Worker Suspended For Saving Disabled Woman's Life

[TimeLord]

Yep you read that thread title correctly.

So apparently a few days ago a woman in a wheelchair rolled onto the tracks of a train station at Southend, a member of staff jumped onto the tracks with some other bystanders and got her off the tracks before she was killed. The train company responded by suspending him for not following health and safety regulations. Was he supposed to stand and watch as the train came along and killed the disabled woman? I would do the same as the guy did and so would anyone with 2 brain cells instead of thinking about health and safety.

What the fuck is happening to this country?
Reminds me of a story a few months ago about a woman stuck down a drain (I think) and she ended up dying because they fire crews didn't have the correct health and safety training to get her out.
I hate this health and safety crap companies and governments hide behind these days. I'll make damn sure my kid can climb a tree or play conkers without goggles and he'll damn well be taught to help someone in need and not to worry about making sure the correct health and safety forms and checks are done first.

I get that some health and safety rules exist for a reason but when they exist and could have directly resulted in the death on an innocent old lady in a wheelchair then they shouldn't exist in those circumstances.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/railway-worker-suspended-rescuing-disabled-2253973

 

[madwarper]

Let me get this straight... Some guy hastily jumped down and tried to rescue the girl in the nick of time, when he could have simply called ahead, stopped the train and had ample time to get the woman back to the platform in the safest manner possible?

So, yeah. Suspension is a bit much, but reprimands are called for when someone doesn't do what they're trained and paid to do.

 

[Neverhoodian]

This is from the Mirror? As in The Daily Mirror? Isn't that a tabloid?

Just reading the related headlines sets off all sorts of alarm bells about the article's authenticity for me. Even if it's true, they probably aren't telling us the whole story for the sake of sensationalism.

I could be wrong, of course. Feel free to correct me if I am. I'm just a bloody Yank, after all.

 

[Parasondox]

It's seriously getting more and more ridiculous in the UK it just makes me sad. It's the attitude of "Let's stand back, not do anything and see what happens" side of life that is growing on people more often. I know they're good people out there who would step up and stop the bad from happening but these health and safety regs are just making life a bit more difficult cause you will be in trouble like that worker who just saved the disabled woman. There was even a story about three firefighters who couldn't save someone in a pond from draining because they weren't trained to handle water above the waist and yet a passer by just got in there to save the person but was too late. They couldn't go in because of certain health and safety and training rules. Well I thought ALL firefighters were taught the same thing?

Sorry I went on and on there but thank you for bringing it up TimeLord. Yes health and safety can be a force for good at times but sometimes we just need common sense applied in life.

The more rules set, the more softer we could become. The worker is a hero and should be rewarded and not punished.

 

[Quaxar]

Well, he did endanger himself and others by just jumping down instead of stopping the train. But at least it was a railway and no underground so there probably wasn't any electricity carrying rail down there.

And saying health and safety regulations shouldn't exist in situations like these sounds like the company should demand of their staff to endanger themselves, which shouldn't really be part of a job description for a railway station worker.

 

[Antari]

Lawyers and Accountants making the world a better place. Oh wait, its the other way around. Not overly shocked that it happened. Pencil necks never use any brain power at all.

 

[Quaxar]

There was even a story about three firefighters who couldn't save someone in a pond from draining because they weren't trained to handle water above the waist and yet a passer by just got in there to save the person but was too late. They couldn't go in because of certain health and safety and training rules. Well I thought ALL firefighters were taught the same thing?

I don't know about firefighting education in the UK but that kind of situation requires a lifeguard training. Since drowning and panicking people are understandably not quite themselves they can be rather dangerous, which is why basic lifeguard training includes how to free yourself of a person clinging to you and stuff.
So in this situation it'd have been quite irresponsible to just jump after the person, although I may not know the full details.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

You can't honestly expect people to obey rules to the letter when lives are at stake. To do so is to ignore our humanity.

A reprimand and a lesson on protocol I could understand, but a suspension is too far, IMO.

 

[Cabisco]

We are as a nation increasingly fucked up, here's a lovely story from my local area:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396222/Branded-paedophile-hiking-son-WILL-SELF-reveals-nightmare.html

TLDR: If you are male and near a child you are a paedophile.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I know there was another way he could have saved that girl, but at least he succeeded in doing it, right?
Or is that just me?

 

[spartan231490]

It's not the company's fault, it's the sue-happy culture we live in. If he had hurt her in the process of saving her, she could have and probably would have sued the company. The company has to cover it's ass against liabilities like this, or they lose their insurance as well. Still, any kind of course or training about safety will always tell you save lives first, worry about lawsuits later. The guy did exactly what he was trained to do, but the company still had to punish him because of our sue-happy culture, which is why he was suspended instead of fired.

