Because the lives of famous people matter more.....

Winky

May I suggest you pop over to the Great UK and climb aboard a train headed to London anytime from 6:30 to 9:30 a.m.; try to secure a seat; and review your statement as to how many people travel by road and why?

An elite athlete, ie one of the very finest in the world in their particular sport, is fatally wounded whilst competing and you believe it is pointless for a review to be conducted to consider what happened and what could be done to prevent this happening again?  Are you mad?  Can't you see why there might be a benefit following the review for other elite cricketers and a trickle down benefit to amateur cricketers from improved head wear?  Why should this be considered pointless?

Similar thing happened with cycling and the introduction to joe public of crash helmets - availability and awareness of same from professional cycling.  Is that pointless too?

As for your comments following yet another potentially disastrous train accident, well, enough said.

Peter

I'm not sure I agree with your British Rail analogy. Despite high prices and overcrowding, our rail network has suffered from decades of underinvestment, not least in the area of safety systems which would almost undoubtedly have prevented some of our worst rail accidents.

If the enquiry results in the better design of helmets for everyone from amateur to pro then it will have achieved something in his legacy.

The newish rules on young amateur cricketers wearing helmets to bat and keep wicket have been a really good adoption by the sport. Why not ensure the kit is well designed too?

bruce

Winky,

Rail fares in the UK are heavily subsidised. The cost of maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the rail network is funded primarily by central government, through the budget allocation for each successive 5-year Control Period. The effect of the introduction of any new "safety" measures has very little effect on the contribution demanded from the travelling passenger through the fare-box.

Any proposed change to the infrastructure or train sets needs to be supported by a business case and a safety case that justifies allocating funds to one proposal, rather than another, so as to utilise the available funding to best advantage.

Over the past 25 years or so, I am aware that a number of systems have been introduced, including the following two, just as examples :-

ATP (Automatic Train Protection) was trialed but discarded in favour of TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) on the basis that the latter provided virtually all of the safety protection offered by ATP but at a fraction of the cost. The funding was justified on the estimated number of future lives and injuries saved.

Electronic signalling control systems with triple SSI (Solid State Interlocking) have replaced conventional Power Signal Boxes and mechanical interlocks, and as a result have improved infrastructure reliability and availabiity all at a reduced cost due to lower maintenance, and a reduction in signalling operators.

There are other examples.

I'm sure that with your expertise in the emotionless evaluation of infrastructure change you will appreciate that in many cases these funds have been well allocated and as I said above, the bulk of the investment is funded by the taxpayer, rather than the passenger.

 "Yet another" train crash? There are as many people killed every month on Philly's roads as there were in this very rare incident. We don't think train crashes are rare, because they get a lot of publicity. But they are. Travel by rail is already one of the safest forms of transport.

Yes trains are crowded in the UK. They are run as a business and therefore don't expand capacity beyond demand (on average) There will of course be peak periods when they are beyond crowded. They will always be crowded. And so will the M25.

Cycling helmet use has nothing to do with pro cycling. Cycling helmets (I always wear one) are virtually unused in Europe where both pro-cycling and utility cycling are common. Pros wear them because the type of cycling they do is high risk, and because it is in the rules. In contrast helmet use is legislated in Australia (and few other places) which barely acknowledges the existence of cycling as either a sport or a form of transport.

And what does this guy's skill as cricketer possibly have to do with whether this tragic and regrettable incident warrants this extraordinary investigation. If it was a local club cricketer who was felled, I guess you'd just say "Screw him, he wasn't very good. Nothing to learn here".

My point is that high profile incidents and accidents receive irrationally and disproportionately high levels of attention and response. Because media. We should have as much sympathy for the 7 people killed on US roads every 2 hours as we do for the 7 people who were killed in the train crash.

People seem to allege that I lack compassion because I call for rational responses. It is the opposite. Much more benefit is gained from fact-based response than from knee-jerk populist, politically motivated "shows of concern". To support rational responses is to be as compassionate as is possible.

People who travel by bus, rail, ship or airline are placing their trust in the skill and responsibility of others. When that trust fails, as in the recent Philadelphia rail crash, that trust needs to be re-established. Re-establishing that trust (or confidence) requires us to investigate and understand the cause(s) and to identify and implement changes to reduce or eliminate that risk in the future.

Failure to do so is likely to result in transfer to another form of transport.

Transport by private car places the trust either in ones-self or in someone close or well known to us. Most of us have a self-regulating mechanism that allows us to live our lives quite happily, even though we know that death is certain. To a certain extent that mechanism seems to convince us that "we" won't be involved in that fatal car accident - and anyway, we have a high degree of confidence that the destiny of our car journey is predominantly in our own (capable) hands. Whether we are justified in this belief is largely irrelevant.

We can "accept" a high frequency of individual "death by misadventure, carelessness or dangerous activity" where the predominant victim is the root cause. (Again, despite knowing that many casualties are not themselves the root cause).

We have difficulty "accepting" low frequency, multiple deaths when those involved have no control whatsoever over their demise.

Humans respond to both emotion and logic. This might not be "rational", but its a fact of life.

