The journalist obviously doesn't take his job seriously, will be fired and humiliated shortly....

FTA:

Journalist reports on subway incident and connects it to recent murder. No journalist present.

I'm assuming a photojournalist wasn't there either. You can usually distinguish them from the camera they have dangling around their necks, which apparently doubles as a good signaling device in an emergency situation.

The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.

Journalist man subway New York


You, New York. Why is it always you?

Frantic straphangers hood ornament candidates began yelling across the platform to "help him, help him."

Fixed

I like happy endings.

TFA: "another man who tried to pull him to safety somehow fell to the tracks, as well."

Somehow? He was the only firm hand-hold for a panicking motherfarker facing death.
Unless he was experienced at this sort of thing, it'd be more surprising if he *weren't* yanked off his feet.

Trying to rescue people who are afraid for their lives is some risky shiat.

Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

Or suicide pits under the rails.

DSF6969: So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

Just a guess here:

More people would be killed by trains because they were sitting, standing, or doing circus tricks on the railings before they fell.

This highlights what the armchair heroes keep ignoring: there's is an enormous component of self-risk when trying to hoist someone out of subway tracks with seconds to spare. You give that hand, you're committed.

cwsfa: DSF6969: So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

Just a guess here:

More people would be killed by trains because they were sitting, standing, or doing circus tricks on the railings before they fell.

Solid sheets of safetyglass that reach all the way to the ceiling.

JackieRabbit: DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

JackieRabbit: The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.


Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

All due respect, but everything you said sounds like complete horses hit.

DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

Or even better, make it like the subways in Singapore, or airport trains in freaking everywhere: totally isolate the platform from the tracks. There's a wall with doors at the edge of the platform, the train pulls up with it's doors lined up to the station doors, then both open.

\Cleverly, in Singapore they also have areas marked on the station where you're supposed to wait away from the doors until people are done exiting. And people actually do it.

downtownkid: Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

Well, to be fair, his camera probably indirectly counted how many times he fired his flash, because the easiest way to fire the flash is by hitting the shutter.

JackieRabbit: DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

At the very least, a handrail that had been bent by ruffians, could derail a train? Please try harder with your brain tool.

/other points are fair enough

cwsfa: DSF6969: So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

Just a guess here:

More people would be killed by trains because they were sitting, standing, or doing circus tricks on the railings before they fell.

That's just Darwin in action. To stop a murder like what happened this week would be worth it.

downtownkid: JackieRabbit: The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.


Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

All due respect, but everything you said sounds like complete horses hit.

That's exactly right. That scumbag "photojournalist" can go DIAF. He didn't even have to attempt to rescue the guy, it's just his self-righteous, lame-a** excuse and a perfect picture that angered me. What a colossal douche.  He makes me sick.

DSF6969: JackieRabbit: DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

Is there really tape that the train doors line-up with in NYC?

Barriers would require extensive renovations to 400 something subway stations that date back up to a century. Would rather see them just encourage people to stand back from the edge while running trains more frequently to prevent overcrowding on platforms.

Clearly, the solution is a switch to Nerf™ trains, a repeal of the First Ammendment and some sort of law that would make it illegal to shove people in front of trains.

xcv: DSF6969: JackieRabbit: DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

Is there really tape that the train doors line-up with in NYC?

Barriers would require extensive renovations to 400 something subway stations that date back up to a century. Would rather see them just encourage people to stand back from the edge while running trains more frequently to prevent overcrowding on platforms.

No. Trains are of varying lengths and the doors open at different points on the platform every time.

Washington, DC metro platforms have a recess all along under the platforms so a person could duck under and avoid being hit.

RidgeRunner5: cwsfa: DSF6969: So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

Just a guess here:

More people would be killed by trains because they were sitting, standing, or doing circus tricks on the railings before they fell.

That's just Darwin in action. To stop a murder like what happened this week would be worth it.

Darwin most certainly had his hand in this incident. When a crazy homeless guy, who's much larger than you, tells you to go away and leave him the fark alone, you go away and leave him the fark alone.

There is no good reason to engage a crazy person in any type of conversation on a subway platform... ever.

