Man killed after climbing on top of moving train
Wolfgang Wildeblood
be sensible when using the Sydney rail network after a man who was
standing on top of a moving train was killed.
The 22-year-old New Zealand national was travelling with some friends
on a train to Windsor last night when he climbed onto the roof.
At some point he lost consciousness and was pulled back into the
carriage.
One of his friends performed CPR before paramedics arrived but he died
en route to hospital.
Police say the man suffered burns to his body and they are
investigating whether he was electrocuted by wires on top of the
train.
Police Minister Michael Daley says it is a tragic incident.
"Climbing on top of trains while they're moving is very dangerous.
[We] shouldn't need to tell people to be careful but unfortunately we
do," he said.
"We think of his family in this time."
Police spokeswoman Joanne Elliot says he should never have left the
carriage.
"[There are warnings] to not put any part of your body out of a train,
much less climb on top of a train, especially while it's moving," she
said.
A post mortem report will be prepared for the coroner.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/27/3150055.htm
Given that: "We think of his family in this time." My question is what
do we think of them?
I think they were hopeless parents, probably drunken layabouts, or
layabout drunkards, if their kid grew up to be that stupid.
How do yobs like that get onto the roof of a train anyway? I recall
travelling on a suburban train in Sydney once. I'm sure it had glass
in the windows. Are things that bad in the rustbelt states that your
government has done away with glass in train windows?
Dingo Bob
wrote:
> Given that: "We think of his family in this time." My question is what
> do we think of them?
>
> I think they were hopeless parents, probably drunken layabouts, or
> layabout drunkards, if their kid grew up to be that stupid.
>
> How do yobs like that get onto the roof of a train anyway? I recall
> travelling on a suburban train in Sydney once. I'm sure it had glass
> in the windows. Are things that bad in the rustbelt states that your
> government has done away with glass in train windows?
You're an idiot, just like the guy mentioned.
Sylvia Else
> How do yobs like that get onto the roof of a train anyway? I recall
> travelling on a suburban train in Sydney once. I'm sure it had glass
> in the windows. Are things that bad in the rustbelt states that your
> government has done away with glass in train windows?
>
Some trains are not airconditioned, and have small windows that slide
open to provide ventilation. It turns out they are large enough for a
determined yob to get through. One such actually tried to sue State Rail
over the resulting injuries, and appealed against the initial adverse
judgement. The appeal also failed.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2002/354.html
Sylvia.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
No, Coyote Bob, I'm not just like the guy mentioned at all, because:
- I have never climbed out the window of a train, and:
- I have never been electrocuted.
It seems you actually condone such stupidity?
Dingo Bob
What I meant was that you were an idiot because you suggested his
actions were ultimately the responsibility of his parents and the way
they brought him up. I forgot that I had to explain things carefully
to idiots like you.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
That's right. That's what I believe.
Despite electricity being extremely dangerous, and not part of the
natural environment - so humans have not evolved to avoid it - I have
managed to get through my whole life without being electrocuted. Not
even once. Most other people manage this feat, too. I attribute my
success to something called "common sense", and I attribute my common
sense to the fact my parents were not layabout drunkards.
My sister was an utterly, totally useless parent. And she married a
layabout drunkard. Coincidentally, one of their children was
electrocuted as a child (she survived). I attribute her failure to
something called "lack of common sense", and I attribute her lack of
common sense to the fact her mother was a useless, uninvolved parent
and her father was a drunkard.
So when I read of someone electrocuting themself in an incredibly
stupid way, and some fool of a politician says, "Think of the
parents," I think, "The parents were hopeless, probably drunks." There
you go. You think that makes me an idiot? Fair enough.
If I am, at least I'm a sober idiot. And despite my idiocy, I've
managed to resist the urge to climb out of train windows, and managed
to avoid electrocuting myself all these years, too.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2002/35...
>
> Sylvia.
Is it wrong to chuckle at that boy's misfortune?
"By the time of the accident, the plaintiff was accustomed to
disfiguring railway property with graffiti. He gave evidence that he
started writing graffiti on trains in about Year 8. He appears to have
regularly engaged in the activity and failed to attend much, if at
all, to his school studies from this time onwards. Initially, he used
`textas' to write on the inside of trains, but over time worked his
way outside where he used spray cans. He mostly wrote words, usually
one of his `tags'. He commonly wrote the word `Oops' and sometimes
`fork'.
