But you quite obviously didn't read the Report correctly, as you said she was boarding the train.
No. I've just checked through everything I've posted on here, and I haven't said she boarded the train. Are you sure you were on the same thread as me ?
As to your comments regarding my reading of the report, you are speculating.
To summarise what I've said so far in this thread.
In post 37, I said,
I've said similar before, and it's as relevant now as it was then.
Passengers need to be able to board the train they are waiting for. While there are still passengers waiting to get on or off a train, it is clearly not ready to leave the station. To close the doors in circumstances such as these is just as wrong and unacceptable as it would be if someone deliberately closed any other door (railway related or not) when someone was either going through it, or attempting to go through it.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2567420&postcount=37
I then said, in post 44,
I did read all the comments prior to posting my own. Thanks.
BTW, what request are you talking about ? I certainly haven't made one.
As for closing a door whilst someone is going through it, it's unacceptable for safety reasons. In fact, the RAIB report into the accident at West Wickham on the 10th April 2015 states the following.
"People dispatching trains must allow train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely. This should take account of passengers with reduced mobility, passengers with children and passengers that need to gather their belongings."
Clearly, closing train doors whilst people are still going through them is at odds with this.
In post 49, I said,
?
Not sure what point you were attempting to make.
And in post 53, I said,
Not at all. It occurred because someone closed the doors when it was not safe to do so, contrary to the RAIB recommendation.
In the first post in this thread, the OP said, "The conductor on the EMT train let the first passenger on and then closed the door on me as I was boarding, trapping my bag. He barked at me to remove my bag, which I did, then closed the door on me, leaving myself and several other passengers marooned on the platform."
He went on to say, "Closing the doors while customers are trying to board isn't just discourteous, it is potentially very dangerous."
I quoted from a report in which the RAIB said people dispatching trains must allow train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely. On the basis that the OP's bag was trapped in the door, it would appear that whoever was dispatching the train failed to allow the doors to be released for sufficient time for the OP to get on the train safely. I therefore agree with Yorkie who suggested that the OP makes a complaint about the incident.
In post 62, I said,
You are not in a position to speculate on my reading of a report, and you can shout, 'she was in the train', as loudly as you wish, but the fact remains that the RAIB has said -
"People dispatching trains must allow train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely. This should take account of passengers with reduced mobility, passengers with children and passengers that need to gather their belongings"
It is my view that if someone has a train door closed on them whilst boarding, then the person dispatching the train has not allowed the train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely.
You keep ignoring the fact that this train originates in Crewe, had been there many minutes, and these passengers were attempting to board this service off a late running, unofficial connection.......
In my opinion, the starting point of the train is irrelevant, as is any other attempt at justifying the unsafe practice of closing a door when someone is going through it.
It totally disproves your point and shows that you are quoting an incident totally out of context. The doors were not closed whilst she was in the doors. You are wrong to quote West Wickham to support your premise or the OP's incident. I can say that you have not read the report correctly because you stated that it was an RAIB recommendation, which is wasn't. That is incorrect. You are also mis-interpreting the report and attempting to use it to support your premise. You are failing to understand how RAIB reports are presented. A big problem with RAIB reports is that you do need knowledge to understand what information is being presented as you are otherwise likely to misinterpret what is being reported. I specifically highlighted all your mistakes with the report. Those are facts. Not speculation.
What the RAIB is doing it reitterating in more detail what is already laid out in the rule book. What they want is for PTI to be reviewed and made more robust as well as dealing with the technicalities of the unit that contributed to the incident. No where does it state the Driver closed the doors on the passenger. You made that assumption and incorrectly believed that the RAIB made it. You again could not have read the report correctly as it is not listed as the immediate cause or a casual factor. In fact, if that had happened then the Trainee would no doubt have joined a certain Mersyrail Guard.
Yes, that is my view to. However, that is not what you used the report to highlight. It is a separate issue to closing the doors whilst people are boarding.
Please do not present an ill informed argument as it leads to misunderstanding by those wishing to learn how and why mistakes happen and how we can all work together to prevent them re-occuring.
The dispatch process has multiple events happening in sequence and they must be examined individually. In this case shutting the doors when people are boarding is where the process has gone wrong. Rightly, that has been reported.
Should more time be allowed ? Yes, but that will increase dwell times. Should doors be reopened ? Speculative, but it does lead to incidents.
I believe it is totally valid to quote the RAIB on a point of safety, which is why I have done it.
As I said before, you are not in a position to comment on whether or not I have read that report, or any other report, correctly. You have no idea of my expertise, experience or background, and it is none of your business, To suggest that I am failing to understand how reports are presented, or that I am presenting an ill informed argument adds nothing to the discussion.
It would appear that you have misrepresented what I've said in this thread, and your use of the phrase 'could not have' suggests speculation on your part.
