Use of emergency door release at stations

[Dave1987]

That does happen at times, yes, but for the most part I don't get any 'them and us' feeling when being on this forum.

There are other rail forums that you'll very quickly realise that your opinions aren't wanted or valued!

Everyones opinion is valued on this forum. Like the some of the other posts have said some people ask a question but dont like the answer when it is given and try and find reasons why that answer is invalid. Certainly if a passenger who pulled the egress handle in a non emergency situation tried to claim "false inprisonment" I think I would struggle to keep the reply polite. I don't think there is an us and them situation on this forum.

 

[Flamingo]

Certainly if a passenger who pulled the egress handle in a non emergency situation tried to claim "false inprisonment" I think I would struggle to keep the reply polite.

You're good - I would'nt make any effort at all to keep the reply polite

 

[O L Leigh]

But this thread is not about a question of opinion. It is a question of fact. Is someone likely to be liable to a fine or prosecution for use of the emergency egress handle in the situation outlined? Yes, they are as it is misuse of the on-train equipment, as outlined by the railway byelaws. By purchasing a ticket you enter into a contract with the railway which requires you to abide by the laws and byelaws governing the railway. That is the answer to the OP's question.

As others have eloquently stated, all the rest of this discussion about police and detention is just guff. The railway is not breaking any laws by failing to release the doors the instant the train wheels stop turning in order to assist the police in dealing with an on-train incident. All the arguments put up in support are, to be frank, rubbish.

I'm not going to get all holier-than-thou or cry anti-staff bias, but this forum really does make me despair at times. Whenever these topics come around, as they do on a regular basis, I put my head in my hands and question why I bother coming here at all. All these "Yeah, but what if...?" contributions and cod-legal fantasies are unhelpful and only take the discussion away from the real railway into some dream-world railway that does not exist. All it does is to try and winkle out some nugget of faux-logic to justify a certain action or behaviour that in expressly forbidden, and for good reason. Is it any wonder that railstaff like me get so frustrated?

So here are some things I have learnt while working as a driver.

1) It doesn't matter what we do, it's wrong.
2) There is only one rule that applies to passengers: Thou shalt not inconvenience me.
3) We are the willing, lead by the incompetent to achieve the impossible for the ungrateful.

O L Leigh

 

[island]

Really!
Funny enough us staff do when we answer a question with the definitive answer and then all the "yeah but what if there was a pregnant epileptic who has had a stroke on the train" dragging every thread off on a tangent just so they can "make their point"!

Well the answer to the OP is yes he could be fined as it is for use in an "EMERGENCY" life or death situation where it is not possible to remain in that part of the train OR move to another (safer) part of the train.

That is the answer, all the "false imprisonment", "I know my rights" bull that followed is just that, bull.

When you travel on the railways you agree to abide by the laws (including the bye-laws) so no you cannot claim that you are being held against your will because you are being held by a representative of the company who can hold you when necessary (within reason of course).

I agree with you. And as I said:

The big issue here is people who think they are too special to follow the rules that apply to everyone else.

 

[Dave1987]

During my driver training we were shown CCTV of a stop short where the doors were released. One lady fell out onto the ballast, the people behind her just jumped over her and made no attempt to help her, finally one person decided it might be wise to pull the pass comm but I think this illustrates the fact that some people simply do not care as long as you are not inconviniencing them.

 

[O L Leigh]

If that film featured a GA Cl315 you will notice that the driver was aware of the error and was trying to get the doors shut in order to safeguard the passengers, but they were stopping the doors closing so they could all jump down (you can see the doors moving as they tried to be closed).

But no, the passengers felt the appropriate action was to continue to bail out.

O L Leigh

 

[island]

I hope it wasn't third-rail land

 

[Flamingo]

I think this illustrates the fact that some people simply do not care as long as you are not inconviniencing them.

Once, many years ago, I was a passenger on a delayed evening train in Kent, and listened in incredulity to the group of women and men in the seats opposite complaining about a woman who had pulled the pas com on our train as (according to the guard talking to somebody else while walking through) somebody had attempted to rape her in the next carriage. "We're going to be here ages because of that stupid b*t*h" was one comment from one of the females I can still remember.

 

[A-driver]

If that film featured a GA Cl315 you will notice that the driver was aware of the error and was trying to get the doors shut in order to safeguard the passengers, but they were stopping the doors closing so they could all jump down (you can see the doors moving as they tried to be closed).

But no, the passengers felt the appropriate action was to continue to bail out.

O L Leigh

Before I worked in ten railways I witnessed a girl slip between the platform and train at a south London station where I lived. Her leg got caught there and I watched about 6 people behind her (was the end of the morning rush hour so quite busy) climb over her to get on the train. Not one of them tried to help her.

