Incident at Pearse Station - the effects of such incidents

Cookie_Monster

:rolleyes:

someone got hit by a train, happens all the time, will continue to happen all the time.

also tail end of rush hour and they're only using 6 carriage trains - what up with that?

Captain Chaos

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

also tail end of rush hour and they're only using 6 carriage trains - what up with that?

All the LHB DARTs are in 6 car formations, even on weekends they never put them in 8s unless ther is a shortage of Mitsu sets for some reason. The Mitsu DARTs are always in 8 car formations and 4 at the weekend unless its a busy weekend.

PseudoFamous

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:

someone get hit by a train, happens all the time, will continue to happen all the time.

also tail end of rush hour and they're only using 6 carriage trains - what up with that?

It's good that you have your priorities straight. Obviously an eight car train would cause less injury.

Captain Chaos

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Obviously an eight car train would cause less injury.

It may have stopped quicker. Higher brake force with more cars.

Either way hope the driver and victim are relatively ok. And anyone who happened to watch watch happened. I saw a dog get hit by a DART in Raheny at night some years ago. I watched right till the last second and then turned away. The train stopped and the driver got out with a torch and searched under the train.

Can't even imagine what the situation is like with a person. A friend of mine lost a leg a few years ago when he was hit by a DART, he was very, very drunk at the time. This story sounds similar

Cookie_Monster

PseudoFamous wrote: »

It's good that you have your priorities straight. Obviously an eight car train would cause less injury.

so I have to think of nothing else apart from the welfare person who got hit do I?

foggy_lad

Is there no staff around in a busy city centre station to stop someone who was drunk getting access to and remaining on a platform?

Dravokivich

foggy_lad wrote: »

Is there no staff around in a busy city centre station to stop someone who was drunk getting access to and remaining on a platform?

Why would they do that? There has to be a sense of self responsibility with the individual. Doesn't mean access to public transport should be cut off for them.

AlekSmart

foggy_lad wrote: »

Is there no staff around in a busy city centre station to stop someone who was drunk getting access to and remaining on a platform?

Dravokivich:Why would they do that? There has to be a sense of self responsibility with the individual. Doesn't mean access to public transport should be cut off for them.

Sadly Dravokivich,In Foggy Lad's world,the blame for everything from ticket irregularities to serious physical incidents must ALWAYS be shouldered by the company and it's staff.

Take a ramble around Dublin City Centre ANY day and you will see large numbers of drunken individuals of ALL ages being facilitated by our "System" to render themselves paralytic.

Our entire Public Order mechanism appears to have degenerated into a static mess which sees Gardai continually in REactive mode rather than PROactive.

As an aside,I would regularly deny access to my bus to juveniles in possession of alcohol.

I would regularly be roundly and loudly abused by these "Children" but not because of the drink element,instead they cut-up-rough when I demand an ADULT fare off them,on the basis that they could not purchase their stash without being over 18....ergo full fare on the bus

In juvenile alcohol cases which Public Transport employees regularly witness there many elements at play,with almost none of them within the control of PT staff.

However,I'm not posting this as being relevant to this particular unfortunate incident,as the facts are not yet known so perhaps a thread-split might be appropriate ?

Dravokivich

Aleksmart, I picked up from Foggy Lad's comment that he alluded to all who are drunk to be prevented access to public transport. Where as your above comment, however understandable, refers to disorderly conduct. Someone who is drunk is not always disorderly and to treat them as such without any reason or signs of cause for concern by their actions is nothing but unbiased prejudice.

Although, good catch on the doing'em out of a child fair because they have drink on'em.

Back to the topic at hand, TomRooney above advised he saw it happen and she appeared to get in front of the train on purpose. If drink is to be a factor, it merely brought dutch courage.

foggy_lad

spaceboy wrote: »

I just arrived at the platform when the incident happened. I had missed my train northbound to Drogheda by literally a few seconds, when that train had cleared the platform, I could hear roaring & shouting from the other platform & there was a young girl aged between 15 & 18, intoxicated, on the tracks.
I don't know how she got there. The Dart was coming from Tara St & despite the drivers best efforts he could'nt stop fully in time. I turned away at impact, no way I wanted to witness that. As you can imagine, lots of people in shock & distressed. I just hope & pray the poor girl is ok.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Saw on Twitter earlier that it wasn't fatal. Just hope the poor girl isn't permanently maimed or anything
https://twitter.com/kevinjpurcell/status/210454041413697536

Doesn't seem like it was a suicide either, seems more just that she might have been a bit pissed and fallen off the edge of the platform?

Is it bad that every time I hear talk of "an incident" on an Irish train line, my brain pretty much automatically translates it as "someone tried to commit suicide"?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

there's a few threads around to do with lots of kids being pissed on the DART / around RDS for some concert or other. I would assume it was drinking related to that

Dravokivich wrote: »

Aleksmart, I picked up from Foggy Lad's comment that he alluded to all who are drunk to be prevented access to public transport. Where as your above comment, however understandable, refers to disorderly conduct. Someone who is drunk is not always disorderly and to treat them as such without any reason or signs of cause for concern by their actions is nothing but unbiased prejudice.

Although, good catch on the doing'em out of a child fair because they have drink on'em.

