It's a reasonable sounding argument but I don't find it totally convincing. Firstly, a big deal is made about the need for PEDs. The justification given is vague - essentially that the regulator would require them, because it's now "known" that PEDs are required, and the DLR doesn't have them because, well, really it should but we don't care enough to actually upgrade it. But new stuff must. This looks like a case of…
I'm sure an automated system can be built that is safe enough - the Elizabeth Line demonstrates that. But the reality is that upgrades cost a lot of money, and nobody wants to spend that money. That is what it boils down to. With respect to attendants, they're mostly there on the busiest times at the busiest stations. Most of the time most platforms are largely unattended, and the driver is the only person present to…
DLR safety - aren't you agreeing with me? The DLR is not perfectly safe but in reality people accept it. Nobody is clamouring in London for the DLR to be shut down on the grounds that it's a death trap. London society has made its peace with the level of safety the DLR provides. Would more safety be nice, of course. Is it actually a hard requirement that blocks other upgrade projects? That's not at all clear and the argument you're making here is the same circular one the article makes - automation upgrades require safety upgrades because the regulator (+other undefined people) say they require safety upgrades, and the regulator says it requires safety upgrades because automation requires safety upgrades. But the link between these things seems rather brittle.