Hanging out of Windows

[AlexS]

Because to remove the risk you would need to ban any traction unit that puts out particle emissions.

You are just as much at risk standing on a platform next to a locomotive than on the train behind it.

The same stuff is still coming out the stack and still landing somewhere.

I should have made it a bit clearer - it's an occupational hazard with any kind of train, it happens on The Big Railway as well!

You can't issue all staff and passengers on the railway with plastic goggles as soon as they set foot on the station.

If the occasional smut in the eye is the cost for having a coal fire/internal combustion engine, it's something I'm willing to pay - the incidences of serious injury occuring are rather low.

 

[Dennis]

To continue to accept a risk in the workplace when performing a task where medical attention has previously been required is not something I'd be prepared to accept. Are goggles not available? If not, I would suggest that they should be. Whether you choose to use them is another matter.

As I say to employees in my care (working in a potentially very hazardous environment), you've only got one pair of eyes / ears / hands etc, use the PPE and look after them. Anyone not using PPE where it is explicitly stated that it is required may be subject to disciplinary action and for good reason - I don't want anyone in my team incapacitated.

Moving on...Out of work, greater risk taking seems to be the norm; hands up how many people have had sports injuries or injured themselves doing DIY. Those accidents were almost certainly preventable and could be considered self-inflicted, much like any injury I might sustain whilst 'doing heads out'.

 

[AlexS]

I doubt the railway inspectorates will ever require every one of the tens of thousands of members of staff in every grade who works in anything to do with a diesel or steam train (or even an electric train, might get carbon deposits!) to wear goggles.

If I wanted to wear them, nothing would stop me. However, I don't. We donate the PPE for each others use ourselves at any rate, entirely by choice - we like to keep the costs to our organisation down as much as possible. I buy uniform, tools, in fact everything apart from tea or coffee.

I don't know of anyone who does, though. By their own choice.

It's no different to the likelihood of getting a bit of dust blown in your eye on a dry field in summer. I've had that as well.

It's self regulating. There are people who choose to wear them. I don't know any of them though.

If I'm grinding metal or similar, sure, I have my own PPE of various assortments from hard hats to high vis clothing to steel soled and toed boots to suit the occasion. I've even used a harness to climb a signal in less than perfect weather on a designalling job. If I'm facing standard atmospheric conditions on a station platform, I'll pass. Or stick my head in a bubble or summat.

Don't forget - health and safety is making things as safe as necessary, not as safe as possible. Plastic goggles which are prone to scratching could cause blind spots or blurring in vision which while not necessary a problem in a general construction job, could well be when trying to see if someone is taking a running leap at a moving train door.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is, at any rate, enormously beyond the scope of the topic anyway.

 

[Dennis]

This is, at any rate, enormously beyond the scope of the topic anyway.

No, it's not. The point here is that someone working 'on the railways' is prepared to tolerate a risk to their own eyesight (which has previously required medical attention) yet others refuse to countenance pax taking similar risks by poking their head out the window.

I'll accept the magnitude of the risks are somewhat different but nevertheless you (and doubtless many others in the industry) are prepared to accept that risk in the same way as I accept the risks associated with 'heads out'.

 

[AlexS]

Who working doesn't tolerate some kind of risk?

In my day job, there's a risk of abuse from unhappy customers (which I get most days).

Anyone using a computer for long periods takes a measured risk of damage to their eyesight.

They do however have a means to an end.

Do you wear a plastic bag on your head at all times to prevent dust entering your eyes at any point in your daily existance?

Sticking your head out a train window at 100 mph just increases your chances of a sticky end. A closing speed of 200 mph for an approaching train isn't something to be coughed at and is not a proportional risk to the activity.

If I'm working trackside I wear regular PPE including solid boods, hi vis clothing as required and depending on who owns the track (and also if it's raining!), a hard hat.

If I'm exposing myself to the same dangers that occur through having a window open in a car or walking around when it's not rained in a bit, I do not wear goggles.

I've seen someone whose been sat in a chair away from the window on a train still manage to catch a smut.

Life goes on.

 

[Dennis]

Indeed, life goes on. In my work life, there is a formal risk assessment performed in advance of most of my daily activities and these seek to minimise the risk of injury or long term health problems and also to protect the environment.

Out of work, I (and I'm sure everyone else) subconciously performs such assessments for many of their leisure activities. Whilst doing HO, I'll keep a careful eye out for potential hazards from vegetation and lineside structures. Passing trains results in 'heads in' - I've no wish to scare the bejesus out of passing train drivers!

I actually find the concentration required for HO stimulating and the fresh air refreshing - the perfect foil for what might otherwise be quite a tedious journey.

The greatest day to day hazards I find with HO are smuts and insects - perhaps I should wear goggles.

