Topic: Safe Standing ( split from: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield)

[CraigDS]

I don’t really get that argument. If the club are willing to let the Kop stand then they should be the forerunners in making sure it’s safe by introducing rail seating (which it currently isn’t).

Is 100% correct.

Either be proactive in forcing fans to sit, or seriously look at safely allowing them to stand. Pussy footing around in the middle is silly.

[andy07]

Is 100% correct.

Either be proactive in forcing fans to sit, or seriously look at safely allowing them to stand. Pussy footing around in the middle is silly.

The Kop will never sit.

The Fans don’t want it.
The Club recognise the benefits of a standing passionate Kop.

We need to take the lead on this. Could even do it over the course of the close season on a 1:1 basis although this would be highly unlikely.  Deferring for a couple of seasons especially with the Rd End expansion would give The Club the opportunity to relocate any existing ST holders who would prefer to move.   

If we can scope out structural reinforcements and access/egress arrangements then an increase in the ratio to 1:1.5 has to be possible.

And all standing 18000 capacity Kop has to be the aim.

Would take us nicely up to 67000.

[roma77]

The Kop will never sit.

The Fans don’t want it.
The Club recognise the benefits of a standing passionate Kop.

We need to take the lead on this. Could even do it over the course of the close season on a 1:1 basis although this would be highly unlikely.  Deferring for a couple of seasons especially with the Rd End expansion would give The Club the opportunity to relocate any existing ST holders who would prefer to move.   

If we can scope out structural reinforcements and access/egress arrangements then an increase in the ratio to 1:1.5 has to be possible.

And all standing 18000 capacity Kop has to be the aim.

Would take us nicely up to 67000.

The Kop will never sit.

The Fans don’t want it.
The Club recognise the benefits of a standing passionate Kop.

We need to take the lead on this. Could even do it over the course of the close season on a 1:1 basis although this would be highly unlikely.  Deferring for a couple of seasons especially with the Rd End expansion would give The Club the opportunity to relocate any existing ST holders who would prefer to move.   

If we can scope out structural reinforcements and access/egress arrangements then an increase in the ratio to 1:1.5 has to be possible.

And all standing 18000 capacity Kop has to be the aim.

Would take us nicely up to 67000.

This

[ripsaw19]

I would love to see a standing Kop again. I was a regular at Anfield in the early 2000's when we stood for Utd and Everton and not much else. The roll of thunder as seats flipped back during a promising attack is a noise that I'll always associate with the Kop but I love the fact that everyone stands every week now no matter who we're playing.
The atmosphere had improved dramatically as well. I know that's helped by being the best team in the world but standing makes a huge difference. We really should look at implementing rail seating as soon as possible to make it safe. That Barcelona match caused me more bruises than a 5 a side match

[Richie69]

I don’t really get that argument. If the club are willing to let the Kop stand then they should be the forerunners in making sure it’s safe by introducing rail seating (which it currently isn’t).

Absolutely, the current situation is a safety issue.

And wasn't there a poll which had the vast majority in favour of safe standing?

[redgriffin73]

We have stood up every game this season in all competitions on the KOP - Even the Shrewsbury game everyone was stood up. There's 2 announcements over the tannoy - a half hearted 'please be aware that we don't condone persistent standing' but unlike a few years back when you had stewards marching up and down the steps demanding that people sit down, I think the club recognise that a standing KOP generates more atmosphere and helps the team and promotes a great brand and are turning a blind eye.

Having said that, unless it increases capacity dramatically (ie 1.5/1) then I don't think the club will see the benefit and just let us carry on doing what we're doing.

If we do implement it, I imagine we'll be the very last team to implement it for obvious reasons.

Couple of games at the start of the season I and a few others nearby had a couple of run ins with a steward about being made to sit but since about September or October they've definitely not been as heavy handed, it was like someone had a word somewhere.

[dudleyred]

Couple of games at the start of the season I and a few others nearby had a couple of run ins with a steward about being made to sit but since about September or October they've definitely not been as heavy handed, it was like someone had a word somewhere.

Thought the same

The announcement sounds like a tick box exercise as well so the club can say they’ve done their bit in raising it at games but they don’t seem bothered now which is great

[Peter McGurk]

At the moment the Kop are all stood. If we put rail seats in for 1500 (like the Mancs) then everyone else would then be forced to sit.

Be careful what we wish for.