Turning to the events of 6 May 1994, the trial judge said:
"it is apparent that the plaintiff, having boarded a train, manoeuvred
himself out of an upper window of the double decker carriage that did
not have the restraining rubber gasket and commenced to write the word
`oops' using a spray can. After the accident, the train was found to
have the two oo's' and part of the `p' completed on the roof. As he
was in the course of writing the word, and, while the train was
moving, the plaintiff's head contacted an object, probably a stanchion
or signal, beside the track, causing him severe injuries. The external
object which struck the plaintiff's head was never identified, but
there was blood found inside the carriage at the position of the
window.
Oops, indeed.
A Little Bit
<wolfgangw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Despite electricity being extremely dangerous, and not part of the
> natural environment - so humans have not evolved to avoid it - I have
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:57:00 -0800 (PST), Wolfgang Wildeblood
>
> <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Despite electricity being extremely dangerous, and not part of the
> > natural environment - so humans have not evolved to avoid it
>
> What about lightning, it's natural. So are electric eels.
I swear it's true: they are the two examples that also occurred to me
as I was typing it. Electric eels I don't consider a threat, because
ALL eels are icky and to be avoided, whether electric or manual.
Kelpie
"Wolfgang Wildeblood" <wolfgangw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:067b6ccf-b868-41c6...@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Your talking to a dare devil here you know. Springy drives in bus lanes!
Sylvia Else
> On Feb 27, 12:04 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 27/02/2011 2:58 PM, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
>>
>>> How do yobs like that get onto the roof of a train anyway? I recall
>>> travelling on a suburban train in Sydney once. I'm sure it had glass
>>> in the windows. Are things that bad in the rustbelt states that your
>>> government has done away with glass in train windows?
>>
>> Some trains are not airconditioned, and have small windows that slide
>> open to provide ventilation. It turns out they are large enough for a
>> determined yob to get through. One such actually tried to sue State Rail
>> over the resulting injuries, and appealed against the initial adverse
>> judgement. The appeal also failed.
>>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2002/35...
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Is it wrong to chuckle at that boy's misfortune?
Well, I think chuckling is perhaps taking it a bit far. But having a
total lack of sympathy is par for the course.
I remain bemused by the idea that his legal representatives thought he
could win.
Sylvia.
Dingo Bob
wrote:
> How do yobs like that get onto the roof of a train anyway?
Perhaps he was Indian.....
Wolfgang Wildeblood
Oi! You snipped out where I quoted the specific humorous bit that made
me chuckle. And created an implication that I just generally chuckle
at other people's misfortune. That's very mischievous of you, Sylvia,
as nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a very compassionate
person - I even wanted to help you with your alcohol problem.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
Perhaps you're a racist.
Brad
I was going to mention at this point that I have been electrocuted
numerous times. Perhaps 'electrocuted' is the wrong word, 'shocked' is
more accurate. I work with many different voltages, fortunately many
are not in the lethal category, but the slightest slip or carelessness
can certainly brighten up my day. ;-)
Dingo Bob
> I was going to mention at this point that I have been electrocuted
> numerous times. Perhaps 'electrocuted' is the wrong word, 'shocked' is
> more accurate. I work with many different voltages, fortunately many
> are not in the lethal category, but the slightest slip or carelessness
> can certainly brighten up my day. ;-)
Since electrocution means "death caused by electricity", you are
indeed wise to state that perhaps you are using the wrong word.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
If you're ever tempted to try your luck helicopter surfing, I'm
willing to bet it will be the rotors that get you, rather than some
stray high voltage wiring.
My niece fried her fingertip off. She was young and still growing, and
I think it eventually grew back, but all through her childhood she had
one finger 1/2 inch shorter than the others.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
So if the ambulance guys manage to resuscitate you, you haven't been
electrocuted? So one could be electrocuted, then de-electrocuted?
Sylvia Else
See, now you've got me started. Electrocution means dying as a result of
an electric shock. But according to the media, there are many people
alive today who've died, but then been revived. So, apparently dying
does not necessarily result in a permanent death, and presumably one can
be electrocuted but then recover.
And don't even mention that complete fraud Jesus, who claimed to have
died for the sake of the human race, but didn't stay dead. Reminds me of
some politicians.
Temporary executions?
Sylvia.
Brad
Indeed. Considering that death by electrocution is caused by the
stopping of the heart until the victim is dead, I can say that the
jolts I have received have caused my heart to race and my arms to
ache.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> On 28/02/2011 2:46 PM, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:26 am, Dingo Bob<dingobob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 28, 1:52 pm, Brad<goog...@vk2qq.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I was going to mention at this point that I have been electrocuted
> >>> numerous times. Perhaps 'electrocuted' is the wrong word, 'shocked' is
> >>> more accurate. I work with many different voltages, fortunately many
> >>> are not in the lethal category, but the slightest slip or carelessness
> >>> can certainly brighten up my day. ;-)
>
> >> Since electrocution means "death caused by electricity", you are
> >> indeed wise to state that perhaps you are using the wrong word.