 

[JustinStacey.x]

Excuse me for a minute while I pop in and ask... what does pax mean in this sense - I see it used a lot on here. Last I was aware, PAX stood for private automatic exchange, an archaic kind of telephone system used for internal communication only, that is fast disappearing...

 

[The Snap]

Out of work, I (and I'm sure everyone else) subconciously performs such assessments for many of their leisure activities. Whilst doing HO, I'll keep a careful eye out for potential hazards from vegetation and lineside structures. Passing trains results in 'heads in' - I've no wish to scare the bejesus out of passing train drivers!

I actually find the concentration required for HO stimulating and the fresh air refreshing - the perfect foil for what might otherwise be quite a tedious journey.

The greatest day to day hazards I find with HO are smuts and insects - perhaps I should wear goggles.

Exactly what I do if ever I’m doing HO. Yet, apparently this can result in instant death, according to some on here. I’ve maintained throughout this debate the need for caution and concentration whilst doing HO, yet this doesn’t seem to be enough…

Excuse me for a minute while I pop in and ask... what does pax mean in this sense - I see it used a lot on here. Last I was aware, PAX stood for private automatic exchange, an archaic kind of telephone system used for internal communication only, that is fast disappearing...

To my knowledge, it is an abbreviation for the word 'passengers'.

 

[GB]

The level of tenaciousness and arrogance in this topic is astounding!

 

[O L Leigh]

+1

Unfortunately some people just won't be told.

O L Leigh

 

[The Snap]

The level of tenaciousness and arrogance in this topic is astounding!

Was that aimed at me?

If so, where in anything I have written is there a suggestion of arrogance on my part? Tenacity maybe, to ensure I get my point of view across, but not arrogance. Unless of course you feel there is something that is arrogant - in which case, I'd be interested to see it...

If it wasn’t aimed at me, I apologise for the small rant above!

Unfortunately some people just won't be told.

People can be told, but they don't have to listen. They can listen, but they don't have to act upon it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . if people like myself are confident enough of their safety and pull in their heads when another train, bridge, tunnel are coming or a bend that you can't see around.

That is EXACTLY the point of this whole issue!
Someone's self-assessment of their own risk, publicised after they have accumulated a track record of no-injuries, is not objective. It doesn't include an assessment of the injured or deceased.
Self-assessment by survivors is GUARANTEED to be biased in favour of risk taking.
Let me illustate this:-
Lets say 10,000 people do something risky and just one of them dies.
That leaves 9,999 people to say something about how safe it is.
It also leaves one dead person, their friends, colleagues and family; the professionals involved in the incident and its investigation;
the policy makers and rule makers who now have a death to deal with under the rules and polcies they've already implemented.
So who are we going to listen to as giving the reliable advice on how to behave? The lucky survivors? The deceased representatives?
And what changes in policy and rules are we going to expect?
Rules to protect the hazardous behaviour of the survivors? Or policy which eliminates the hazards?

Me? I'd expect the responsible, trained and appropriate people to reduce or eliminate the risk.
Some people on here? You seem to expect responsible, trained and appropriate people to let you self-assess your own risk (and presumably to ignore them when you die because of your death). Based on the false premise that a survivor will continue to be luck because they've been lucky so far.
That is NOT an informed decision. And its therefore a wrong decision.

 

[moonrakerz]

So who are we going to listen to as giving the reliable advice on how to behave? .............. Me? I'd expect the responsible, trained and appropriate people to reduce or eliminate the risk.

The trouble is Dave, that these "responsible, trained and appropriate people " you refer too are given next to no, if any, training in this area. As a result they err completely on the wrong side of sensible safety. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "eliminate" the risk (as you put it) - I am at some risk typing this on my keyboard - should I stop ?

EVERYTHING then becomes a potentially deadly hazard, so the poor ignorant passengers must be "protected" and are continually badgered, hectored, warned and threatened about, in many cases, the most ludicrous things.

Perhaps the best example is the never ending barrage of station/train announcements about unattended luggage - just when has a terrorist left a bomb in an unattended piece of luggage ? The IRA used car bombs, the Islamist prefer suicide bombs, how is an accompanied suitcase any less of a risk than an unattended one?
Apart from which, if you wish to kill a lot of people you don't leave a bomb on the concourse at Paddington, you leave an empty suitcase, then attack the huge crowds pushed out (for their safety !) into Praed St !

Regrettably the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of people who practice so-called Health & Safety are not properly trained and haven't got a clue what they are doing !

 

[O L Leigh]

Hold on. We're talking about people leaning out of windows here. Can we come to the rest later...?

The principle here is very simple. All the infrastructure and lineside features are designed with enough clearance so that a train can pass safely through. Therefore, anything (or anyone) that is inside the train will not be at risk of being struck by a lineside object. As soon as someone leans out of a window, they are "out of gauge" which means that they are at risk of being struck.