Rail seating makes standing safe. Not the other way around. People persistently standing anywhere is a problem. In their heart of hearts, most people it seems do not perceive persistent standing as an unacceptable risk. They either do it or are forced to do it by other people standing in front of them or they sit.

The Taylor Report said people would stand only in ‘moments of excitement’ and this should be expected. It’s an impossible line to draw and it’s pretty clear that whatever Taylor said, people will persistently stand. And persistently standing in a space designed to sit is unsafe.

The options would appear to be to enforce sitting to comply with stadium regulations (announcements, dragging people out, ejections... even stopping games) or provide a system where it is safe to stand persistently.

It would be more than interesting to know what happens at every ground but I’d suggest it’s likely that there’s persistent standing in the home and away ends in every ground in the country and a tendency to stand only in moments of excitement in the ‘stands’. In which case rail seating on the Kop and the like is at least a far safer option.

There’s many and I’d be one of them, who’d see 1:1 safe standing as a disappointment in many respects but at least, it would be safer.

[rob1966]

Rail seating makes standing safe. Not the other way around. People persistently standing anywhere is a problem. In their heart of hearts, most people it seems do not perceive persistent standing as an unacceptable risk. They either do it or are forced to do it by other people standing in front of them or they sit.

The Taylor Report said people would stand only in ‘moments of excitement’ and this should be expected. It’s an impossible line to draw and it’s pretty clear that whatever Taylor said, people will persistently stand. And persistently standing in a space designed to sit is unsafe.

The options would appear to be to enforce sitting to comply with stadium regulations (announcements, dragging people out, ejections... even stopping games) or provide a system where it is safe to stand persistently.

It would be more than interesting to know what happens at every ground but I’d suggest it’s likely that there’s persistent standing in the home and away ends in every ground in the country and a tendency to stand only in moments of excitement in the ‘stands’. In which case rail seating on the Kop and the like is at least a far safer option.

There’s many and I’d be one of them, who’d see 1:1 safe standing as a disappointment in many respects but at least, it would be safer.

I have never seen an issue with the actual standing up to watch the game, we moved our seasies into the Kop circa 2006 so we could stand, its always been how you stand. Started in the paddock in the 70's, then Anny Rd North, with our kid stood on a unigate milk crate (Try taking one of them into a ground these days ) then into the pandemonium that was the kop. Never felt unsafe as we weren't penned in. When you stand in the Kop now and people come from other seats and try and stand with you, then it doesn't feel safe as you feel squeezed. I'd be happy with 1:1 standing, having the rail makes it safer, but I really don't want that close proximity to others anymore, being squeezed together doesn't suit me anymore.

[Eeyore]

Rail seating makes standing safe.

To be fair I think that is an exaggeration Peter. Whilst rail seating is undoubtedly safer in terms of people falling over the seat in front, it also raises issues of it's own. The biggest one is that it is harder to prevent an area becoming overcrowded. Fans tend to congregate in the centre of stands because both the atmosphere and view are better. Get too many people in one area and safety becomes an issue especially when fans are trying to leave. It also becomes harder to Police a crowd because there is less traceability.

Not the other way around. People persistently standing anywhere is a problem. In their heart of hearts, most people it seems do not perceive persistent standing as an unacceptable risk. They either do it or are forced to do it by other people standing in front of them or they sit.

The Taylor Report said people would stand only in ‘moments of excitement’ and this should be expected. It’s an impossible line to draw and it’s pretty clear that whatever Taylor said, people will persistently stand. And persistently standing in a space designed to sit is unsafe.

The options would appear to be to enforce sitting to comply with stadium regulations (announcements, dragging people out, ejections... even stopping games) or provide a system where it is safe to stand persistently.

It would be more than interesting to know what happens at every ground but I’d suggest it’s likely that there’s persistent standing in the home and away ends in every ground in the country and a tendency to stand only in moments of excitement in the ‘stands’. In which case rail seating on the Kop and the like is at least a far safer option.

There’s many and I’d be one of them, who’d see 1:1 safe standing as a disappointment in many respects but at least, it would be safer.

It would only be safer if you can guarantee that everyone will stand where they are supposed to stand. Given that the authorities are unable to get people to comply with the requirement to remain seated I think it is a bit of a stretch.

[18 yard line]

To be fair I think that is an exaggeration Peter. Whilst rail seating is undoubtedly safer in terms of people falling over the seat in front, it also raises issues of it's own. The biggest one is that it is harder to prevent an area becoming overcrowded. Fans tend to congregate in the centre of stands because both the atmosphere and view are better. Get too many people in one area and safety becomes an issue especially when fans are trying to leave. It also becomes harder to Police a crowd because there is less traceability.

