Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Waiting for an email from Mr. Blair

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't read Sky's website so if they were using the same pictures then they are cunts too:)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rough maths work -
    120 passengers
    5 seriously injured
    1 killed

    Mortality rate in a crash = 0.8% (approx)
    Rate of serious injuries and mortalities = 5%

    I would say that's pretty damned safe. I thought train / plane crashes were one of those things where if you crashed you were dead automatically. Apparently the train driver stayed at the 'wheel' and tried to keep control of the train even after it went off the rails, which richard branson has blamed as being faulty.

    Although I think it can be difficult to say at such an early stage what the exact cause of the accident was.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh give me a break. You were using it as an excuse to have a go at the BBC as usual. You weren't trying to have a proper discussion about the way the media reported the incident (if you were, you would've read the replies and realised that I'd already linked to Sky's story which was pretty much identical). So you were doing exactly the same thing you were criticising others for doing, and using it as an excuse to make a political point. That's what my problem was.

    Incidentally, I thought you'd be keen to use Sky News or some other news source if you hate the BBC so much?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    rough maths work -
    120 passengers
    5 seriously injured
    1 killed

    Mortality rate in a crash = 0.8% (approx)
    Rate of serious injuries and mortalities = 5%

    I would say that's pretty damned safe. I thought train / plane crashes were one of those things where if you crashed you were dead automatically. Apparently the train driver stayed at the 'wheel' and tried to keep control of the train even after it went off the rails, which richard branson has blamed as being faulty.

    I don't think the safety of trains have ever been questioned (well by me, anyway). Nor the reduced environmental impact. My personal problem is the rip-off prices and lack of reliability from personal experience.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :hyper: IWS, I made a post about that a bit further up that got ignored, ooh maybe you could comment on it! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :hyper: IWS, I made a post about that a bit further up that got ignored, ooh maybe you could comment on it! :D

    Okay. I think the main problem is trying to make trains into a profitable business (through privatisation). None of the world's best train services, as far as I know, have an operating profit. They're simply never going to compete on equal terms with the car, except in the busiest transport routes. They have to be seen as more of an investment to cut congestion and pollution, and have to be funded accordingly. Whether it remains in the hands of private companies or not I'm not sure. I know that trains are less punctual now than British Rail were (80% "on time" compared to 90%). But I think the key is that you would have less communication issues in a single organisation, than between the government, network rail, and all the train companies. And personally, I don't see the benefits normally brought through privatisation (i.e. competition driving prices down) when a certain operator almost always has a monopoly over certain routes anyway. I don't have the solution, I was merely stating the reasons why I personally don't like using the trains.

    On city centres, I would happily use trams or buses, mainly because I suspect that it would be more hassle to get parked than it would be worth. In my own town, it costs me £1.60 (roughly) for a return ticket, so the car is cheaper, and there are no real congestion or parking problems, so I drive. The buses did used to piss me off a bit though, by going past my stop early, and waiting at the next one until the set time, so I'd have to arrive ten minutes early to make sure I was there when it arrived, and naturally it'd then be ten minutes late. I can walk to work that fast, so I only ever used the bus when it was raining. I'll probably go back to walking in the summer (theoretically of course, I fully intend to have left my job by then). But yeah, you can't miss a car.

    But in towns and cities, the main cause of congestion imo is the school run. I would support the idea of free school buses. People talk about free school buses for people that live further than a certain distance, but actually, I think that these are the people that actually have an excuse to use the car instead. I think free school buses should be for all. I think dedicated buses with the same driver would help cut the discipline problem a bit as well, since the kids would get to know the driver somewhat (at which point he'll get accused of grooming them probably, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it).

    ETA: As for the trams/buses argument, I don't really see much of a difference. Are imagine trams are more environmentally friendly, but then they can always switch to electric buses (because we all know that electricity is made of fairies and pixie dust) or hybrid engines. I'm still wondering when these hydrogen engines are coming out, because they seem to be the ones that have no negative environmental impact.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the train services are quite reliable really, it's only when it goes wrong it goes wrong majorly - a train will break down and then all the other trains will get delayed, then you miss your connection, then you have to wait for an hour, then by the time you get to your destination you're really late. Sometimes it's late by 5 minutes but surely you don't mean that by reliability? For myself, 5 minutes is nothing really...

    I think the reason they're quite expensive is the limited capacity, most trains are quite full anyway (unless it's off peak when the tickets are about £4 single if you book in advance), so obviously thats what the market thinks is an appropriate price. I'm all for double decker trains!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I actually think that the main cause of disgruntled passengers is how they actually deal with it when a train is delayed. Anyone that's ever been waiting for a delayed train at a station will know what I mean here. The automatic "sorry train A has been delayed. It is now due to arrive at 3pm." *Looks at watch, says 3pm* They might as well come along and poke you with a stick as well. Then after about 40 minutes of that every 5 minutes, the announcement says "we are sorry to announce that train A has been cancelled" with no comments on what people can do next, followed by a rush of about 200 people to the one person who looks vaguely like a train employee, to find out when the next train is. Making the trains run on time all the time is difficult, but dealing with customers adequately when they are delayed should be easy.

    Don't get me started on the time that Arriva Trains Wales decided to bus us to a station where a specially commissioned train was going to pick us up and bring us to Shrewsbury, and even that got cancelled (and they then thought that one bus would be adequate transport to pick up the five buses of passengers they'd just dropped off). Oh, I love a good train rant. Shame I've got so much material for someone who doesn't even use the trains that much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The link was from the BBC, so I was comparing the BBC's reporting of the car crash with the reporting of the rail crash. Using the story for political purposes? Hardly. I think the BBC are incompetent liars 99% of the time, but I actually wasn't criticising them in this case.