>
> > So if the ambulance guys manage to resuscitate you, you haven't been
> > electrocuted? So one could be electrocuted, then de-electrocuted?
>
> See, now you've got me started. Electrocution means dying as a result of
> an electric shock. But according to the media, there are many people
> alive today who've died, but then been revived. So, apparently dying
> does not necessarily result in a permanent death, and presumably one can
> be electrocuted but then recover.
[religious bigotry snipped]
Well there is obviously a qualitative difference between the
experience Brad is talking about - which involves a deleted expletive
and an embarrassed grin - and the experience I was talking about -
which involves yelling, crying and calling an ambulance. So if we can
agree the former is being electroshocked, you'll need to provide
another term for the latter, or accept the untidy reality of
electrocution.survivable & electrocution.fatal.
Alternatively, doesn't electrocute mean "to make cute by application
of electricity"? When I was at school, a girl turned up one day with
an early-eighties-style, frizzy hair perm, and immediately earned
herself the long-lasting nickname "5,000 Volts".
Brad
wrote:
It's interesting how words change their meaning. The word Electrocute
was coined from electro and exe-cute according to one reference. Now
we take it to mean something else. Your niece received electrical
burns. I have a colleague who was struck by lightning but would not
use the term 'electrocute' in that instance. And a neighbour, an
electrician, who has just spent 6 months recovering from his brush
with death. I would have used the term 'electrocuted' until a few
minutes ago.
Now as an apprentice in the tv repair industry, one of our favourite
games was to hold on to the metal shaft of a screw driver and touch
the metal cap of the 11kv EHT oscillator and draw long purple arcs
away from it. As long as nobody brushed past us, we were safe although
the soles of my shoes used to crackle and glow blue.
At one stage four of us held hands, I held the screwdriver and the
fellow on the far end touched the metal bench. BAM! we all landed on
our arses laughing like the idiots we were. OH&S had not been invented
yet.
Dingo Bob
> Now as an apprentice in the tv repair industry, one of our favourite
> games was to hold on to the metal shaft of a screw driver and touch
> the metal cap of the 11kv EHT oscillator and draw long purple arcs
> away from it. As long as nobody brushed past us, we were safe although
> the soles of my shoes used to crackle and glow blue.
This has got "Darwin Awards" written all over it.....
Wolfgang Wildeblood
I note that in last Monday's episode of QI Stephen Fry claimed to be
unfamiliar with the phrase "Darwin Award" and required it to be
explained.
Brad
wrote:
That's because he spends all his time on twitter instead of the
interweb.
Brad
Naaahh, it's not like playing with trains, it's harmless goofing off.
There isn't enough current in it to do us any permanent damage.
Dingo Bob
Sounds like your brain's irreparably damaged already.
Brad
>
> > > This has got "Darwin Awards" written all over it.....
>
> > Naaahh, it's not like playing with trains, it's harmless goofing off.
> > There isn't enough current in it to do us any permanent damage.
>
> Sounds like your brain's irreparably damaged already.
I can't help that. It's hereditary.
DavidW
Haven't there been cases where a burglar has successfully sued his victim for
slipping on something? No good lawyer woud be put off by attempting to get an
outcome that is an affront to justice.
DavidW
> New South Wales Police and the State Government are urging people to
> be sensible...
>
> "[We] shouldn't need to tell people to be careful but unfortunately we
> do," he said.
Uh, do they really think that a person considering climbing onto the roof of a
train would decide against it after being told to be "careful"?
Sylvia Else
That appears to be an urban myth. There was a case in the US where a
student fell through a skylight while tresspassing on a school roof. He
sued the school, and got what looks to have been a "nuisance"
settlement, where a defendant pays to make a case go away because
running a successful defence would cost more. However, it doesn't appear
that the student was intending to steal anything, and the "success"
consisted of getting a relatively small amount of money, not in having a
court find in his favour.
See
http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/
> No good lawyer woud be put off by attempting to get an
> outcome that is an affront to justice.
Not the lawyers, perhaps, but plaintiffs (in Australia) pay costs when
they lose.
Sylvia.
DavidW
Okay. I know that Judge Judy would not stand for it.
Coach
Not quite an urban myth. I recall a case I was involved in where a
man set up barbed wire in his house and was charged with possessing
man-traps (obviously before political correctness became trendy) and
was convicted.
