A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport for
NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, though
not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would render
the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train. They
had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation about
the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this would
count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why would you go to
all the trouble of trying to compromise the train systems to stop the
train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly where the train would
stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR really facilitate the
offence of stopping a train, or merely the offence of stopping the train
in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport for
NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, though
not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything
that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would
render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major
accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that
releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train.
They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation
about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in
relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that
after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this would
count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways of
compromising a train enter into a determination of whether releasing
the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track
clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay red,
and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why would
you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train systems to
stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly where the
train would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR really
facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or merely the offence of
stopping the train in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?-a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport for
NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, though
not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything
that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would
render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major
accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that
releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train.
They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation
about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in
relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that
after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this would
count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways
of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether
releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates
an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track
clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay
red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why
would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train
systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly
where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR
really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or merely the
offence of stopping the train in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?-a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information in
the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety. Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was able
to show that using the information that way was completely impossible
(not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport
for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything
that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would
render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major
accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that
releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train.
They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation
about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in
relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that
after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this
would count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways
of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether
releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates
an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track
clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay
red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why
would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train
systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly
where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR
really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or merely the
offence of stopping the train in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?-a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information
in the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety.
Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was
able to show that using the information that way was completely
impossible (not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
all very good but what was your purpose in doing it?
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport
for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further >>>>> review and/or redaction.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport
for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further >>>>>> review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport for
NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, though
not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything
that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would
render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major
accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that
releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train.
They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation
about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in
relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that
after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this would
count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways
of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether
releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates
an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track
clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay
red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why
would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train
systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly
where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR
really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or merely the
offence of stopping the train in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?-a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information in
the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety. Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was able
to show that using the information that way was completely impossible
(not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
My case is that using the information that way would either be
impossible, or be very difficult, and that there are much simpler ways
to commit the various offences and/or compromising safety that don't
require the information in the documents.
Who is right legally sometimes seems to come down to legal nuances so
fine as to amount to angels on a pinhead arguments.
Winning GIPA cases is very hard. A casual reading of the GIPA Act gives
the impression that a lot of information should be available, yet the government always comes up with reasons to withhold the information, and
the tribunals and courts usually back them up. It may be that the Act
was written specifically to give the impression to members of parliament that it was about open government, while actually allow the government
to keep stuff hidden. Such duplicity wouldn't come as a surprise.
I have a real concern that a quite specific mistake has been made in the design of the IEDR that would have the result that the doors would
remain locked in a major accident. I'm not going to give details
as long as this case remains live. I know that if I raise it with either Transport for NSW, or the Rail Safety Regulator, I'll just get fobbed
off with vague claims that they've paid attention to safety.
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message >news:7ton4ghsqbglk8imcrlk7gemvc4d5e6bpq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further >>>>>>> review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport for >>>> NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, though >>>> not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything
that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would
render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major
accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that
releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train.
They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation
about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in
relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that
after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this would >>>> count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways
of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether
releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates
an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track
clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay
red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why
would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train
systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly
where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR
really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or merely the
offence of stopping the train in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information in
the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety.
Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was able
to show that using the information that way was completely impossible
(not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
My case is that using the information that way would either be
impossible, or be very difficult, and that there are much simpler ways
to commit the various offences and/or compromising safety that don't
require the information in the documents.
Who is right legally sometimes seems to come down to legal nuances so
fine as to amount to angels on a pinhead arguments.
Winning GIPA cases is very hard. A casual reading of the GIPA Act gives
the impression that a lot of information should be available, yet the
government always comes up with reasons to withhold the information, and
the tribunals and courts usually back them up. It may be that the Act
was written specifically to give the impression to members of parliament
that it was about open government, while actually allow the government
to keep stuff hidden. Such duplicity wouldn't come as a surprise.
