Fatality at Twyford (22/05)

[Antman]

Well I can assure you it was not meant to be. I suppose my quote is just one of many these days where you have to "tread on egg-shells" where even the most innocent comment can "cause offence". Maybe we would should just ban threads on fatalities.

Unfortunately fatalities are part and parcel of the railway.

I haven't seen anything in this thread that I would consider offensive, I think some people are just looking for things that aren't there.

 

[amcluesent]

Alleged announcement now picked-up by the Mail

 

[Merseysider]

Alleged announcement now picked-up by the Mail

The outrage bus is back in town. :roll: One poster "Would like to know that the idiot responsible is summarily sacked"

I think a good chat with a manager about how to announce suicides would be more appropriate

 

[Antman]

The outrage bus is back in town. :roll: One poster "Would like to know that the idiot responsible is summarily sacked"

I think a good chat with a manager about how to announce suicides would be more appropriate

I think in a lot of jobs somebody would be sacked for such gross stupidity!

 

[Merseysider]

I think in a lot of jobs somebody would be sacked for such gross stupidity!

Yes, but in a lot of jobs you don't get the shock of "we've just killed someone".

 

[Via Bank]

Yes, but in a lot of jobs you don't get the shock of "we've just killed someone".

But one would hope that someone in a customer facing role, working in a job where there is a risk something like this might happen, would handle such a situation with as much dignity and tact as they could muster.

Clearly this was not the case! Assuming the reporting is correct, the announcement made was flippant and grossly insensitive to the deceased, and to anyone on the train who has lost a friend or family member to suicide.

So, why shouldn't people be outraged? It was probably a stupid mistake in the heat of the moment, but FGW need to ask themselves if they want to employ someone in a customer facing role if they react to difficult situations in such a way.

 

[ainsworth74]

People can be outraged but I don't see why they should demand a summary dismissal. For one that's a decision for the guards employer and for another I don't see what it achieves beyond satisfying the baying mob.

 

[455driver]

People can be outraged but I don't see why they should demand a summary dismissal. For one that's a decision for the guards employer and for another I don't see what it achieves beyond satisfying the baying mob.

Assuming its the guard are we?
They are not the only ones with access to the PA on the HSTs!

 

[ainsworth74]

Assuming its the guard are we?
They are not the only ones with access to the PA on the HSTs!

Good point, well made

 

[Antman]

Yes, but in a lot of jobs you don't get the shock of "we've just killed someone".

Well it doesn't sound like this individual was in a state of shock when he made such a crass announcement.

I will say that any announcements I have heard regarding a fatality have always been made in an appropriate way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Assuming its the guard are we?
They are not the only ones with access to the PA on the HSTs!

Well unless it was a member of the public that is a minor detail.

 

[455driver]

Well it doesn't sound like this individual was in a state of shock when he made such a crass announcement.

I will say that any announcements I have heard regarding a fatality have always been made in an appropriate way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well unless it was a member of the public that is a minor detail.

Assuming its a male member of staff are we?
Women are actually allowed to work these days you know!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Assuming its a male member of staff are we?
Women are actually allowed to work these days you know!

Indeed. In fact wasn't there reference to a "female voice" in one of the news reports upthread?

Also, I can imagine that shock or trauma is exactly what might provoke such a seemingly callous announcement. A summary dismissal would be equally callous in any case.

 

[SWTH]

One other point; never assume what you read in the paper is correct.

 

[Flamingo]

Maybe they should have just said "We apologise for the delay due to a fatality, it's an occupational hazard of traveling by rail"?

 

[Antman]

One other point; never assume what you read in the paper is correct.

But the first link to it here is from the BBC news website:roll:

I'll make no judgment on whether the person responsible should be sacked, that's a matter for their employers but I see on another thread that the caravan on level crossing person has been convicted by kangaroo court

 

[LAX54]

Obviously bus/coach/lorry drivers aren't either but realistically there is no way of preventing these tragedies.

