Tube Ridership Plummets
Aug 5th, 2005, 08:27 AM
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spygirl: Good points - a great security lapse. However, as regards Italian intelligence being superior - i wouldn't feel any more comfortable taking the Rome metro than the tube - unfortunately just as liable to attack - i wonder if the military and police presence in Termini station in Rome is as intense as in Waterloo?
Aug 5th, 2005, 08:43 AM
#22
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm Spygirl - always ready to condemn but often with incorrect or inaccrate information to hand.
Let's see, Osman Hussein's NAME wasn't known to police, merely a couple of rather poor cctv images were available. So... no wonder passport control didn't pick him up at Waterloo - if you study the pictures released of him by London Transport Police (cctv) and by the Italian authorities I think most people would have problem's matching the two - pellmanism this is not.
As for tracking him across Europe via his mobile phone - this was done by British Agencies who then advised the Italians that he'd dumped his British SIM card in northern Italy, bought a new one and could they please track the new number to his final destination - so maybe plaudits, not brickbats could be awarded in equal measure to British and Italian professionals doing a good job.
Furthermore this individual (aka Issac Adus Hamdi) does not fit any accepted "profiling" of a suicide-bomber or memeber of a terrorist organisation or cell. And as yet we've managed to resist the siren calls to lock up all young muslim men.
But anyway, more power to your typing finger(s) - and don't let the facts get in the way of good steaming pile of ordure.
Regards
Dr D.
Let's see, Osman Hussein's NAME wasn't known to police, merely a couple of rather poor cctv images were available. So... no wonder passport control didn't pick him up at Waterloo - if you study the pictures released of him by London Transport Police (cctv) and by the Italian authorities I think most people would have problem's matching the two - pellmanism this is not.
As for tracking him across Europe via his mobile phone - this was done by British Agencies who then advised the Italians that he'd dumped his British SIM card in northern Italy, bought a new one and could they please track the new number to his final destination - so maybe plaudits, not brickbats could be awarded in equal measure to British and Italian professionals doing a good job.
Furthermore this individual (aka Issac Adus Hamdi) does not fit any accepted "profiling" of a suicide-bomber or memeber of a terrorist organisation or cell. And as yet we've managed to resist the siren calls to lock up all young muslim men.
But anyway, more power to your typing finger(s) - and don't let the facts get in the way of good steaming pile of ordure.
Regards
Dr D.
Aug 5th, 2005, 08:44 AM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe some drivers have the illusion that they are more in control of their fate while driving, but either as a driver or as a pedestrian I don't see that we are in control of drunk drivers, poor drivers,large trucks that can't see us, speeding taxis,etc.
Statistics can be used to support almost any argument, but the fact is we all take chances, large and small, everytime we get out of bed. Ever see the statistics on injurious falls in the bathroom?
As for Tube ridership being way down,not surprising,
lower Manhattan is still trying to recover from the economic fallout from 9/11, when for a long time tourists stopped coming to New York. Which, by the way, is a very safe city statistically, in terms of crime, but otherwise its transit system is a security disaster just waiting to happen. But, it seems a lot of our US tax dollars for homeland security are going to small cities in the midwest.
Statistics can be used to support almost any argument, but the fact is we all take chances, large and small, everytime we get out of bed. Ever see the statistics on injurious falls in the bathroom?
As for Tube ridership being way down,not surprising,
lower Manhattan is still trying to recover from the economic fallout from 9/11, when for a long time tourists stopped coming to New York. Which, by the way, is a very safe city statistically, in terms of crime, but otherwise its transit system is a security disaster just waiting to happen. But, it seems a lot of our US tax dollars for homeland security are going to small cities in the midwest.
Aug 5th, 2005, 09:01 AM
#24
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
elaine, that is nonsense. That's like saying your odds of dying by violence can be computed by dividing the total number of such deaths by the population. The fact is that if you are a drug dealer in the inner city, your odds are ~<i>infinitely</i> greater than if you're a middle-class professional living in suburbia.
Similarly, people who obey traffic laws (including those prohibiting driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or fatigue) and who don't allow distractions while driving are <u>significantly</u> less likely to be involved in an accident than those who don't. Not only are they less likely to <i>initiate</i> an accident, they are also in better condition to <i>avert</i> one caused by another driver.
In addition to a driver's condition, there are also the matters of experience and skill, which vary all over the map. So the statement that all drivers are at equal risk for an accident is statistically indefensible.
But the odds of being a victim of terrorism are incalculable, for the reasons given above.