I have a real concern that a quite specific mistake has been made in the
design of the IEDR that would have the result that the doors would
remain locked in a major accident. I'm not going to give details
as long as this case remains live. I know that if I raise it with either
Transport for NSW, or the Rail Safety Regulator, I'll just get fobbed
off with vague claims that they've paid attention to safety.
Can you summarise it into a few sentences? I still don't understand
what it is about.
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport
for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything
that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would
render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major
accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that
releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train.
They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation
about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in
relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that
after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this
would count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways
of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether
releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates
an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track
clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay
red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why
would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train
systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly
where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR
really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or merely the
offence of stopping the train in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?-a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information
in the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety.
Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was
able to show that using the information that way was completely
impossible (not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
My case is that using the information that way would either be
impossible, or be very difficult, and that there are much simpler ways
to commit the various offences and/or compromising safety that don't
require the information in the documents.
Who is right legally sometimes seems to come down to legal nuances so
fine as to amount to angels on a pinhead arguments.
Winning GIPA cases is very hard. A casual reading of the GIPA Act
gives the impression that a lot of information should be available,
yet the government always comes up with reasons to withhold the
information, and the tribunals and courts usually back them up. It may
be that the Act was written specifically to give the impression to
members of parliament that it was about open government, while
actually allow the government to keep stuff hidden. Such duplicity
wouldn't come as a surprise.
I have a real concern that a quite specific mistake has been made in
the design of the IEDR that would have the result that the doors would
remain locked in a major accident. I'm not going to give details
as long as this case remains live. I know that if I raise it with
either Transport for NSW, or the Rail Safety Regulator, I'll just get
fobbed off with vague claims that they've paid attention to safety.
Can you summarise it into a few sentences?-a I still don't understand
what it is about.
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message >news:7ton4ghsqbglk8imcrlk7gemvc4d5e6bpq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further >>>>>>> review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport
for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for
further review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything >>>>> that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would >>>>> render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major >>>>> accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions
that releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a
train. They had to back away from that claim after I provided
documentation about the emergency braking system. They then made
other claims in relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back
away from that after I provided documentation about the dead-man's
handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical
staff, they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that
this would count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways >>>>> of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether
releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates >>>>> an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track
clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay
red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why >>>>> would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train
systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know
exactly where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of
the IEDR really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or
merely the offence of stopping the train in a particularly
complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?-a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information
in the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety.
Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was
able to show that using the information that way was completely
impossible (not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
all very good but what was your purpose in doing it?
I was originally motivated by the fact that when the Minister at the
time announced the decision to install an internal emergency door
release system, it was expressly stated that there would be no crew override, and that this decision was based on a detailed risk analysis.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:7ton4ghsqbglk8imcrlk7gemvc4d5e6bpq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, >>>>>>>> though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further >>>>>>>> review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But they're gaining the upper hand...! https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
This is serious!
I want technical information about the internal emergency door release system on trains.Why?
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport for >>>> NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, though >>>> not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything
that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would
render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major
accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that
releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train.
They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation
about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in
relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that after >>>> I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this would >>>> count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways of >>>> compromising a train enter into a determination of whether releasing
the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track clips >>>> beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay red, and
the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why would you go >>>> to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train systems to stop
the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly where the train
would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR really facilitate >>>> the offence of stopping a train, or merely the offence of stopping the >>>> train in a particularly complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language? What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information in
the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety.
Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was able
to show that using the information that way was completely impossible
(not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
My case is that using the information that way would either be
impossible, or be very difficult, and that there are much simpler ways to >> commit the various offences and/or compromising safety that don't require >> the information in the documents.
Who is right legally sometimes seems to come down to legal nuances so
fine as to amount to angels on a pinhead arguments.
Winning GIPA cases is very hard. A casual reading of the GIPA Act gives
the impression that a lot of information should be available, yet the
government always comes up with reasons to withhold the information, and
the tribunals and courts usually back them up. It may be that the Act was >> written specifically to give the impression to members of parliament that >> it was about open government, while actually allow the government to keep >> stuff hidden. Such duplicity wouldn't come as a surprise.