The trauma can effect others too, there was a fatality at West Malling in Kent last Sunday which was witnessed by passengers on the platform.

Can't remember the last time a person jumped in front of a bus !

 

[Mag_seven]

Maybe they should have just said "We apologise for the delay due to a fatality, it's an occupational hazard of traveling by rail"?

Just stick to the phrase that is used on NRE and announced at stations "A person hit by a train". It is a neutral, un-emotive and factual statement. It also doesn't pre-judge the situation by for example assuming that the person has died or that it was a suicide.

 

[DaleCooper]

But the first link to it here is from the BBC news website:roll:

Of course the BBC is infallible.

 

[Antman]

Of course the BBC is infallible.

No, some people choose to believe or disbelieve whatever suits them:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can't remember the last time a person jumped in front of a bus !

People being hit by accident is just as traumatic

 

[SWTH]

But the first link to it here is from the BBC news website:roll:

My comments still stand. Unless you were there and saw/heard first hand what happened, all you (and almost everyone else) know is what has been reported by the media, who weren't there either. They are taking reports from those on board, who may or may not have listened fully to what was being said.

:roll:

 

[notadriver]

No, some people choose to believe or disbelieve whatever suits them:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




People being hit by accident is just as traumatic

There's a big difference between the very rare event of a bus hitting someone and a train hitting someone.

 

[Antman]

There's a big difference between the very rare event of a bus hitting someone and a train hitting someone.

Quite honestly I think a traumatic accident or incident is far more likely on the road than on the rails.

 

[ScotrailINV]

But the first link to it here is from the BBC news website:roll:

The BBC can be worse than the rest of them put together! Won't go into details, but there was an infant fatality locally at the start of the year and the BBC mis-reported the cause of death daily for over a week, film crew outside the house, the works, completely destroyed the family concerned.

Post mortem revealed the death was natural causes, not the Poirot conspiracy the BBC had reported - the BBC's response? A three line letter to the family! To top it all they refuse to remove the article that's still online...

 

[SWTH]

Quite honestly I think a traumatic accident or incident is far more likely on the road than on the rails.

If you take the bald numbers then yes.

In 2013 (the last year a very quick Google search revealed numbers for), 1718 people died on the UK road network, whereas 345 died on the UK rail network (including LU, etc). However, whilst the roads statistics do not give suicide figures, 304 out of 345 deaths on the UK rail network in 2013 were recorded as suicide.

 

[notadriver]

I think it's reasonably safe to assume suicides are more likely on the rail network than on the road.

 

[Antman]

I think it's reasonably safe to assume suicides are more likely on the rail network than on the road.

Yes I don't think anybody could dispute that

 

[notadriver]

Another thought. There are about 6 times as many fatalities on the road than rail. Is it fair to say there are far more vehicle journeys per day compared with rail? If thats being the case the chances of a road vehicle being involved in a fatal accident are even smaller.

 

[455driver]

Fatalities on the rail network also tend to be more 'messy' with the body in several bits simply because of the speeds involved.

I have personally seen the internal organs of a person after they have been hit and that isn't nice, I was also harangued as I walked back to the cab by a passenger about how long we were going to be delayed, my reply certainly wasn't very polite.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes, but in a lot of jobs you don't get the shock of "we've just killed someone".

From the news report it doesn't look like the announcement was made on the same train that did kill the person? Just sounds like it was made on a train that was delayed because of it. So that "excuse" doesn't really cut the mustard in this case (but I would totally agree with you if it was the train that killed the person).

Of course, the calls for the person to be sacked are just way OTT (as usual with this kind of thing that gets on the Mails website). But if you are in a position where you are making announcements to passengers, you really should be able to make a professional and mature announcement regarding incidents like this. If you can't then you really do have to question if the person is in the right job (of course it may just be the member of staff had a bad day anyway and it was a mistake that won't be made again, which is fair enough).

 

[158747]

Assuming its the guard are we?
They are not the only ones with access to the PA on the HSTs!

Probably was the guard though, as it is the guard who makes announcements concerning delays etc.