It would only be safer if you can guarantee that everyone will stand where they are supposed to stand. Given that the authorities are unable to get people to comply with the requirement to remain seated I think it is a bit of a stretch.

I get this point, but has there been any suggestion of this being an issue in Parkhead, the lower league grounds in UK or those stadia in Europe with safe standing? Even if some tried this on, proper ‘policing’ by stewards and more importantly fans themselves would quickly sort it out.

[Peter McGurk]

I get this point, but has there been any suggestion of this being an issue in Parkhead, the lower league grounds in UK or those stadia in Europe with safe standing? Even if some tried this on, proper ‘policing’ by stewards and more importantly fans themselves would quickly sort it out.

It’s by no means an exaggeration to say that rail seating/ safe standing is safe. And the control of where you stand is at least as good as that for where you sit.

Better, the stand is split into sections to control movement between them, so ‘bunching’ is limited. What’s more, safe standing is safe at more or less twice the density. So if people jump in it’s still safe. Not only that, there’s a barrier every second step. Nothing like what we have now (no barriers) or the old standing (every dozen or so steps).

As for not wanting to stand close, that’s personal preference. Back in the day, you moved further back or you sat in the stands. It would never be like the old Kop but Kop standing was never for everyone.

[geoffpd]

As I understand it, the original ‘Rail Seat’ allowed 1 person to be seated OR when the seat was raised and locked, 2 people standing one standing in front of the other.
Now you would think ‘Fabulous, we can double the capacity!’
NO!
You can’t just swap a normal stadium seat for a rail seat simply because the distance between the seats front-to-back must be LARGER for a rail seat to enable one-behind-the-other standing.
So if the current seat pitch is for example 30”, the RAIL seat pitch needs to be 36”.
This is why you see comparisons between current seat capacity and rail seat capacity of 1.8 and not 2...... I think!


[You may have an iPhone but you are still using the free version of Tapatalk and spamming us with that knowledge]

[Peter McGurk]

As I understand it, the original ‘Rail Seat’ allowed 1 person to be seated OR when the seat was raised and locked, 2 people standing one standing in front of the other.
Now you would think ‘Fabulous, we can double the capacity!’
NO!
You can’t just swap a normal stadium seat for a rail seat simply because the distance between the seats front-to-back must be LARGER for a rail seat to enable one-behind-the-other standing.
So if the current seat pitch is for example 30”, the RAIL seat pitch needs to be 36”.
This is why you see comparisons between current seat capacity and rail seat capacity of 1.8 and not 2...... I think!


[You may have an iPhone but you are still using the free version of Tapatalk and spamming us with that knowledge]

In the UK, there is a minimum step width for standing and it's 280mm. So if the existing step is more than 560mm (and nearly every stand in the country is), you can accommodate two people standing for one person sitting. But if you have more people, you need more exits, so you end up roughly at 1:1.8.

There's a complex formula for determining the height of the steps to achieve a good view (the C-value) and hence the step pitch.

The Green Book safety guide recommends a maximum pitch of 25 degrees but did not contemplate a barrier every other step as in rail seating, which in theory allows for steeper steps. The step pitch at Celtic for example varies from the front to rear, from 21 to 29.5 degrees. The Kop is around 28 degrees.

In 'conversions' from sitting to standing, two people can stand on one flat step.

Personally, I’d prefer a steeper Kop (like the Yellow Wall) but the basic geometry as it stands could take safe standing/ rail seating.

.

[andy07]

I get this point, but has there been any suggestion of this being an issue in Parkhead, the lower league grounds in UK or those stadia in Europe with safe standing? Even if some tried this on, proper ‘policing’ by stewards and more importantly fans themselves would quickly sort it out.

celtic have 3000 in the corner section.  They are stewarded and if fans are found to be standing in the wrong place they lose their season ticket. So an element of self policing applies. 

[Adamski LFC]

celtic have 3000 in the corner section.  They are stewarded and if fans are found to be standing in the wrong place they lose their season ticket. So an element of self policing applies. 

Surely, admin like this is a great example, if true.  Could other things like missing the next month of matches, have your count of away games/euros set to zero, or similar, lead to self policing for the rail seating. You could even tier it for first, second and third digression away from the rules and make it part of the season ticket terms and conditions.