Unfortunately, your point that "everything is risky" and therefore we should do nothing is a classic case of stretching logic beyond it's limits and taking it into absurdity. No-one here is talking about "eliminating" all risks but simply about controlling them, in this case with specific reference to being struck by a lineside object. The point being that if you want to travel by train you will be safe from striking a lineside object provided you don't lean out of a window.

I'm also not sure on what basis you state your claim that the "responsible, trained and appropriate people" that Dave refers to receive next to no training. As a driver, I received fire training, evacuation training and first aid training. In fact, you could say that my entire training was centred around ensuring safety. I am also, as a consequence of the knowledge required to do my job, accutely aware of just what and where the risks are. The railway environment is extremely dangerous to those who don't know what they're doing.

Perhaps rail staff do err somewhat on the side of caution, but I think that's appropriate. We don't know that a person is going to do the right thing or not, so you take the view that they should be told about the dangers and risks just in case. Just look at what happened at Elsenham. Two girls were killed on a perfectly safe level crossing that they used on a regular basis because they were too intent on catching their train that they failed to use the crossing correctly. The investigation into the incident showed that crossing abuse at this location was endemic. Quite frankly it was a miracle that no-one had been killed there before.

While I will concede that there is a core of rail users who are sensible and can be relied upon to be safe, you have to understand that there are others who really haven't got the first idea. Whether it's through ignorance or deliberate recklessness, people still put their lives in jeopardy on a daily basis. Heck, I've had to stop someone shinning up an OLE mast. The railway still has a duty of care to ensure the safety of EVERYONE who uses it, even these idiots.

O L Leigh

 

[tony_mac]

Perhaps the best example is the never ending barrage of station/train announcements about unattended luggage - just when has a terrorist left a bomb in an unattended piece of luggage ? The IRA used car bombs, the Islamist prefer suicide bombs, how is an accompanied suitcase any less of a risk than an unattended one?
Apart from which, if you wish to kill a lot of people you don't leave a bomb on the concourse at Paddington, you leave an empty suitcase, then attack the huge crowds pushed out (for their safety !) into Praed St !

That is one of the most ill-thought out arguments things that I have seen in a long time.

Do you not think that they use suicide bombers because unattended bombs are not so effective? And they aren't so effective because people are vigilant about items that are left unattended?

Would you believe that there are people prepared to plant a bomb but not to deliberately kill themselves? Wouldn't that explain why an accompanied suitcase is less of a risk than an unattended one?

The IRA (and ETA) certainly have a history of using bombs in luggage.

After reading that, I think that maybe you should hang your head out of the window, it obviously can't do you any harm!

 

[moonrakerz]

That is one of the most ill-thought out arguments things that I have seen in a long time.

Not an argument - a fact ! They use suicide bombers because their religious zealotry makes them into martyrs with 70 virgins waiting for them on the "other side".

The IRA (and ETA) certainly have a history of using bombs in luggage.

The IRA - No. Vehicles, roadside (like the Taliban), litter bins or just walk in and place the bomb were the preferred methods.
ETA- let's look at the facts. The Madrid train bombings were carried out on very busy train FULL of luggage - how do you identify "unattended" bags on a train - make the passengers sit with their bags on their laps perhaps ?

I was in Valencia after the Madrid bombings. All the inter-city trains had full "airline" type security. X-ray machines, metal detecting gates, manual frisking - enormous disruption. What did the suburban trains, the ones that were actually bombed, have - NOTHING. What a farce ! just like most of the stupid "precautions" we endure now.
Before I retired, I traveled extensively. It only takes a little observation to see the gaping holes which exist in practically ALL of these security measures, most of which are in place to hoodwink people (including yourself) into thinking that these measures are both necessary and effective. Unfortunately - they are neither.

At one well know tourist attraction, deemed to be "at risk", they were confiscating umbrellas and penknives but allowing any types of bottles and cans through. My wife, said a few words (which I will withhold) to the security guard and was waved through - undergoing NO checks whatsoever !!! This happened at three different locations !!! (Apart from which, any terrorist aiming to make the evening news that night would have gone for the huge queues at the security points - not the attraction !)

After reading that, I think that maybe you should hang your head out of the window, it obviously can't do you any harm!

I did just that very recently. Very carefully, and at 15 mph (speed limit) to get a cracking photo of the Saltash bridge. I knew exactly what I was doing. It was a risk, but a very, very, very slight risk, which I was willing to take.


Sorry Tony, but the things I have seen on my travels would make your hair curl. Some things are a real threat - bombs in aircraft holds for example, these are reasonably well covered, but many things really AREN'T.

My local station has notices on the footbridge saying "Please don't rush" - I think that sums up most of these stupid notices !