DSF6969: JackieRabbit: DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

Ever take a tram at an airport? Vegas comes to mind -- the train stops in a tube and two sets of doors open (a la an elevator) and close before the train departs.

This isn't an engineering question, it's a budgeting question. And I'm quite sure no one wants to spend the money on such a project until they have secured Big Dig type funding objectives.

Cold_Sassy: downtownkid: JackieRabbit: The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.


Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

All due respect, but everything you said sounds like complete horses hit.

That's exactly right. That scumbag "photojournalist" can go DIAF. He didn't even have to attempt to rescue the guy, it's just his self-righteous, lame-a** excuse and a perfect picture that angered me. What a colossal douche.  He makes me sick.

Yeah, I have to call bullshiat as well. His story seems to get bigger and bigger as he tells it. 47 times? I don't know much about cameras, but that sounds like an awful lot of time he could have spent sprinting to the rescue. On top of that, that many flashes could have temporarily blinded the driver, making matters worse.

downtownkid: JackieRabbit: The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.


Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

All due respect, but everything you said sounds like complete horses hit.

Other witnesses have corroborated his story, as do the security cameras in the station. He's telling the truth; the police are satisfied with his story. He is also upset that the post published the pictures, but he could not stop them. He was on assignment for them and they owned the pictures. You are obviously not a photographer and have not used a professional flash. Mine, like his, has a counter to tell you how many flashes it has performed and how many are left before a recharge is needed. And, if you were a photographer, you'd look at that photo and see the obvious camera shake and understand that this indicates he was on the move and probably shooting with a zoom lens. And you know what, I don't really care about what you think is horse shiat. You, like so many others, read some sensationalist crap on the internet, let your emotions overrule logic and convicted him in your mind instantly. I waited for the facts to come out.

Gulper Eel: Because the Daily News is the tabloid that finds crass exploitation of violent death beneath them, amirite?
(warning: graphic...but it was on page 1)

Uh, mob boss?

This is a case of "he bought his tickets, he knew what he was in for." Live by the sword, die by it.

/nothing of value lost.

downtownkid: xcv: DSF6969: JackieRabbit: DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

Is there really tape that the train doors line-up with in NYC?

Barriers would require extensive renovations to 400 something subway stations that date back up to a century. Would rather see them just encourage people to stand back from the edge while running trains more frequently to prevent overcrowding on platforms.

No. Trains are of varying lengths and the doors open at different points on the platform every time.

Thanks. Was wondering if the train doors were just avoiding me.

DSF6969: JackieRabbit: DSF6969: Something I just don't understand about subways in the states. Keep in mind that I live a town without subways. The trains stop at the station in pre-arranged, consistent positions. This is why they have the tape laid out that shows where the doors will be. So why the fark don't they have railings along the damn edges!??!

They could do that but it would be very dangerous. The well for the train is just big enough for the train to fit with only a couple of inches of clearance. Those trains enter the stations pretty darned fast. What if, when doing so, someone had bent one of the railing inward? (some rough-housing boys would surely do so) The train would hit it and the driver or a passenger on the platform would probably be killed. At the very least, the train would derail.

In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

Got 'em here in London, since 1999, though they're not installed everywhere. Really need them at Victoria, that station is scary as fark at rush hour.



Downside; Stops the nice cooling draft you get from the pneumatic effect of the train moving through the tunnel - though I suppose that's the point, as it helps stop the spread of fire.

We also have relatively pits below the rails - more than deep enough to shelter in. 

 

/I love the "I think I'm being watched poster...with two very obvious cameras pointed in that direction
//zero problems with cameras on the underground - it can get crowded down there, to the point where at Victoria they'll stop people heading down to the station.

