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

[Up_Tilt_390]

While I do think the Merseyrail guard mentioned above was a fool, you can hardly call someone who has wilfully and deliberately got themselves so intoxicated that they act that dangerously[1] a victim. It is rather like calling someone who takes a shortcut across a railway line a victim when what they are is an inconsiderate idiot.

[1] Before anyone brings that up, it is not like rape or similar, because that is primarily caused by the rapist. Leaning on trains is plainly and obviously dangerous, and does not require a wilful bad act by someone to make it dangerous.

Okay maybe I made a poor comparison at first, but I don't that comparing the case at James Street with someone walking across the railway line is that good either. I don't think anyone else is at fault if some nitwit walks on the railway tracks and gets hit by a train. I don't see why Network Rail needs to be fined for this, because it's not like level crossings don't exist, or even bridges. In the case of a car driving through a level crossing and being hit by a train, it is not the fault of the railway staff because they have already provided a level crossing to ensure that the public can safely cross the tracks and let them know when it is safe. Choosing to ignore that is the fault of the person doing so.

In the case of James Street it was the result of negligence on behalf of a member of railway staff. I get that leaning on trains is dangerous, drunk or not, but the guard saw this person and acted in a way that would've potentially injured or killed someone. In this case it did. I am not a guard, but I know that they have to make sure it's clear to proceed, otherwise it's against regulations. If she was really annoying him and causing problems, he should've had station staff at James Street keep her, helping the person out and trying to get them to a safe place until she could be dealt with properly. He could've done anything else really. Instead the guard chose to have the train proceed, and as a result a person's life that didn't need to be lost was taken.

 

[Starmill]

While I do think the Merseyrail guard mentioned above was a fool, you can hardly call someone who has wilfully and deliberately got themselves so intoxicated that they act that dangerously[1] a victim.

This is a separate debate.

Someone employed in a safety critical capacity must follow those instructions and act in accordance with company policy in order to ensure they remain within the law. That doesn't apply to me if I chose to undertake a high risk sport or go mountain climbing. As it stands, society still accepts the risks for me choosing to do that on the basis that I'm entitled to if I want to. If I choose to smoke I'm still entitled to treatment from the NHS for lung cancer. If I choose to climb Snowdon and break bones I'm still entitled to treatment for that too, even though I have taken huge risks and suffered entirely foreseeable circumstances. This may change and is a broader debate, but it clearly does not apply (and hasn't, for a long time) to people who work in safety critical roles, especially where members of the public are concerned.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Regarding litigation, this country seems to have become more litigious, I don't know what it is like in the rest of Europe. I know someone who has put in a claim against the council for tripping on a broken paving slabs, despite the fact they illegally park their car on the section of pavement they tripped on. Their claim was actually successful.

I'd have to agree with the tripper in this instance. That they parked illegally does not affect the paving slabs being poorly maintained; nor does their parking there actually affect them tripping up: if they had just been walking past and tripped the effect would be the same. They should be fined for illegal parking though.

As an earlier poster mentioned, the issue is risk averted for cost. There's an initial one-off redesign cost in adding "caution: contents may be hot" to a disposable cup, and thereafter no further cost. Even that redesign was probably going to happen anyway, so there's next to zero actual cost to it. It doesn't affect you if you drink normally, but it may help a few idiots, and it gives people something to complain about how the world's gone to pot. You can't entirely eliminate human failings, but you can try to obviate them.

In the nuclear industry it's different. A reactor melts down, you contaminate half a continent and it won't go away for a hundred years or more. The cost of that is pretty incalculable, so any way risk can be mitigated is a good investment. I would like to see nuclear used more widely as a stop-gap to renewables over fossil fuels, but there's little point preventing global warming if the world becomes an irradiated wasteland instead.

Of course, some safety precautions can cause their own problems. When it rains, the entrance lobby to my office becomes very slippery. Unfortunately they have performed a risk assessment and decided that it's more dangerous to have people tripping over temporary carpets than slipping on the tiled floor.

 

[fowler9]

I'd have to agree with the tripper in this instance. That they parked illegally does not affect the paving slabs being poorly maintained; nor does their parking there actually affect them tripping up: if they had just been walking past and tripped the effect would be the same. They should be fined for illegal parking though.

