John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:

> Do trains in the US have an emergency cord? Trains in the UK have *always*
> had an emergency cord, and trains in Japan (as far as I know) have *never*
> had one. And do you know, in all the years I used British Rail, the
> emergency cord never got pulled even *once*? Nor do I even recall anyone I
> know recounting an experience of the emergency cord being pulled. Eric will
> no doubt sneer at my once again drawing on personal experience rather than
> falling back on [lies, damned lies and] statistics, but it's a bit like
> America's atom bombs, Ryan - a *deterrent*. It puts people off.

Put people off from using them, because thousands of people could get pissed at
the person who did it? Precisely the point some are trying to make with you,
but you just don't get it. Too many (not all) victims DO NOT WANT attention,
and too many (not all) witnesses, if any, DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK A GIRL WITH A HAND UP HER SKIRT WILL TIE UP AN ENTIRE
TRAIN LINE AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WITH SOMEWHERE TO GO, MUCH LESS DURING PEAK
TIMES, WHEN SHE WON'T TELL NOW?

> Forget chikan for a moment, and just consider. Packing passengers into
> compartments like lumps of meat, units in transit, with no control over
> their destiny between boarding and alighting is just not a quality service.
> Give people that little bit more control over their environment, give them
> the option of blowing the whistle when things are getting out of hand. The
> likely result is that the option will rarely be used, but people will feel
> that much more secure just knowing it is *there*, and miscreants will have
> that much more incentive to think twice.

Think twice about what?

> If a spin-off from that is that once every few months someone pulls the cord

Why would they do that?

> it might be worth it, don't you think?

Worth what?