Great Western Coffee Shop

I note that a Bill on laser misuse is due to get its second reading this week, with support from the government; https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0075/18075.pdf
It has been extended to include trains. Are there many recorded incidents, presumably not as many/newsworthy as planes?

I think we need to be careful here.  Highlighting the actions of idiots may encourage copycats??

In which case, we ought to stop recording every fatality too.....

There are interesting discussions we've had on this in the past, and it I still watch and wonder about the flagging of "person hit by train".  I have also looked at the very different way that's handled in the USA.

"Person hit by train" - where it's a conscious decision (perhaps copycat) to be hit - is something which has a life changing outcome on him/her. In other words, the price of being a copycat is high, and we have a chance here of flagging up all the negatives to the extend that we can help people off copying.   Certainly that's the USA approach / view.

"Interfering with transport operation with a laser" is intended by the perpetrator to be something that does not have a life changing outcome on him/her.   So it's probably a far more casual decision to do it.   And as such, it's far more likely that the person doing it will have no thought - just grab an idea and copy it.   

This move to frequent posters is made for the same reason that a few other moves have been made over the years; I can recall chemical formulae for the best substances to permanently vandalise train windows, and at least one way of avoid paying fares properly that would be very hard to detect.

Understand change and move, but the original question (wherever answered, or not) was to understand the scale of problem. The problem in the aviation field is much mentioned, but couldn't remember anything in relation to rail.
How to get a balance between understanding a problem, making it worse, or ignoring it.
Could have similar attitude to deaths on the railway/suicides. Has always been a suggestion that if you publish you get copy-cat events. If you don't, does it mean that you don't make any progress on prevention, in so-called "hot spots" (in general the numbers are too small to prove hot spots), or elsewhere. On answers, although have worked in this general area for some years.
In the light of Grahame's comment while I was typing, the topics I mention do not require equal forethought, but consequences can still be serious.

If you're mentally impaired enough not to think that shining a laser at anything being 'driven' might not injure said person(s) that a mention on here might swing your mind, then I'm afraid the same applies to anyone mentally impaired enough to think that taking their life is an equally sensible idea and might well use this method to achieve their aim.

Either state of mind could be reading these threads.

Sorry.

Statisticians outlook (me), look at the numbers in the first instance to scope need, before getting into reasons (feelings tend not to come with the data). Bit clinical?

No, but we need to be careful in both instances.  For the record, I have absolutely no concern about the original post in this thread. 

no, nor do I. At all.

No easy call on the positioning of posts, folks ... but I and / or other moderators or admins need to make decisions on a relatively short timescale with just one or two minds on it which can then be chewed over by dozens for hours on end.

Although the original of this thread was out in public, the only contributions to it at the time of move were frequent posters (I DID look at that), so it actually makes very little practical difference where it is as far as our members are concerned.



Recorded.   Let's move on.  :)

Here are the BTP logs

http://www.btp.police.uk/pdf/FOI%20Response%20228-16%20Laser%20Pen%20incidents.pdf

Bit old - 2014, 2015 and first 2 months of 2016 ...72, 64, 15 (2 months)

So, there's a bill before Parliament, with all its detail in the public domain. Statistics on incidents from British Transport Police also in the public domain. Countless news items easily found with the the simplist of search terms.

And we're worried here about talking of the subject publicly for fear of promulgating laser attacks on trains?

My libertarian leanings do think hiding the discussion away is a bit of an overreaction.

Yes, you have made that clear.

I have explained that moderation decisions have to be made quickly by one of two people and err on the side of safety. They can then be picked over slowly in great detail by lots of people with the benefit of further research and hindsight.   Clearly I have not made that clear to you  ;D

It's pretty academic where this post is anyway, as all contributors were and are in Frequent Posters.  Think I said that earlier, but perhaps not clearly.

Let's move on.  Think I said that earlier too.

Of course, with plenty of time for hindsight, I'm sure that the Mod team can reconsider....it has happened before.

Move on to the topic under discussion?

I do have an opinion on that. I'd prefer if it were in the public domain as it concerns the (already public) parliamentary bill.

The Great Western Franchise Consultation talks about the connection to other public transport to make up toto journeys, rather that to buses.   It means "buses" in 95% of cases, of course - but it's sensible for the specification to be more general.

In the case of the laser law, does it not make sense for all sorts of public transport to be covered (indeed why not all drivers, why not anyone who's not driving) not just airline pilots?  That's presuming we need a law.

I believe a law is needed, and it should be extended to all forms of passenger transport. My reasons are that although there may be a statute that could be used already, such as endangering an aircraft, endangering the safety of railway passengers, it would still help. The scope of the act and any penalty could more easily be changed in reaction to developments - who knows what will follow laser in the pantheon of available menaces? Added to that is the fact that there are no circumstances in which shining a laser into anyone's eyes is a good idea, save when it is done by a doctor for medical reasons.

I am also in favour of opening the topic to public view. The early replies may all have come from frequent posters, but that could because they ARE frequent posters, and more likely to have read and commented quickly. Other posters may bring greater wisdom to the debate.

I'm puzzling  over whether those comments are about this bill as written. Here's a few bits if it:


How wide is that? It leaves out a vehicle controlled by a person not carried by it, or by machinery - though that could still be dazzled. It looks as if it only addresses vehicles that do carry people, irrespective of how big they (meaning the vehicles) are. The few things left out entirely (sledges?) are probably not common enough to worry about.

But remember that the wording is likely to be gone over and altered quite a bit, and will and up sounding a lot more "legalish" by the time it escapes.

The guidance notes from DfT are here (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0075/17075en01.htm).

With thanks to all members who have already posted in this topic, and given their consent / requests for this particular discussion to be moved from our 'frequent posters' area onto the wider public Coffee Shop forum, I have now made that move.

Thanks Chris.

Can't see the requirement for needing to be carrying passengers for a motor vehicle to be covered by this law, Stuving?....

That's why I said "people" - as the driver at least has to be on board to be at risk.

But it's early days, and picking over the wording is what parliamentary committee stages are for - that's what makes them so exciting!

Hands up - I missed the hyperlink, googled it, and read the wrong stuff. The draft that the hyperlink CyclingSid provided, and the extract stuving posted, look both wide enough and narrow enough, if you see what I mean, to be sufficiently "legalish". Although I can imagine a lawyer trying to argue exactly what "on a journey" does or does not mean.