The tripper never reported the pavement as being broken until they tripped. The pavement was probably broken because a car was parked on it illegally. Pavements are designed to be walked on, not parked on.

 

[SS4]

The tripper never reported the pavement as being broken until they tripped. The pavement was probably broken because a car was parked on it illegally. Pavements are designed to be walked on, not parked on.

Could it be argued that the action of illegally parking caused the pavement defect?

Did this case actually go to court or was it settled out of court? In a country where common law reigns defendants would do well to avoid setting a precedent and thus settle out of court

 

[fowler9]

Could it be argued that the action of illegally parking caused the pavement defect?

Did this case actually go to court or was it settled out of court? In a country where common law reigns defendants would do well to avoid setting a precedent and thus settle out of court

It was ambulance chasers and the council just paid up without going to court.

 

[Bromley boy]

I disagree. Given the very specific circumstances, where the guard assumed she would move despite her being intoxicated in a dangerous position, it would have been prosecuted.

With all due respect mate, I have agreed with you on many things in the past, but this isn't one of them. The girl might've been drunk, getting on and off the trains and leaning on the side, but when the guard sees this and presses the buzzer, which in turn indicates to the driver that it's clear to proceed, even though in this case it wasn't, it's not the fault of the drunken girl.

While I do think the Merseyrail guard mentioned above was a fool, you can hardly call someone who has wilfully and deliberately got themselves so intoxicated that they act that dangerously[1] a victim.

Taking the above comments in the round, James Street was perhaps a poor example to use. The jury convicted in that case and I do respect the result.

I’ll confess a little bias - as someone who self dispatches trains 90+ times per shift, I can understand why the guard took the action he did. I maintain that girl died through her own stupidity by leaning on a train - the guard erred in his duty for a few seconds.
A simple error of judgement. Gross negligence manslaughter? By the letter of the law it was. I’m not sure he should have been sent to prison for it, or that result represents any form of “justice”.

A better example to use might have been the Martin Zee prosecution. I’d challenge anyone with any knowledge of the facts and relevant law in that case to argue it was a sensible prosecution.

This will be my last posting of 2017 - happy new year folks!

 

[TheNewNo2]

The tripper never reported the pavement as being broken until they tripped. The pavement was probably broken because a car was parked on it illegally. Pavements are designed to be walked on, not parked on.

Of course no one reports it until they trip on it, you don't notice it until then - if you had noticed it you wouldn't have tripped on it?

And it seems unlikely the parking caused it. It's hard to trip on something if there's a car on top of it. Plus pavements are pretty heavy duty: they can take cars once in a while.

 

[Tetchytyke]

While I do think the Merseyrail guard mentioned above was a fool, you can hardly call someone who has wilfully and deliberately got themselves so intoxicated that they act that dangerously[1] a victim.

I think you can, and should. You don't release a train when someone is leaning on it, regardless of why they are leaning on it. If the guard had done his job correctly then it wouldn't have been dangerous. Very different to trespassing across a railway line.

In that case he was rightly prosecuted and rightly sent to prison. It was grossly negligent.

And yes, I'd agree that the Martin Zee prosecution was absolutely idiotic.

 

[SS4]

It was ambulance chasers and the council just paid up without going to court.

That sounds more like the council trying to avoid setting a precedent/avoid bad PR by paying out. I don't like it because it encourages bad behaviour by rewarding it

 

[43021HST]

Overall I do agree with the OP that we're getting rather OTT with safety signage. However, I don't think it's much to do with safety and more to do with the modern obsession with overwhelming the public with information. Endless announcements on trains, Buses with more vinyls on than the F1, shop signage becoming bigger, brasher, more in your face, etc.

 

[Bromley boy]

the modern obsession with overwhelming the public with information.

I agree. There certainly are too many announcements, in my opinion. The problem now is that people "tune out" and stop listening as the announcements become background noise.

This is evidenced by the fact people still regularly board and remain on the wrong train even though the stopping pattern is announced at every station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you can, and should. You don't release a train when someone is leaning on it, regardless of why they are leaning on it.

I agree, but the primary cause to me was passenger intoxication. If you get yourself drunk and you do something dangerous as a result it is your own stupid fault. If you can't handle your drink, don't drink. If you can't not drink, see your doctor, as that makes you an alcoholic. The world should not be set up to protect people from their own deliberate and wilful idiocy while under the influence of alcohol or any other substance taken purely for pleasure.

