Train crashes like this are _so_ rare. It's not as safe as flying but AFAICT in rich countries it's the same rough order of magnitude in terms of danger level.
I don't have data but I would imagine crashes on these high speed lines (which always seem to be run at a higher level of professionalism than the general networks) are rarest of all.
I don't think it's a good use of mental energy to plan for a crash like this. You're better off using your brain cycles on hygiene or not losing your luggage.
Most railway deaths in the EU are due to unauthorized people on the tracks or due to crossings. The actual number of passengers deaths has been really low in the past years.
In the EU it's safer than flying, with 0.5 deaths per 100 billion km/ passenger vs 3 deaths per 100 billion kms/ passenger. However, since an airplane flies at, let's say, six times the average speed of a train, the actual probability of dying during a 1-hour trip is almost 40 times more on a plane than on a train.
Do your stats include all rail? Because the average airplane definitely does not travel at 6 times the speed of high-speed rail (more like 2.5-3x), and definitely way faster than regional rail (in the order of 12x)
Brain cycles aren’t a limited supply. Besides, you’ll get to feel a nice jolt of serotonin when you remember to sit backwards.
> I would imagine crashes on these high speed lines (which always seem to be run at a higher level of professionalism than the general networks) are rarest of all
If this crash is anything like the other ones, you might be surprised. Safety complacency tends to cause maintenance failures. Plus the low speed lines are less deadly since the total energy is proportional to velocity squared, and v is low.
In other words, it might be more helpful to look at it as "if they’re run at a higher level of standards, it’s because they have to be".
Statistically you’re probably right, but considering how many brain cycles we waste on non-essentials, it’s just as fun to waste them on this. That way you can start a nerdy conversation with your travel companions, and they can learn to travel without you next time.
> Plus the low speed lines are less deadly since the total energy is proportional to velocity squared, and v is low.
You're forgetting about the probability of a crash.
The vast majority of train crashes is due to an impact with a vehicle on a railway crossing.
However, high-speed rail is grade separated, so it doesn't have railway crossings, which means the main cause of crashes is fundamentally impossible.
In other words: Regular rail has a high rate of crashes (with a small number of fatalities each) due to car/truck drivers screwing up. High-speed rail has a low rate of crashes (with a large-ish number of fatalities each) due to catastrophic failure of track & train equipment.
Zero-risk bias at work. If it’s actually fun for you, don’t let anyone stop you, but I wouldn’t go as far as making it a confident general recommendation.
This is so rare that it's not really worth thinking about, as a passenger (of course, it should be on the _operators_ minds). You're far more likely to die getting to the station.
I feel like airplanes should be designed this way. Outside of takeoff and landing it would be pretty hard to even notice the difference, once you're seated.
At least BEA airliners used to have quite a few backward facing seats, up to half the plane.
However, there were a number of problems - people didn't like sitting in them, people didn't like hearing that their seat wasn't as safe as the others, you can't get as many rows in unless you turn them all backwards, and the structure needs to be designed differently so then you need more spares.
Huh. I'd never thought of this. If that is actually meaningfully beneficial, I wonder if they'd design self driving cars with the seats facing backwards, given there's no longer a necessity to look at the road.
(edit: I guess it's more of no-brainer on a train/bus where you don't have a seat belt)
Not the author, but I think there was some research and it's indeed better for you if you have head support, to be facing back towards the front. If prevents a whole range of injuries, from your neck, to becoming a projectile yourself.
But it's really theoretical, and does not account for the passenger in front of you headed head-first into your throat.
PS: I laughed hard that xlbuttplug2 is answering to deadbabe. The internet lives!
Sitting backwards is beneficial if looking at accidents.
But sitting backwards is very very uncomfortable if there is any kind of uneven acceleration, bumps, swaying, rolling, curvy tracks or whatever. Humans need to look forward at the horizon to get their visual stimuli aligned with their motion/balance sense in the inner ear. If that alignment isn't there, you will get seasick. Backwards makes this even worse.
Babies don't suffer from this, because closing your eyes helps, and infants don't have as strong a reaction to motions anyways, due to them usually being carried by their parents until walking age. So reverse baby seats only work for babies.
That's a serious overgeneralization. It's true for some people, but trains mostly don't bump and swerve enough for that to be a significant problem. Finnish trains have lots of seats facing backwards and while they're not anywhere as fast as something like a TGV, they're still often going 200+ km/h. People seem to be just fine. I just spent 1 hour 40 minutes yesterday sitting backwards, mostly reading a book, with no ill effects.
Infant car seats face backwards, they recommend backwards facing for a long as possible (until the kid is too big to fit comfortably in a backwards facing position).
It's incredibly beneficial. However many people dislike it and want to be facing the direction they are moving in, so best case is probably a train-style 4-seater. Which 2 seats facing forward and 2 backwards.
Train crashes like this are _so_ rare. It's not as safe as flying but AFAICT in rich countries it's the same rough order of magnitude in terms of danger level.
I don't have data but I would imagine crashes on these high speed lines (which always seem to be run at a higher level of professionalism than the general networks) are rarest of all.
I don't think it's a good use of mental energy to plan for a crash like this. You're better off using your brain cycles on hygiene or not losing your luggage.
>It's not as safe as flying
In France and Japan, HSR has had zero fatalities in the entire period of operation.
In China, HSR had AFAIR one fatal crash, with 40 fatalities. Per passenger-mile, Chinese HSR is twice as safe as US air travel.
