Please Get Rid of the Safety Screen !

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I'm not sure you answered my question about whether it makes any difference how safety information is displayed (as long as it is displayed) in the event of legal proceedings against the railway.

Unless there is some interpersonal discussion taking place here, which excludes answers from others, I'd rather like to think that I had attempted to answer that question for you to the best of my abilities. I'd be happy to elaborate or assist further if you didn't find what you were looking for in my response to your question.

[I'm not committed to either side of the clearly polarised debate on this thread]

 

[JGR]

You're right they do. But in the absence of common sense from the general travelling public they pay no attention to anything but the information screens. Which is why they are called just that.

I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that one of the main reasons why people only look at information screens is that they only want to know about their train.
Given that, putting the safety information on a poster is relatively ineffective as they're not interested in anything that isn't train information.
Having the safety information on the same screen as the train information requires them to look at the safety information whilst waiting for the train information to appear. Whether they'll take much note is another question entirely.

Given that people who flagrantly disregard the content of safety notices are such a nuisance, both in terms of accidents and legal nonsense, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the rail industry to collectively do it that way.
That doesn't make it not annoying at times though.

 

[island]

I really do wonder what the need is for signs at the entrance to buildings to indicate that it is illegal to smoke on the premises.

It isn't legal to smoke anywhere indoors, and legislation has been in place for many years now - so isn't it time to get rid of them?

It is legally required to display the signs. And in the case of outdoor smoking on railway stations, smoking is only illegal near where a sign is displayed.

As for notices, Lewisham tends to have screens which show 7 pages of all the trains for all platforms for the next hour, which isn't especially useful.

And as for announcements, SET stations have four or five go off one after the other every 15 minutes. You can set your watch by them. But there are so many that people will tune out.

 

[Grantham]

Threads like this make me laugh, on several levels. We are slowly developing all the same problems in Australia because of litigation...:roll:

Why is it called a "Safety Screen"? It would be interesting to know how many people those screens have "saved", although I would imagine the answer would be rather less than instructive. We don't seem to have a lot of imagination about "safety equipment". There is a railway yard I've worked in where wearing hard hats is compulsory, although the only thing that could possibly fall on your head is a train. Fat lot of good the hard hat will do...
If I have some steel capped boots, a high visibility vest, a hard hat and protective glasses, you can be sure that the people who make the legislation will call them safety boots, safety vest, safety hat and safety glasses, with no reference to what it is that makes them safe...as though they don't want to be sued for getting it wrong or something. Safety is trying to ruin our language!

Having all the signs in the world doesn't make people obey them. I always find it amusing to see a no smoking sign, yet there are no signs to tell me that murdering people is not ok, nor any number of other horrendous crimes. Occasionally one sees signs that prohibit littering, usually put up by the same people who take the bins away...how ironic.

 

[tsr]

Occasionally one sees signs that prohibit littering, usually put up by the same people who take the bins away...how ironic.

I always find that amusing. As we know, though, the bins on trains can be used fine, and mysteriously they don't get blown up by terrorists.

 

[jon0844]

10 Take away bins after incident or scare.
20 Reinstall after a few months when risk is reduced.
30 goto 10

 

[EM2]

I always find that amusing. As we know, though, the bins on trains can be used fine, and mysteriously they don't get blown up by terrorists.

Er, Madrid?

 

[tsr]

Er, Madrid?

These are the RailUK Forums and we happen to be discussing the National Rail network, but I do take your point that it can happen.

You can't fit a coffee cup into a lot of train bins these days, though (look at the 458s - some of those have ridiculously small bins), so I'd like to see someone try to put a viable explosive device in them...

 

[Grantham]

These are the RailUK Forums and we happen to be discussing the National Rail network, but I do take your point that it can happen.

You can't fit a coffee cup into a lot of train bins these days, though (look at the 458s - some of those have ridiculously small bins), so I'd like to see someone try to put a viable explosive device in them...

Dare I say bins are prohibited but luggage is ok? Yet luggage is soooo much more likely to have explosives in it. Sorry, getting off topic. Unless of course, "safety screens" prevent explosive bags from entering railway premeses.

 

[tsr]

Dare I say bins are prohibited but luggage is ok? Yet luggage is soooo much more likely to have explosives in it. Sorry, getting off topic. Unless of course, "safety screens" prevent explosive bags from entering railway premeses.

You may dare to say such a thing indeed! It shows just how fragmented security policies are these days.

