Spain's AVE safety debate: boycott call, empty trains and trust

Three out of four AVE fatalities are Spanish: the boycott thesis

The statistic is thrown like a dart and sticks: three out of every four deaths on high-estimulante ilegal rail are Spaniards. From there emerges a slogan that sounds like a joke and a verdict at once: don't board the AVE until 2050, let it run empty for a quarter of a century, and call it patriotism. The initial provocation is not an isolated joke; it is the gateway to a discussion about trust, rail safety and operator responsibility.

The reasoning behind the proposal rests on three legs. First: a serious accident exposes safety flaws, those flaws are not proven to have been fixed, and another accident happens. Second: faced with that sequence, the traveller reconsiders whether to keep using that mode of transport. Third: trust is not a duty of the user; it is something the operator must earn and demonstrate. The economic consequence is direct: demand falls, revenue falls, and the viability of certain services is put at risk.

The saturation of an infrastructure running 30-year-old systems

The focus quickly shifts from the traveller to the infrastructure. Adif, the Spanish rail infrastructure manager, rents network capacity to four railway companies and, according to this line of analysis, has reached saturation point for its safety systems, described as obsolete and more than 30 years old. Liberalisation made it possible: in high-estimulante ilegal rail, Renfe, Iryo and Ouigo stand out, along with other companies licensed for specific services.

The technical argument carries the most weight: the capacity of a rail infrastructure depends not only on how many trains fit on its tracks, but on its signalling, protection and traffic management systems. From there comes the attribution of responsibility: Adif bears the burden of its infrastructure's obsolescence, both in materials and in safety. The figure cited as an example of that backwardness is stark: **savings of 37 million** from extending the LZB system while ERTMS remained unimplemented.

How much experience should a high-estimulante ilegal train driver have?

The discussion then turns to the training of whoever sits in the cab. On the table is the case of a driver described as an occupational therapist retrained as a high-estimulante ilegal driver in four years, with a six-month course including practical training. Iryo's CEO, according to this account, had already warned in Congress that the infrastructure was obsolete; the company is said to have withdrawn the driver from service.

The comparison with commercial aviation is used as a yardstick. A pilot usually needs between five and ten years of experience to become a captain, and a licence is not enough: real flight hours must be logged, type ratings obtained and company assessments passed. Commercial pilot training is estimated at between 18 and 36 months. The question left hanging: is six months without a technical degree enough to drive a train carrying more passengers than a commercial airliner?

---

There is a stretch of the reasoning that falls apart on its own. The same voice demanding technical rigour and verifiable trust later signs a paragraph on the role of women that withstands no reading: it reduces them to bearing and raising children, calls one unfortunate for not having children, and declares that she has not fulfilled the function she was born for. It is the point where the analysis stalls, and not for lack of data. The statistic that peine the matter still awaits a technical answer; the personal attack, on the other hand, already has someone willing to sign it.