Great Western Coffee Shop

Yet more 2 hour plus delays due this time to fataity near Burnham.

Watching the incident unfold from Taplow was fascinating.

First sign of trouble was 11:36 left on time on single yellow from S109 (no not that one, UP relief platform signal). Now that's not a good sign because the next siganl is an auto and as there hadn't been a train for 15 minutes or so very suspiscious. Train leaves and is seen halted at said auto. Station ascertains body on line around Burnham.

Then Theale Hope cement empties enters station. and stops. Talking to the driver confrims body on line.We then had the pleasure of entertaining the driver for the next two hours. It was very useful as he was able to get information on the progress of the incident so we could warn potential passengers of the possible delays and rectification times.

He got the right away on a green around 13:45 around a 2 hour wait exactly  as he predicted when he first stopped and knew what the cause was.

However, I am not happy with FGW subsequent rectification of the situation. Not having had a train for 2 hours it was galling to have the first up train a Turbo run through the station without stopping. Swindon should have made Maidenhead put a special stop on for Taplow and Burnham. Next trains were a set of HSTs runing Relieif line non stop.

Meanwhile the CIS was showing the 13:36 and 14:06 as arriving at the same time but getting steadily later and later.

When I left they were showing 14:30 and getting later which I reckon meant they hadn't left Reading or were stuck on the Relief Line between Reading the crossovers at Twyford West waiting for the string of HSTs to cross . Although we did get a down stopper there were also HSTs on the Down Relief. As Twyford West is a single lead crossover it means you can't run in parrallel.

I think not stopping the first Up Turbo was at the very least inconsiderate of FGW. I wouldn't expect them to stop an HST but it would have been been  a super gesture if they did.

Secondly as with other posts on this topics Networkrail and BTP police really need to work out a protocol that doesn't require such massive disruptions to services.

I am not sure why it has to be a crime scene. The position of body will tell little other than the speed of the train and the angle of impact. The unfortunate driver will be able give a good idea where the impact took place and if it's close to a station there will be witnesses to what happened. Especialy as if it really was a crime (ie somebody was pushed) and  not a suicide. The other thing that needs to be ascertained is how the person gained acces to the track and that will be found along the boundary of the railway away from the trains.

Finally on a four track railway I don't see why trains can't start running under caution on the other two lines even if fire and ambulance people are on the other lines. provided there's competant person to keep them off the other running lines it is perfectly safe. Or don't we trust them not to wander all over the railway. I thought the Ambulance and the Fire Services think of themselves on being a  disciplined force trained to obey orders, or have just used a dirty word? 

Or am I violating their human rights by putting them in jeopardy by running trains on other lines and not allowing them to wander all over the tracks as they see fit?

Does anyone else agree with me that the time to clear up such incidents is becoming too long and disruptive and whether a different approach could speed up the restoration of the service?

What would people consider a reasonable time to have the whole service stopped? I would say 30 minutes on amultiple track line to get trrains running on other lines and 45 minutes on other lines, maybe depending on how accesssable the body is.

The handling of fatalities is poor to say the least in my opinion.

As far as I know, a train reported running over a body, which might have been considered more suspicious.

I was on the first train that went non-stop through Taplow and Burnham - have to say I thought it was an odd decision. Strangely the train wasn't that busy.

I was quite lucky really as I got on the 1309 from Henley and was only delayed by around 15 mins in total and made it to work on time.

I agree they need to get slicker at sorting these incidents out - I'm not suggesting a Bombay Railway type solution (make sure body is clear of track and carry on) but stationary trains on one of the busiest lines in the country is a bit ridiculous.

There was a Turbo sat in the siding at Slough on the Up side which I presume was the train involved.

Sympathy to the driver and families involved.

Often the first Police presence is the Local Constabulary, BTP having a large beat take time to get there.  The time taken may also be the result of how far the bits have been spread has to be treated as a bio hazard.  The unfortunate drive may be in shock and quite possibly unable to give much information.

