snip
By 1991 there were apparently over 325 logged unexplained fatalities recorded by British Rail over the course of it's existence cause by people falling from train doors. That's logged of course, record keeping back then being rather different. Even over a 40 year time period by modern standards that is a lot of passenger deaths per year by something that is seen to be entirely avoidable. We of course were outliers by European standards with most railway undertakings using inward opening doors.
snip
My I add a few observations? I worked in an Accident Section around 1970 and my mishap cases included 'P' ones - "members of the public injured or killed - moving train involve"'.
Leaving a train while it was in motion fell into two broad categories; a) at line speed and b) arriving at a calling station before the train had come to a stand. b) was generally impatient commuters who wished to be first to the taxi-queue or car park. B.T.P. had occasional checks to dissuade by penalising those caught; to give some idea of the prevalence of this I clearly recollect that, on the occasion of such a 'sting' at Bedford, they only prosecuted those who, leaving a Down service, had made it over the footbridge and onto the Up platform. That gives some idea of the prevalence of the practice.
For a) it was difficult to see how someone could, mistakenly, open an exterior door on a train travelling at 100 m.p.h. in broad daylight, bearing in mind that all external doors had windows giving a view of the passing scene; the door catch had to be opened beyond the safety catch (i.e., a simple turn or pull of the handle would only move it to the catch position); and that to open a door against the flow of air required some force while holding the handle in the unlocked & uncatched position. The most likely explanation was that it was deliberate although coroners were very reluctant to make a decision implying that, preferring 'open verdict'.
There was a greater stigma against suicide then than now, and relatives were always keen to produce suggestions that countered any such suggestion. There was the added incentive, even in those days, to try to blame and claim from B.R.. The latter even extends to passengers who tumbled over and as a result injured themselves when deliberately alighting before the train had come to a stand. In those cases, there was usually a prosecution for alighting from a moving train to forestall claims but the Press just saw that as impersonal inefficient B.R. being callous and here could be negative publicity.
Record keeping was very thorough in those days as far as mishaps were concerned. A train arriving at a station with a door open or on the catch would always result in a 'D.O.' mishap form and an inspection of the line from the previous calling station. Of course, in those days there were staff available at stations with 'rules & regs' who could carry out this operation promptly. The generation of a mishap form was also motivated by the need to justify station overtime and late running - which, in those days, were part of a system that had the purpose of performance improvement. There would also be a request for the C&W to check the working of the door lock and door were operating correctly..