Dingo Bob
> Not quite an urban myth. I recall a case I was involved in where a
> man set up barbed wire in his house and was charged with possessing
> man-traps (obviously before political correctness became trendy) and
> was convicted.
Sounds like a desperate closeted homosexual looking for a partner -
did this happen in North Bondi?
Brad
That's the same as keeping a baseball or cricket bat beside the bed
and using it on an intruder. "Laying in wait" is an offence.
Sylvia Else
That doesn't appear to relate to burgulars suing their intended victims.
Sylvia.
Brad
It would be, if you clobbered one.
Sylvia Else
I think not. One is allowed to defend oneself, and possession of an
offensive weapon in one's house is not an offence.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
With the barbed wire?
Anyway, it would depend on the circumstances of the clobbering - where
it was a reasonable response.
Sylvia.
DavidW
AStext
> Brad wrote:
> > "Laying in wait" is an offence.
> Correct is '"Lying in wait" is an offence'. Usually only warnings or reprimands
> are given, but this is an egregious error.
Maybe he is a bit clucky?
Brad
Damn! I'll go away and sulk for a while.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> Haven't there been cases where a burglar has successfully sued his victim for
> slipping on something? No good lawyer woud be put off by attempting to get an
> outcome that is an affront to justice.
I used to know a man who several times appeared as an expert witness
regarding insurers' liabilities - explaining to the court the
difference between flood damage and stormwater damage, and hence
whether the insurer or the home-owner was liable - that sort of thing.
He appeared in a case where a trespasser had sued a home-owner after
tripping over a garden hose left lying across a lawn. I don't know
whether the insurance company paid or not, but I advise aus.tvers to
always coil their hoses neatly after they've finished watering their
gardens. It's not just an urban myth, such suits do happen.
Dingo Bob
> > Brad wrote:
> > > "Laying in wait" is an offence.
> > Correct is '"Lying in wait" is an offence'. Usually only warnings or reprimands
> > are given, but this is an egregious error.
>
> Maybe he is a bit clucky?
Or someone EGGed him on, and he came out of his SHELL but found the
YOKE was on him. Either that or he POACHed the idea from Someone Else
and his mind became SCRAMBLED?
Brad
wrote:
What if he tripped on the neatly coiled hose?
Wolfgang Wildeblood
The trendies call it "harm minimization", David. You know the sort of
thing: heroine is a dangerous, addictive, illegal drug that can kill
you, so here's a nice clean room where you can safely inject it. The
people who follow the harm minimization logic would have no problem
with saying, "Train surfing is extremely dangerous, but if you do
climb onto the roof of a train, please be careful of the high voltage
equipment up there."
DavidW
I think by "be careful" they mean, "don't do it."
Wolfgang Wildeblood
Oh yeah? Explain the tax-payer funded safe injecting rooms then?
DavidW
He wasn't generalizing. He was referring specifically to the train incident, and
my point was that people who want to do such things are hardly going to be put
off by "be sensible" or "be careful". Injecting rooms are a separate matter, but
now you've mentioned them, if they've been shown to reduce deaths from ODs and
generally make addicts' lives less miserable, then that's an argument for having
them.
AStext
The falsification of statistics is a NSW Labour govt speciality.
Anyone living in the area of an injecting centre will soon tell you a
different story about what actually goes on.
Complete detox is the only way an addict will become less miserable,
regardless of their (and govt) resistance to the concept. Why are
these users privileged over, say, chronic alcoholics, or
schizophrenics and manics who wander the streets at their own peril?
Why aren't there safe drinking rooms, safe smoking rooms, safe mental
illness rooms for all of them?
Why isn't there a safe roof surfing train?
> then that's an argument for having
> them.
No, they should be shut down and proper treatment given, even if it is
tough love, just as it should be for any other illness.
Sylvia Else
It's not so easy to suffer an accidental acute overdose of alcohol or
cigarettes, and mental illness is not something you injest anyway.
> Why isn't there a safe roof surfing train?
What would be the point of surfing a train roof that is safe?
>
>
>> then that's an argument for having
>> them.
>
> No, they should be shut down and proper treatment given, even if it is
> tough love, just as it should be for any other illness.
We could just let them have known doses of pure heroin, so that they
wouldn't be in danger of overdosing by accident and wouldn't have to
commit crimes to fund their habit. The stuff is certainly less damaging
that tobacco, and probably less damaging than alcohol.
Sylvia.
DavidW
I thought it wasn't damaging at all, other than taking too much. I thought you
could take it regularly for your whole life and you'd be fine.