I have a real concern that a quite specific mistake has been made in the
design of the IEDR that would have the result that the doors would remain >> locked in a major accident. I'm not going to give details
as long as this case remains live. I know that if I raise it with either
Transport for NSW, or the Rail Safety Regulator, I'll just get fobbed off >> with vague claims that they've paid attention to safety.
Can you summarise it into a few sentences?
I still don't understand what it is about.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message >>news:7ton4ghsqbglk8imcrlk7gemvc4d5e6bpq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, >>>>>>>> though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for
further
review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But surely the tree menace is more
important than trains and their doors;
why are not the authorities attending
to this encroaching tree plague?
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message >>news:7ton4ghsqbglk8imcrlk7gemvc4d5e6bpq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, >>>>>>>> though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for
further
review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But they're gaining the upper hand...!
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
This is serious!
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message news:lhvn4ghtr85mi4idmmfjh91vvv9nnc30vd@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message >>>news:7ton4ghsqbglk8imcrlk7gemvc4d5e6bpq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> >>>> wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR). >>>>>>>>>
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, >>>>>>>>> though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for >>>>>>>>> further
review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But they're gaining the upper hand...!
Nope fuck all since 1950. just two.
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
This is serious!
Nope. FAR more get eaten by sharks, choke on their dinner,
fall over the cat or dog, get killed by bee stings etc etc etc.
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message news:lhvn4ghtr85mi4idmmfjh91vvv9nnc30vd@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:7ton4ghsqbglk8imcrlk7gemvc4d5e6bpq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:34:32 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> >>>> wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR). >>>>>>>>>
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, >>>>>>>>> though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for >>>>>>>>> further
review and/or redaction.
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees?-a-a And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But they're gaining the upper hand...!
Nope fuck all since 1950. just two.
I want technical information about the internal
emergency door release system on trains.
Why?
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency door releaseWhy?
system on trains.
On 12/03/2021 7:34 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for
further review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including
anything that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder >>>>>> that would render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed
after a major accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions
that releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a >>>>>> train. They had to back away from that claim after I provided
documentation about the emergency braking system. They then made
other claims in relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back >>>>>> away from that after I provided documentation about the dead-man's >>>>>> handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical
staff, they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that >>>>>> this would count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an >>>>>> appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other
ways of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether >>>>>> releasing the information prejudices a safety system or
facilitates an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track >>>>>> clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay >>>>>> red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So
why would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the
train systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know >>>>>> exactly where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of >>>>>> the IEDR really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or
merely the offence of stopping the train in a particularly
complicated way?
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language?-a What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the
information in the documents to commit various offences and/or
compromise safety. Originally this included deliberately crashing
trains, though I was able to show that using the information that
way was completely impossible (not merely difficult), and they
withdrew that.
all very good but what was your purpose in doing it?
I was originally motivated by the fact that when the Minister at the
time announced the decision to install an internal emergency door
release system, it was expressly stated that there would be no crew
override, and that this decision was based on a detailed risk analysis.
If it keeps you off the streets fair enough. Still can't figure out what your personal interest in this is.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But surely the tree menace is more important than trains and their
doors; why are not the authorities attending to this encroaching tree
plague?
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual.
Anything that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged, planted, watered, fed, etc.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:40:36 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But surely the tree menace is more important than trains and their
doors; why are not the authorities attending to this encroaching tree
plague?
Tip: stay out of the woods.
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That worried
take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape window breaker emergency hammers
On 13-Mar-21 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That
worried take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape window
breaker emergency hammers
No, despite Phil's inability to remember things correctly, the nearest
I've ever got to being trapped in a train was a 15 minute delay caused
when a train stopped in Sydney because of trespassers* in the rail
corridor. If anyone I know has been trapped, they either didn't mention
it to me, or I've forgotten.