DSF6969:
In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

I was thinking panic buttons along the nearby walls, and within reach of someone on the tracks that could be pressed. The button would send an audible/visible alarm to the train operator who could take appropriate action to slow or stop the train and be especially observant during the approach. An alarm and path lighting to egress routes from the tracks could be illuminated. Police/ambulance can be immediately summoned. Cameras or special illumination on the train could be used to help identify persons on the tracks, but shouldn't be relied upon. If the panic button was activated when the train was within a certain critical distance (depending on engineering for each station and train combination) the system would automatically slow the train using maximum available braking. Make sure the cameras can see the button and the person pressing them, in case kids/idiots decide they want to get cute and go all slap-happy with the buttons. Make the button require two distinct motions (flip cap cover or something) to prevent accidental presses.

We have fire alarms in public spaces, this isn't much different.

Or people can just wave their arms frantically to the operator as he speeds into the approach, whatever you like.

JackieRabbit: downtownkid: JackieRabbit: The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.


Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

All due respect, but everything you said sounds like complete horses hit.

Other witnesses have corroborated his story, as do the security cameras in the station. He's telling the truth; the police are satisfied with his story.

Yeah, whatevs. The police are satisfied with his story and the security cameras will back it up, because it is not a crime not to come to the aid of another human in distress, obviously.

That said, he just so happened to get that perfect shot which was immediately sold to the newspaper so I also call horses hit about his tender sensibilities. He's a lying sack of shiat. Why yes, I do know something about photography, also.

JackieRabbit: downtownkid: JackieRabbit: The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.


Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

All due respect, but everything you said sounds like complete horses hit.

Other witnesses have corroborated his story, as do the security cameras in the station. He's telling the truth; the police are satisfied with his story. He is also upset that the post published the pictures, but he could not stop them. He was on assignment for them and they owned the pictures. You are obviously not a photographer and have not used a professional flash. Mine, like his, has a counter to tell you how many flashes it has performed and how many are left before a recharge is needed. And, if you were a photographer, you'd look at that photo and see the obvious camera shake and understand that this indicates he was on the move and probably shooting with a zoom lens. And you know what, I don't really care about what you think is horse shiat. You, like so many ...



Oh, FFS. One would have to be either an idiot or a sympathizing member of the profession to believe that anyone's first impulse would be to "signal" to the conductor with a camera flash. What, exactly, could that be expected to communicate? Is removal of a lens cap also an internationally recognized distress gesture?

And if you were trolling, fine, I bit.

I'm honestly surprised some of you people have enough brain power to even breathe, let alone figure out the glowing screen with all these weird symbols on the board thing.

rolladuck: DSF6969:
In that case, build cement barriers. Or even floor-to-ceiling bars. That would eliminate the idiots who would sit or stand on top of the barriers. I just think there has got to be more that can be done to fix this.

I was thinking panic buttons along the nearby walls,

.

Like this, you mean?



Green button immediately connects you to the station control room, or if they're not available within 30 seconds, the police. It's used to report crimes in progress, unattended packages, suspicious behaviours, or people on the tracks.

Of course, most oneunders will aim for the third rail or wait for a train to arrive so they get squished straight away...But the control room has the power to order a train to perform an emergency stop. Each button that I've ever seen has been monitored by at least one camera, and the button is recessed enough that an accidental activation is very unlikely.

You can use the blue button if you're lost, need up to date transport information, information about station facilities, or assistance for any other reason.

Isildur: Oh, FFS. One would have to be either an idiot or a sympathizing member of the profession to believe that anyone's first impulse would be to "signal" to the conductor with a camera flash. What, exactly, could that be expected to communicate? Is removal of a lens cap also an internationally recognized distress gesture?

My sister used to photograph weddings and other special events with a couple other people. They used a couple of the flash settings to get each other's attention across large loud halls, open patios, etc. It was pretty effective, even outdoors in decent sunlight, quicker than texting and less invasive than shouting, waving etc. I can see where someone who is trained to think "flash = signaling device", which a photographer would be, would try to use a flash as a signaling device.

Have you never improvised a tool from its normal use, in a non-intuitive way, to attempt to achieve an effect it wasn't designed for, in a moment of crisis? You should watch MacGyver, I think it's still on Netflix instant play.