Lastly, I think I remember that CCTV is increased for rail seating allowing for cases to be proved and transparency of the action that led to the rule breakage.  An email could be sent explaining the punishment and a Gif of the transgression so the reason would be clear and obvious, to borrow from VAR.

Would anyone else see the Kop being the last stand to be developed, such that opposition to standing with rail seating will dry up and many more examples of it successfully being deployed will exist in other clubs.  Then a Red Rail Wall will be developed to deliver a more intimidating and invictive stand.  Something to look forward to in the longer term?

[Eeyore]

Surely, admin like this is a great example, if true.  Could other things like missing the next month of matches, have your count of away games/euros set to zero, or similar, lead to self policing for the rail seating. You could even tier it for first, second and third digression away from the rules and make it part of the season ticket terms and conditions.

It is in the terms and conditions that you do not persistently stand. The problem is if there is a willingness to enforce those conditions. Clubs are in a difficult position because they do not want disaffect their own customers.

Lastly, I think I remember that CCTV is increased for rail seating allowing for cases to be proved and transparency of the action that led to the rule breakage.  An email could be sent explaining the punishment and a Gif of the transgression so the reason would be clear and obvious, to borrow from VAR.

Would anyone else see the Kop being the last stand to be developed, such that opposition to standing with rail seating will dry up and many more examples of it successfully being deployed will exist in other clubs.  Then a Red Rail Wall will be developed to deliver a more intimidating and invictive stand.  Something to look forward to in the longer term?

It is not just CCTV you also need to increase the number of stewards, then you have to pay to install the rail seating so if it is 1:1 rail seating then you increase your cost base without any increase in revenue. Then you have the problem of people usually paying a premium for seating, so do you increase the price of getting a seat or do you reduce the price for a standing ticket.

Celtic's rail seating is in a corner, a small area and low down. So there is less clamour to get in the centre to get a good view, has less problems with stairwells and is more manageable because of the relatively small size of the standing area.

Personally I think the argument is far more nuanced than the pro rail seating advocates would have us believe.

[Macred]

It is in the terms and conditions that you do not persistently stand. The problem is if there is a willingness to enforce those conditions. Clubs are in a difficult position because they do not want disaffect their own customers.

It is not just CCTV you also need to increase the number of stewards, then you have to pay to install the rail seating so if it is 1:1 rail seating then you increase your cost base without any increase in revenue. Then you have the problem of people usually paying a premium for seating, so do you increase the price of getting a seat or do you reduce the price for a standing ticket.

Celtic's rail seating is in a corner, a small area and low down. So there is less clamour to get in the centre to get a good view, has less problems with stairwells and is more manageable because of the relatively small size of the standing area.

Personally I think the argument is far more nuanced than the pro rail seating advocates would have us believe.

Personally, I think you are finding problems and not thinking of solutions, the technology exists today to manage all the situations to which you refer. Furthermore, 1:1, so like the Main Stand and ARE then... and then you add more seats...  and you have a Kop members Kop Dugout if the revenue from the additional seats is not enough.

[Peter McGurk]

...It is not just CCTV you also need to increase the number of stewards, then you have to pay to install the rail seating so if it is 1:1 rail seating then you increase your cost base without any increase in revenue. Then you have the problem of people usually paying a premium for seating, so do you increase the price of getting a seat or do you reduce the price for a standing ticket...

If it's 1:1, what would the reason be to increase the numbers of stewards? There is the additional cost of installing rail seats but that's the price to pay to make the current unsafe situation safe.

With regards to CCTV, if I recall, the technology is already there to pick out individual faces at Anfield, which I'm sure would help 'self' policing significantly.

[Eeyore]

If it's 1:1, what would the reason be to increase the numbers of stewards? There is the additional cost of installing rail seats but that's the price to pay to make the current unsafe situation safe.

With regards to CCTV, if I recall, the technology is already there to pick out individual faces at Anfield, which I'm sure would help 'self' policing significantly.

From Schalke.

"Standing is absolutely safe," said the Schalke spokesman, before describing the security measures in Gelsenkirchen: "The number of stewards on the terrace is higher than in other areas of the stadium. This guarantees that stairways and exit routes are kept free."

When you increase fans ability to move around you need more stewards to keep things safe.

As for using facial recognition for me that raises huge privacy concerns.

[emitime]

From Schalke.