Similarly, people who obey traffic laws (including those prohibiting driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or fatigue) and who don't allow distractions while driving are <u>significantly</u> less likely to be involved in an accident than those who don't. Not only are they less likely to <i>initiate</i> an accident, they are also in better condition to <i>avert</i> one caused by another driver.
In addition to a driver's condition, there are also the matters of experience and skill, which vary all over the map. So the statement that all drivers are at equal risk for an accident is statistically indefensible.
But the odds of being a victim of terrorism are incalculable, for the reasons given above.
Aug 5th, 2005, 09:11 AM
#25
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spygirl: Is your sole aim with regard to this forum to slag off Britain? It's really getting rather tedious.
Dr_DoGood: Thank you for setting her straight on a few facts.
On a lighter note, I'm really not convinced that the word 'ridership' exists in the English language and must admit that it's starting to bug me not inconsiderably!!
Dr_DoGood: Thank you for setting her straight on a few facts.
On a lighter note, I'm really not convinced that the word 'ridership' exists in the English language and must admit that it's starting to bug me not inconsiderably!!
Aug 5th, 2005, 09:11 AM
#26
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not make a statement, nor do I believe, that "all drivers are at equal risk for an accident". I simply do not agree with the above statement that while driving, "one is in control of one's own fate."
Aug 5th, 2005, 09:17 AM
#28
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my statement about controlling one's own fate:
One knows what can happen when one drives. In a terrorist attack no one knows what will happen - the failed attempt comprised bombs with nails in them. It could be chemical/biological/radioactive. All this on top of chaos, and hell. People understandably feel safer in cars.
Also, statistics comparing the two are an impossibility to do with any accuracy. There are some thirty million (I believe) cars in the the UK compared to one thousand (I don't even think it's as much as that) tube trains. There are several million miles of road compared to maybe several thousand miles of track. So the probability of a car fatality is of course vastly greater than an attack on the tube. However, one is localised (i.e. it can only happen on the tube network) whereas the other can occur on any road in the country.
Of course people should still use the tubes, but understandably feel safer in cars...also even before the attacks everyone would like to travel by car as it's more comfortable.
One knows what can happen when one drives. In a terrorist attack no one knows what will happen - the failed attempt comprised bombs with nails in them. It could be chemical/biological/radioactive. All this on top of chaos, and hell. People understandably feel safer in cars.
Also, statistics comparing the two are an impossibility to do with any accuracy. There are some thirty million (I believe) cars in the the UK compared to one thousand (I don't even think it's as much as that) tube trains. There are several million miles of road compared to maybe several thousand miles of track. So the probability of a car fatality is of course vastly greater than an attack on the tube. However, one is localised (i.e. it can only happen on the tube network) whereas the other can occur on any road in the country.
Of course people should still use the tubes, but understandably feel safer in cars...also even before the attacks everyone would like to travel by car as it's more comfortable.
Aug 5th, 2005, 09:22 AM
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One may wonder if, like pedestrians or drivers, one may lessen their risks of being involved in a terrorist incident as well - like not sitting by the door on a tube train, where bomb is likely to be placed it seems - riding in one of the very rear cars because bombers may board with the most crowds in middle cars and wish to do the most damage by putting it in middle cars - sitting by the very back exit door of the rear car - so you can at least get out if smoke, etc. - not traveling in peak hours when bombers are likely to strike, not riding on top decks of buses where bombers seem to strike, monitoring fellow passengers for unusual behavior. Well that's my theory - though the odds of being in terrorist attack are incalculable largely - similar to risks inherent in driving or walking no matter how prudent you may be - drunk drivers, reckless drivers, etc.
"Ridership" is in my dictionary as being 'the number of people who ride a public transport'
"Ridership" is in my dictionary as being 'the number of people who ride a public transport'
Aug 5th, 2005, 10:30 AM
#32
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Guardian article on this says:
weekday reduction largely related to line closures - the reopening of Piccadilly line and Circle line and all other lines except a short segment of one may help numbers bounce back. One wag pointed to the devastating 1987 fire at Kings Cross where many died, that it took 9 months for numbers to bounce back due to fears over safety of this system. (Smoking, incredibly had been tolerated even in stations like Kings X which had wooden escalators!)Wooden escalators have largely been replaced if not all i think. the reopening of the Piccadilly line so soon was called incredible - incredible that the intregrity of the tunnel was 100% preserved - giving credit to Edwardian engineers!
weekday reduction largely related to line closures - the reopening of Piccadilly line and Circle line and all other lines except a short segment of one may help numbers bounce back. One wag pointed to the devastating 1987 fire at Kings Cross where many died, that it took 9 months for numbers to bounce back due to fears over safety of this system. (Smoking, incredibly had been tolerated even in stations like Kings X which had wooden escalators!)Wooden escalators have largely been replaced if not all i think. the reopening of the Piccadilly line so soon was called incredible - incredible that the intregrity of the tunnel was 100% preserved - giving credit to Edwardian engineers!
