Should you ignore rules

  bremner 12:08 08 Sep 2013
Locked

A railway worker has been suspended for rescuing a women in a wheelchair when she fell on the track. The company rules dictated the worker should have pressed a button alerting the signaller and must not go on the track without that persons permission. The women was saved.

click here few years ago two PCSO's refused to go into water where a boy had gone under stating they were not trained to do so, so could not enter the water. The child died.

Is it right to break the rules to save someone or should you accept the rules are there to perhaps prevent a greater tragedy?

A

  lotvic 12:37 08 Sep 2013

I think he should have pressed the button to stop any oncoming trains, then 'ignored the rules' to go and help get her off the track. There were several people on the track helping to rescue her. BBC news says "The nearest train was about a quarter of a mile away when the people were on the tracks." but what if it had been nearer?

I consider it to be same sort of risk as a fire - you ring 999 first then see if you can safely give immediate help.

  Fruit Bat /\0/\ 12:48 08 Sep 2013

Rules are there to prevent risk or danger and therefore should be obeyed.

In exceptional circumstances people will often do whatever is necessary to help save lives regardless of personal risk. If they get away with it they are a hero(ine), if they fail then they are a fool.

Rules are made to be broken, humans will always push the boundaries.

:0)

  spuds 12:49 08 Sep 2013

Ignoring the rules is possibly a basic instinct for most people when someone or something is in peril.

But there are people out there whose self preservation is foremost, yet they could well be the first to object loudly, if they were in need of help at the most inconvenient moment, and others decided not to assist?.

Off subject, but only the other day, there was a local person who jumped into the local canal to rescue a drowning dog, with the end results that this person then got themselves into alight problem, and he had to be rescued himself. When asked why, his response and reaction was one of seeing the owner of the dog and a small child in distress in attempting to rescue their dog, and instincts automatically came in. Asked if he would do the same again, and the man's response was "probably yes".

  namtas 14:48 08 Sep 2013

I believe that these rules relating to safety are made to conform to Health and Safety at work and are put in place not out of common sense but to prevent damage claims. Unfortunately it is a reflection on our society where common sense has gone out of the window and political correctness prevails. My natural instinct would be to get involved and worry afterwards, that is not to say that I would ignore all risks but there is no way that I could stand back and let someone die if there was reasonable chance that taking all things into consideration I could save a life.

  john bunyan 14:53 08 Sep 2013

Like Nelson (see below) there are times when rules may or even should , be disobeyed. As stated above, if you succeed you are praised, if not maybe fired or dead. I could never look on at a drowning accident, for example.

Nelson at Copenhagen

  fourm member 15:00 08 Sep 2013

If there were other people on the track it would seem that the highest priority was to alert the signaller.

It may be that the opening line (based on the way the story was reported) is wrong.

'A railway worker has been suspended for rescuing a women in a wheelchair when she fell on the track.'

The suspension seems to be because he didn't follow the proper procedure.

  Flak999 15:22 08 Sep 2013

I always remember an old Station officer of mine used to say with regard to our brigade orders, that they were for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools!

  Forum Editor 16:29 08 Sep 2013

"If there were other people on the track it would seem that the highest priority was to alert the signaller."

Of course it was. Had this man been on the track when a train passed through there could well have been at least two deaths - he acted negligently if the facts are as stated, although he probably acted without thinking.

  morddwyd 20:45 08 Sep 2013

"to conform to Health and Safety at work and are put in place not out of common sense but to prevent damage claims. "

Popular fallacy. The judiciary rightly keep criminal proceedings of H&S prosecutions very separate from civil proceedings.

Most civil claims are dealt with as a tort, and in many cases H&S convictions are not regarded as relevant evidence and may not be presented.

  namtas 14:39 09 Sep 2013

**morddwyd to conform to Health and Safety at work and are put in place not out of common sense but to prevent damage claims. "**

I am talking grass roots level

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Best Black Friday Deals 2017

Black Friday Deals for Designers & Artists: Adobe, Apple, Corel Painter, Microsoft Surface, Wacom &e…

Best Black Friday Apple Deals 2017

Black Friday 2017 : date, sites participants & bonnes affaires