Tom Ingall’s article provides a very good example of how
safety on the railways has continued to improve, particularly in comparison to road safety. But is it fair to compare apples and oranges?
Different interfaces
Since the early days of the railways, one of the main safety features has been the imposition of a physical barrier between people and the moving objects we call trains. There are limited places where there is an interaction between the two, such as stations and level crossings (whether for public roads, farm tracks or footpaths).
In the case of roads, with the exception of motorways and some trunk roads, there are few physical barriers between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. And even in the case of the motorways and trunk roads, there is no strict divide between lanes. A few key places where risk has to be managed, compared with myriad places.
As Tom notes, the railway’s strong safety culture comes from analysing the main safety failings and putting in place schemes to reduce those as much as possible. For the railway as a workplace, it is possible to apply a rigorous safety culture - those who do not comply can be removed or do not receive the relevant accreditation.
Staff can be trained to deal with managing passengers at stations, and do a particularly good job at maintaining safety despite ever-increasing numbers of passengers. The main unmanaged areas of crossing the line are also being looked at, with proposals to close level crossings where possible.
Failing standards or errors of judgement?
The imposition of industry standards, and their enforcement for the freight industry and passenger service vehicles, is one way of trying to provide a level playing field between rail and road, and to ensure that those playing by the rules are not subsidising those who don’t.
But of the five people per day who don’t come home, how many are due to a failure by someone to meet relevant standards, and how many are due to an error of judgement? While the former are easier to police, and people consider that doing so is a “good thing”, how do you place controls on what are considered to be reasonable freedoms?
With the road system, is it really possible to do more without impinging on how people go about their lives? I strongly believe that the answer is yes. As the article reports, the improvement in safety in both the oil and rail industries came about through understanding risk rather than simply enforcing compliance with standards. We all undertake a significant number of risk management decisions every day, it’s just that most are subconscious. It would be helpful to bring some closer to the conscious surface.
Dealing with perceived risks
A good example of personal risk management being applied is around the operation of the UK’s tram systems. Most have limited segregation and fencing along part of their length, and none in the busy city centres. Pedestrians are free to wander across the tracks, and cars cross and re-cross the tracks in busy streets.
Until the accident at Sandilands Junction on the Croydon system on November 9 2016, no passenger had been killed on a UK tram system since January 28 1959. While some may consider that light rail has limited coverage, there were 252 million passenger journeys and 21 million vehicle miles operated in the year to March 2016 - therefore many, many opportunities for interactions between trams, passengers, vehicles and members of the public.
So why so few accidents? Arguably people are more aware of the trams, or at least the dangers that they bring. This is partly because they see them being built in their cities, but also because of the signage and actually seeing the tram moving through the streets themselves - big beasts sitting at the top of the road hierarchy.
Those people who saw the tram systems being built remember the new dangers arriving, and pass the information on through family groups. “Watch out for the tram” seems to have more resonance than “Watch out for the car”.
Car drivers appear less likely to accelerate to get across a tram track than to beat the red lights flashing at a level crossing, and members of the public are more likely to step back when they hear the tram approaching. Is that because the slow-moving city centre traffic means there is no perceived benefit from beating the tram across the rails, or does the sound of the tram’s bell raise awareness of the approaching risk? Arguably, yes, but maybe it is also getting into the heads of the pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers.
Don’t dilute the message
If members of the public appreciate the risks posed by trams, can they be persuaded to apply the same thought process to other vehicles and road risks?
A level of education can only go so far, and too many messages (or too wide a message) may be lost. In the past a single message campaign backed up with tough sanctions - such as the wearing of seat belts campaign in the early 1980s - has proved the most successful, and information from the RAIDS scheme could be used to help the industry focus on where most benefits could be obtained. The Department for Transport and the Office of Rail and Road should be looking to take the lead here, but they must also secure the involvement of local authorities, given the latter’s involvement with the provision of the UK’s road system.
So can rail’s safety record be used to help improve safety on the roads? The answer has to be yes, but it needs to be done in a managed and focused way. Also, look at what other parts of the transport sector, such as tram systems, have achieved. Producing a downward trend is arguably better than simply setting a target, as there is a tendency to focus on the target itself and not why the reduction is required.