"Safety screens" will often tell people not to leave luggage unattended, but this is a bit odd, because if you are a terrorist, I suppose you won't take that advice, and if you are forgetful enough to leave substantial amounts of luggage in the middle of station concourses, you possibly won't pay all that much attention to the screens either.

 

[Clip]

Why is it called a "Safety Screen"? It would be interesting to know how many people those screens have "saved", although I would imagine the answer would be rather less than instructive. .

Quite simply because we convey safety information on a screen.

 

[Grantham]

Quite simply because we convey safety information on a screen.

Just out of curiosity, what safety information does it convey?

What sort of safety information requires it's own screen? If steps need to be taken to ensure safety, wouldn't that require training, like that which is required to hold a driver's licence? Is there more than "safety information", such as the stops, destination and arrival time of the next trains to arrive at that platform?

Something I said earlier: "If I have some steel capped boots, a high visibility vest, a hard hat and protective glasses, you can be sure that the people who make the legislation will call them safety boots, safety vest, safety hat and safety glasses, with no reference to what it is that makes them safe...as though they don't want to be sued for getting it wrong or something. Safety is trying to ruin our language!"

Of course, as our language becomes meaningless, so will any instructions. It is becoming common to have to accept instructions (safety instructions if you like) from people with desparately poor language skills. It's hard to accept that someone means what they say when they can't say what they mean.

 

[lincolnshire]

Does bus stops have safety information then? even Bus Stations don,t have as much as stations do or announcements made every few minutes and thinking about it don,t think air ports are even as bad as stations for going over the top.

 

[NSEFAN]

If the only reason the signs are required is for protecting the railways from lawsuits, rather than actually improve safety, then perhaps the problem we should be addressing is in the legal system?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If the only reason the signs are required is for protecting the railways from lawsuits, rather than actually improve safety, then perhaps the problem we should be addressing is in the legal system?

Or perhaps we should be addressing the compensation culture rather than the legal system?

 

[jon0844]

Both, at the same time.

 

[moonrakerz]

Can't help wondering what the "information/safety screens" would have to say about this !

"No standing on the train" perhaps ??

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/etkDWH5XiDubmPDDiakUMA?feat=directlink

 

[Clip]

Just out of curiosity, what safety information does it convey?

What sort of safety information requires it's own screen? If steps need to be taken to ensure safety, wouldn't that require training, like that which is required to hold a driver's licence? Is there more than "safety information", such as the stops, destination and arrival time of the next trains to arrive at that platform?

Something I said earlier: "If I have some steel capped boots, a high visibility vest, a hard hat and protective glasses, you can be sure that the people who make the legislation will call them safety boots, safety vest, safety hat and safety glasses, with no reference to what it is that makes them safe...as though they don't want to be sued for getting it wrong or something. Safety is trying to ruin our language!"

Of course, as our language becomes meaningless, so will any instructions. It is becoming common to have to accept instructions (safety instructions if you like) from people with desparately poor language skills. It's hard to accept that someone means what they say when they can't say what they mean.

I believe you are misunderstanding the whole thread somewhat. At major stations on the main concourse you will have a separate screen conveying any safety information they think they should provide - be that underfoot conditions to letting you know about anything else.There is nothing wrong with having a screen up conveying this information.

At smaller stations or on platforms which the OP is alluding to they will have a page that conveys the information on a relay between showing the departure. This is what the OP is moaning about and the thread has talked about and how to combat it.

Next time you are at a station have a look at the information they convey then come back and let us all know.

If there wasnt a need to convey this information then we wouldnt put it up.

 

[michael769]

If there wasnt a need to convey this information then we wouldnt put it up.

Unfortunately I (like many others) do not believe that the need really exists other than in the imagination of overpaid "safety" consultants and lawyers whose abilities fail to match up with their salaries.

If they were really needed then surely the HSE (who do tremendous work reducing the number of avoidable fatalities and injuries) would support their use, rather than warning about the dangers associated with excessive and unnecessary signage?

 

[Clip]

Unfortunately I (like many others) do not believe that the need really exists other than in the imagination of overpaid "safety" consultants and lawyers whose abilities fail to match up with their salaries.

If they were really needed then surely the HSE (who do tremendous work reducing the number of avoidable fatalities and injuries) would support their use, rather than warning about the dangers associated with excessive and unnecessary signage?

I give up.


All of you write to all the TOCs and ATOC and tell them to not put up any safety notices anywhere on the railway network. Because obviously we do not need safety notices AT ALL.