There are many other ways in which a drunk passenger can be injured or killed that doesn't involve a guard being a fool.

 

[Bromley boy]

The world should not be set up to protect people from their own deliberate and wilful idiocy while under the influence of alcohol or any other substance taken purely for pleasure.

Very well put. The guard certainly made a mistake but this girl's unfortunate demise was no one's fault but her own. I'm not sure ruining the guard's life and sending him to prison is a particularly helpful outcome for society.

It's a pity he couldn't have been given a suspended sentence, but I'd imagine the gravity of the offence precluded this.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The guard certainly made a mistake but this girl's unfortunate demise was no one's fault but her own.

That's not really true though. The guard looked at her leaning on the train and set the train in motion anyway. If he hadn't, if he'd done his job with basic competence expected of the role, then she'd be alive.

It's the same as with careless or dangerous driving. Nobody intends to kill through gormlessness, but some actions are so grossly negligent that prison time is the only appropriate penalty.

As an aside, if the guard hadn't attempted to lie about what actually happened, its unlikely the penalty would have been so severe.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are many other ways in which a drunk passenger can be injured or killed that doesn't involve a guard being a fool.

Indeed there are, and being heavily intoxicated is never conducive to good decision making.

But that should never ever ever be used as mitigation when someone else- someone who should know better- behaves badly or grossly incompetently.

"Oh she was drunk and annoying, so the poor guard setting a train in motion with a passenger clearly leaning on it doesn't matter" doesn't wash with me. Her drunkenness is irrelevant to his grossly negligent incompetence.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I agree, but the primary cause to me was passenger intoxication. If you get yourself drunk and you do something dangerous as a result it is your own stupid fault. If you can't handle your drink, don't drink. If you can't not drink, see your doctor, as that makes you an alcoholic. The world should not be set up to protect people from their own deliberate and wilful idiocy while under the influence of alcohol or any other substance taken purely for pleasure.

There are many other ways in which a drunk passenger can be injured or killed that doesn't involve a guard being a fool.

Very well put. The guard certainly made a mistake but this girl's unfortunate demise was no one's fault but her own. I'm not sure ruining the guard's life and sending him to prison is a particularly helpful outcome for society.

It's a pity he couldn't have been given a suspended sentence, but I'd imagine the gravity of the offence precluded this.

I'm sorry, but I actually cannot see how the issue at James Street was solely the fault of the drunk girl. Whether she can handle her drink or not, or whether she was doing something dangerous is her own stupid doing, but she isn't the one who dispatches the train. The guard acted against regulations and set the train as clear to proceed even despite the fact it wasn't. I don't see how it can just be passed off as a mistake, because while it may have been a severely poor lapse in judgement, it was a deliberate act. No, the world should not be set up to protect people from idiocy, but we shouldn't protect people whose actions actually kill someone.

It's not like the guard set the buzzer and then as the train was leaving, she ran up and leaned against the train before anything could be done, instead she was leaning there as the doors were closing, the guard gave the buzzer to proceed even though it wasn't clear, and as a result the train left and the girl was dragged under the wheels. Leaning on the doors itself is stupid, but that isn't what killed her. What killed her was an act of great negligence. The simple fact is, the death could've been avoided, but it wasn't, and it was nobody's fault but the guard.

To try and put it in the form of an analogy and base it off a real event that has happened at one point. A train driver stops his train at a red signal immediately in front of a level crossing which has to be operated manually because of work. The hand signaller waves a green flag, and the driver decides to proceed past the red signal, thinking the green flag was the clear to proceed. However, the railway regulations state that no hand signal is admittance to pass a signal at danger unless accompanied by a specific, unambiguous verbal instruction. It doesn't matter what the hand signaller did, the fault is with the driver for acting against regulations.

The same is with the guard. It doesn't matter if the drunk girl was annoying and behaving stupidly, the fact is the guard acted against regulations by clearing a train to proceed even though it wasn't, and as a result a life was lost that didn't need to be. The guard made more than a simple mistake, he made an extremely bad error that resulted in a fatality. There's not really any other way around it, the guard's actions lead to the death of the drunken passenger. Leaning against a train isn't what got her killed, the train leaving is, and she didn't do the latter, it was the actions of the guard.