"Standing is absolutely safe," said the Schalke spokesman, before describing the security measures in Gelsenkirchen: "The number of stewards on the terrace is higher than in other areas of the stadium. This guarantees that stairways and exit routes are kept free."

Terraces are not safe standing.

[Adamski LFC]

I think terrace was a short word for up to date terracing/safe standing

We may find that when at last the chance to develop the Kop comes around we may even have safe standing 2 which in itself would be better than the current form, who knows?

[emitime]

I think terrace was a short word for up to date terracing/safe standing

It's definitely a terrace and not 'safe standing'.

[Eeyore]

It's definitely a terrace and not 'safe standing'.

Cheers for that mate.

[Adamski LFC]

It's definitely a terrace and not 'safe standing'.

My mistake then

What do Celtic have then is that safe standing compliant or any other grounds in UK?

[emitime]

My mistake then

What do Celtic have then is that safe standing compliant or any other grounds in UK?

Yeah Celtic is safe standing



Not aware of any of the other UK clubs with it, apart from very limited trials with a handful of seats.

There's still a few lower league clubs with terraces because they weren't big enough to be needed to be converted to seating.

[whiteboots]

It is in the terms and conditions that you do not persistently stand. The problem is if there is a willingness to enforce those conditions. Clubs are in a difficult position because they do not want disaffect their own customers.

It is not just CCTV you also need to increase the number of stewards, then you have to pay to install the rail seating so if it is 1:1 rail seating then you increase your cost base without any increase in revenue. Then you have the problem of people usually paying a premium for seating, so do you increase the price of getting a seat or do you reduce the price for a standing ticket.

Celtic's rail seating is in a corner, a small area and low down. So there is less clamour to get in the centre to get a good view, has less problems with stairwells and is more manageable because of the relatively small size of the standing area.

Personally I think the argument is far more nuanced than the pro rail seating advocates would have us believe.

I think that it is pretty straight forwards.

Top flight stadia are all seater. Most grounds see persistent standing. Fans stand because they want to, and do not see it as a safety issue. Factually they are right, no-one has died in a crowd related fatality in the UK post Taylor.

But persistent standing is a problem. It removes choice. Some want to sit but cannot because of standing in front of them. It discriminates against the old, infirm, children, and women ( who are on average shorter). In the old days it was easy, you sat in the stands and stood on the terracing. That choice is no more.

1:1 rail seating regularises what is happening now and is safer. It does not make bunching easier, people do that now at aways in numbered seats. It is true that there is cost and no financial benefit to clubs by installing it. But hey, the same could be said of a roof…

We are now thirty years on from the circumstances which created the Hillsborough disaster. Thousands stand on lower league terracing, tens of thousands stand on racecourse terracing, all without incident. I happen to accept that mobbing up on terracing is a specific football issue, but do not accept that there is any argument whatsoever against 1:1 rail seating.

[dudleyred]

Yeah Celtic is safe standing



Not aware of any of the other UK clubs with it, apart from very limited trials with a handful of seats.

There's still a few lower league clubs with terraces because they weren't big enough to be needed to be converted to seating.

Shrewsbury were the first to have it. Only 1000 capacity I think. It’s allowed in leagues one and two I believe

[whiteboots]

Shrewsbury were the first to have it. Only 1000 capacity I think. It’s allowed in leagues one and two I believe

Is 1:1 rail seating not permitted in  the top two tiers?

Logically, it does not increase capacity, provides a seat, and makes it safer when people are stood, for whatever reason.

What is the legislation which prevents that?

[Eeyore]

I think that it is pretty straight forwards.

Top flight stadia are all seater. Most grounds see persistent standing. Fans stand because they want to, and do not see it as a safety issue. Factually they are right, no-one has died in a crowd related fatality in the UK post Taylor.

There have been crowd related fatalities in the UK since the Taylor report, a couple of notable examples are a Scotland fan dying after falling down a stairwell in 2014 and a United fan died after falling down at the Manchester Derby in 2017. Rail seating allows fans to exit seating areas at a faster rate and means the potential for accidents on stairwells is likely to increase. That means you are likely to either need more stewards more exits or both. More exits means you actually lower the capacity.

But persistent standing is a problem. It removes choice. Some want to sit but cannot because of standing in front of them. It discriminates against the old, infirm, children, and women ( who are on average shorter). In the old days it was easy, you sat in the stands and stood on the terracing. That choice is no more.