Access is something NR are gradually dealing with but the public don't help by breaking down fences because they block their short cut, however no matter how much fencing is done if someone wants to top themselves they will find a way

HST reported "running over a body" on down Main.

I understand this one was "unexplained". In other words, it wasn't known how the body came to be there and no train had been identified as having hit someone. In most cases, these are known and the target is to hand back the line within two hours, although unaffected lines can be handed back as soon as the body parts have been covered up. An unexplained death is treated as a potential crime scene and requires Scene of Crime Officers to attend. This takes considerably longer - four hours to reopen the line is typical.

But Why!

Is the cause of death of one person worth the inconvenience of 100s of others - if not 1000s of others!  Really human life is important but at the end of the day - we are just mammals with an over inflated sense of our own importance in life

Exactly! Does no-one think about the consequences of causing delays? Maybe someone is trying to get to an important medical appointment or they're trying to get home to look after a sick relative. Maybe also someone might be taken seriously ill as a result of being stuck on a train behind the incident? Then you've got more delays while medical assistance is obtained for that person stuck somewhere between stations.

I am all for a speedy clear up once the fatality has been confirmed as a suicide (whatever you think about suicide, once the victim is dead there is nothing that can be done to help them)

BUT part of the delay is caused by waiting for the police to confirm to their satistfaction that it is a suicide.  People do also end up under trains by accident and occassionally they are pushed which is murder, a very serious crime which needs to be ruled out.

Imagine the uproar if a murderer got away with his crime and went on to kill again because the railway was in too much of a hurry to investgate the first killing properly (or if a trial collapsed because the defence undermined the evidence of the forensic pathology because the body had not been properly handled at the scence)

I don't think a 2 hour delay is too bad in the circumstances.

I do think it is odd to have to close all four tracks of a four track railway though.  Surely their could be a procedure for trains to be escorted past the scence by a qualified person at walking pace?   

Couple of rule book sections for those not in the industry:
These are for the person in charge, normally the Rail Investigation Officer in these circumstances.
4.10 Train movement past a body
You must find out which lines are affected and authorise the
signaller to operate trains as follows:
a) If the body is foul of any rail or conductor rail
You must not allow trains to move on the affected line.
b) If the body is in the four-foot but not foul of the line
You must not allow trains to move on the affected line.
However, you may allow the train involved in the incident to move
clear of the body if the police give permission.
c) If the body is not on or between the rails
These instructions apply if the body is:
^ between any two running lines
^ in the cess
^ on the lineside
^ on a station platform
^ at a level crossing.
You may allow trains to move on the affected lines if:
^ there is enough clearance between the train and the body
^ the body is covered or cannot be seen from passing trains
^ the police have given you permission.
4.11 Train movement past body parts
You must find out which lines are affected and authorise the
signaller to operate trains as follows:
a) Body parts that are not recognisable
If the remains are not recognisable as body parts, you may allow
trains to move on the affected lines if:
^ there is enough clearance between the train and body parts
^ the police have given you permission.
b) Body parts that are recognisable
You may allow a train to pass recognisable body parts before they
are covered over if:
^ they are in a position where they would be seen only by the
drivers of passing trains (for example, when the remains are
very close to the line but not foul of it), and
^ there would otherwise be excessive delays to services.
However, you can only do this if:
^ there is enough clearance between the train and the body
parts
^ the police have given permission
^ the driver of each train is told about the circumstances
^ the driver of each train agrees to making the movement.
You must not attempt unreasonably to influence a driver to make
such a movement.
4.13 Resuming normal working
You must tell the signaller that normal working can be resumed
when you know for certain that:
^ the body has been moved clear of the affected lines and is
covered over, or cannot be seen from passing trains
^ all personnel and equipment are clear of the affected lines.
You must stay on site until the body has been removed.

So it looks like we'e all so squeamish and retiring that the key thing is making sure the body is not visible to passing trains.

purlease.

its just a bloody dead body.

Someone cynical (no name mentioned FA ;o) ) may suggest that it depends whether a driver to pass the scene is a) on his way home, or b) travelling away from his home depot!

