I'm an advocate for not living in perpetual fear too, but I couldn't find specifics of how unexpected passenger behavior would be handled. Assuming it's as cheap and easy to operate as it seems, I really want the Hyperloop to succeed and be installed in as many metro areas as possible, but for the Hyperloop to succeed, it has to be resilient and not overly optimistic, and not assume everyone onboard will sit and stay still for the whole trip.
Humans don't always behave as they're expected to by the engineers of a system. That happens in software, happens in hardware, and in public transportation too.
[EDIT]
I think these paragraphs give an idea of how an incident would be handled:
>If a capsule were somehow to become stranded, capsules ahead would continue their journeys to the destination unaffected. Capsules behind the stranded one would be automatically instructed to deploy their emergency mechanical braking systems. Once all capsules behind the stranded capsule had been safely brought to rest, capsules would drive themselves to safety using small onboard electric motors to power deployed wheels.
>All capsules would be equipped with a reserve air supply great enough to ensure the safety of all passengers for a worst case scenario event.
>In the event of a large scale leak, pressure sensors located along the tube would automatically communicate with all capsules to deploy their emergency mechanical braking systems.
>Hyperloop would feature the same high level of security used at airports. However, the regular departure of Hyperloop capsules would result in a steadier and faster flow of passengers through security screening compared to
airports. Tubes located on pylons would limit access to the critical elements of the system. Multiple redundant power sources and vacuum pumps would limit the impact of any single element.