J9withdogs Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I don't want to through the Chunnel either and have put it down to the fact that I am a control-freak. If your boat sinks, you've got the chance of swimming to safety - if the Chunnel collapses what chance have you got of getting out? I am surprised that it hasn't been the target of terrorist activity. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Sorry Janine, that isn't control freakery, it is illogicality. In truth, you stand little real chance of being able to get to the deck of, and safely off, a stricken car ferry: they turn over and sink far too fast. Think Spirit of Free Enterprise! Added to this is the fact that the chances of a ferry being kyboshed by a pilotless bulk carried in the Dover strait, are far higher than the chance of the tunnel "collapsing". The tunnel is deep into the chalk beneath the sea bed, and was designed so that even a direct hit from a sinking ship wouldn't affect it. Logically, therefore, the tunnel is several times safer than the ferry. Remember also that almost any kind of terrorist attack that would work in the tunnel, would work just as well on a ferry. The only really serious incident in the tunnel was the fire on a freight shuttle with open wagons, and the lessons have been learned. Next time you're on a ferry, have a look at the trucks that are sharing the car deck and ask yourself what would happen if one of those caught fire. Therefore, I think your reasoning is, in truth, irrational: but I'm irrationally for the ferry as well, because I prefer the pause it injects between being at home and abroad. I just get a much more satisfying sense of having arrived somewhere different when I come off a ferry! Could have something to do with the mewing of all those gulls, I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Not everyone perished on The Spirit of Free Enterprise. Although there has been no Chunnel disaster to make a comparison with, I still believe there would be less chance of surviving a derailment/fire/bomb underground. Who's disputing illogicality anyway - I'm a woman (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 True, but it only "sank" in about 35' or so of water! Still, lets just hope neither scenario ever gets proved, one way or the other. Me, I'm still for the ferry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twooks Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 For me the 'chunnel' element has absolutely nothing to do with logic, rationality or risk assessment - I just struggle to cope with it - 'tis a form of claustrophobia I suppose - although small enclosed spaces aren't the problem - it's the amount of earth above me. I can force myself to go underground - but the return has to make it worth the pain - and the chunnel doesn't make enough ticks on the list. B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 One very good point that I like about the tunnel is that if you arrive either late or early you can still get onto the train. Excellent service, running ON TIME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.