Matthew's Journal

There was recently a train crash in Berkshire (details here). I have a few issues with the reportage:

1. OK, seven people died. I feel for their families, and don't want to belittle their grief. But. If it'd been a car crash with 7 fatalities, would it have made the national news? I think not. Whenever there's a train accident, it always makes the headlines, and the idea that railways are dangerous is re-inforced. They are much safer than road travel, FFS!
   
2. A train carrying 300 passengers hit a car at around 100mph. 7 People died, one of whom was in the car. Surely that's testimony to how well-designed trains are?
   
3. The national director of the Rail Passengers Council said that one "big question" that needs "answering quickly" - "why did the train derail in such a catastrophic fashion?". How about "because it hit a car at 100mph!"? Next you'll be telling me that cars should be designed to withstand side-on impacts from high-speed trains...
   
4. The RMT leader said that unmanned crossings on high-speed lines should be scrapped. It is becoming apparant that the car was placed on the line deliberately; so the thesis is that these crossings are unsafe because people can intentionally put cars in the way of trains?
   

Trains are a safe mode of transport, that we should be encouraging people to use instead of cars, not frightening them off with scare-mongering.