2 ms·

There are several mentions of "safety concerns" and "risk", but unless I missed something there is only one recorded fatality mentioned in the article, and it o

There are several mentions of "safety concerns" and "risk", but unless I missed something there is only one recorded fatality mentioned in the article, and it occurred in 2012. I'd be really interested to find out how many people have been injured or killed using typical elevators versus paternoster (obviously taking into account how many more people have used the former). I assume insurance companies have already done the math on this and that's why they were phased out.

chestnut-tree 12y ago
For some people, a regular lift (elevator) is always going to be more convenient e.g. someone in a wheelchair, someone on crutches, someone with a mobility impairment, someone who's blind or has a guide dog. Even someone with luggage or carrying a box who can't see the floor in front of him. A Paternoster is probably fine as long as there is also a regular lift somewhere in the building for people who can't use the Paternoster easily.
dfox 12y ago
In Prague's CTU main campus there are two paternosters and I had heard about two fatalities in them, one of them involved somebody who wedged pair of skis between cabin and platform other one was IIRC also about transporting something obviously impractical. If I understand it correctly, paternosters are so rare that current elevator safety standards ignore them as a separate category and lump paternosters together with normal elevators without cabin doors. Probably every paternoster currently in use not only has safety sensors preventing (reasonably sized) objects being caught between cabin and platform but has had them since it was installed. Similar mechanisms are being retrofitted onto elevators without cabin doors but the implementation is different (as elevator-style proximity sensor that interlocks cabin movement would obviously negate any benefits of paternoster)

chestnut-tree 12y ago

For some people, a regular lift (elevator) is always going to be more convenient e.g. someone in a wheelchair, someone on crutches, someone with a mobility impairment, someone who's blind or has a guide dog. Even someone with luggage or carrying a box who can't see the floor in front of him. A Paternoster is probably fine as long as there is also a regular lift somewhere in the building for people who can't use the Paternoster easily.

dfox 12y ago

In Prague's CTU main campus there are two paternosters and I had heard about two fatalities in them, one of them involved somebody who wedged pair of skis between cabin and platform other one was IIRC also about transporting something obviously impractical. If I understand it correctly, paternosters are so rare that current elevator safety standards ignore them as a separate category and lump paternosters together with normal elevators without cabin doors. Probably every paternoster currently in use not only has safety sensors preventing (reasonably sized) objects being caught between cabin and platform but has had them since it was installed. Similar mechanisms are being retrofitted onto elevators without cabin doors but the implementation is different (as elevator-style proximity sensor that interlocks cabin movement would obviously negate any benefits of paternoster)