[*] (Let them get run over, I say, though I suppose it would be no fun
for the driver).
On 13-Mar-21 11:19 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:34 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 7:16 pm, Dechucka wrote:
On 12/03/2021 7:08 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Mar-21 5:47 pm, Max wrote:
On 12/03/2021 3:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport >>>>>>> for NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a >>>>>>>
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents,
though not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things. >>>>>>>
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further >>>>>>> review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything >>>>>>> that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would >>>>>>> render the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major >>>>>>> accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that >>>>>>> releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train. >>>>>>> They had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation >>>>>>> about the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in >>>>>>> relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that >>>>>>> after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system. >>>>>>>
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff, >>>>>>> they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this >>>>>>> would count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an >>>>>>> appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways >>>>>>> of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether
releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates >>>>>>> an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track >>>>>>> clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay >>>>>>> red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why >>>>>>> would you go to all the trouble of trying to compromise the train >>>>>>> systems to stop the train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly >>>>>>> where the train would stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR >>>>>>> really facilitate the offence of stopping a train, or merely the >>>>>>> offence of stopping the train in a particularly complicated way? >>>>>>>
Sylvia.
Can you summarise the case in lay-man's language? What was your
argument and what was their's ?
In essence their case was that a bad person could use the information >>>>> in the documents to commit various offences and/or compromise safety. >>>>> Originally this included deliberately crashing trains, though I was >>>>> able to show that using the information that way was completely
impossible (not merely difficult), and they withdrew that.
all very good but what was your purpose in doing it?
I was originally motivated by the fact that when the Minister at the
time announced the decision to install an internal emergency door
release system, it was expressly stated that there would be no crew
override, and that this decision was based on a detailed risk analysis.
If it keeps you off the streets fair enough. Still can't figure out what
your personal interest in this is.
Sometimes an individual picks up and runs with a particular issue of
public significance.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:40:36 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
Is this the sort of matter possibly transposed to the serious problem
of feral city trees? And their propensity to wreck dwellings and
footpaths, and clog guttering, and obscure the view?
Nope, few terrorists exploit those trees to fuck people over.
But surely the tree menace is more important than trains and their
doors; why are not the authorities attending to this encroaching tree
plague?
Tip: stay out of the woods.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual.
Anything that reduces the plague of homo sapiens
is to be encouraged, planted, watered, fed, etc.
On 13/03/2021 11:55 am, News 2021 wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual.
Anything that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged,
planted, watered, fed, etc.
3 killed in the last year during the brushfires
On 13/03/2021 12:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That worried >>> take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape window breaker
emergency hammers
No, despite Phil's inability to remember things correctly, the nearest
I've ever got to being trapped in a train was a 15 minute delay caused
when a train stopped in Sydney because of trespassers* in the rail
corridor. If anyone I know has been trapped, they either didn't mention
it to me, or I've forgotten.
While what you found out was interesting you seem to be a Karen, did you cite the Magna Carta?
[*] (Let them get run over, I say, though I suppose it would be no fun
for the driver).
and your a very sick person saying a person should die so you're not 15 minutes late
"Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:89CdnSEhreUGk9H9nZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
On 13/03/2021 11:55 am, News 2021 wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual.
Anything that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged,
planted, watered, fed, etc.
3 killed in the last year during the brushfires
Only because they were stupid enough to be in the bushfire itself or the remains of one.
On 13/03/2021 12:22 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That
worried take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape
window breaker emergency hammers
No, despite Phil's inability to remember things correctly, the nearest
I've ever got to being trapped in a train was a 15 minute delay caused
when a train stopped in Sydney because of trespassers* in the rail
corridor. If anyone I know has been trapped, they either didn't
mention it to me, or I've forgotten.
While what you found out was interesting you seem to be a Karen, did you cite the Magna Carta?