I was on one of the first trains on the scene at Burnham on Thursday. I looked out of the window to see why we^d stopped and saw the woman lying on the next track about 6 feet away. This was before any emergency services were on the scene. I found the talk of ^disruption to services^ quite shocking in light of the fact that a woman had died and was, at that point, alone out there. The passengers in my carriage were extremely shocked and it was obvious that train staff, when they came to evacuate the carriage, were too. I don^t think it should ever be forgotten that this was someone^s life and death ^ and a pretty public and anonymous death at that. She will have family and friends who are grieving for her and I don^t think that should ever be pushed aside so that people aren^t late for their meetings. I know it^s important to keep services running and I get as cross as anyone about poor service but that is not what this was. If we don^t value human life and show respect for the dead then we really are only animals.

There were children in the carriage ahead of ours (who blessedly seemed unaware of what had happened) but I don^t think there should ever be the risk of them seeing what I saw. I^m finding it pretty hard to come to terms with myself. It didn^t look to me as though the woman had been hit by a train directly, in which case it^s hard to see how it could have happened. In this case it would seem to me even more important that finding out what had happened to her was the absolute priority.

My heartfelt sympathy goes to those who loved her.

Welcome to the forum. Genghisthecat.   I'm sorry that it's on such a serious thread - and a subject for which there are no easy answers.  Indeed, we shouldn't forget the life lost; you're right to remind us that this was someone's sister, pehaps someone's wife, girlfriend or mother and certainly someone's daughter. 

While there is the slightest chance of foul play, or an accident so dreadful that it took a life, no stone should be left unturned to ensure that every facet is investigated, no evidence lost. And if that means closing the line for two hours and delaying thousands of journeys, so be it.  And for certain be respectful of the body.  But ... respect for the body, and throught for the deceased don't bring the person back.  And - once established beyond doubt that it is neither foul play by a third party, nor a dreadful accident from which lessons must be learned, the world has to move respectfully on.  I don't think that makes us any the less caring.

Hi Grahame

Point taken - Obviously life goes on - I went on to a meeting myself afterwards. I think it was the tone of 'how dare I be inconvenienced by this', which I did also hear on the train - from a woman who had seen the body to a member of staff - which is hard. In fact our train moved on after about 15 minutes - probably in part because they didn't want to keep that many members of the public where they could still see the body. Although it was a bit late for that by then. In fact the train I was on was already delayed by 40 minutes before this happened, but that's an entirely separate issue.

You see thats where I differ - would not bother me the slightest to see the dead body - once its dead its just a pile of bones and flesh

But I have been around medics and paramedics much of my life since I was about 10 (my famioy and friends seem to be connected to the medical profession in one way or another) - which is why I also have a very black sense of humour.

Yes, someone died - I feel for her family but there is no reason to be traumatised by seeing a cadaver

But the cadaver on the railway is an unexplained death until such time as the Police have gathered sufficient evidence it remains unexplained as such is a crime scene.  It is easy to say why can not trains pass while the recovery is being done, the civil Police, Fire and Ambulance staff would not be allowed to work on an open operational railway due to 'elf n safety rules of their employers.

I agree with genghisthecat if we do not treat the mortal remains of a fellow human being with respect we are not better than wild animals, we also have to allow for the feelings and emotions of the staff its not only the driver of the train it can also affect the signaler who is likely to be the first person the driver contacts.  Rail is not the only transport system brought to a stand when there is a death think of motorways when there has been a fatal RTA I have been parked for 2 or more hours waiting for it to be cleared.

Actuyally I dont treat the mortal remains of a human because they are not their mortal remains - the human in question ceases to exist the minute the last electron in their brain died.  I never saw my father after he died because to me that was not him - it was just a pile of meat and bones.  My dad is the person I remember.

I know everyone is not like this but I have no time for the hand wringing over attachment to a pile of meat and bones.  I have seen a dead bodies not long after their death (was invlved in a fatal car crash - I was not the offending party I hasten to add) -17, 18 and 10 - the ten year old was the younger sibling.  Whilst I had sympathy for their families and the loss of life - seeing the dead bodies at the scene is no different than looking at a dead roadkill.