    It was more to compare how much people care about the various deaths, and to show that, actually, railways are pretty damn safe, its just that media reporting is always negative and that makes people feel unsafe. One death in a train accident is headline news, so much so they go and interview the deceased's neighbours, but three dead in a car accident is filed away as "news in brief" on page 999. Even the National Express coach crash wasn't reported to this extent. It's no wonder that people feel completely safe in their car, but feel unsafe in trains.
    To be fair that's always been the case and not exclusive to trains either: plane crashes are a press' favourite despite being many times safer than car travel.

    I guess it's actually how safe trains and planes are that makes news of an accident more newsworthy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh give me a break. You were using it as an excuse to have a go at the BBC as usual.

    Thanks for telling me what I was doing. Obviously you have a greater insight into my mind than I do. You're obviously the first telepath in the world, you could make a fortune.

    I'm the first to criticise the beeb, but I wasn't in this case. I've said that. Do you think I am a liar, because if you do you can fuck right off.

    I hadn't seen the Sky article (I do have a life, sometimes) and have criticised them too. But Sky showing the same pictures doesn't make it acceptable for the BBC to so, not if they want to remain on their moral high horse about the standard of their coverage. I don't watch Sky News because its even worse than the BBC, which is an achievement in itself really.

    Aladdin, it has always been the case, and I'm sure it always will be, because of the reasons you show. But it isn't any wonder that people think trains to be dangerous when people are always harping on about a couple of incidents, and using individual errors to try and claim the system is rotten to the core.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm, I just replied to this and it's not there. :chin: Ah well, I'll catch you later, gotta go.

    But just so you know, main content of my post: what's the big deal with the news showing pictures of an accident? They do it with any other accident.

    Actually, still here. Forgot about something I need to do (probably should do it rather than going on here). Yeah, my other point was that, what is your opinion of the people who decided to take the photos, and (I assume) sell them or give them to the news?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, my other point was that, what is your opinion of the people who decided to take the photos, and (I assume) sell them or give them to the news?

    Worse than that was the woman who called Fivelive from inside a carriage just after the crash. I couldn't believe my ears.. you can imagine the thought process... "do I phone my family or the media first"...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have an issue generally with the way news agencies are using more and more gory pictures of accidents. Showing a picture of the outside of the train I think is fair enough, but showing pictures of the inside, with people flung everywhere, crosses a line for me.

    You're right, it isn't just this accident, I'm fed up of reading the newspaper and seeing pictures of car accidents with the blood smeared everywhere. The standard was lowered when The Sun showed pictures of Foe dying on the football field, and then lowered further with the Evening Standard showing pictures of a suicide before the victim's family had even been told. It's a shame that the BBC, which claims it is impartial and sensitive, decides to follow the same route, showing more and more blood and guts. It's awful.

    The BBC is by no means the worst for it- they're much better than the folks at Sky who ghoulishly drool over the body parts- but its pretty horrid regardless, especially for a news organisation that's always telling us that its so much better than anyone else.

    People will always sell if there's someone willing to buy. The media didn't show this sort of stuff five years ago, and the news didn't suffer, so I don't see why they do now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Foe was awful because you should really treat the dead with dignity, yet the photo they put on the front of the Sun was the most undignified pose you could imagine. And there's the issue of being able to identify the person. But in war, for example, I think it's important to show the realities of the things they're voting for when they vote for war, although I would suspect a programme such as Newsnight would be more appropriate for such content. There were two which I thought were a bit much for mainstream TV. One was the American held hostage and interviews (I happened to catch the one and only time they played it on Sky News before they were told to pull it), and the video of two dead American soldiers being dragged through the streets by a mob, and then hung from some power cables. The first one, I would support if they had the permission of the family. The second one, you couldn't identify the bodies (but I think that permission should still be obtained), but it should at least be limited to late night serious news programmes or documentaries, rather than just the news.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think they need to show it at all, to be quite honest. I'm not squeamish and I'm not a prude, but why do they need to show it? What new information does it bring to the piece to show Saddam Hussein stood on the gallows waiting to die? Even if you didn't know who he was, and you couldn't see his face, why do they need to show it? I already know what a dead person looks like, I don't need to see it on the bloody telly too.

    It's something that's changed in the last few years. The news was just as accurate and just as informative before they started gleefully pointing out the severed body parts and the dead bodies. I don't expect anything better from Sky, but the BBC justifies its funding through a tax and punishment by claiming to be above that sort of thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When was it that they first showed dead bodies on the BBC News? I remember my mum saying about it, and how everyone was really shocked about it. It might've been in my lifetime or before it, I don't know if that's classed as "recent" or not...
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    The automatic "sorry train A has been delayed. It is now due to arrive at 3pm." *Looks at watch, says 3pm* They might as well come along and poke you with a stick as well. Then after about 40 minutes of that every 5 minutes, the announcement says "we are sorry to announce that train A has been cancelled"

    Simple reason for that one. The screens are updated by trains passing monitoring points, if its late passing a point then the delay is added - if it doesnt pass at all it gets 'lost' in the system and automatically delayed by the time its late passing the point. this continues until it either passes a monitoring point or is cancelled.

    Da da.
Sign In or Register to comment.