[*] (Let them get run over, I say, though I suppose it would be no fun
for the driver).
and your a very sick person saying a person should die so you're not 15 minutes late
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That worried
take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape window breaker emergency hammers
On 13/03/2021 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That
worried take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape window
breaker emergency hammers
Can regular people buy those hammers somewhere?
On 13/03/2021 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That
worried take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape window
breaker emergency hammers
Can regular people buy those hammers somewhere?
On 13/03/2021 2:03 pm, Max wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That
worried take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape
window breaker emergency hammers
Can regular people buy those hammers somewhere?
yes
On 13/03/2021 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency door release >>>>> system on trains.Why?
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That worried
take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape window breaker
emergency hammers
Can regular people buy those hammers somewhere?
On 13-Mar-21 2:03 pm, Max wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:58 am, Dechucka wrote:
On 13/03/2021 11:43 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13-Mar-21 11:22 am, Dechucka wrote:
snip
I want technical information about the internal emergency doorWhy?
release system on trains.
Already explained.
Were you trapped in a train were friends of yours trapped. That
worried take a spark plug or one of those car bus safety escape
window breaker emergency hammers
Can regular people buy those hammers somewhere?
They're easy to find online, but they're only effective against
toughened glass, not laminated glass.
Train windows these days are
laminated.
On 13/03/2021 11:55 am, News 2021 wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Oh dear, those poor innocents to be suddenly pounced on by maraudingTrees are more useful to society than any random individual. Anything3 killed in the last year during the brushfires
that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged,
planted, watered, fed, etc.
and your a very sick person saying a person should die so you're not 15 minutes late
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:00:12 +1100, Dechucka scribed:
On 13/03/2021 11:55 am, News 2021 wrote:Oh dear, those poor innocents to be suddenly pounced on by marauding
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual. Anything3 killed in the last year during the brushfires
that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged,
planted, watered, fed, etc.
trees.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:30:48 +1100, Dechucka scribed:
and your a very sick person saying a person should die so you're not 15
minutes late
You haven't really looked too strongly at many development consents.
hint, allowing higher speeds on arterial roads increases death and ill
health from air pollution.
On 13/03/2021 7:04 pm, News 2021 wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:30:48 +1100, Dechucka scribed:Which has got what to do with anything being discussed?
and your a very sick person saying a person should die so you're not 15
minutes late
You haven't really looked too strongly at many development consents.
hint, allowing higher speeds on arterial roads increases death and ill
health from air pollution.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:30:48 +1100, Dechucka scribed:
and your a very sick person saying a person should die so you're not 15
minutes late
You haven't really looked too strongly at many development consents.
hint, allowing higher speeds on arterial roads increases death and ill
health from air pollution.
A decision has been handed down in my GIPA case against Transport for
NSW regarding the Emergency Internal Door Release (EIDR).
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1781f0576aef2008aa6df60a
Unless Transport for NSW appeals, I get a few extra documents, though
not particularly interesting ones, by the looks of things.
A few other documents get sent back to Transport for NSW for further
review and/or redaction.
Most of the interesting documents remain hidden, including anything that would reveal whether they've made a serious blunder that would render
the EIDR inoperable exactly when it was needed after a major accident.
Transport for NSW originally stated in evidence and submissions that releasing this information could allow terrorists to crash a train. They
had to back away from that claim after I provided documentation about
the emergency braking system. They then made other claims in relation to driver incapacitation, but had to back away from that after I provided documentation about the dead-man's handle system.
If they'd bothered to check their claims with their technical staff,
they'd have known that they were false, and I thought that this would
count against them. Apparently not.
There are some technical points that I think justify my making an
appeal. One in particular relates to the extent to which other ways of compromising a train enter into a determination of whether releasing the information prejudices a safety system or facilitates an offence.
By way of example, if you want to stop a train, just attach track clips beyond the section gap after a signal. The signal will stay red, and the next train will stop right there at the signal. So why would you go to
all the trouble of trying to compromise the train systems to stop the
train, given that you wouldn't even know exactly where the train would
stop. So does knowing the details of the IEDR really facilitate the
offence of stopping a train, or merely the offence of stopping the train
in a particularly complicated way?