And I'm sorry - I do get aggrieved when I get home two hours late - or given my schedule have to fork out for a blinking hotel - because they shut the lines for two  hours.  I did just look and in the last five years I have lost in total about ^2000 because of fatalities closing the line - be it in hotel bills or me taking a day off the next day because I was already in transit when it happened and I had no choice but to continue on.

See the scene, tent it off if need be then get the bloody trains running again sharpish.

Had she been hit by a train then the scene would probably have been much more upsetting. 

I'm sure we're all impressed with FallenAngel's hard-line approach, but I don't think anybody should ever be purposefully exposed to such a scene, especially young children who might be on the train.  I've seen a fair few dead bodies in my time too, but those that have been run over by trains are often in a much more shocking state than your average RTA or other death.

I'm all for trying to speed up the resolution to these incidents, but, at the very least, body parts should be covered up fully or removed from the scene before trains are allowed to pass by on adjacent tracks - surely we all agree on that?

No I dont agree.

Firstly - on adjacent tracks, unless the train comes to a halt right next to the body - no one is really going to see it!  Maybe the driver will know why he's halted unusually but hey - that the cycnical argument posted above.  And if the driver knows what he's passing - why is he looking at the next track and not on the track he's on driving his train.

As to the young children issue - I remember when I was about 13 my mother arguing with the mother of a friend of mine.  The crux was "if children are as innocent as you think they are, they won't understand and if they arent' then its nothing new". 

Also - there is an argument (I'll look up references if people insists) that the western obsession with keeping children away from wakes and funerals and seeing a dead body actually causes more emotional problems later on. Coming from irish stock, we had wakes where the dead body was propped uo in the corner in the coffin and everyone offered a drink to them..............There are only two things in life that are certain, death and taxes.  We teach children fiscal responsibility but god forbid they see a dead body

Edit - ok - I also was working in a factory at 19 whilst at uni and some numb nut lost their arm - which I ended up holding.  Felt like a baseball bat with the weighting at teh shoulder end!

Well, fortunately, I think you're very much in the minority there.

Trains will always pass such a scene at caution, people who are not qualified in track safety are going to be on the track. If you see ambulances, police and lots of other people in high vis clothing then your attention will naturally be drawn to them and what they're doing - if they happen to be standing next to an uncovered body on the track with limbs missing, a partially dismembered head with half the skin on the face ripped off revealing the skull beneath and all manner of other things straight out of a horror movie, then that's a little different to seeing a body at a wake all respectfully prepared.  Ask a few mothers and see what they would think to the railway industry not taking steps to avoid that scenario happening!

Sorry to give such a graphic description, but that is what a lot of railway suicides look like.

I can honestly say - it wouldnt bother me - its just meat and bones.    I am not a mother but I know what my mother would have thought - oh well, she'll get used to it.

As I said - I have held a dismembered arm and actually thought it felt like a baseball bat!

There is no reason a shield of sorts could not be put up to hide the body from passing trains - either a tent or a beach screen thing that people use.  Think out of the box.  IF that is really the issue.

So , you might get a train proceeding at caution past a screen  - so everyone knows there is a dead body behind it - is that really such an issue?

Quite simply the Law requires the Police to investigate, the Police will NOT allow their employees to work unnecessarily in a dangerous environment.  One major danger on the railways can be removed by stopping trains, for anyone who has stood on the track with trains passing even at 30 mph it is unnerving unless you are used to it, there are also so many other hazard, uneven ground, slipper sleepers, cable, catch pits, loose ballast, even the rails are just the right hight to trip you up and is some areas live conductors just inches above the ground that can kill.  Even as someone who is seasoned and experience d at working on the track I only go on or about the line when trains are running as little as possible not because of the trains but because of the under foot hazards

I think that really is the issue, yes.  And I'd have thought that was fairly obviously along the lines of what I meant - no 'thinking out of the box' required.  ::)  Stop all trains until someone is on site.  If there's room to run trains past the body or parts of body, then cover them as soon as possible from the view of passing trains and allow them to pass by whilst the scene is assessed, briefly re-close the line when the remains are ready to be removed from the site and then get normal working resumed as quickly as possible.  Such screening equipment should be installed in all MOM's cars (they're the NR guys that are first on scene), if it isn't already.

