Trapped in train ticket barriers

victor2

Wig wrote: »

Why?................

The "sue for anything you can" attitude that we largely have our friends across the water to thank for - and is in no small part the reason why insurance for just about anything costs us all so much.

Wig

I don't care about that. The OP has been wronged and injured, and is entitled to get compensation. And make the train company take measures to ensure it doesn't happen to anyone else.

You tell me where do you draw the line? The next person might
break their arm
break their hip and die a few months later

You tell me why this issue should not be dealt with in the most serious manner. The only manner that makes companies sit up and take notice....money & Health & Safety.

Why were these 3 members of staff standing idly by whilst they watched an elderly person with a stick cross through the barriers knowing what might happen?

victor2

Wig wrote: »

I don't care about that. The OP has been wronged and injured, and is entitled to get compensation. And make the train company take measures to ensure it doesn't happen to anyone else.

You tell me where do you draw the line? The next person might
break their arm
break their hip and die a few months later

You tell me why this issue should not be dealt with in the most serious manner. The only manner that makes companies sit up and take notice....money & Health & Safety.

Why were these 3 members of staff standing idly by whilst they watched an elderly person with a stick cross through the barriers knowing what might happen?

I agree with the bits I've highlighted in red.
As far as sueing goes, you're just spreading the burden across insurance companies and their source of income, which is us.

Add to that the negative side of our legal processes. A good friend contracted MRSA through a minor hospital operation many years ago. She sued the hospital, who admitted liability. It took years of legal wrangling, with her reliving it many times and having to undergo further surgery to combat the effects of MRSA. After 10 years the compensation cheque came through the post - the morning after she succumbed to the effects and died in the night. Her bereaved husband said it would do no good now and should be given to charity. So who benefitted from, and paid for, that? None of the affected parties.

Health and Safety has it's uses, much as we like to mock some of it's crazier rulings though. Makes sense for it to be applied a bit more to the circumstances the OP was in.

Wig

This case would not take more than 18 - 24 months for the OP to get into court and win or lose. The OP would have to give a detailed statement within a month or so, and then stand up in court once and re count what happened. I think you really do exagerate by comparing such a case to this one.

The valiant efforts of that other person -you mention- to fight for what is right has made it easier for those unfortunate to follow. And maybe eventually the NHS will clean up their act.

Money and court judgments against them is the only thing they understand.

So answer the question, how many people need to be hurt and to what severity before you think court action becomes necessary?

As part of the OP claim they can require all records of previous injuries of the same cause. If the OP asks for an apology a free ticket and a cup of tea, how likely do you think that the OPs case will be officially recorded as an accident? On the other hand if the OP sues them and wins it will be recorded for sure to help the next person.

victor2

Wig wrote: »

So answer the question, how many people need to be hurt and to what severity before you think court action becomes necessary?

This sounds like an event that doesn't happen very often and should be taken in that concept. As well as issuing an apology, the railway company should take reasonable measures to reduce the likelihood of it happening again, and/or the severity of the result. In an ideal world it should never happen again and nobody else would be even slightly injured, but accidents will happen.
IMO court action will do nothing. The OP would be put to inconvenience for 18-24 months, but may recover some of that associated cost if he wins. The station operator's insurers will bear the cost of the case, that's why they take out insurance. Their premiums will go up, but ultimately the public will pay the cost of that.
It would be tragic if say, a small child was badly injured by such an event. But I don't see that court action now would prevent such a possibility. Perhaps the solution is to ban the automatic gates altogether and only have manned gates like stations used to have. No prizes for guessing who would pay for that.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one I think.

Wig

The OP would have no inconvenience for 18 - 24 months other than to recover from his injury, give a statement taking a few hours on a home visit to his home. and to then wait whilst the legals do all the work setting up a court date.....which he will attend in local court for half a day.

I'll agree to differ.

Stigy

Altarf wrote: »

I agree.

The railway companies should get some common sense and not have barriers that continue to close with substantial force when someone is trapped in them. No other automatic closing door operates in the same way.

The barriers don't close with substantial force. I've pushed my way through ticket barriers before (not as a fare evader, but whilst working) and once they sense this, although some force is required, an alarm sounds and they release.

Altarf wrote:

And before anyone says "if we did that it wouldn't stop people without tickets pushing through", how hard would it be that for the gate to sound an alarm and the person staffing the gate to deal with the matter. Or perhaps a few crushed passengers is preferable.

As I said above, that is what happens. It's very melodramatic to think passengers are becoming crushed all willy nilly.

Altarf wrote:

The railway companies should also get some common sense and if they have barriers that are designed to crush people if they take too long passing through, ensure that passengers who will not be swift enough, pass through a suitable exit. Signposting that exit, the "Wide Exit" does not convey that information.

They're not designed to close if somebody takes too long to pass (within reason.....they usually give about 45-seconds if no movement is detected, then close again). The person, walking without a stick and without pulling a suitcase or something on wheels, will be allowed to pass without being crushed to death by the nasty ticket barriers, however long it takes them. It's the interuption of the sensors that trick the barriers.

Altarf

Stigy wrote: »

The barriers don't close with substantial force.

The barriers DO close with substantial force, and DO NOT release when you push them back, but continue to forcibly close. I know because I have been caught in them like the OP.

Stigy wrote: »

As I said above, that is what happens. It's very melodramatic to think passengers are becoming crushed all willy nilly.

So what number of injured passengers is an acceptable number?

Stigy wrote: »

They're not designed to close if somebody takes too long to pass (within reason.....they usually give about 45-seconds if no movement is detected, then close again). The person, walking without a stick and without pulling a suitcase or something on wheels, will be allowed to pass without being crushed to death by the nasty ticket barriers, however long it takes them. It's the interuption of the sensors that trick the barriers.

You have just contradicted yourself. You say a person with a stick will not be crushed, but an interruption to the sensors will. It is obvious that if a person breaks the barrier with their stick and then walks through, there will be an interruption and they will be crushed.

And I fully agree with Wig, the OP should see a doctor to assess their injury and then see a lawyer to seek suitable compensation.

Machinery of this type should be safe for all the members of the public who come into contact with them, without the public needing to second guess how they work. These barriers are clearly not, and if it takes a few compensation payouts to make the railway companies see sense, then so be it.

Wig

Stigy wrote: »

The barriers don't close with substantial force. I've pushed my way through ticket barriers before (not as a fare evader, but whilst working) and once they sense this, although some force is required, an alarm sounds and they release.

So why was the OP injured?

How strong are you compared to someone who is elderly/disabled?

Stigy

Altarf wrote: »

You have just contradicted yourself. You say a person with a stick will not be crushed, but an interruption to the sensors will. It is obvious that if a person breaks the barrier with their stick and then walks through, there will be an interruption and they will be crushed.

No, I have not contradicted myself, nor did I suggest that a person with a stick will not become trapped (and I use the word 'trapped' loosely). You'll notice I said that the barriers will remain open for as long as it takes somebody WITHOUT a stick or WITHOUT a suitcase etc to pass. I was making it clear that it's not the length of time somebody takes to clear the barriers that causes them to close, it's passengers with items of luggage, or walking aids etc that interrupt the sensor, which causes them to close. I really can't be more clear than that. I do wish people would read more thoroughly.

The barriers do, or at least should, slowly release when a person becomes trapped, setting off an audible warning. If they don't, there's a mechanical fault with the barriers.