Back to the topic at hand, TomRooney above advised he saw it happen and she appeared to get in front of the train on purpose. If drink is to be a factor, it merely brought dutch courage.

My post was more for stopping those who might be a danger to themselves or others from getting near trains in an enclosed space. there are ticket checkers at all entry points to Pearse station so why was someone who is described as being pissed by a few people allowed onto a railway platform?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1984/en/si/0109.html

16. No person in a state of intoxication shall enter or remain upon the railway or in any vehicle and no person who is in an unfit or improper condition to travel by passenger train or whose dress or clothing is in a condition liable to soil or injure the linings or cushions of any carriage, or the dress or clothing of any passenger, shall enter or remain in any lift or vehicle.

Provided that no person shall be prevented from entering or remaining in or on any lift or vehicle under the provisions of this Bye-Law on the ground of the condition of his or her dress or clothing when he or she so enters or remains in or on the lift or vehicle with the permission of an authorised person or when the vehicle is specially provided or set apart for workmen.

17. No person shall at any time while upon the railway or in any vehicle use any threatening, abusive, obscene, or offensive language or behave in a riotous, disorderly, indecent or offensive manner, or write, draw or affix any abusive, obscene or offensive word, representation, or character upon, or wilfully soil or defile, the railway or any lift or vehicle, or molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any passenger or person in or upon the railway or in any vehicle.

Dravokivich

Section 16 is there to protect anyone who rejects admission because someones actions presents themself to be a risk, not to state that they are obligated to reject admission on the belief of intoxication alone.

Also, take note of:

with the permission of an authorised person

There's your ticket checker saying, yeah, it's fine, carry on ahead.

Section 17 refers to disordery conduct, which as per TomRooneys comments would not have come into much affect until she was actually on the tracks itself.

Believe it or not, drunk people can keep to themselves and go on their merry way without being a disturbance. I've done it plenty and would be rather annoyed at not being able to get home from somewhere on public transport because I've had a few drinks.

TomRooney

Any chance we can stay on topic? This thread isn't about drunk commuters.

Cookie_Monster

TomRooney wrote: »

Any chance we can stay on topic? This thread isn't about drunk commuters.

what's it about then?
the title said the effects of such incidents, seems like drunken commuters are likely to cause such effects again and hence is core to the topic.

TomRooney

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what's it about then?
the title said the effects of such incidents, seems like drunken commuters are likely to cause such effects again and hence is core to the topic.

It's not about drunken teenagers anyway....it must be a slow night over on P.ie if you have to come over hear to troll.

Cookie_Monster

TomRooney wrote: »

It's not about drunken teenagers anyway....it must be a slow night over on P.ie if you have to come over hear to troll.

whats p.ie? (politics.ie??) never used it.

so what is this thread supposed to be about then?

TomRooney

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

whats p.ie? (politics.ie??) never used it.

so what is this thread supposed to be about then?

Yeah, sure you haven't.
From my understanding the thread is about the after effects of people committing suicide or attempting it.

Cookie_Monster

TomRooney wrote: »

Yeah, sure you haven't.
From my understanding the thread is about the after effects of people committing suicide or attempting it.

there's no indication what so ever it was a suicide attempt.

and no I've never used it and you can stop trying to imply otherwise.

TomRooney

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

there's no indication what so ever it was a suicide attempt.

and no I've never used it and you can stop trying to imply otherwise.

Well considering I witnessed it first hand pal, I think I'm in a better position to have an opinion on if or not it was attempted suicide and by all accounts it was.

Cookie_Monster

TomRooney wrote: »

Well considering I witnessed it first hand pal, I think I'm in a better position to have an opinion on if or not it was attempted suicide and by all accounts it was.

Ok so the after effects of that then:
Traumatised driver: possibly out of work long term and counselling required
Train out of action for investigation and cleaning
Wide scale disruption
Huge cost to the economy in lost working hours and general disruption
Large cost to IE and Dublin Bus (or BE) to allow coverage and ticket transfer while lines closed
Probably family & friends who will be devastated

NuMarvel

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Ok so the after effects of that then:
Traumatised driver: possibly out of work long term and counselling required
Train out of action for investigation and cleaning
Wide scale disruption
Huge cost to the economy in lost working hours and general disruption
Large cost to IE and Dublin Bus (or BE) to allow coverage and ticket transfer while lines closed
Probably family & friends who will be devastated

I like how the friends and family would only probably be devastated and come last on your list. :rolleyes:

I'm all for discussion about how incidents like this can be mitigated against or prevented, but ideally the focus should be reducing fatalities or injuries, and not the financial costs for the transport provider or the inconvenience to commuters.

Cookie_Monster

NuMarvel wrote: »

I like how the friends and family would only probably be devastated and come last on your list. :rolleyes:

Well I'm not going to assume the person has any family or friends left...

They come last as it's irrelevant to the discussion in the context of this forum

NuMarvel

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Well I'm not going to assume the person has any family or friends left...

They come last as it's irrelevant to the discussion in the context of this forum

Why would you not assume that?

And the context of the discussion should be reducing the chances of death or injury. You appear to be more focused on the "huge cost to the economy". For the purposes of a factual discussion, can you at least put a number on that cost?

Victor

Can we cut out the bitchiness?