Your original statement said "nearly everyone drives instead" - that is what I was challenging as it is complete nonsense.  Most people working in London have no choice other than to travel into town by train. The roads are incapable of catering for commuter cars; the congestion charge is punitive (albeit for good reason); and there is nowhere to park.  Hence people are forced to pay a small fortune to be crammed like animals into trains every working day.

You say that cycling helmets are virtually unused in Europe.  Well, last time I checked UK was part of the EU.  I've just returned from a cycling holiday in Lake Garda area.  There were loads of cyclists out on the roads and the vast majority of them were wearing helmets.  In London, the vast majority of cycling  commuters wear helmets.  On the weekend, most of the cyclists I encounter out in the countryside wear helmets.  Perhaps there are some countries in Europe where you are correct - I've not seen this and UK is the place relevant to me where your statement is without foundation.  And, in my opinion, the wearing of helmets is something which has vastly increased over the last 10-15 years.  What promoted this change?  I would suggest that the visibility of professional cyclists wearing them plus sportive rules has greatly helped.

You may have a point that an unknown cricketer suffering the same terrible fate would result in no action. The fact is that the type of incident happening in the public view, similar to the incident which killed Ayrton Senna generate the leverage to force action by the relevant sports authorities - they cannot turn a blind eye to it.  You can argue that they should have pushed things forward irrespective however, that's usually not how life works.  In my opinion anything which causes pressures to lead to improvements in safety should not be stopped in their tracks as your logic would suggest; instead they should be welcomed.

These tragic events can lead to significant step changes in safety for the area in which they occur - sometimes, as we saw with Concorde, after the time that the authorities were aware of potential issues.  That does not stop developments in safety at a slower pace - Formula One is a good example of this as demonstrated by the design of the new circuits and modifications made to existing circuits to improve safety (Monte Carlo may be an exception which could one day be axed - again, if there is a tragic accident).

I'm not questioning your compassion Winky, I just think your points in this thread are poorly thought through, possibly because of your geographic location.

Peter

Pros didn't wear helmets until the ruling body mandated them , they steadfastly refused to wear them on a voluntary basis.

And?  Since they started wearing them, joe public's acceptance of the need to wear helmets in UK has grown tremendously to the point where I would guess 90%+ of London commuters are now wearing them.  Hardly a bad thing in such a dangerous environment.

Peter

I don't agree that if an amateur cricketer (or any sportsman) was killed in this way it would have had zero impact, after all that its what a coroners inquest is for and it is not unusual for safety recommendations (or criminal proceedings) to follow accidents etc. The adoption of safety glasses by squash players has I believe been spurred by this process.

Sure high profile cases matter, and get wide coverage, but that is generally to the good. Think of the surge of interest in public CPR education that was largely triggered by the collapse of Patrick Mwamba (spelling?) and his resuscitation.

As for bike helmets, the pros have made helmets 'cool'  by wearing them and they also drove better design and comfort etc. The manufacturers now sell them as much on style as safety and that I'm sure is partly behind wide adoption now. I would say I almost never see kids riding without them, as they get older I think it will just be embedded as normal practice.

I do understand the wider point about high profile events getting disproportionate

coverage generally. I posted to this effect after the Alps air crash vs the ongoing conflict in Syria. I was reminded in that thread that media reports what it believes people are interested in. Train crashes are sexier than foreign wars, or earthquakes. Unless the latter affects western climbers on a well known mountain of course.

Bruce

Very well put. Good points made by all, actually.

Thank you winky. Very kind of you to say so. And i'm sure the other contributors likewise appreciate your feedback.

Your point about re-establishing trust is one that made me think. I read an article in the days after the crash that talked about how rail passengers had become "nervous" (like airline passengers do after a highly publicized crash). Of course, the nervousness is irrational, but it is absolutely real. It does force people into much less safe modes of transport like driving. And that's a bad thing. I've seen it claimed that more people have actually been killed by subsequent decisions to drive rather than fly, than were killed in the 911 attacks themselves. And the continued inconvenience of so-called airport harassment security may may actually be pushing people into cars and (sometimes) to their deaths

Your point about us being more accepting of risks we feel we control is also of course absolutely valid.

Bike helmets are indeed a style thing for keen riders, and most would not ride without one. But the introduction of compulsory helmet laws pushed cycling rates for average punters back by decades in Australia. It's not clear that cycling rates have ever recovered.

We are indeed irrational beings. We fret that our food might contain GMO while continuing to simply eat far too much of it, thus exposing ourselves to far greater health risks (heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc as a consequence of our weight and sedentary lifestyle) than all the GMO/pesticide/non-organic issues create in combination.

I still think it's sad that justification for investigation into the cricketing fatality is potentially based on the unfortunate chap's skill or fame.

I just think it's sad that the poor fellow died playing a sport that he both loved and excelled at. The only up side to me being that measures may be introduced to prevent the same scenario repeating itself.

Peter

Also the professionals in any sport may incur a higher chance of serious injury or death because of the speed at which they can play the sport compared to "weekend warriors" who may find that the fact that they are not as well trained/conditioned for competition due to competing time interests (jobs, families, etc) leads to a predominance of a different type/grade of injury.  (For example, the odds of getting killed by my hockey slapshot are far less than that of a professional's, but the protections brought about by their injuries filters down to the lower levels of the sport.)