So why don't train seats have seat belts ?
Discussion
So how come trains don't have seat belts ?
If I said to my other half, oh don't bother strapping our baby, and don't wear your seat belt, I am only going to drive at 125mph - I'd be shot on the spot
Just out of interest, how many countries actually have seat belts on trains ? Not too many I guess
Is it some kind of personel comfort/freedom issue, or just too plain expensive to fit ? or what ?
Regards John S
If I said to my other half, oh don't bother strapping our baby, and don't wear your seat belt, I am only going to drive at 125mph - I'd be shot on the spot
Just out of interest, how many countries actually have seat belts on trains ? Not too many I guess
Is it some kind of personel comfort/freedom issue, or just too plain expensive to fit ? or what ? Regards John S
Would that be faster than driving in London then ?
So a car has an accident and stops in the length of its bonnet or 100 odd ft, depending on circumstances. So about 2 secs in time say. A train takes, say 8 seconds over a mile and a half, but is derailed and decoupled ? Hmmmmn...
Do you guys think we should have belts in trains ?
So a car has an accident and stops in the length of its bonnet or 100 odd ft, depending on circumstances. So about 2 secs in time say. A train takes, say 8 seconds over a mile and a half, but is derailed and decoupled ? Hmmmmn...
Do you guys think we should have belts in trains ?
Thing about seatbelts is they are there to prevent you hitting the interior of the car when it RAPIDLY decelarates in a crash.
Trains on the other hand are so damn heavy that no matter what they hit they don't slow down in a big hurry so you don't really have too much to fear from hitting things inside the train.
The main problem in trains that derail is the trains disintegrating and collapsing. Now would you really want to be strapped inside a big metal tube thats collapsing around you?
Thought not.
Planes on the other hand have seatbelts in case of massive depressurisation. There was a case where an old boeing exploded on a routine flight at altitude. The roof of the fuselage just came straight off. Being strapped in would help here.
Also crash landings could have people bouncing around in the cabin so again seatbelts are a good idea.
Hope this helps
Andy
(of course its got nothing to do with the fact that the cheapskate train companies can't be arsed installing them
)
Trains on the other hand are so damn heavy that no matter what they hit they don't slow down in a big hurry so you don't really have too much to fear from hitting things inside the train.
The main problem in trains that derail is the trains disintegrating and collapsing. Now would you really want to be strapped inside a big metal tube thats collapsing around you?
Thought not.
Planes on the other hand have seatbelts in case of massive depressurisation. There was a case where an old boeing exploded on a routine flight at altitude. The roof of the fuselage just came straight off. Being strapped in would help here.
Also crash landings could have people bouncing around in the cabin so again seatbelts are a good idea.
Hope this helps
Andy
(of course its got nothing to do with the fact that the cheapskate train companies can't be arsed installing them
)
maybe it's something to do with the fact that for those of us travelling into London by train,by the time you get near to town thre are more people standing than sitting.
there you are strapped into your seat,the train comes to a sudden halt you are then unable to get out of the way of most of the other passengers hurtling toward you.far too dangerous.
there you are strapped into your seat,the train comes to a sudden halt you are then unable to get out of the way of most of the other passengers hurtling toward you.far too dangerous.
Hmm. Seats in trains. I let you know my thoughts next time I'm lucky enough to get to sit in one on my 4 hour a day, 5 day a week commute by train and tube....
Don't know why I'm complaining. Only costs me £3,100 a year to get the train/tube from Reading to Canary Wharf. I shouldn't expect to sit down for that sort of bargain!
Mind you, the £1,200 a year for the priviledge of parking at Reading station makes the travel cost seem relatively cheap....
Don't know why I'm complaining. Only costs me £3,100 a year to get the train/tube from Reading to Canary Wharf. I shouldn't expect to sit down for that sort of bargain!
Mind you, the £1,200 a year for the priviledge of parking at Reading station makes the travel cost seem relatively cheap....
griff2be said: Hmm. Seats in trains. I let you know my thoughts next time I'm lucky enough to get to sit in one on my 4 hour a day, 5 day a week commute by train and tube....
Don't know why I'm complaining. Only costs me £3,100 a year to get the train/tube from Reading to Canary Wharf. I shouldn't expect to sit down for that sort of bargain!
Mind you, the £1,200 a year for the priviledge of parking at Reading station makes the travel cost seem relatively cheap....
it costs me that much to get to work and I don't even get a chauffer. you guys .. all you ever do is complain ...
Griff2be, just imagine when they cut the number of trains into London by 100, surely that will be much better
, the SRA said so. So that's less people travelling in by car according to that lovely trustworthy Ken bloke and less people travelling in by train (cos they can't), oh... sorry... my mistake, Ken said last night they are all going to get the bus, so it's alright.
Has anyone managed to work out how many hundreds of thousands of people won't or shouldn't be able to travel into London by train or car? Has anybody worked out wether the busses can cope? Probably not.
So have I just worked out that the congestion charge won't do what Ken says he wants it to do and what it will do is do exactly what every body else says it will do which is line the pockets of government with absolutely no benefit to the people who pay for it?
Bit like Gatso's really, but you can avoid paying for them.
, the SRA said so. So that's less people travelling in by car according to that lovely trustworthy Ken bloke and less people travelling in by train (cos they can't), oh... sorry... my mistake, Ken said last night they are all going to get the bus, so it's alright. Has anyone managed to work out how many hundreds of thousands of people won't or shouldn't be able to travel into London by train or car? Has anybody worked out wether the busses can cope? Probably not.
So have I just worked out that the congestion charge won't do what Ken says he wants it to do and what it will do is do exactly what every body else says it will do which is line the pockets of government with absolutely no benefit to the people who pay for it?
Bit like Gatso's really, but you can avoid paying for them.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff