[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rail + Safety Records
In article <3847705a@vk4lw.caboolture.net.au> "Thomas Fothergill" <s370507@student.uq.edu.au> writes:
>From: "Thomas Fothergill" <s370507@student.uq.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: Rail + Safety Records
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:28:10 +1000
>ahh but how many of those were due to shoddy infrastructure and
>maintainance, and how many were due to driver error????
>hmm?
How many rail accidents were due to mechanical failure, as opposed to human
error?
Dave Malcolm
>David Martin <d_martin@mountains.net.au> wrote in message
>q1J14.1233$V14.8762@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net">news:q1J14.1233$V14.8762@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> Blue Mountains road toll for November:
>> 14/11/99 Faulconbridge. 2 injured in head-on
>> 14/11/99 Kings Plains 3 dead, 2 critically injured in head-on
>> 21/11/99 Mt Boyce 4 dead, 4 injured in 4 car pile-up
>> 25/11/99 Blackheath. 1 dead, 1 injured in semi-trailer head-on
>>
>> I still feel safer in a train!!
>>
>> David Martin
>> Blue Mountains Railway Pages
>> www.info.mountains.net.au/rail
>>
>> David Guymer <davidmg@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> 38473869.C68C1E17@optusnet.com.au">news:38473869.C68C1E17@optusnet.com.au...
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill wrote:
>> >
>> > > Rail is in fact inherently unsafe. Heavy vehicles travelling at speed
>on
>> fixed
>> > > tracks, unable to swerve or brake quickly, cannot be inherently safe.
>> What
>> > > makes rail safe is eternal vigilance, to ensure that the
>infrastructure,
>> the
>> > > rolling stock, the people, and the rules that bind them together into
>> the rail
>> > > system are all in good shape. Well-designed inspections, proper
>> maintenance,
>> > > correct training and retraining, supervision that emphasises correct
>> > > standards, underpinned by a prudent level of capital investment will
>> keep a
>> > > rail system safe. Over-emphasis on profitability, cost-cutting, and
>> > > productivity can result in a rise in accidents and incidents if
>> preventive
>> > > measures and defences are weakened by staff cuts and procedural
>changes.
>> > >
>> > > I think this is Australia's thrid collision in 6 months, is it not?
>And
>> Tranz
>> > > Rail in NZ had a bad one (loco engineer killed) in September. Four in
>> > > Australasia in 6 months? Statistical blip?
>> > >
>> > > Bill
>> > >
>> >
>> > Now you know why I was happy to be made redundant when Melbourne's
>> transport was
>> > privatized.
>> > David G.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > dave pierson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Richard wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Up until fairly recently there was always good ground for the
>> argument
>> > > > > that travelling by rail was far far safer than by air.
>> > > >
>> > > > It would seem to be a local to Australia phenomenon, then.
>> > > > Elsewhere, world wide, passenger safety, rail vs air is
>> > > > roughly the same for both modes, deaths/mile (per km...)
>> > > > basis. (I've got the numbers...) I'd assume equivalent
>> > > > numbers for Australia re available. (Cars, autos are
>roughly
>> > > > 10x worse.... Elsewhere, varying from country to
>country...)
>> > > >
>> > > > > Now also arguably some of the recent comings together of iron
>horses
>> > > > > were of the freight variety...but that aside...what s with all
>> theses
>> > > > >collisions??
>> > > >
>> > > > IS there a change? really? Long term averages?
>> > > >
>> > > > If so, it could be a statistical blip. Rail is (relatively)
>> > > > quite safe. Needs long term numbers to see if there is a
>> trend..
>> > > > Once there is a trend (if there is one...) then looking for
>> causes
>> > > > makes, i should think, more sense...
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > thanks
>> > > > dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can
>> manage,
>> > > > Smart Modular Technology |the opinions, my own.
>> > > > 334 South St |
>> > > > Shrewsbury, Mass |pierson@mail.dec.com
>> > > > "He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J
>> > > > Raffles
>> > > > "Internet: net of a million lies..." after Vernor Vinge
>> >
>>
>>