Um, water also flows down hill.

Ludwig

Why the slope?

Mostly to provide drainage as Houllie has already pointed out, the slope also aids wheel chairs, prams, although there is still a need for the train driver to provide a metal plank for disabled people to embark/disembark.

Although my heart leapt into my throat after seeing the footage of the pram on TV, I didn't feel the need for tears - the baby miraculously survived. Yet, I can still cry at the thought of all the children and their parents who drowned on the SIEV X.

Such is the difference between us.

All
Ludwig, Er yes I do believe it. That child will never win a lottery....I recon it's used up all its luck in one action.

The mum isn't totally blameless (unless you believe in the nanny railways :-)(just for col et al) those things do have lock brakes.

H, if one put a low fence or a block the momentum of the pusher and high centre of gravity in these things would simply tip the child out of the push chair on to the tracks.

The slope should be 2-3 degrees towards the centre of the platform. not too steep to make wheel chair access ridiculous.

Although this slope would make cleaning more difficult, probably the the reason it was designed that way....before push chairs and no one has re thought it.(Proof that capitalism and bat Thatcher didn't do such a great job :-( )

Given the number of this type of accidents and cost ($ always come first, my contribution is to point out that push chairs are inherently unstable weight distribution centre of gravity etc. They need redesigning badly.

One could suggest a default brake (dead man system...needing to be held to move.) and somewhere to hang shopping etc. You probably haven't thought about it but the number of children injured involving push chairs is staggering...over tipping etc.

Or in keeping with Ludwig's population concern and H's idiotically simplistic view of me ban Mums.... ahhhh can I start with my wife (and the children? well, make them leave home) and my mum? :-) They still nag me? :-(

Examinator: << One could suggest a default brake (dead man system...needing to be held to move.) >>

Excellent suggestion. But that would take all the fun out of blaming the parents, the railways, the government, private enterprise, architects, engineers, children...

"The slope should be 2-3 degrees towards the centre of the platform."

Yes of course it should Xammy. Crikey, you really do have to wonder what is in the minds of architects / designers that couldn't see the danger for wheelchairs, prams and other wheeled vehicles have access to the platform along the rail line, with absolutely no protection between them and passing trains.

Such a simple solution. Well, before the building stage. Somewhat harder to fix after construction.

"One could suggest a default brake (dead man system...needing to be held to move.)"

I was thinking about this earlier today (while hard at my main holiday passtime of beach-bumming in Byron Bay). I'm not an expert on perambulators, but surely a 'dead man' brake has got to be mandatory...which would lock the vehicle's wheels when it is unattended and only be released when a lever is held in on the handle bar. In fact I can hardly imagine such a vehicle that could so easily roll if left unattended not having one.

As much as I don't want to apportion any blame to the poor mother in this incident, I can't for the life of me imagine a parent allowing such a vehicle to not have a brake of this sort!

Surely any mother could see the potential danger immediately upon the purchase of this sort of pram, or any pram or similar sort of vehicle.

City pavements also slope towards the gutter for drainage. There is a risk that errant prams could wander in front of buses, large trucks and horror of horrors, a four wheel drive. Should all pavements, floors and other surfaces be immediately reviewed to ensure they all are dead level or preferably, slope away from any source of danger? Did anyone mention the danger of ramps and stairs? What about runaway prams on escalators? Ban them all!! As Houellebecq says, if we could save one child it would be worth it.

Then again maybe there should be a training course for driving prams, with an obligatory 100 hours under a learner's permit before the driver can be tested (and failed at least once as an act of bureaucratic bastardry).

On the spot drug and alcohol testing for pram drivers? You betcha!

What about extending the role of the Department of Transport's inspectors to pram inspection? Or better, have prams registered and inspected annually - which would provide a new revenue stream to State governments (sounding good already to pollies that one).

The 'news' is exception reporting, or have we forgotten that? Thousands of children are safely transported daily in prams and only one idiot lets the kid's pram loose on a railway platform. Poetic justice would be for the same dill of a parent to qualify for a Darwin Award by taking a quick trip in a pram instead. Too late now I guess, the genes have already been passed on.