nona the brit wrote:

We do seem to be good at having rail crashes here in the UK Sad

spinnaker wrote:

Why do you mean? Were recently any more crashes?

nona the brit wrote:

Hi Spinnaker, There haven't been any others very recently but it seems as though they happen once a year or so, for various reasons, and most people in the UK seem to think 'oh not again' when we hear of one. I'd always thought of these as rare freak accidents but this little list has made me a bit worried now - here is a list of the most recent ones: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6392041.stm I have no idea how this compares with other countries. The ones this decade from the above link July 2005: A train driver was killed following a level-crossing collision in Kent. 6 November 2004: Seven people died when a high-speed London to Plymouth train, carrying around 300 people, hit a car parked on a level crossing at Ufton Nervet in Berkshire. Six of the dead were on the train, and one was the car driver. August 2003: A train driver died after colliding with a car at a level crossing in Kent. 10 May 2002: Seven people were killed and over 70 injured when a WAGN service from London to King's Lynn crashed at Potters Bar, in Hertfordshire. Three of the four carriages derailed and one ploughed along the platform. Former Transport Secretary Alistair Darling ruled out a public inquiry and the Crown Prosecution Service ruled no member of rail staff would face criminal charges, but Network Rail and the line maintenance company Jarvis admitted civil liability in relation to the crash. 28 February 2001: Ten people were killed when a GNER train from York to London King's Cross crashed at Great Heck, North Yorkshire. A Land Rover, driven by Gary Hart, had slid down an embankment from the M62 into the path of the express train, which was derailed and then collided with a freight train. Hart was later jailed for five years for causing death by dangerous driving. 17 October 2000: Four people were killed and a further 35 hurt when a GNER London to Leeds train, travelling at over 100mph, derailed at Hatfield, Hertfordshire. A broken rail was found to be the "substantial" cause of the accident. Engineering company Balfour Beatty was fined a record £10m and Network Rail was fined £3.5m for breaching safety rules in relation to the crash.

spinnaker wrote:

Hi nona, I'm wondered if you have a big railway net in UK. Furthermore it's sad that there were so many people killed in all accidents. I'm interested if you travel by train anymore. Does the people from UK look the railway as something good or as something bad? Thank you very much indeed!

Marius Hancu wrote:

The whole Europe (including the UK) is using the railways A LOT.

spinnaker wrote:

Well it gives varieties! Italians or the French use it less than for example Swiss people do it.

nona the brit wrote:

I don't know how we compare to other countries. We do have quite an extensive network and it is common for people to use the train to get in and out of cities and towns for work, as our roads are so congested in urban areas. I don't use the train much but then I don't need it to get to work. I just use it sometimes if I'm travelling long distance (less tiring than driving) or if I fancy a trip to London. I've never really considered the safety angle - I think most people think our railways are safe. Just looking at that list of all those accidents together has made me think about it in a different way. I don't think I'd avoid using the train, but clearly we've got some problems here! But, saying that, I have no idea if our accident rate is higher/lower/the same as comparable countries. Some of these accidents are just that - nothing could have been done to stop them. For example, one of the Kent 'collision with car' incidents was caused by the driver deciding to commit suicide and just not considering that he could kill or hurt the people on the train. He deliberately parked his car on a crossing. The landrover one was caused by a tired driver falling asleep (so, yes, he could have prevented it by not driving when so tired, but no-one else could have done anything) and his car veered off the road, down a long bank, through a fence, and on to the tracks.

spinnaker wrote:

In London you have to buy a ticket to get into the city and there were recently demonstrations. Have this tickets solved the problems?

nona the brit wrote:

You mean the congestion charge. You have to pay everytime you take a vehicle into central London during the daytime, and the area has recently been doubled in size (hence the demonstrations). It has reduced the amount of traffic, yes.

spinnaker wrote:

I think it's something good to take care of a city. What do you think about it?

Clive wrote:

Hi Spinnaker, Why are you repeating all this stuff here? Best wishes, Clive

Grammar Geek wrote:

Spinnaker, why don't you start a new thread in Topic of the Moment to discuss this further? It really doesn't belong in this grammatical question, but it would be interesting to hear the views of various people.

Nona The Brit wrote:

I took the first thread off topic originally, sorry, but this would seem to be a good place to continue with it all if anyone is still interested!

I'm interested. In my opinion it's good to take care of a city. What do you think about it?

I'm envious of European countries' infrastructure to support mass transit. Now that I am in Pennsylvania, I have access, for the first time, to public transportation, and when I briefly worked in the city, I used it! And loved it! I can't imagine why anyone who simply works in the same building all day would drive. (It's a different story for people who have to move about in the course of their work day, of course.)

How does London enforce the requiremetn to have the pass or ticket or whatever it is to drive during certain hours? Do you have to display it on your vehicle?