It doesn't necessarily stop the civil police riding roughshod over the whole operation and demanding this and that, and there will still be quite significant delays due to the procedural steps that have to be taken - informing those on site that trains will be running and on what tracks, etc., but even a 25% reduction in delays per suicide would be of significant benefit.  But as 'electric train' and others have said, these decisions are not always down to Network Rail!

I remain totally convinced that a driver of a train should not have to witness such a scene as there is the potential that it would play on their mind for the rest of the shift and lead to mistakes due to a lack of concentration.  Drivers don't just blindly stare at the track they are driving on - a wider appreciation of what is happening around them is needed - if there's people by the trackside they will be looking at them to make sure they stay a safe distance away for example.

Thank You Insider for an excellent post. My issue is not with the procedures immediately after the incident, it's important that the correct level of care and compassion is undertaken. My problem is with the delays subsequent to that whilst the police, etc, seem to be throwing their weight around with no regard for the further disruption they're creating.

Last year during the summer/early autumn my elderly Mum was ill at home. She was able to get limited social services care during the daytime but nothing in the evening when I was her sole carer. I was very anxious to be home from work by 6pm but fortunately (and to FGW's great credit) I was never ever late home during that period of time.

About one week after she sadly passed away in mid-October, there was a fatality in the Slough area at about 16:30 and I remember looking at the FGW site about severe disruptions from Paddington with suspension of service during the evening peak. If I'd been travelling that day I wouldn't have been home until well after 7pm and as my Mum was too ill to answer the phone she would have been sitting very anxious and hungry in the dark. This is why I feel so strongly about minimising disruptions in these circumstances, it's nothing to do with getting to meetings at work or nights at the theatre, etc. It's where there could be genuinely serious disruptions to people's lives.

Welcome to the forum Genghisthecat. I am sorry you and your fellow passengers had to go through your ordeal. As the instigator of the thread who watched it it unfold from Taplow station, may I make a couple of points.

I think it was probably wrong of your driver to stop where the train was alongside the body. You don't say which direction you were travelling but he could have stopped further down the line and radioed from there.

I also note you were under way in 20 minutes. I was mainly commenting on passengers on other trains which were delayed up 2 hours and the many hundreds thereafter inconvenienced until the service got back to normal.

Also while relating it to this incident I was making the general point that the handling of bodies on the line these days does seem to take a long time. I compare it to my time on the railways in the 60s when it was usually less than an hour, Clapham Junction at 4pm was a favourite. If you read other posts on this board, particulary the one on the two fatalities at Ealing the previous week  also highlighted the problem.

I detect a possible  concensus that whilst it essential to ascertain the circumstances of the death there is then  probably no reasion why the body can't be then be covered over and trains allowed to proceed past the site until a convinient time can arranged to remove the body. Particularly on 4 track lines such as at Burnham where two lines could be reopened fairly quickly.

I have some sympathy with your view FA, but I think that you have to be respectful of other people's views on this (it is unreasonable to expect every driver and passenger to have the same view of bodies as you do).  The rule book seems pretty sensible to me - essentially it is saying keep the trains moving if the body is not blocking the line, but make some effort to cover the body before doing that and be sensitive to driver's own feeling rather than forcing them to drive.  Not an unreasonable set of rules or unduly squeemish.  The only thing that they do that I am not totally in agreement with is the closing of four lines when only one (perhaps an outside one) is effected.  Is it really too much of a risk to ask, properly escorted fire/ambulance/police staff to work within 10 feet of trains crawling past at 2 mph? (surely far greater risks are taken by ambulance staff at roadsides)

personally, I have never seen a railway suicide, but I consider myself matter-of-fact about these things.  I have done medical reaserch involving cutting cartilage samples from (dead) human knees and don't hold any religeous/supersituous views of any sort.