1:1 rail seating regularises what is happening now and is safer. It does not make bunching easier, people do that now at aways in numbered seats. It is true that there is cost and no financial benefit to clubs by installing it. But hey, the same could be said of a roof…

We are now thirty years on from the circumstances which created the Hillsborough disaster. Thousands stand on lower league terracing, tens of thousands stand on racecourse terracing, all without incident. I happen to accept that mobbing up on terracing is a specific football issue, but do not accept that there is any argument whatsoever against 1:1 rail seating.

Rail seating increases the amount of space available though. That means it is easier to overcrowd the areas with the best view and the best atmosphere. As you say it already happens with normal seats. Fold away that seat and for me the likelihood is that it will become prevalent.

Personally I think that 1:1 rail seating is the safest option if people obey the rules and the clubs enforce the rules. It isn't perfect though.

[Peter McGurk]

There have been crowd related fatalities in the UK since the Taylor report, a couple of notable examples are a Scotland fan dying after falling down a stairwell in 2014 and a United fan died after falling down at the Manchester Derby in 2017.

The kind of accident can happen anywhere and at any time. Sitting or standing.

Rail seating allows fans to exit seating areas at a faster rate and means the potential for accidents on stairwells is likely to increase. That means you are likely to either need more stewards more exits or both. More exits means you actually lower the capacity.

Aisle widths, the widths and number of exits are a function of evacuation time. The more people you have, the more or the wider the exits you must have to be within the maximum evacuation time. Hence ‘doubling the capacity’ at 2:1 turns out more like 1.8:1.

The escape rate is indeed faster for all areas other than seating areas (and this would actually mean less or less wide exits for standing on a 1:1 basis for the same evacuation time) but the Green Guide guidance indicates the number of stewards is based on capacity (and standard of training etc), not slower or quicker evacuation times. So for the same capacity, arguably less exits and the same number of stewards.

Rail seating increases the amount of space available though. That means it is easier to overcrowd the areas with the best view and the best atmosphere. As you say it already happens with normal seats. Fold away that seat and for me the likelihood is that it will become prevalent.

Standing in seating areas should be stopped. If bunching is happening now, it has to be stopped. It's not safe. The elephant in the room here is selling tickets in blocks with restricted movement into the stand and within it.

Personally I think that 1:1 rail seating is the safest option if people obey the rules and the clubs enforce the rules. It isn't perfect though.

It's already safer, just by having a barrier to stand behind. What everyone does now by standing in a stand designed for seating is unsafe.

[Eeyore]

The kind of accident can happen anywhere and at any time. Sitting or standing.

Except the death at the Manchester Derby was totally avoidable. The coroner was even moved to write a report to both United and the local authority to prevent future deaths.

Aisle widths, the widths and number of exits are a function of evacuation time. The more people you have, the more or the wider the exits you must have to be within the maximum evacuation time. Hence ‘doubling the capacity’ at 2:1 turns out more like 1.8:1.

The escape rate is indeed faster for all areas other than seating areas (and this would actually mean less or less wide exits for standing on a 1:1 basis for the same evacuation time) but the Green Guide guidance indicates the number of stewards is based on capacity (and standard of training etc), not slower or quicker evacuation times. So for the same capacity, arguably less exits and the same number of stewards.

You are basing your analysis on one aspect of the green guide evacuation. You also have to consider the guidance regarding exits. The green guide sets clear standards regarding the size of exits and also the minimum requirements for barriers along those exit routes. Instead of being fixated on evacuation times you also need to consider what happens when stairwells and exit routes become overwhelmed. For every Bradford fire there are far more Ibrox disasters.

Standing in seating areas should be stopped. If bunching is happening now, it has to be stopped. It's not safe. The elephant in the room here is selling tickets in blocks with restricted movement into the stand and within it.

It's already safer, just by having a barrier to stand behind. What everyone does now by standing in a stand designed for seating is unsafe.

Standing isn't being stopped but you seem to be ignoring the fact that we are unable to control what is happening and instead want to introduce more people to the same amount of space.

[Peter McGurk]

Except the death at the Manchester Derby was totally avoidable. The coroner was even moved to write a report to both United and the local authority to prevent future deaths.

The man fell down steps when exiting the ground allegedly because he couldn't reach a handrail because stewards where standing in the way. On this basis it has no relevance to the debate. As I say, could have happened any time and anywhere and irrespective of safe standing or not.