 

[michael769]

I give up.


All of you write to all the TOCs and ATOC and tell them to not put up any safety notices anywhere on the railway network. Because obviously we do not need safety notices AT ALL.

The HSE advice is that a hazard that is no greater than what people encounter in their daily life experience (like slippery when wet!) does not require a sign. Where the hazard is greater than that - then the source of the hazard should be removed, or the public excluded from the affected area. A sign should only be used when it is not possible, or where the costs involved are too great to remove the hazard.

Wet surfaces outside do not need warnings as we all know they get wet when it rains! Indoors it is hard to see how fixing a leaky roof or installing absorptive matting at entrances to stop the wet begin tracked in is not possible and economic. The existence of a warning sign about wet floors in a covered station tells me that the railway does not actually care about safety, but would like to pretend to us that it does.

 

[Clip]

No, you're right we don't care about anyone's safety what's so ever.

Ill let you lot carry this conversation on, I've said my bit.

 

[moonrakerz]

No, you're right we don't care about anyone's safety what's so ever.

let me finish off your statement:

................all we are worried about is being sued".

THAT is what it is all about - to claim that it is actually all about safety is disingenuous at the very least and insulting to most people as well.

 

[Grantham]

I believe you are misunderstanding the whole thread somewhat. At major stations on the main concourse you will have a separate screen conveying any safety information they think they should provide - be that underfoot conditions to letting you know about anything else.There is nothing wrong with having a screen up conveying this information.

At smaller stations or on platforms which the OP is alluding to they will have a page that conveys the information on a relay between showing the departure. This is what the OP is moaning about and the thread has talked about and how to combat it.

Next time you are at a station have a look at the information they convey then come back and let us all know.

If there wasnt a need to convey this information then we wouldnt put it up.

Next time I'm on your side of the planet I might have a look. Right now I'm on the other side, where the convicts got sent, and still have no idea what "safety information" you would put on a screen, let alone several. I don't suppose you could give me some examples!

Your "underfoot conditions" example doesn't say much, if there was something slippery like ice on the platform, wouldn't it have been on the street for the journey to the station too?

 

[GB]

Does it really matter if its largely due to not wanting to be sued? It benefits you and everyone else for them not to be sued doesnt it?

 

[table38]

Does it really matter if its largely due to not wanting to be sued? It benefits you and everyone else for them not to be sued doesnt it?

But the last thing these CFA (no-win no-fee) ambulance chasing companies want is for the case to actually go to court and actually have to prove negligence.

What seems to happen in the vast majority of cases, due to some horse trading between the insurance companies involved, is that they are settled out of court, and they take their cut.

They even spin this as a virtue by "saving their clients the stress of actually having to go to court".

Because most of these claims are never tested in court, I'm of the opinion that it just pushes up insurance costs for everyone else.

 

[D1009]

Your "underfoot conditions" example doesn't say much, if there was something slippery like ice on the platform, wouldn't it have been on the street for the journey to the station too?

A few years ago a number of stations were refloored with "terazzo" tiling. This looks very attractive, but unfortunately a lot of station roofs leak during heavy rain, and when the surfaces get wet, it was almost like an ice rink ! Thankfully they have now been replaced or treated.

 

[HowMuch?]

I don't mind too much the screens in the waiting room/ticket office cycling through umpteen pages including the bossy/nanny pages. In fact, there are sometimes so many pages that the safety screen adds only about 20% to the time for page 1 to come around.

But even there it would be better if the screens were paired, one always showing page 1 (the next dozen departures) and one cycling as slow as it likes through screens 2 to 6 (the safety pages and the rest of the departures).

But it is, ahem, "annoying" when the screen on the platform shows anything other than the calling points of the train about to leave. Especially given the lack of sympathy by all concerned (you know who you are) to anyone caught with the wrong ticket on the wrong train.

 

[michael769]

Does it really matter if its largely due to not wanting to be sued? It benefits you and everyone else for them not to be sued doesnt it?

Because, as the HSE warns, excessive signage means that the public gets so numbed by them that they stop paying any attention to any sign. As a result of which signs that are actually necessary will go ignored - ultimately making things less safe.

 

[Marvin]

................all we are worried about is being sued".

THAT is what it is all about

This is true. I generally get the impression that every single passenger on a crowded rush-hour station could die horribly and the industry wouldn't care a jot so long as they couldn't be sued for it.