France has had one fatal crash on an LGV, but it was during initial line testing where some safety systems were bypassed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckwersheim_derailment
3 replies →
>In France and Japan, HSR has had zero fatalities in the entire period of operation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckwersheim_derailment
1 reply →
> I don't have data
Most railway deaths in the EU are due to unauthorized people on the tracks or due to crossings. The actual number of passengers deaths has been really low in the past years.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
> It's not as safe as flying
In the EU it's safer than flying, with 0.5 deaths per 100 billion km/ passenger vs 3 deaths per 100 billion kms/ passenger. However, since an airplane flies at, let's say, six times the average speed of a train, the actual probability of dying during a 1-hour trip is almost 40 times more on a plane than on a train.
Do your stats include all rail? Because the average airplane definitely does not travel at 6 times the speed of high-speed rail (more like 2.5-3x), and definitely way faster than regional rail (in the order of 12x)
Brain cycles aren’t a limited supply. Besides, you’ll get to feel a nice jolt of serotonin when you remember to sit backwards.
> I would imagine crashes on these high speed lines (which always seem to be run at a higher level of professionalism than the general networks) are rarest of all
If this crash is anything like the other ones, you might be surprised. Safety complacency tends to cause maintenance failures. Plus the low speed lines are less deadly since the total energy is proportional to velocity squared, and v is low.
In other words, it might be more helpful to look at it as "if they’re run at a higher level of standards, it’s because they have to be".
Statistically you’re probably right, but considering how many brain cycles we waste on non-essentials, it’s just as fun to waste them on this. That way you can start a nerdy conversation with your travel companions, and they can learn to travel without you next time.
> Plus the low speed lines are less deadly since the total energy is proportional to velocity squared, and v is low.
You're forgetting about the probability of a crash.
The vast majority of train crashes is due to an impact with a vehicle on a railway crossing.
However, high-speed rail is grade separated, so it doesn't have railway crossings, which means the main cause of crashes is fundamentally impossible.
In other words: Regular rail has a high rate of crashes (with a small number of fatalities each) due to car/truck drivers screwing up. High-speed rail has a low rate of crashes (with a large-ish number of fatalities each) due to catastrophic failure of track & train equipment.
> Brain cycles aren’t a limited supply.
Sure they are.
> Besides, you’ll get to feel a nice jolt of serotonin when you remember to sit backwards.
I can also get that by remembering that I'm conquering a superstition and fitting my behavior closer to real risks.
Zero-risk bias at work. If it’s actually fun for you, don’t let anyone stop you, but I wouldn’t go as far as making it a confident general recommendation.
This is so rare that it's not really worth thinking about, as a passenger (of course, it should be on the _operators_ minds). You're far more likely to die getting to the station.
I feel like airplanes should be designed this way. Outside of takeoff and landing it would be pretty hard to even notice the difference, once you're seated.
At least BEA airliners used to have quite a few backward facing seats, up to half the plane.
However, there were a number of problems - people didn't like sitting in them, people didn't like hearing that their seat wasn't as safe as the others, you can't get as many rows in unless you turn them all backwards, and the structure needs to be designed differently so then you need more spares.
C5 Galaxy (US military jumbo cargo plane) has a passenger compartment with rear facing seats.
Huh. I'd never thought of this. If that is actually meaningfully beneficial, I wonder if they'd design self driving cars with the seats facing backwards, given there's no longer a necessity to look at the road.
(edit: I guess it's more of no-brainer on a train/bus where you don't have a seat belt)
Not the author, but I think there was some research and it's indeed better for you if you have head support, to be facing back towards the front. If prevents a whole range of injuries, from your neck, to becoming a projectile yourself.
But it's really theoretical, and does not account for the passenger in front of you headed head-first into your throat.
PS: I laughed hard that xlbuttplug2 is answering to deadbabe. The internet lives!
Interesting. I didnt know this, i always get motiom sickness if i sit facing the opposite direction.
Not sure what kind of cars you drive but in mine all the seats face the same direction. Why would they change that when making it safer?
1 reply →
Sitting backwards is beneficial if looking at accidents.
But sitting backwards is very very uncomfortable if there is any kind of uneven acceleration, bumps, swaying, rolling, curvy tracks or whatever. Humans need to look forward at the horizon to get their visual stimuli aligned with their motion/balance sense in the inner ear. If that alignment isn't there, you will get seasick. Backwards makes this even worse.
Babies don't suffer from this, because closing your eyes helps, and infants don't have as strong a reaction to motions anyways, due to them usually being carried by their parents until walking age. So reverse baby seats only work for babies.
That's a serious overgeneralization. It's true for some people, but trains mostly don't bump and swerve enough for that to be a significant problem. Finnish trains have lots of seats facing backwards and while they're not anywhere as fast as something like a TGV, they're still often going 200+ km/h. People seem to be just fine. I just spent 1 hour 40 minutes yesterday sitting backwards, mostly reading a book, with no ill effects.
Disclaimer I work for Zoox, but here is us crash testing https://youtu.be/597C9OwV0o4
I enjoyed watching that - though it wasn't really related to the seating direction, specifically.
Are you one of the safety engineers? Have you discovered anything which isn't included in normal safety tests which should be?
Infant car seats face backwards, they recommend backwards facing for a long as possible (until the kid is too big to fit comfortably in a backwards facing position).
It's incredibly beneficial. However many people dislike it and want to be facing the direction they are moving in, so best case is probably a train-style 4-seater. Which 2 seats facing forward and 2 backwards.
Or sit in the back of the train rather than the front
Middle.
It was the rear carriage which derailed
... but it seems most casualties in this accident are the passengers in the first carriages of the second train.
You never know.