However, I did glance out of a tower block window once onto a flat roof 6 feet below to see a body of someone who had jumped from 20 stories further up.  They were partly covered by an ambulance blanket and had a blood transfusion pack (tubes, bags, needles etc) sticking out of their arm where an ambulance crew had tried to save them.  They had not been saved and were left alone on the roof for the recovery crew (fire brigade) to arrive with a ladder.  It took me a while to figure out what I was looking at - the legs and arms stuck out of the blanket looked like a shop dummy.  The sight was not upsetting or yuck-making, but it was unsettling and I have never forgotten it.  It was especially unsettling cos the victim was a young woman of about my age.  I know that the body was just meat, but the fact that it had recently been a person did register with me (as did the fact that she was too young to die and the fact that a paramedic had obviously tried and failed to save her). 

Unfortunately it seems there's been at least 20 fatalities today over in Belgium. My heart goes out to everyone involved, either directly or indirectly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251139/At-20-dead-Eurostar-halted-trains-collide-Brussels.html?ITO=1490

Update: make that 25, and Eurostar services cancelled as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1251139/Brussels-train-crash-leaves-25-dead-halts-Eurostar.html?ITO=1490

Further update: apparently it was "bound to happen sometime" (hmm....)

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59737,news-comment,news-politics,brussels-train-crash-was-inevitable-on-busy-belgium-railway-network-buizingen

But why ?  Even the most minor of road accidents now attracts more police cars than an open jar of marmalade would get wasps in midsummer. It appears to be getting that way on the Railways now. "Unexplained death" on the railway:-  almost certainly accident (for whatever reason) or suicide: neither are a crime as far as I know. If I was out to kill someone I would find an easier way than using a passing train !

I read yesterday that the tragic incident of a car going into the River Avon where a young girl died was exacerbated because the police were NOT ALLOWED to try and access the vehicle in the river - under their safety rules. It took over an hour and a half for a diving team to arrive from the next county ! I fear the same mentality applies now to the railways.

I read earlier in this thread than human remains are a "bio hazard" - why wasn't the dead badger I saw at the roadside yesterday cordoned off and the road closed ? - badgers carry fleas and almost certainly TB as well - which most humans don't.

Rules, damned rules & b****y rules ! or just plain old-fashioned stupidity ?

I really must agree with FA, although perhaps not quite as bluntly !

[quote author=moonrakerz link=topic=6242.msg61739#msg61739 I read earlier in this thread than human remains are a "bio hazard" - why wasn't the dead badger I saw at the roadside yesterday cordoned off and the road closed ? - badgers carry fleas and almost certainly TB as well - which most humans don't.

[/quote]

I can answer that as a biologist.  True there are some diseases that can infect both humans and other animals, but you would be very unlikley to catch most of them from a dead animal.  Live animals are a low risk and dead animals even lower.  Whether it is TB or swineflu, a live animal sneezing on you is a slight risk, shovelling roadkill into a bag is not. 

Humans are different in that their blood can contain many pathogens that can infect other people.  HIV and Hepatitis are the main ones people worry about neither of which you could get from a badger.   No need to don body suits or cordon areas off, but wearing gloves before touching a body and safety specs/masks if any risk of splashing fluids getting into nose/mouth are sensible precautions not health and safety gone mad.  The same precautions apply after a road accident or indeed a nose-bleed in a public place.  Back at the depot trains may need to be presure washed with disinfectant by specialists before the regular maintainance guys can get to work.   

No need for biohazard precautions to slow recovery down but they can't just be ignored.   

In a rescue operation where there are survivors you might decide to dispense with some precautions and take some risk in order to save lives.  But if the victim is already dead there isn't any excuse to ignore the precautions. 

Some figures ... depending on sources, there are between 70 ("suicides at stations") and 200 ("deaths on the track") per year in Great Britain.   The average for each one is 1489 delay minutes - so if there are 100 people on each train that's an annual delay of 56 years.  I'm not looking to draw any conclusion from that - just to apply an element of scale.   It's a huge and sensitive problem in all directions. 

