• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

UK union leader Bob Crow dead

LondonJohn said:
Yes, that was my implication.

The probability of a genuine serious emergency occurring in any given tube station, where the instant availability of numerous LU staff would make any significant difference to the outcome, is so small as to be almost negligible. And in case it had escaped your notice, there is an army of dedicated first responders (in the form of police, fire and ambulance personnel and equipment) available within a very short time frame if there ever is any sort of significant emergency.
Click to expand...


How do you know this?
 
3point14 said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...


Because firstly, excluding Zone 1 tube stations (which are not the ones we're talking about here), there are some 200 tube stations in Zones 2-9.

Next, we need to define what might constitute an emergency that would be positively affected by the instant availability of, say, three or more LU staff. I would argue that any individual passenger illness/accident can be ruled out: one properly-trained staff member with access to appropriate equipment would be sufficient. I would also argue that any sort of "usual" group disruption (e.g. gangs of young men or women fighting or hassling people) can be addressed by one person alone - and the proper response would be to ask bystanders to move away and call for the police. Likewise, any fire should either be so small as to be safely addressed by one staff member with the appropriate fire extinguisher, or requires the attention of the fire brigade. In other words, if a fire were so large as to require several staff members to be attending to it, then by definition it shouldn't be LU staff members attending to it - it should be the fire brigade.

So what are we left with (in my view) that constitutes a genuine emergency that would genuinely only benefit from the immediate on-site presence of several LU staff members (as opposed to one or two maximum)? I would contend that only something like a serious terrorist incident, a major accident involving multiple casualties, or something approaching gang warfare within the station would fall into this category.

And with that in mind, when was the last time you can ever remember (first- or second-hand, or reading about it or hearing about it in any form whatsoever) such an incident affecting any one of the 200 non-Zone-1 tube stations? I imagine that things of this magnitude HAVE happened in these tube stations, but I'd argue that they are so relatively rare as to be near-negligible.


That's how I come to this conclusion. (BTW, it's not about "knowing" it - it's about making a conclusion based on analysis).
 
Dissolution said:
That's not analysis, it's conjecture.
Click to expand...


Oh, err, right! :D

What would analysis of this situation look like then? (You are aware that analysis often involves elements of prediction (based upon precedent and forecasting) - and, by definition therefore, an element of conjecture?)
 
Dissolution said:
That's not analysis, it's conjecture.
Click to expand...

This.

You have your conclusion before your thinking, I suspect.

Bottom line is, you're guessing. I'll revise my opinion if you have any background or qualifications that would enable you to assess situations like these for safety implications. It's quite a specialised area. Do you have any such credentials?

Or links. They're good. Do you have any of those?


ETA: Apologies for the use of the word 'Know'. Your use of a blank statement of fact with no equivocation fooled me.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
This.

You have your conclusion before your thinking, I suspect.
Click to expand...


No, I don't. Quite the opposite in fact. My post illustrates the thought processes involved. If my analysis had suggested that there was a significantly high level of major accidents/terrorism/gang warfare in tube stations or tunnels that justified having several non-ticketing members of staff milling around in the station 18 hours a day, 364 days a year, every year, then that would have been my conclusion.......



Bottom line is, you're guessing.
Click to expand...


I sure am. It's called an educated guess. A hypothesis. Scenario analysis. But I'd certainly be interested if you could tell me how it would be possible to forecast the likely future need for staffing levels without a) examination of past precedent, and b) guessing future needs based on that precedent and any future-specific factors.



I'll revise my opinion if you have any background or qualifications that would enable you to assess situations like these for safety implications. It's quite a specialised area. Do you have any such credentials?
Click to expand...


I am very sorry to have to tell you that I don't. What is the appropriate accreditation? Do you have it? And I assume (correctly?) that you believe my opinion doesn't carry any validity unless and until I have this qualification or background of which you write. I also assume (correctly?) that in your view it's pretty much impossible for someone without an underground railways health-and-safety background/qualification to use general logic, reasoning and information to make an educated and informed argument on this issue. That's your prerogative. I, of course, would disagree.



Or links. They're good. Do you have any of those?
Click to expand...


I am afraid I don't have any links to all the major incidents (accidents with multiple injuries, terrorist atrocities, gang warfare, etc) that haven't happened on the London Underground network in the past 30 years. I apologise for this.



ETA: Apologies for the use of the word 'Know'. Your use of a blank statement of fact with no equivocation fooled me.
Click to expand...


I had written two things in the post you're referring to.

Firstly, I wrote that "the probability of a genuine serious emergency occurring in any given tube station, where the instant availability of numerous LU staff would make any significant difference to the outcome, is so small as to be almost negligible." That is a statement of fact, not opinion.

But I then added my opinion to this. And, interestingly (in light of your barbed comment above), I prefaced the comment with exactly that (my bolding for clarity): "In my opinion, it's a provable fact - in a good-business-sense-while-covering-off-passenger-safety-apropriately sense - that all central London tube stations are grossly overmanned most of the time. The overwhelming majority of situations requiring staff intervention concern either individual passenger illness or accidents, or criminal acts of some kind. In either case, it takes no more than one or two members of staff to attend."


But there, as they say, you go........
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
So not because it impacts anyone other than these groups?
Click to expand...

That as well. And because, of course, impact on passengers is directly related to the impact on those who deal directly or indirectly with them. It is hardly mutually exclusive.
 
As is the impact on passengers directly related to the impact on owners/executives of London Underground (or a train operator).

Not clear that we have any basis for thinking one group will make decisions more in the interest of passengers than the other group will.
 
Francesca R said:
As is the impact on passengers directly related to the impact on owners/executives of London Underground (or a train operator).

Not clear that we have any basis for thinking one group will make decisions more in the interest of passengers than the other group will.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you lost me there. Who did you think suggested that was the case?
 
Francesca R said:
Sorry, you lost me there. Why do you think I think that anyone suggested that was the case?
Click to expand...

Because you said this:

Francesca R said:
Not clear that we have any basis for thinking one group will make decisions more in the interest of passengers than the other group will.
Click to expand...

Why would it need to be clear if one or other party was more interested in the impact on the public, if that was not what was being suggested? It seems strange to point that out at all, as a response to a post, unless you thought somebody had suggested one or other party was more or less bothered about public safety, as opposed to the actual point that differing groups having equal interest but differing opinions.
 
Francesca R said:
Ah I see--conjecture.
Click to expand...

So what exactly did you mean by the point? Why is there a need to assume any group would be more or less concerned than any other? Why point out that we have no means to judge which is more concerned if you were not under the impression somebody had suggested one group was more concerned?
 
"Not clear that we have any basis for thinking one group will make decisions more in the interest of passengers than the other group will."
 
Francesca R said:
"Not clear that we have any basis for thinking one group will make decisions more in the interest of passengers than the other group will."
Click to expand...

Okay, and why did you think we were in danger of thinking that? Seriously I want to understand what you mean, and repeating is not explaining or expanding upon.
 
As best I can tell (i) you agree with that statement and (ii) you understand the statement. Whatever else you are fishing for is lost on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom