Longrider

Further to the discussion below, I wanted to comment on the plans by the father of one of the victims of the Upton Nervet crash to sue the train operating company. Now, while civil action for damages is normal in the aftermath of tragedies such as this, Mr Webster is going one further. He is suing because the Train Operating Company, First Great Western, do not fit seat belts in their trains. If the judgement goes in his favour there will be huge repercussions - and they won’t be good ones.

Firstly, it would mean that trains would have to operate in the same way as airlines. This would mean that conductors would have to be assigned to each carriage to ensure that passengers belted up before the train moved. It would also put an end to non-reserved seating. This would throw the whole principle of buying a ticket and boarding a train at the last moment into disarray. All journeys would have to be booked. The trip between Reading and London Paddington during the peak hours is full and standing. This would have to stop. The line is currently running at capacity, so more trains is not an option. Longer ones may be, but the cost would be prohibitive and might prove impossible for the companies to meet.

Now personally, I dislike travelling on trains where people are standing for much the same reasons as Mr Webster. However, the balance of risk is low. The loss of his daughter is tragic and like everyone else, I feel for his loss and the desire to make some sense of it. However, she did not die because FGW do not have seatbelts in their trains but because one selfish person decided to commit suicide and cared little for the lives he took with him.

This is not a justification for turning our train operations on their head and making them effectively unworkable. I just hope that the courts take a balanced and objective view.

Yesterday’s rail crash was the third level crossing incident in a matter of six weeks or so. Doubtless there will be calls for something to be done. However, as the leader in this month’s Safety & Health Practitioner points out:

The Reading rail crash once again saw immediate cries of ’something must be done’. But direct involvement in the loss of life is not the best foundation for clear thinking.

And they make the point that:

While seven people died in the derailment outside Reading, more died on the roads. Rail remains the safest way to travel, and in terms of the number of fatal accidents over the past 40 years has been getting progressively safer.

Valid points but ones likely to be drowned out in the emotive fallout that so often occurs following a train disaster. Unfortunately, inquiries after the event all too often lead to misguided recommendations. The Cullen inquiry following Ladbroke Grove contained a plethora of such recommendations that overwhelmed the industry to the point of causing stasis. Even now, some five years after the crash in October 1999, many of those recommendations remain just that; recommendations.

What is needed now is clear thinking. Level crossings do, indeed, present a risk. The automatic half barrier that was the centre of the recent Reading crash has significant design flaws. Unlike, for example, a CCTV controlled crossing, the controlling signaller does not have a view of the crossing. It is operated by a treadle on the track that is triggered by the approaching train. This causes the barriers to fall and the road lights to light. Thirty seconds later, the train reaches the crossing. The logic behind the half barrier arrangement is that drivers can continue if the sequence starts when they are part way across. Unfortunately, there is always the possibility that people will zigzag across in an attempt to beat the train. There is nothing that tells the signalling system that the crossing is clear - so if it isn’t, a crash will ensue. I believe a review of AHB crossings is appropriate, but a rush to remove them is not. After all, during their lifetime the amount of incidents is miniscule compared to other road related crashes.

Last nights crash was on another type of crossing. The user controlled crossing relies on communication between the user and the signaller. Users are required to telephone the signalbox and ask for permission to cross. Unfortunately, if they don’t, the signaller knows nothing about it until the crash. Again, a review is in order - and certainly there is a case for some (many, possibly) to be closed. But, again, as the Safety & Health Practitioner requests;

…it is essential that practitioners continue to sound the voice of reason, of consideration, of balance

Exactly
—–

Over at the UK ID Cards Blog, Trevor Mendham comments on the latest ICM Poll, citing concern among the British population about ID cards. It starts to get interesting when he links to a summary in the Sun. Not least, because the Sun puts an entirely different spin on the matter.

For example, around 80% of people back ID cards, yet a third don’t want to pay £85 for one. Presumably that means two-thirds do. So, what is it, yes they do? Or no they don’t? Can’t have it both ways. If they don’t want to pay for it, then we can presume that on this issue, they are opposed.

It gets better. Trevor sees this as a positive aspect for the campaign against ID cards. The Sun, however, sees this as good news for Blunkett - oh, come on, it can’t be both.

Er, well, it can, actually. This is because you can make statistics say whatever you want, depending on the spin you put on them. Which is why Trevor Mendham and The Sun see the same set of statistics and read opposing outcomes from them.

The reality is somewhere between the two. Most people just haven’t given the matter enough thought to give a reasoned answer and depending on the question, will probably reply in the positive. However, while most people haven’t thought about function creep, David Blunkett has - he wants the private sector to get involved. So, if you asked folk whether they want to have every financial transaction recorded on a government database, they might just have a different response. Unless, they want all of their financial transactions recorded on a government database. Do they want all their visits to their GP recorded as well? Do they still feel like paying £85 for the privilege?

Given the all-in-one nature being proposed, there are a number of caveats that haven’t been answered by the Home Office. Shortly after I started my first job about twenty years ago, I had my wallet stolen. It contained about £8 in cash and my bank card. Inconvenient, yes, but devastating, no. I got a new card. For several months afterwards, I was subjected to greater scrutiny when using my replacement card and had to verify my identity. Now the quick witted amongst you will be ahead of me here. Under the Blunkett scheme, the card will be the verification of identity.

At the moment identity thieves have to work at putting together a fake or cloned identity using a series of low level documents that builds a picture of the identity they wish to use. That is why they pay people to rummage around dustbins for discarded bank statements and utility bills. Under the new scheme everything is in one place. Great, you might think. However, while people like Peter Hain tout the idea that biometrics are somehow infallible and unforgeable, that idea is naïve in the extreme. Given sufficient resale value anything is forgeable and believe me, given the value of a British passport, a British ID card will be extremely valuable.

Now, if function creep happens, losing (or having stolen) your card will not be the minor inconvenience it was to me twenty years ago. Losing this card will effectively put your life on hold until you get a replacement. Then, of course you have the added problem that your biometric details have been compromised. A password that is compromised can be changed - how do you change your iris pattern or fingerprints? Far from overcoming identity theft, Blunkett’s plan will make it more likely, rather than less.

The Sun doesn’t seem to have anything to say on these matters, but then, I expect nothing less from them.