You are basing your analysis on one aspect of the green guide evacuation. You also have to consider the guidance regarding exits. The green guide sets clear standards regarding the size of exits and also the minimum requirements for barriers along those exit routes. Instead of being fixated on evacuation times you also need to consider what happens when stairwells and exit routes become overwhelmed. For every Bradford fire there are far more Ibrox disasters.

You made a point that the number of stewards needs to increase if the crowd stands. This is not the case. The number of stewards relates to the number of people in the stand (and their training etc) and does not relate to width or number of exits or the speed at which people move to exit.

As far as I can recall, the deaths at the Bradford fire were related to the inadequacy of the escape provision (with some final escapes locked), the speed of the fire and the inherent risk of fire arising from accumulation of rubbish under the stand. As I recall, the fire was at least for the most part in a seated section. 66 people died at Ibrox as a result of people turning back on very steep exit steps (actually outside of the terraces). I can't see any relevance to this debate as either event could have happened standing or sitting

Standing isn't being stopped but you seem to be ignoring the fact that we are unable to control what is happening and instead want to introduce more people to the same amount of space.

Again, you made an argument that more stewards were required for standing because there was more risk in a standing area as people exited quicker than sitting on a 1:1 basis. Actually, there is marginally less risk as the time to evacuate is less (and the number of stewards does not change). Rather than a fixation, the evacuation time is a major consideration in calculating the safe capacity of the stand and that calculation includes consideration of number and width of exists as well as smooth flow (barriers, constrictions, reservoir areas and the like).

I think you are confusing the idea that more stewards are required if there are more people (which is correct) with the idea that standing requires more stewards on a 1:1 basis, which it does not. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse.

What I am not ignoring is, is the fact that standing in a seated area - even on a 1:1 basis, is unsafe. If it can't be controlled then making sure that everyone stands behind a barrier can only make it safer. Providing those barriers would be the price of making standing safer. Not an increase in stewards because they wouldn't be needed.

I have never denied that going on to increase capacity beyond 1:1 would require both more or wider exits (and more stewards) - hence the 1.8:1 ratio - but I suggest that would be the price of greater availability but not at the expense of safety.

[PaulD]

Peter
Just to say I very much enjoy the positivity and above all clarity of your posts.
Please keep at it.
 

[Eeyore]

The man fell down steps when exiting the ground allegedly because he couldn't reach a handrail because stewards where standing in the way. On this basis it has no relevance to the debate. As I say, could have happened any time and anywhere and irrespective of safe standing or not.

The relevance is that the supporter died because the stewards who were there to safeguard the supporter failed to do their job properly. Safe standing and the removal of seats clearly makes it more difficult for stewards to do their jobs properly. It is common sense that it is easier to control a situation when people are seated.

You made a point that the number of stewards needs to increase if the crowd stands. This is not the case. The number of stewards relates to the number of people in the stand (and their training etc) and does not relate to width or number of exits or the speed at which people move to exit.

As far as I can recall, the deaths at the Bradford fire were related to the inadequacy of the escape provision (with some final escapes locked), the speed of the fire and the inherent risk of fire arising from accumulation of rubbish under the stand. As I recall, the fire was at least for the most part in a seated section. 66 people died at Ibrox as a result of people turning back on very steep exit steps (actually outside of the terraces). I can't see any relevance to this debate as either event could have happened standing or sitting

Again, you made an argument that more stewards were required for standing because there was more risk in a standing area as people exited quicker than sitting on a 1:1 basis. Actually, there is marginally less risk as the time to evacuate is less (and the number of stewards does not change). Rather than a fixation, the evacuation time is a major consideration in calculating the safe capacity of the stand and that calculation includes consideration of number and width of exists as well as smooth flow (barriers, constrictions, reservoir areas and the like).

I think you are confusing the idea that more stewards are required if there are more people (which is correct) with the idea that standing requires more stewards on a 1:1 basis, which it does not. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Again it is common sense Peter. The most dangerous part of leaving a stadium is not shuffling along the flat area it is using the stairwells that are the dangerous part. As evidenced by the Ibrox disaster, the death at the Manchester Derby and the death at the Scotland game. If you remove the seat and replace it with a rail seat that folds out of the way then in effect you allow twice as many people to exit each row at the same time.

You also have much more space which means people can comfortably congregate in the areas with the best view and the best atmosphere. So unless you have more stewards then before you know it you can have three or four times as many people attempting to hit the stairwells at the same time.

What I am not ignoring is, is the fact that standing in a seated area - even on a 1:1 basis, is unsafe. If it can't be controlled then making sure that everyone stands behind a barrier can only make it safer. Providing those barriers would be the price of making standing safer. Not an increase in stewards because they wouldn't be needed.

