OMG ... What is this expert saying ???

[Kokomo]

in tokyo, the path between the tracks and standing area is 1 feet and there are no such incidents...only sinkies and stupid thais have problems!

You can't say that b'cos they are dying whenever they are using your services. You as an operator has to make sure safety is the priority concern for all your passengers. Even if it is a free ride, you are still suppose to provide that basic thing for these people who do not pay for the ride. It applies to all.

 

[Fook Seng]

I am not sure your understanding of "Best International Practices" ... when we talked about best practices, we always take the front-runners ... and not the 140 that DON'T Practices!

You are lucky that we do follow the best practices of international subway operators ... else, I cannot imagine the situation today with all the overcrowding especially during trains disruptions!

We must understand the history that led to the installation of the safety screens to understand why the expert said what he said.

The incidents of passengers falling onto tracks had reached an alarming statistic that many people were crying for safety screens to be installed. MRT stalled in this decision making, saying this was not necessary. A few more deaths occurred within a short time, so much so that further delay in not installing the expensive protective screens became untenable.

Only a psychologist would possibly have a hint whether among the deaths, more have been pushed or jumped. Very few survived to tell their story anyway.

The latest victim from Thailand claimed she was pushed. Whether she was actually pushed or was avoiding a push and fell in accidentally or, in fact, it was just a pure accident, the fact remains that accidents and incidents can occur on the train platforms if there were no protective screens.

I believe it can be proven mathematically that the more crowded the platform the greater the chance of accidents taking place. If the expert dispute this, I will have a very big question mark on the professionalism of this expert. Very likely the expert was only trying to protect MRT's lack of action in the first instance.

 

[potato29]

in tokyo, the path between the tracks and standing area is 1 feet and there are no such incidents...only sinkies and stupid thais have problems!

it's a ti-ger that fell, not sinkie.:oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[AnyOldHow]

We must understand the history that led to the installation of the safety screens to understand why the expert said what he said.

The incidents of passengers falling onto tracks had reached an alarming statistic that many people were crying for safety screens to be installed. MRT stalled in this decision making, saying this was not necessary. A few more deaths occurred within a short time, so much so that further delay in not installing the expensive protective screens became untenable.

Only a psychologist would possibly have a hint whether among the deaths, more have been pushed or jumped. Very few survived to tell their story anyway.

The latest victim from Thailand claimed she was pushed. Whether she was actually pushed or was avoiding a push and fell in accidentally or, in fact, it was just a pure accident, the fact remains that accidents and incidents can occur on the train platforms if there were no protective screens.

I believe it can be proven mathematically that the more crowded the platform the greater the chance of accidents taking place. If the expert dispute this, I will have a very big question mark on the professionalism of this expert. Very likely the expert was only trying to protect MRT's lack of action in the first instance.

Thanks brother Fook for helping nailed the issue ....

I also like to take the opportunity to thanks those unfortunate "track jumpers" for helping making our stations safer ... salute!

 

[rodent2005]

SMRT is right to argue that platform doors only became a necessity when service disruption became frequent. If deliberate intrusion did not become more prevalent then such doors would be unnecessary. One person accidentally falling onto the tracks once in a blue moon (i.e., once every 2 or 3 years) does not justify the costs of platform doors.

Years back when SMRT was dead set against installing barriers, the elite talents were going about telling people if anyone wanted to commit suicide, nothing could stop them. Suicidal people could just as easily jump from a tall building or step in front of an oncoming vehicle, they said. Now they have turned 180 degree and said the opposite?

 

[Conqueror]

Elites Can Lick My Ass !

Years back when SMRT was dead set against installing barriers, the elite talents were going about telling people if anyone wanted to commit suicide, nothing could stop them. Suicidal people could just as easily jump from a tall building or step in front of an oncoming vehicle, they said. Now they have turned 180 degree and said the opposite?

They ONLY do it for the $$$. That's all they care. They can heck care about your personal safety.

When I was young, I saw this 'cliff' going down to a certain death, I knew all these things will happen in the future to come. The designs of these stations are already wrong in the first place. Now, I hear people complaining it was getting warmer while they wait for the trains to arrive.

PAP is a group of elites ? Elites my foot !

 

[ray_of_hope]

I believe it can be proven mathematically that the more crowded the platform the greater the chance of accidents taking place.

You have subway systems around the world which are extremely crowded, far more crowded than the MRT, and yet accidents are not common. The Moscow metro carries around 7 million commuters daily and platforms are densely packed, yet there are no platform screen doors and accidents are not common. Organisations cannot spend money if 0.001% of people are careless or stupid irrespective of whether platforms are crowded or not.

If the commuting public wishes added safety every time 0.001% of people cause problems then the commuting public should also say it is prepared to pay for that added safety.

 

[Fook Seng]

You have subway systems around the world which are extremely crowded, far more crowded than the MRT, and yet accidents are not common. The Moscow metro carries around 7 million commuters daily and platforms are densely packed, yet there are no platform screen doors and accidents are not common. Organisations cannot spend money if 0.001% of people are careless or stupid irrespective of whether platforms are crowded or not.

If the commuting public wishes added safety every time 0.001% of people cause problems then the commuting public should also say it is prepared to pay for that added safety.

You are that bloody consultant?

 

[ray_of_hope]

You are that bloody consultant?

Nope. I can barely put body and soul together.

 

[Fook Seng]

Nope. I can barely put body and soul together.

Then why are you so defensive? Anecdotal accounts elsewhere do not mean anything. For each account so many other factors are at work.

Take for instance, the lifestyle or social environment of the place. Your example of Moscow did not take into account the difference in social environment.

Singapore is a stressed up place. People get worried if they are late for work. The bosses view coming in late very seriously. Employees work long hours (among the longest in the world) and the little personal time that they have, they treasure greatly, giving them a character that is constantly in a hurry, wanting to be ahead of the queue and taking the first train or chasing for the door before it closes.

In a different environment, Moscow perhaps, reporting late to work, may not be a big thing, in fact many could be happy to be in this situation with a good excuse. I am not saying, this is the reason but there are 101 reasons why one place is what it is.

The same can be argued that since Singapore had so many deaths on the tracks, then all train stations elsewhere should put up protective screens. Even if we wish to use a statistical model to determine whether crowding can lead to incidents on the tracks, there are simply not enough good samples around the world to make the conclusion strategically significant.

So each environment is unique and its local conditions should be looked at in detail before making any decision, especially when life is at stake.

 

[ray_of_hope]

Anecdotal accounts elsewhere do not mean anything. For each account so many other factors are at work.

As curious as it may seem to some, legal systems around the world tend to work on the basis of precedent, common practice, and case law. We leave it to the person adjudicating the current case to determine whether the experience elsewhere (or what you choose to characterise as "anecdotal accounts") has any relevance on present case and, ultimately, is deterministic of its outcome.

 

[Fook Seng]

As curious as it may seem to some, legal systems around the world tend to work on the basis of precedent, common practice, and case law. We leave it to the person adjudicating the current case to determine whether the experience elsewhere (or what you choose to characterise as "anecdotal accounts") has any relevance on present case and, ultimately, is deterministic of its outcome.

This is an expert assignment. It should be based on well founded scientific investigation. How does Common Law comes into the picture? Even in a legal suit, past cases has to be shown to be similar to present case on all important aspects.

 

[ray_of_hope]

This is an expert assignment. It should be based on well founded scientific investigation. How does Common Law comes into the picture? Even in a legal suit, past cases has to be shown to be similar to present case on all important aspects.

I am sure we will not have to wait too long before we see the lay of the land.