Why aren't there seat belts on trains?

Question

Why aren't there seat belts on trains?

Answer 1

trains cant stop as suddenly as cars do

Answer 2

probably because the space in between the seats and they think it is safe thats a good question though

Answer 3

Good question, I guess they don't expect crashes or derailment.

Answer 4

Despite the recent bad publicity, train crashes are very rare events.

Typically 10 people a day die on the roads and there are about 100 road accident related injuries a day.

On the railways in many years less than 10 passengers are killed in a year.

Also because of the large momentum of trains the decelleration in a crash is less than with a car so although people are thrown about inside the carriage in rail accidents, the injuries they suffer tend not to be as horrendous.

Answer 5

Seat belts are primarily installed in cars to prevent the occupant being thrown in a high-rate deceleration (such as hitting another car!)...

In trains, collisions between the train and something that'll cause it to decelerate that hard are extremely rare - and basically require a train/train collision (hitting a car or even truck simply won't stop the train...or cause that rate of deceleration.)

Also, in derailment, rollover, although possible, isn't quite as common (especially in newer designed carriages that have a lower centre of gravity).

However...if there is an accident - on a train, there are a large number of people to be evacuated - and preferably, fast. Seat belts ultimately would hinder that progress - this sounds awful to say, but in some cases, a person is better to be thrown clear than be kept in their seat - train carriages by nature of design aren't as rigid as car passenger areas - and so tend to crush or bend more easily in a crash - in those cases, you are better to be thrown clear of your seat. Seats collapse and frames twist around the passengers - but at the same time, clear of the seats there tends to be a fair bit of "open" space - walkways and the like - and designers have decided that you are statistically safer to risk injury from being thrown a short distance into the clear - than to be held in a seat in an area that may twist, bend or crush...(particularly for legs - peoples legs get pinned under the seat in front.)

From a rescue perspective, it's much easier to move 50 people when most have been thrown clear than if they're strapped into seats but then pinned by crushed metal. The throw will move with the forces happening to the train - so, technically - you'll move the same way the train shape bends - and you'll be moving then away from the bending and flexing of the metal. If you have a seatbelt one - you'll be pinned in your seat, regardless of what happens.

I know throwing sounds awful - but this is the reasoning. In a car - if you are thrown, you have no space to go but out - through the windscreen, onto the road - with a fair chance of more extreme injuries...

On a train, there's a LOT more room - and odds are much, much higher you'll stay on the train and be just thrown into the walkway instead - or another seat. So you won't be nearly as badly hurt.

One more thought too. Drowning - there have been accidents in seatbelt fitted buses when people have been trapped by a seatbelt and unable to move fast enough - and the bus has crashed into water (rivers, etc) and they've drowned - so part of the reasoning is too, if a train was to derail from a bridge, people are more likely to be able to free themselves from a drowning risk by not being trapped in seats...

Even if you're hurt, you have a chance of grabbing something to float on or bouy yourself. If you're pinned - its just up to chance.

Its a gamble that's been weighed up and although neither option sounds nice, its generally viewed train seatbelts are better off not in place...