I have never denied that going on to increase capacity beyond 1:1 would require both more or wider exits (and more stewards) - hence the 1.8:1 ratio - but I suggest that would be the price of greater availability but not at the expense of safety.

I agree that rail seating and having a barrier increases safety but the point you fail to address is that actually sitting in your seat is the safest option of all. That is why we don't stand in cars or on aeroplanes.

It becomes unsafe because people ignore the rules and clubs turn a blind eye to it. Yet you expect people to obey the rules surrounding safe standing to the letter of the law. Fatalities occur at Football matches for two main reasons areas becoming overcrowded and safety protocols not being followed. A man died at the Manchester Derby because the stewards failed to do their job and watched the match instead of keeping an exit clear.

Despite that your whole argument is based upon stewards somehow regulating how many people are in each area in a fluid situation and somehow stopping the exits from becoming overwhelmed when you remove the terrace furniture.

You are quite simply putting too much reliance on everything going well and removing something that has helped us stay safe which is one seat one fan.

[macca007]

Even if there was an odd one went and stood elsewhere, would still be effectively 1 seat 1 fan as that's what's let through the turnstiles surely? Still the same amount that would need to get out and stewards would just police people going in the aisle as is done already

[Eeyore]

Even if there was an odd one went and stood elsewhere, would still be effectively 1 seat 1 fan as that's what's let through the turnstiles surely? Still the same amount that would need to get out and stewards would just police people going in the aisle as is done already

Unless you isolate each section of the stand so that only people going through a particular turnstile can reach a particular area then the number of people going through a turnstile becomes pretty irrelevant. To do that each section would need its own exits, its own toilets and its own refreshment facilities.

For overcrowding to cause fatalities you don't need the overall capacity to be exceeded all you need is for the most popular areas to become disproportionately overcrowded. Then you have the question of the odd one standing in the wrong area. That is how it starts, a bit like the odd area standing instead of sitting. Then before you know it a whole stand is standing especially for big games.

Look at pictures of the old standing Kop and look at how disproportionately full it was in the area with the best view and atmosphere. That is what happens if you do not enforce the rules and people are allowed to do what they want.

Unfortunately we do not have a great track record of those who we trust to look after us doing so. I think the vast majority of us want to stand at games and recognize that the best way to do that is a properly regulated and enforced safe standing model. My problem is can we trust the relevant authorities to keep us safe.

[PaulD]

Al
Good post!
Do we have any accident and injury information from locations, (Europe) where authorised safe standing has been introduced?

[Peter McGurk]

The relevance is that the supporter died because the stewards who were there to safeguard the supporter failed to do their job properly. Safe standing and the removal of seats clearly makes it more difficult for stewards to do their jobs properly. It is common sense that it is easier to control a situation when people are seated.

Again it is common sense Peter. The most dangerous part of leaving a stadium is not shuffling along the flat area it is using the stairwells that are the dangerous part. As evidenced by the Ibrox disaster, the death at the Manchester Derby and the death at the Scotland game. If you remove the seat and replace it with a rail seat that folds out of the way then in effect you allow twice as many people to exit each row at the same time.

You also have much more space which means people can comfortably congregate in the areas with the best view and the best atmosphere. So unless you have more stewards then before you know it you can have three or four times as many people attempting to hit the stairwells at the same time.



I agree that rail seating and having a barrier increases safety but the point you fail to address is that actually sitting in your seat is the safest option of all. That is why we don't stand in cars or on aeroplanes.

It becomes unsafe because people ignore the rules and clubs turn a blind eye to it. Yet you expect people to obey the rules surrounding safe standing to the letter of the law. Fatalities occur at Football matches for two main reasons areas becoming overcrowded and safety protocols not being followed. A man died at the Manchester Derby because the stewards failed to do their job and watched the match instead of keeping an exit clear.

Despite that your whole argument is based upon stewards somehow regulating how many people are in each area in a fluid situation and somehow stopping the exits from becoming overwhelmed when you remove the terrace furniture.

You are quite simply putting too much reliance on everything going well and removing something that has helped us stay safe which is one seat one fan.

Do you have any touch with the real world at all or do you work in this tangled web of nonsense all the time?

[Macred]

Do you have any touch with the real world at all or do you work in this tangled web of nonsense all the time?

Like a problem looking for a question...