The driver walked back to investigate and asked the station staff to call an ambulance whilst he checked if she was ok and tried to see if he could lift her out. One passenger in the next carriage actually then got out, walked up to the driver and I kid you not asked him how long they would be there for and if he thought people would be quicker getting taxis/buses instead.

The girl was fine but they wanted to wait for paramedics to lift her out the gap and as she was walked to the ambulance she was actually so embarrassed by it all that she felt the need to apologise to the driver and passengers in the doorway (the ones who had climbed over her) for being a nuisance and causing a delay! And for her efforts got a few 'tuts, and head shakes from the punters (the driver seemed very friendly and told her not to apologise).

I was shocked that people could really be that selfish!

After years of driving trains things like that neither shock or surprise me anymore...

 

[Dave1987]

If that film featured a GA Cl315 you will notice that the driver was aware of the error and was trying to get the doors shut in order to safeguard the passengers, but they were stopping the doors closing so they could all jump down (you can see the doors moving as they tried to be closed).

But no, the passengers felt the appropriate action was to continue to bail out.

O L Leigh

Yeah I it was. That kid pulled the pass comm after six or seven people had jumped over her.

 

[johnb]

One passenger in the next carriage actually then got out, walked up to the driver and I kid you not asked him how long they would be there for and if he thought people would be quicker getting taxis/buses instead.

Sorry, what's wrong with this? The girl's alive and safe, and pax have no idea how long it will take to extricate her, whilst staff have more experience of these situations and do have some idea how long it will take to extricate her.

I've only worked in professional-type jobs where I've had the benefit of being able to show up late and say "sorry, the train was late" and it be fine. But plenty of people work in retail/call-centre jobs where showing up late is an immediate firing offence.

This poor sod is your customer and stuck at risk of possibly losing his job - what on earth is wrong with taking fifteen seconds out to say "it'll take 30 mins to get this girl out" or "we'll sort this within 5 mins" or whatever the actual fact in the situation is?

 

[NSEFAN]

deleted

 

[A-driver]

Sorry, what's wrong with this? The girl's alive and safe, and pax have no idea how long it will take to extricate her, whilst staff have more experience of these situations and do have some idea how long it will take to extricate her.

I've only worked in professional-type jobs where I've had the benefit of being able to show up late and say "sorry, the train was late" and it be fine. But plenty of people work in retail/call-centre jobs where showing up late is an immediate firing offence.

This poor sod is your customer and stuck at risk of possibly losing his job - what on earth is wrong with taking fifteen seconds out to say "it'll take 30 mins to get this girl out" or "we'll sort this within 5 mins" or whatever the actual fact in the situation is?

I appreciate that and always keep that in mind at work but it was more the way he came across with it at that time-no compassion as to weather this girl is ok, he didn't really even look at her or see if she was ok, just spoke past her to the driver implying that she was causing too much trouble.

I accept that I am perhaps reading too much into that specific example but it did anger me that he could be so self obsessed in the way he came across.

Although, saying that, when dealing with 'unusual' delays the driver often won't have any idea how long it will take-in this case they were waiting for the ambulance to arrive and the paramedics to assess weather she could be moved etc. It could have been a case (as it was) that the ambulance would arrive in 10 mins and the paramedics lift her straight out, train on its way, but it could also be a case that after the ambulance arrived they wanted to involve other emergancy services, close the station etc, train out of service. With these things it's a case of how long is a bit of string and perhaps when the problem is so obvious like it was then a bit of respect for the victim and some common sense about what is happening wouldnt go amiss!

I see what you a saying though.

 

[Dave1987]

I appreciate that and always keep that in mind at work but it was more the way he came across with it at that time-no compassion as to weather this girl is ok, he didn't really even look at her or see if she was ok, just spoke past her to the driver implying that she was causing too much trouble.

I accept that I am perhaps reading too much into that specific example but it did anger me that he could be so self obsessed in the way he came across.

Although, saying that, when dealing with 'unusual' delays the driver often won't have any idea how long it will take-in this case they were waiting for the ambulance to arrive and the paramedics to assess weather she could be moved etc. It could have been a case (as it was) that the ambulance would arrive in 10 mins and the paramedics lift her straight out, train on its way, but it could also be a case that after the ambulance arrived they wanted to involve other emergancy services, close the station etc, train out of service. With these things it's a case of how long is a bit of string and perhaps when the problem is so obvious like it was then a bit of respect for the victim and some common sense about what is happening wouldnt go amiss!

I see what you a saying though.