 

[Bromley boy]

That's not really true though. The guard looked at her leaning on the train and set the train in motion anyway. If he hadn't, if he'd done his job with basic competence expected of the role, then she'd be alive.

It's the same as with careless or dangerous driving. Nobody intends to kill through gormlessness, but some actions are so grossly negligent that prison time is the only appropriate penalty.

As an aside, if the guard hadn't attempted to lie about what actually happened, its unlikely the penalty would have been so severe.

I would look at it slightly differently - she chose to put herself in harms way by leaning on the train which in itslef is a dangerous and stupid act. The person whose job it was to dispatch the train safely then erred in that job (albeit a serious error).

It just seems that the sentence handed down is a relatively strict one given the nature of the mistake which, while serious, was a simple error of judgement made in the heat of the moment. To be clear I'm not saying I think the verdict was wrong in this case, it just seems to me that very little has been achieved by sending the guard to prison.

 

[Bromley boy]

Leaning on the doors itself is stupid, but that isn't what killed her. What killed her was an act of great negligence. The simple fact is, the death could've been avoided, but it wasn't, and it was nobody's fault but the guard.

Leaning against a train isn't what got her killed, the train leaving is, and she didn't do the latter, it was the actions of the guard.

I would say leaning on the train is what killed her as that is what caused her to fall when it started moving. The guard's error (which I agree is a very serious one) was dispatching the train when it was unsafe to depart. He no doubt expected her to step back when the train started moving which, as it turned out, was unfortunately a fatal error.

EDIT: I was wrong to previously state that it was solely the fault of the girl but I would certainly argue it was mostly the girl's fault, partly the guard's fault for not dispatching safely.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I would say leaning on the train is what killed her as that is what caused her to fall when it started moving. The guard's error (which I agree is a very serious one) was dispatching the train when it was unsafe to depart. He no doubt expected her to step back when the train started moving which, as it turned out, was unfortunately a fatal error.

She wouldn't have fallen though had the train not left, which wouldn't have happened had the guard not pressed the clear-to-proceed buzzer. What he expected her to do when pressing the button doesn't change the fact he broke regulations, and in fact he was gambling on somebody's life by expecting her to move when he could've done other things beforehand that could've been better for everyone. If she'd been a problem beforehand, he should've tried to have someone pick her up at a station to be dealt with. As someone providing a public service, the guard gambling on someone's life is not only a bad image of themselves, but also of the company.

Some might now think that Merseyrail employs psychopaths even though the guard simply let his emotions get the better of him and his judgement. Often times drunk people don't know nor think about what they're doing, and of all people a guard should understand this and act accordingly to ensure the safety of passengers. To put it metaphorically, she gave him the gun, but he chose to fire the bullets. (I only just came up with that right now, so I apologise if it doesn't make much sense).

 

[CarlSilva]

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 .............

No dispuete with that.
Our local breakers yard lets you go in and take a bits off the cars. It's great, because you can get things in there they don't save in theses over the counter places.
But they don't stack the cars up on top of eadh other anymore, incase some loon gets in one and it falls off etc. You have to wear a reflective vest these days. The bloke who runs it says its' an insurance reqquirement, otherwise he can't let hte punters in. I suppose the sense behind it is they are less likely to run you over in the vest.
Some pepoepl take it too far. Like if you trod on a sharp bit of metal in there you'd could sue them, but what happened to lookng where your'e going. ?
Elf and saftety gone mad. Yes deffinitely.

 

[DarloRich]

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?

Regarding litigation, this country seems to have become more litigious, I don't know what it is like in the rest of Europe. I know someone who has put in a claim against the council for tripping on a broken paving slabs, despite the fact they illegally park their car on the section of pavement they tripped on. Their claim was actually successful.

As I have pointed out several times on similar threads the legislation hasn't really changed over recent years. What has changed over the last 20 years is access to justice or, more accurately, access to legal advice via different charging mechanisms. It is now much easier for you to enforce your rights as a wronged individual. In the past if you wanted to sue, say, for negligence you had to have the cash, up front, to instruct solicitors and counsel. Now you don't or at least you dont always have to have the money upfront. That obviously increases the number of claims as more "normal" people are able to make those claims. After all, our learned friends don't come cheap!

