Post by class411 on Jan 24, 2023 10:02:57 GMT
Well the difference in risk is that in the 'train in motion' case, they are merely trying to get from carriage to carriage. Foolhardy, but not particularly dangerous. Trying to de-train via a method that was never designed for that purpose is extremely dangerous - it will be even more so as any passenger trying it will have to cope with avoiding the new inter-carriage barriers.
A further point is that using the doors on a moving train is almost never necessary, and thus any passenger injured shares significant culpability. In the case of a possibly frightened, confused, and panicked passenger the major fault lies with LU in not ensuring they were correctly detrained.
Deaths were never 'every couple of years' prior to the introduction of the checking by either the driver and/or the station staff and such exaggeration doesn't help the case.
I would have thought it blindingly obvious that 'couple of years' did not mean regularly, every two years. It's just an expression to mean on a fairly rare, random, basis.
Given tight finances at the moment, it is quite correct to take another look at the cost vs risk to passenger balance, given that the passenger has to actively put themselves at risk.
If this change goes ahead, and there is an incident resulting in staff or customer injury or death, LU will be slaughtered in court - civil and criminal. It's one of those organisations that always claim 'passenger safety is our number one priority', and the fact that they suffered a fatality and then removed a system that protected against such issues, after a change that they had implemented to ameliorate the risk had demonstrably failed, will make life very easy for whoever is prosecuting them.