Please bear in mind as you discuss this that we're all on a public forum.  Remember that on previous very different occassions when we reported / had reports on a death ....friends, family and colleagues of the person who passed away have found us. Everyone posting on this thread should do so in the knowledge that it's likely to be read by those who are far more closely involved than our posting members.

I wouldn't dream of questioning your expertise as a biologist ! But that isn't really the point I was trying to make.
Take HIV: Latest figures give 83,000 HIV sufferers in UK, with a population of 62,000,000 - risk of meeting someone with HIV, pretty slim.

The problem is that the culture nowadays make the people at the "trackside" act as though there is a 100% of catching HIV. Risk analysis is something I have dealt with and it annoys me intensely when people quote "H & S" and "risk" when it is obvious that they do not have a clue what they are talking about - they just quote "soundbites" from the last Powerpoint show they saw !  This is what causes the delays - not the sensible precautions.

Much of it is rather like the person who is worried sick about dying in a 'plane crash but quite happily drives up the M4 to Heathrow without their seatbelt on ! They have read in the Daily Mail that flying is dangerous - so it must be !

From another scientist...

Don't forget it's not just HIV - although that's one of the more serious blood-borne illnesses, it's a very, very long way from being the only one. Sensible biohazard precautions when dealing with human blood and tissue are quite simply not over-zealous health and safety, or "political correctness gone mad". The danger of cross-infection is real, tangible but relatively easy to avoid by taking simple precautions.

Hepatitis B (most common one) less than 1 in a thousand................. ;D

Yes, hilarious isn't it?

Hepatitis B is a nasty illness. Given a 1:1000 chance of contracting it that could be avoided by wearing gloves and face protection, I'd take the protective equipment absolutely every time. And are you seriously suggesting that it's the most common blood-borne illness?

Not to mention that if you're a member of the emergency services dealing with these types of incidents on a regular basis, over your career all these 1 in 1000 chances suddenly shorten quite dramatically!

That being said, H&S rules are indeed bandied around unnecessarily in many areas of the way we live, but as Tim has given us all an eye-opener in the biological risks, I'm quite happy to concede that in this specific area the precautions are necessary.

Oh dear ! we do seem to have a lot of po faced people around at present.

The smiley face was merely to represent a semi humorous quick reply to the previous comment - not to insinuate that HIV or Hepatitis was "hilarious" - as you wrongly imply !
I did not suggest that Hepatitis B was the most common blood borne disease - just that variant B is the most common form of Hepatitis.
Perhaps you should read what I put, not what your own narrow view thought I might have put:  :)   ( Smiley indicates that no ill-will meant ! - in case that is misunderstood too !)

Again, my main point is being mis-interpreted/ignored, I did not say anywhere that sensible precautions should not be taken, merely that rigid, dogmatic adherence to a plethora of mis-guided rules/regulations causes many more problems than an incident deserves.
I referred earlier in this thread to the car in the River Avon incident:  IF it really was the case that police officers stood on a river bank a few feet from a submerged car doing nothing for over 90 minutes because safety rules prevented them attempting to rescue a child in the vehicle............... do I have to say any more ?

If that is indeed the case, then no you don't.

However, it's a completely different kettle of fish if that same event occurred because sensible safety guidelines were misinterpreted, misunderstood or just wrongly applied by the people involved. I know almost nothing about the incident you're describing so can't really make a relevant comment.

There was a further report, and a request for any information anyone might know, on the Maidenhead advertiser's website on Wednesday

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-14965-woman-killed-at-burnham-station-is-named/

 Sometimes it is not just ' a body on the line'.

At the risk of seeming 'po-faced' myself, I think such comments about the police officers involved are unfair. From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/8520107.stm):


Chris.  :(

And we've let you gawp as we go past, and you sue the railway for flashbacks, drink drug problems caused by nightmare from seeing a body in 20 pieces etc

PS I've killed, it ain't nice!!!!!!!!!!!!