 

[Silverbeard]

If nothing else, labour unions are good for these kinds of situations. If the rail company where this chap worked had a labour union, he likely would not have gotten fired.
Here's hoping the company needed to save face and dropped him with pay for a few weeks until the news blows over before putting him back on the roster. Being rewarded for saving a life with a few weeks of paid leave sounds like rather ad nice trade-off to me!

 

[krazykidd]

You can't honestly expect people to obey rules to the letter when lives are at stake. To do so is to ignore our humanity.

A reprimand and a lesson on protocol I could understand, but a suspension is too far, IMO.

I disagree . He put his life and the life of the other people that helped him ( other than the woman ) in danger. While his actions were selfless , and ultimately saved a persons life that day , it could have easily turned into an even bigger tragedy . Had all of those people gotten hit by the train ( which was a definate possibility ), we would have a much different story/reaction , blaming the guy for not following protocol. He , unfortunately , was in a lose/lose situation.

However, unless he was suspended with pay , i find this harsh.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So instead of being safe and doing what protocol said (to call ahead and warn the train, they dont take a quater of a mile to stop), he decides to go all superhero (which is good granted, im glad he saved the woman) and is being suspended for it (intead of just say fired). I dontt hink the people in the knee jerk reaction (particularly about accountants and lawyers and pencil necks) get it. when you work in a place like this, or in a factory, or something like that, where they have rigid (usually) safety protocols that they tend to drill into your head whether you like them to or not, you're expected to do the safest action and follow the safety protocols that are set in place for these events. Now if the train just pulled in and rolled over the woman (like it had in japan over a person) where there was no tim to stop it, thats different. But this, i can understand it, and even if I dont necessarily agree, having worked ata factory and seen incidents like this, he is stll in the fault and could have handled it better.

though tis looks like one of the most tabloid-y writings i've seen in a while.

 

[Yopaz]

Honestly speaking I understand this. There are safety protocols and they are there for a reason. He wasn't suspended for saving someone's life, that's just our sensationalism making it to be. He was suspended because he violated protocol resulting that he endangered his own life along with the lives of those who helped him save the woman.

That said what he did was admirable and I am impressed with his courage and his actions and the actions of those others who helped. However would be still be giving him praise and standing up for him if he had failed? If he just managed to survive while the others were killed? If they all were killed? Also the train was assumed to be a quarter of a mile away and the average break length using emergency brakes is 0.15 miles give or take.

Honestly ask yourself. Would you support him if this had resulted in 5 deaths?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Let me get this straight... Some guy hastily jumped down and tried to rescue the girl in the nick of time, when he could have simply called ahead, stopped the train and had ample time to get the woman back to the platform in the safest manner possible?

So, yeah. Suspension is a bit much, but reprimands are called for when someone doesn't do what they're trained and paid to do.

Do you know how long it takes for a train to stop? Three hundred tonnes has a lot of momentum behind it, you can't just say "stop the train".

The health and safety regulations are in place to allow business owners to not be held accountable for accidents. If this guy had died, no reparations to the company, since it was the employee at fault. It's a scummy practice where profit outweighs morality.

 

[madwarper]

Do you know how long it takes for a train to stop? Three hundred tonnes has a lot of momentum behind it, you can't just say "stop the train".

You don't say...

This is why, as soon as he was aware that someone had fallen on the track, he should informed the signaler of the situation, to give the train time (if possible) to stop. And, if there isn't time, then to tell the people there's not going to be any time to save the person so that they don't join her in become smears on the track when the train comes into the station.

It's fortunate that no one was injured, but that's in spite of his actions. Not because of them.

 

[xPixelatedx]

to give the train time (if possible) to stop. And, if there isn't time, then to tell the people there's not going to be any time to save the person so that they don't join her in become smears on the track when the train comes into the station.

I've never seen or heard of a train being able to stop in time of someone right in front of it. There is a reason why trains just keep honking when a car is stuck on the tracks, even if people are inside it...

I live across a railroad track. The track is a straight line from one end of the horizon to the other; there is nothing obstructing the view. Any train coming could see anything on the track maybe a mile away. Still doesn't stop people getting killed all the time on these very tracks in front of my house.

 

[Something Amyss]

Let me get this straight... Some guy hastily jumped down and tried to rescue the girl in the nick of time, when he could have simply called ahead, stopped the train and had ample time to get the woman back to the platform in the safest manner possible?

So, yeah. Suspension is a bit much, but reprimands are called for when someone doesn't do what they're trained and paid to do.

Agreed on this. Being smart could have endangered fewer people.

Anyway, is this one of those stories that's been overinflated by the Mirror? I can't be arsed to look. Andusually, that's what tabloids count on.