Aug 5th, 2005, 11:05 AM
#34
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
elaine, your exact words were "Maybe some drivers have the illusion that they are more in control of their fate while driving..."
My post was to point out that <i>it is not an illusion.</i> Having shared office space with an ambulance service, I would venture to say that the <u>vast</u> majority of death and injury in automobile accidents could have been avoided by better drivers. Yes, even good drivers are sometimes blindsided by drunks, runaway trucks, and the like, but many (many) more escape without a scratch, and so you never hear about them.
I can't count the number of times I HAVEN'T been T-Boned at an intersection because I <u>didn't</u> assume that having a green light meant it was safe to proceed. An appalling number of people don't take the simple precaution of looking for nutjobs at their 9 and 3 o'clock before proceeding across a road junction. My chances are better than theirs, because I'm exercising more control than they.
My post was to point out that <i>it is not an illusion.</i> Having shared office space with an ambulance service, I would venture to say that the <u>vast</u> majority of death and injury in automobile accidents could have been avoided by better drivers. Yes, even good drivers are sometimes blindsided by drunks, runaway trucks, and the like, but many (many) more escape without a scratch, and so you never hear about them.
I can't count the number of times I HAVEN'T been T-Boned at an intersection because I <u>didn't</u> assume that having a green light meant it was safe to proceed. An appalling number of people don't take the simple precaution of looking for nutjobs at their 9 and 3 o'clock before proceeding across a road junction. My chances are better than theirs, because I'm exercising more control than they.
Aug 6th, 2005, 05:57 AM
#35
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we can resolve the semantic debate here. I said
'some drivers' have an illusion. Those are not necessarily the ones who are exercising extra caution or checking out the intersection carefully before proceeding through.
People can be under an illusion of control because in fact they are doing little to enhance that control. If people are indeed exercising more control, then it is less of, or not at all, an illusion.
'some drivers' have an illusion. Those are not necessarily the ones who are exercising extra caution or checking out the intersection carefully before proceeding through.
People can be under an illusion of control because in fact they are doing little to enhance that control. If people are indeed exercising more control, then it is less of, or not at all, an illusion.
Aug 6th, 2005, 07:39 AM
#36
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...but either as a driver or as a pedestrian <i>I don't see that we are in control</i> of drunk drivers, poor drivers,large trucks that can't see us, speeding taxis,etc."
"If people are indeed exercising more control, then it is less of, or not at all, an illusion."
Thanks for the clarification.
"If people are indeed exercising more control, then it is less of, or not at all, an illusion."
Thanks for the clarification.
Aug 6th, 2005, 07:21 PM
#37
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcasm is the last refuge, it is neither kind nor useful in debate to take two different sentences from two different contexts and present them as contradictions to each other.
I don't see that we have any control of anyone else's bad or mad behavior. When cancer strikes, or another person tries to blow us up, or acts in a stupid or reckless manner, or even just tries to steal a wallet, we have to hope, essentially, that the odds are that the bad thing happens to someone else.
However that to the extent that we try to be more careful, aware, and defensive ourselves, we do improve our own odds of well being and survival, and to that extent we have exercised more control than we would if we did nothing defensive, healthful, or sensible ourselves. The control may not be complete, but it does help the odds.
If you see the previous two paragraphs as being contradictory to each other, then either you cannot understand, or I cannot explain myself very well. In either case, I'm done here.
I don't see that we have any control of anyone else's bad or mad behavior. When cancer strikes, or another person tries to blow us up, or acts in a stupid or reckless manner, or even just tries to steal a wallet, we have to hope, essentially, that the odds are that the bad thing happens to someone else.
However that to the extent that we try to be more careful, aware, and defensive ourselves, we do improve our own odds of well being and survival, and to that extent we have exercised more control than we would if we did nothing defensive, healthful, or sensible ourselves. The control may not be complete, but it does help the odds.
If you see the previous two paragraphs as being contradictory to each other, then either you cannot understand, or I cannot explain myself very well. In either case, I'm done here.
Aug 6th, 2005, 07:47 PM
#38
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, does it explain what the decrease in usage is compared to? In other words, is it compared to the same time last year -- or has it merely decreased from what it was before July 7? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Tube use always declined in the heat of the summer (who can blame anyone for avoiding it when it gets really hot?). Also business traffic dies way down the end of July and in August, and I thought ridership was always less then. No?
