem with litigation. You do not seem to be able to identify any cases where there is litigation that is unfair in your view, though.

Other than the things I've pointed to in my previous post? I could spend hours posting examples of cases I consider to be examples of the UK's blame culture but I really can't be bothered. We shall have to agree to disagree.

You apparently believe there is no blame culture or culture of litigiousness in the uk. Many would consider that an eccentric view in 2017, but each to their own.