原帖由 500 於 2007-2-27 06:49 發表
The report is merely just the beginning of the safety improvement.
Yes, and you are expecting a full report to be completed with all the analysis in place after what,
3 days of the accident? I hope not. :L
This is a major accident, and the investigation involves a lot of experts who are, at the moment,
painstakingly combing the site, the wreckage for clues, reviewing the train's data recorder, and
interviewed the driver who actually experienced the crash first-hand. They will need a few weeks,
if not months to gather and analyse the data before releasing their ultimate findings and make
appropriate recommendations to the public. Get real.
It is really funny to see people who think they knew better by just sitting in front of a computer
or TV, or maybe even just having read a few books or journals, than the professionals who has
experience in the industry and are actually on-site trying to piece out, from all the evidence lying
in front of them, what actually happened to the stricken train.
Oh, and let me tell you something. The Japanese railway industry is no doubt a class of its own,
but it is not bullet-proof either. The British railway operation is a completely different beast. Trying
to use the Japanese operational philosophy to analyse the problem of British railway is like applying
Cathay Pacific's operational culture to Ryanair. Railway operation is not just about tracks, trains and
infrastructures. The people and underlying politics, industries and community are just some of the
many factors you have been quite ignorant about, to say the least.
[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2007-2-27 09:32 編輯 ]
本文有罵戰跡象，因此將暫被鎖上，以便各方冷靜及讓板主調查。
admin54
站友暫停貼文權通告：ID=norrislaw
網 址：UK. Virgin Class 390 Derailed near Lake District at Cumbria
分 板：C1
文章編號：189441
回文編號：#6, #13, #19
涉案站友id：norrislaw
違反站規：第 32 及 33 條
理 由：上述站友於回文 #6，張貼 BBC 的文章而未有聲明來源；於回文 #13，直接張貼 BBC 的圖片而未有聲明來源；在不必要的情況下於回文 #19 把 BBC 的新聞全篇轉貼而沒有按站規第 33 條作公平處理。
判 決：暫停貼文權 7 天
備 註：此外，站友亦應尊重版權，不應過度轉貼其他新聞。
C1 板板主
admin54
站友暫停貼文權通告：ID=norrislaw
網 址：UK. Virgin Class 390 Derailed near Lake District at Cumbria
分 板：C1
文章編號：189441
回文編號：#32, #34, #36
涉案站友id：norrislaw
違反站規：第 34 及 39 條
理 由：上述站友於回文 #32 及34 煽動罵戰，包括貼出
下列涉及人身攻擊及態度惡劣之言論：「浪費咁多時間同個
九唔搭八既人講野，乜野都係用日本方式嚟睇，未免有點反
智。」「話路軌本身的問題並不會即時引致支桿斷係咪廢話
呀？」「今次英國事件你就可以省下來吧。」「兜得唔錯，
唔錯！」「自問自答？攰的話就訓下覺，如果唔係就自相矛
盾」。此等言論顯然並非理性討論或辯論應有的。
判 決：暫停貼文權 14 天
備 註：即使站友不同意他人的觀點，亦應保持冷靜及理
性的討論。單單打打的態度不但無濟於事，更破壞本站的討
論氣氛及和諧。希望站友在討論時能保持君子之風。
C1 板板主
admin54
站友暫停貼文權通告：ID=500
網 址：UK. Virgin Class 390 Derailed near Lake District at Cumbria
分 板：C1
文章編號：189441
回文編號：#27, #33
涉案站友id：500
違犯站規：第 34(b) 條
理 由：上述站友於上列的回文涉及人身攻擊，包括：
「但今次顯然未證明你未夠料講呢句」（懷疑其中一個「未」字
是筆誤）、「好不幸係呢度竟然被我遇到一小部份頑固的人」。
此等言論亦是不客觀、不理性及不必要的。雖然情況較輕微，但
考慮到有關站友已多次因攻擊他人或單單打打而被處分，因此本
人決定以暫停貼文權作處分。
判 決：暫停貼文權 7 天
備 註：無
本文將同時解鎖。最後本人對花了數天時間才完成處理深感抱歉。
C1 板板主
admin54
It has just confirm that point failure has cause the derailment in this incident, according to The Times, three bolts have gone missing on stretcher bar on point, it is still not clear which stretcher bar have their bolts missing. I will keep reading newspaper to keep everyone inform.
原帖由 NV58 於 2007-2-27 09:29 發表
Yes, and you are expecting a full report to be completed with all the analysis in place after what,
3 days of the accident? I hope not. :L
This is a major accident, and the investigation ...
Those so called 'professionals' may well be experts from a different walk of life who happens to be involved in hte 'health and safety' side of things. The investigator from HSE for the Potters Bar incident were allegedly nuclear technology and aviation experts.
原帖由 ArnoldC 於 2007-3-3 01:37 發表
Those so called 'professionals' may well be experts from a different walk of life who happens to be involved in hte 'health and safety' side of things. The investigator from HSE for the Pot ...
Yes, but you have overlooked the whole picture. In a safety audit or investigation, yes, the
majority of the engineers/professionals involved come, mainly, from that specific industrial
sector, but the common practice is to call upon other safety experts, which as you pointed
out, from other industries to conduct independent safety audit as well. This is not necessarily
a legal requirement in all industries (which is not the case in civil and military aviation world),
but is generally regarded as a best practice because these experts can, a lot of time, provide
an alternative view that helps plugging gaps that are otherwise being left.
So, some of the people involved may come from a completely irrelevant profession, but
they add a lot more value to safety management and investigations than a lot of outsiders
could ever imagine. It is only since having worked with some safety engineering and
airworthiness people in my organisation from the last year that I learnt a lot more about
all these. Although it is impossible for me to share more because of the nature of my work,
but my general comment is, safety management and accident investigations, esp for railway
and aviation industries, are far more complex, thorough, and exhaustive than anything that
general public could ever imagine.
Speaking of which, one of the safety engineer showed me this quote: "If you think safety
management is expensive, try having an accident." I cannot agree more on that.
[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2007-3-3 02:12 編輯 ]
歐洲各國近年致力研究減低一切意外發生的可行性, 很多行業
都要定期進行安全評估 (risk assessment), 以交通運輸為例,
政府會研究投放多少資源在交通安全, 會符合成本效益.
根據英國政府交通部近年的指引, 平均而言, 如果將 100 萬英鎊
投資在一項安全設備 / 改善, 可以減低一名人仕死亡的話, 就符合
成本效益. 有關鐵路公司 / 公路局 / 地方政府, 應盡量實行有關改善.
100 萬鎊大約等於 1500 萬港元.
簡單而言, 如果 100 萬鎊可以「救回一條生命」, 這筆錢就應該花.
當然, 人命是無價的, 這並不代表一條人命在英國值 1500 萬港元,
如果事件嚴重危害公眾安全, 成本效益只會是次要考慮.