How to promote rail traveln't - tunacat
Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar, Hatfield...
All directors' faults? Even if drivers drive through red lights, it COULD be argued that that was due to lack of investment in the technology which would have prevented them doing it.
It would be no surprise to learn the directors took a 'golden parachute' with them when they said bye-bye.
And now they vow to "vigorously defend" themselves.

If you fall asleep at the wheel near Selby and cause an accident you'll get 5 years.

But who is the more reckless? Who, day after day, is putting the greater number of innocent lives at risk?
How to promote rail traveln't - mab23

Seven people died in the rail crash at Potters Bar, on average ten people die on the roads every *day*. The ATP system is projected to save 83 lives over the next 40 years at a cost of £45m per life saved. That is 100 times the level at which road-safety improvements are accepted by government as worth implementing.

You can't eliminate the risk entirely. Is a life saved on the railways worth 100 times a life saved on the roads?

(figures from the Economist, 23rd May 2002)

mike
How to promote rail traveln't - Mark (RLBS)
This is a Motoring site. Please bear that in mind.
How to promote rail traveln't - tunacat
(Assuming this is "A place to discuss things with even the slightest connection to motoring"...)

Mike, I can't argue with true figures. In that case it seems the expense of making the railways safer can't really be justified, so maybe they shouldn't bother. Instead, why not have adverts on TV where, say, Jimmy Savile says "Going to make a journey? Why not consider going by train? It's not risk-free, but you're a lot less likely to die than going by car. Think on." (taps nose and smiles)

Again, I don't know any figures, but my perception is that rail accidents have been more frequent since privatisation than before. It might be incorrect, but I reckon it's shared by a large part of the public.
A motorist who caused an accident via the wilful negligence of using his car when he had failed to maintain it in a safe condition would expect to be prosecuted. And not having enough money to maintain it properly would be no excuse - in that case it should not have been being used.
If rail accidents HAVE become more frequent, and there HAS been a reduction in maintenance, should we not EXPECT somebody to be taken to task over it? - The private companies? Or were the personnel in government who privatised it in the first place showing 'wilful negligence' by washing their hands of responsibility for it?

 

Value my car