No dispuete with that.
Our local breakers yard lets you go in and take a bits off the cars. It's great, because you can get things in there they don't save in theses over the counter places.
But they don't stack the cars up on top of eadh other anymore, incase some loon gets in one and it falls off etc. You have to wear a reflective vest these days. The bloke who runs it says its' an insurance reqquirement, otherwise he can't let hte punters in. I suppose the sense behind it is they are less likely to run you over in the vest.
Some pepoepl take it too far. Like if you trod on a sharp bit of metal in there you'd could sue them, but what happened to lookng where your'e going. ?
Elf and saftety gone mad. Yes deffinitely.

oh dear....................

 

[fowler9]

As I have pointed out several times on similar threads the legislation hasn't really changed over recent years. What has changed over the last 20 years is access to justice or, more accurately, access to legal advice via different charging mechanisms. It is now much easier for you to enforce your rights as a wronged individual. In the past if you wanted to sue, say, for negligence you had to have the cash, up front, to instruct solicitors and counsel. Now you don't or at least you dont always have to have the money upfront. That obviously increases the number of claims as more "normal" people are able to make those claims. After all, our learned friends don't come cheap!

Knackering the pavement, tripping up on it and then blaming the council isn't quite the same.

 

[NSEFAN]

No dispuete with that.
Our local breakers yard lets you go in and take a bits off the cars. It's great, because you can get things in there they don't save in theses over the counter places.
But they don't stack the cars up on top of eadh other anymore, incase some loon gets in one and it falls off etc. You have to wear a reflective vest these days. The bloke who runs it says its' an insurance reqquirement, otherwise he can't let hte punters in. I suppose the sense behind it is they are less likely to run you over in the vest.
Some pepoepl take it too far. Like if you trod on a sharp bit of metal in there you'd could sue them, but what happened to lookng where your'e going. ?
Elf and saftety gone mad. Yes deffinitely.

Whilst there's obviously risk of sharp metal in a scrap yard, do you not think that the scrappy should keep the yard tidy to reduce the chance of accident?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Leaning against a train isn't what got her killed, the train leaving is, and she didn't do the latter, it was the actions of the guard.

No, that's not how it worked. A chain of events led to her death, at each stage it could have been stopped. And it was the fault of her, the guard and possibly anyone who goaded her to drink more, or sold her alcohol while intoxicated, etc.

 

[DarloRich]

Knackering the pavement, tripping up on it and then blaming the council isn't quite the same.

but tripping over a paving stone the council knew was faulty but didn't fix and having to take 6 weeks off work.............

 

[fowler9]

but tripping over a paving stone the council knew was faulty but didn't fix and having to take 6 weeks off work.............

If it was reported to the council.

 

[DarloRich]

If it was reported to the council.

the point i am making is that we now have more access to justice to enforce out rights. That is precisely because of the idea of no win no fee being allowed as an option for UK lawyers. It wasn't in the past which meant many issues were just ignored. Do you not agree that the principle of accessing justice should be open to all regardless of means?

 

[Bletchleyite]

the point i am making is that we now have more access to justice to enforce out rights. That is precisely because of the idea of no win no fee being allowed as an option for UK lawyers. It wasn't in the past which meant many issues were just ignored. Do you not agree that the principle of accessing justice should be open to all regardless of means?

Depends what is meant by "justice". My personal view is that non-financial anguish cannot be viably compensated financially. Of course if you damage my car you are paying to have it fixed and for any consequential losses while it is being fixed. But I am not interested in getting money for a sore neck, because money does not make a sore neck better. (yes, I've been involved in a non fault car accident where I got whiplash, no I did not claim for it).

I think the UK would be a better place if financial compensation for non-financial matters ceased entirely, and was restricted to direct and consequential financial costs only.

 

[fowler9]

the point i am making is that we now have more access to justice to enforce out rights. That is precisely because of the idea of no win no fee being allowed as an option for UK lawyers. It wasn't in the past which meant many issues were just ignored. Do you not agree that the principle of accessing justice should be open to all regardless of means?

It isn't accessing justice it is accessing cash. If you damage the pavement outside your house and claim against the council after hurting yourself on it when you never told them you damaged it how is justice served, does the cash make you feel better? Probably in a way but it isn't justice. Justice would be the person I know having to pay for damaging the pavement.