JackieRabbit: downtownkid: JackieRabbit: The real follow-up story from the earlier incident -- the one I note that most of the media is ignoring -- is that that photographer, who has been interviewed about the incident, says he was much too far way from the stricken man to have helped him. He started running to attempt to get there in time and triggered his flash 47 times to try to warn the train's driver. At the last minute he snapped his photo on the run. Several people were standing right there watching the man struggle to get out of the track well and they did nothing to help.


Sure, that's what the photographer said. Oddly the very pictures he shot directly contradict his statements. They appear to be taken from a fairly close distance, and you can see no other passengers in between the camera and the victim. Also, if the photographer really were running towards the man he wouldn't have a clear picture as the camera wouldn't be steadied. Finally, he fired his flash 47 times? You're telling me that in the heat of the moment with a train bearing down on the victim the photographer counted how many times he fired his flash?

All due respect, but everything you said sounds like complete horses hit.

Other witnesses have corroborated his story, as do the security cameras in the station. He's telling the truth; the police are satisfied with his story. He is also upset that the post published the pictures, but he could not stop them. He was on assignment for them and they owned the pictures. You are obviously not a photographer and have not used a professional flash. Mine, like his, has a counter to tell you how many flashes it has performed and how many are left before a recharge is needed. And, if you were a photographer, you'd look at that photo and see the obvious camera shake and understand that this indicates he was on the move and probably shooting with a zoom lens. And you know what, I don't really care about what you think is horse shiat. You, like so many ...


1. Provide links to other witnesses corroborating his story as well as security cameras, until then I'll assume you are full of shiat.

2. "The police are satisfied with his story" is meaningless wharrrrgrble as he wasn't charged with anything.

3. Yes he could have prevented the Post from publishing the pictures. He didn't have to turn them in to the paper and if he hadn't they wouldn't know that he even took them.

4. Some, but not all flashes have counters on them. If you know for sure that his does have a counter please provide the make and model number so your claim can be corroborated.

5. A zoom lens exacerbates camera shake, if he really was using one and running there's no way he got that clear of a photo.

So yeah, you are full of shiat.

Isildur: And if you were trolling, fine, I bit.

No, you just won. Beautiful point.

Humorous-Name: Like this, you mean?

[www.ukstudentlife.com image 241x250]

I think that would do the trick, with the one additional button of "PERSON ON TRACKS" that could immediately alert the train operator, control center, etc., and possibly initiate emergency braking in the event the train is too close for the human operator to reliably do it manually. Naturally, you'd want to make sure that kids don't start playing a game where they try to time hitting the button when it will cause mayhem on the train, but making an example of a couple of miscreants would solve that problem.

An automated sensor system would, of course, be preferred if it could be made reliable enough.

"With the train bearing down, both men were either pulled to safety or were able to climb from the tracks."

So, how the fark did they actually get back up? Did others help them? Did they pull themselves up? Did Shaq swoop in Kazaam style and save them both? That's some fine reporting there, Lou.

rolladuck: Humorous-Name: Like this, you mean?

[www.ukstudentlife.com image 241x250]

I think that would do the trick, with the one additional button of "PERSON ON TRACKS" that could immediately alert the train operator, control center, etc., and possibly initiate emergency braking in the event the train is too close for the human operator to reliably do it manually. Naturally, you'd want to make sure that kids don't start playing a game where they try to time hitting the button when it will cause mayhem on the train, but making an example of a couple of miscreants would solve that problem.

An automated sensor system would, of course, be preferred if it could be made reliable enough.

That's exactly why it links you upstairs, rather than stops the train automatically - basically, you smack the button, say "person on tracks" or "one under" and they'll initiate an emergency stop. They know which button has been hit, on which platform, which end of the platform at which station.

Of course, on the Victoria line you've got about a minute between trains, so...you're screwed up the whole network. Which is why there's a pit - you fall, you get into the pit, lay down and start shouting. Odds are that the cameras picked you up and the control room already knows, though - it's a good argument for cameras out the arse.

But yeah, I'm surprised that those buttons aren't a standard feature of all stations now. It takes a bit of retrofitting but it's easier, cheaper and quicker than the platform doors. Bonus, if somebody is just lost, hurt or needs help getting out of the station, well, blue button.