How did you go against the other side's legal team?-a Did you feel disadvantaged not being a professional lawyer?
On 14-Mar-21 11:28 am, Max wrote:
How did you go against the other side's legal team? Did you feel
disadvantaged not being a professional lawyer?
Not as regards the law. Perhaps a bit as regards the Tribunal procedure,
and the extent to which it will accept opinion and hearsay evidence. It is permitted to do that, but I thought it would be a bit more sceptical about statements that the respondent's witnesses indicated, only on cross-examination, were hearsay.
If government agencies can get away with presenting hearsay evidence on technical matters, it is a nice way of avoiding meaningful cross-examination.
It seems I could have given evidence myself about the difficulties
inherent in trying to use information in documents to construct something capable of compromising a train's control system, and the limitations of
the "anything can be hacked" concept.
Not sure it would have made any difference here though for legal reasons that I'll raise at my appeal.
On 13/03/2021 6:59 pm, News 2021 wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:00:12 +1100, Dechucka scribed:Yep poor buggers, 2 of whom I knew never went home to the wife and kids.
On 13/03/2021 11:55 am, News 2021 wrote:Oh dear, those poor innocents to be suddenly pounced on by marauding
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual. Anything3 killed in the last year during the brushfires
that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged,
planted, watered, fed, etc.
trees.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 19:07:37 +1100, Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 13/03/2021 6:59 pm, News 2021 wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:00:12 +1100, Dechucka scribed:Yep poor buggers, 2 of whom I knew never went home to the wife and kids.
On 13/03/2021 11:55 am, News 2021 wrote:Oh dear, those poor innocents to be suddenly pounced on by marauding
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual. Anything >>>>> that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged,3 killed in the last year during the brushfires
planted, watered, fed, etc.
trees.
This may be a case of suicide-by-tree.
The more I think about this judgement, the more annoyed I get.
If it is upheld on appeal, it means that any attempt to get
technical information relating to the operation of anything
that affects the safety of the public is going to be defeated
on the simple assertion, not subject to any real cross-examination,
that the information could be used to endanger the public.
This means that an agency can cover up safety flaws
indefinitely, and thus have no real incentive to fix them.
In the context of the IEDR, in the absence of meaningful
release of information, the first time we'll know whether
it is likely to work in a real accident, is when it's needed.
A derailment and fire in the underground part of
the rail network could cost hundreds of lives if people
cannot escape because the IEDR system is flawed.
Should we just trust that such things will be done properly?
I think the Boeing MAX disasters tell us the answer to that.
On 15/03/2021 7:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 19:07:37 +1100, Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 13/03/2021 6:59 pm, News 2021 wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 12:00:12 +1100, Dechucka scribed:Yep poor buggers, 2 of whom I knew never went home to the wife and kids.
On 13/03/2021 11:55 am, News 2021 wrote:Oh dear, those poor innocents to be suddenly pounced on by marauding
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:50:57 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:
But they're gaining the upper hand...!List_of_deaths_from_falling_tree_parts_in_Australia
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/
This is serious!
Nope. Not even 1 per decade.
Trees are more useful to society than any random individual. Anything >>>>>> that reduces the plague of homo sapiens is to be encouraged,3 killed in the last year during the brushfires
planted, watered, fed, etc.
trees.
This may be a case of suicide-by-tree.
Complicated way of doing it. Trees do kill people but so what, unlike >drop-bears they aren't out to get you. I would think that ladders kill
and injure more people while being used than trees.
Complicated way of doing it. Trees do kill people but so what, unlike
drop-bears they aren't out to get you. I would think that ladders kill
and injure more people while being used than trees.
Aye, trees are cunning and feign dishevelment to entice victims to use ladders!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 63 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 492972:56:01 |
| Calls: | 840 |
| Files: | 1,301 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (28,374K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,597 |