I think has this person said "I hope she is ok" and then ask whether it is worth getting a tax it would have sounded a lot better. I think people do have compasion but sometimes struggle to show it with their frustration that they are being delayed. When we have a fatality on the railway most people accept that there will be delays and dont kick up a fuss. It is just the small minority of people who seem to show no compasion for anyone else. Unfortunately it is these people who stick out in your mind.

 

[johnb]

Agree with both of you, my first point was a bit lairy. As a pax I'd say "look I'm really sorry but do you know whether"... etc. And the fact that the girl is alive is obviously really important, if the situation featured a body and a driver who'd just run over somebody, then only the worst scumbag alive would want to argue about destinations.

 

[Flamingo]

They are around, although one doesn't have to deal with them often.

I'd say on a full HST (400+ pax), there would be one, maybe two in my experience. Unfortunately, of that 400+ passengers, the staff may spend so much time dealing with that one or two, they are unable to get to passengers who genuinely need assistance.

 

[swj99]

I would assume you could still be liable for any consequences for not following police instructions.

Assuming the instructions were lawful, I'd agree. The dilemma that arises is the question of how someone other than a police officer is to know which instructions are lawful and which are not. An example that comes up from time to time on legal and car forums is the question of whether it is legal to drive past a red traffic light on a road, if a police vehicle with its' blues and twos on needs to get past you, and the driver is telling you to get out of the way. Technically, you'd be committing an offence if you went through the red light. Some of the arguments I've read about it centred on the possibility of being charged with the offence of obstructing a police officer if you failed to move out of the way, but as far as I can recall, you would have to commit an act, whereas not moving your car is not an act, but rather an omission. Failing to comply with a request or instruction to leave train doors closed is also an omission rather than an act, so I doubt it would be classed as obstruction.

People have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to get off a train at the end of their journey. If the doors were to fail to open in the normal manner, and a passenger used the emergency door release in the circumstances described in the original post, I would expect them to be acquitted, if the matter proceeded as far as court. The definition of the word emergency is subjective, and doesn’t appear to be mentioned in the interpretation section of the byelaws. I think the irony is that the same emergency that resulted in police requesting that the doors remain closed could be the one which provided justification for a passenger to open them using the emergency release.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Failing to comply with a request or instruction to leave train doors closed is also an omission rather than an act, so I doubt it would be classed as obstruction.

Now that is just silly.

 

[swj99]

Failing to comply with a request or instruction to leave train doors closed is also an omission rather than an act, so I doubt it would be classed as obstruction.

Now that is just silly.

Nothing silly about it at all. I've simply stated that there is a difference between an act and an omission, and expressed the opinion that I doubt an omission would be classed as obstruction. :roll:

 

[Tomnick]

Surely ignoring such a request, and releasing the doors, is an deliberate action rather than an omission?

 

[ian959]

People have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to get off a train at the end of their journey. If the doors were to fail to open in the normal manner, and a passenger used the emergency door release in the circumstances described in the original post, I would expect them to be acquitted, if the matter proceeded as far as court. The definition of the word emergency is subjective, and doesn’t appear to be mentioned in the interpretation section of the byelaws. I think the irony is that the same emergency that resulted in police requesting that the doors remain closed could be the one which provided justification for a passenger to open them using the emergency release.

Definition of the word emergency is far from subjective. It has a fairly well defined meaning in common law and in the circumstances described in the OP there is no emergency.

End of journey would also have a fairly well defined meaning - your journey ends when you reach your destination. The failure of the doors opening would be indicative of the fact that you have not reached your destination. The doors would not be opened until it is safe to do so, and only when the doors are opened have you reached your destination.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Nothing silly about it at all. I've simply stated that there is a difference between an act and an omission, and expressed the opinion that I doubt an omission would be classed as obstruction. :roll:

Opening a door is an action (commission), that is why you are being silly.

Anyway, you can't argue logically that failing to obey instructions from an authorised person is omission - you are committing an offence/breach etc.

 

[swj99]

Opening a door is an action (commission), that is why you are being silly.......

It would be appreciated if you would keep personal comments to yourself. Name calling contributes nothing to the thread.

Definition of the word emergency is far from subjective. It has a fairly well defined meaning in common law and in the circumstances described in the OP there is no emergency.........

.........only when the doors are opened have you reached your destination.

Can you point to any examples of common law definitions of an emergency that are relevant to this scenario ? The byelaws appear to be silent on the matter.
As I think may have already mentioned, I believe that for the police to be in attendance on a railway station platform, and for them to be requesting that railway staff delay opening train doors would suggest that there is in fact, some sort of emergency, otherwise they probably would not be there in the first place.

I would argue that when the train arrives at the station platform, it is reasonable for a passenger to expect to be able to leave the train.
A destination is reached when a person physically arrives at a certain place, in this example this would of course be when the train on which they are travelling arrives and stops at a station platform. The doors being in an open or closed position has no bearing on whether they have arrived or not.

 

[Lewisham2221]

From the web....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98587546@N00/3153332019/

"A Try and remain on the train. Move to another carriage if necessary

B If A is not possible, leave the train through the exterior doors"

also...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eltpics/7382563522/in/photostream/

"Only leave the train if instructed to do so."

Thus, using the emergency door release in a situation other than as described would, in my opinion, constitute misuse.

 

[swj99]

Another way to look at this would be to say that the presence of the police, or their imminent arrival if they have yet to arrive, signifies that there is some sort of emergency, in which case, a passenger using the emergency door release would not be guilty of an offence under the byelaws, and would be entitled to use the emergency door release in order to open the doors. The byelaws say:-

11. General safety

(1) No person shall move, operate, obstruct, stop or in any other way interfere

with any automatic closing door, train, or any other equipment on the railway

except:

(i) in an emergency, by means of any equipment on or near which

there is a notice indicating that it is intended to be used in an

emergency;

 

[Lewisham2221]

No, by the same logic you could operate a fire extinguisher in the same 'emergency' situation, despite it not being an appropriate response.

 

[ian959]

Another way to look at this would be to say that the presence of the police, or their imminent arrival if they have yet to arrive, signifies that there is some sort of emergency, in which case, a passenger using the emergency door release would not be guilty of an offence under the byelaws, and would be entitled to use the emergency door release in order to open the doors. The byelaws say:-

Rubbish. The presence of police in itself does not iindicate an emergency, in just the same way that a fire engine or ambulance parked on a street does not indicate an emergency. Therefore there would be no excuse for operating the emergency door and the passenger would indeed by guolty of an offence.

The byelaws do not need to specify what constitutes an emergency as it is taken to mean the generally accepted meanings under common law (which is basically what any reasonable person would describe an emergency), so if there was an obvious fire on the train for instance, by all means use the emergency door. The mere presence of police on a platform is not an emergency so the use of the door is a breach of the byelaw.

Your arguments are in fact getting sillier in my opinion - the failure to follow an instruction of an authorised person (railway employee or policeman in this case) and the opening of a door is an action, not an omission and thus your opinion is merely that - an opinion, which is unsubstantiated by common law, case law and legislation.

As for an my earlier comment, do you get off a plane before it has stopped and the doors are opened? Do you get off a bus before it has stopped and the doors are opened? No, because it is only when the responsible person (pilot/driver) is satisfied that it is safe to do so that the doors are opened. Same thing on a train and in this scenario - the responsible person (driver or guard) will release the doors when it is safe to do so. The mere act of stopping at a platform does not mean it is safe to leave the train, just the same way a plane might stop but it does not mean that it is safe to leave. It may have not yet reached the part of the platform is designated to and thus the train might start to move again. Thus your journey does not end and your destination is not reached until the authorised person deems it safe for you to disembark the vehicle.

 

[A-driver]

Another way to look at this would be to say that the presence of the police, or their imminent arrival if they have yet to arrive, signifies that there is some sort of emergency, in which case, a passenger using the emergency door release would not be guilty of an offence under the byelaws, and would be entitled to use the emergency door release in order to open the doors. The byelaws say:-

The question was asked, it was answered, a rather stupid and un grounded debate started up, got even sillier and seemed to be put to bed and yet you are still clutching at straws trying to argue a non existant point?!

You do not use the egress handle if the doors don't open straight away. As said before, its stupid, selfish, dangerous and could land you in trouble. Nor is it false imprisoment, being held against your will, a breach of human rights or any other dribble like that.

There is a very definate black and white answer to the question. End of!

 

[swj99]

Your arguments are in fact getting sillier in my opinion

It doesn't matter how silly you think the arguments are. I've expressed an opinion and you've expressed an opinion. It doesn't make any difference what either of us thinks, because the only way a conclusive answer will ever be arrived at is if or when a scenario like the one outlined in the original post happens, and someone uses the emergency door release to leave the train, is prosecuted under S11 (1) of the railway byelaws, and pleads not guilty. Alternatively someone would need to apply for a judicial review and ask a court to rule on the question of whether or not a train operating company or one of its' employees is entitled to prevent passengers from leaving a train in a railway station. The rest is merely debate and speculation.

rather stupid and un grounded debate

The only 'stupid' thing about the debate is the way it's been derailed by the use of words such as rubbish, nonsense, stupid and dribble, etc, none of which are in the least bit constructive, or add any credibility to the points people are trying to make.

 

[Mike395]

This topic is now going round in circles and is starting to get a bit personal. As such, I am going to lock it.