Sylvia Else
It's implicated in liver damage, though its illicit status makes it hard
to know how much is caused by the heroin, and how much by various
impurities and cutting agents.
Sylvia.
AStext
It is immaterial whether the overdose is accidental or not. And I
wasn't reefer-ing to cigarettes . . :-)
There are hopeless alcoholics that willingly get shitfaced and
endanger themselves daily. Sleeping in the blazing sun, pouring rain,
covered in abrasions and bruises. Why haven't they got a safe area to
drink, urinate and defecate in to minimise the harm they are doing to
themselves?
O no, that's right, an alco has to 'give up'. Why is that so?
The same should go for the white powder addicts, as far as I am
concerned.
> > Why isn't there a safe roof surfing train?
>
> What would be the point of surfing a train roof that is safe?
It would prevent harm, just like the injecting centre.
Harm minimisation, I believe, is the mantra.
>
>
> >> then that's an argument for having
> >> them.
>
> > No, they should be shut down and proper treatment given, even if it is
> > tough love, just as it should be for any other illness.
>
> We could just let them have known doses of pure heroin, so that they
> wouldn't be in danger of overdosing by accident and wouldn't have to
> commit crimes to fund their habit. The stuff is certainly less damaging
> that tobacco, and probably less damaging than alcohol.
>
> Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
AStext
I think this is a bit of a myth - someone who has a lot of money and
is strong physically and mentally, who looks after their diet and
health, maybe, but I doubt it even then. Your average junkie - not a
chance in hell.
If you know of a lifetime addcit who is looking great and strong and
healthy, let me know.
DavidW
Since it's close relative of other opioids that have been used extensively in
medicine for a long time, I would have thought that doctors would have a fair
idea whether it's likely to damage the liver.
DavidW
Sounds like you're just guessing.
> If you know of a lifetime addcit who is looking great and strong and
> healthy, let me know.
Remember that addicts usually get far from pure stuff.
Sylvia Else
The specific harm that injecting rooms are intended to address is that
of acute overdose leading to a quick death.
If someone intends to get blind drunk, it really makes very little
difference whether they do it at home, or in a 'safe' room. Either way,
they're unlikely to die in the short term, even though they may wish
they had when they finally wake up.
>
> O no, that's right, an alco has to 'give up'. Why is that so?
>
> The same should go for the white powder addicts, as far as I am
> concerned.
Well, that's easy to say, but we know that if we take away the safe
injecting rooms, the result will not be that addicts give up, but that
they will inject in a less safe environment, and that more of them will
die in consequence. Now I confess that I don't really care that much,
and suspect that if an addict is taking enough heroin to kill
themselves, it's only a matter of time before they succeed, and in that
sense, deaths from heroin overdose are only delayed rather than prevented.
>
>
>
>>> Why isn't there a safe roof surfing train?
>>
>> What would be the point of surfing a train roof that is safe?
>
> It would prevent harm, just like the injecting centre.
Except that it wouldn't. Train surfing is a thrill sport. Those engaging
in it would not make use of the safe version, because it wouldn't
deliver the thrill. By contrast, heroin addicts are not getting a kick
out of the inherent danger of what they're doing.
>
> Harm minimisation, I believe, is the mantra.
Yes, but there's no point in taking measures that don't actually
minimise the harm.
Sylvia.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
I beg to differ and suggest, that at least for a proportion, the use
of illicit drugs is a thrill sport. The mood altering effects of the
drugs are one of several motivators, but for the adolescent, when use
begins, the simple fact of their illegality is another, and the
controversy and hence uncertainty of their harmfulness likely
another.
Where is there any difference in logic between the thoughts, "Train
surfing is dangerous, there is a risk I'll be injured, but I just
*know* I won't," and, "Heroine is dangerous, there is a risk I'll
become addicted, but I just *know* I won't."
Now Sylvia is right when she writes, "Heroin addicts are not getting a
kick out of the inherent danger of what they're doing." They are
simply satisfying their addiction. But they had to be using before
they could become addicted. And that use is, I suggest, simply a
thrill sport for the physically lazy who can't be bothered climbing.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> mental illness is not something you injest anyway.
I agree mental illness is not a suitable subject for jest.
Dingo Bob
wrote:
> On Mar 2, 12:09 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>
> > mental illness is not something you injest anyway.
>
> I agree mental illness is not a suitable subject for jest.
Speaking from experience?
Wolfgang Wildeblood
Yes, I have considerable experience of spelling ingest correctly.
Sylvia Else
> Where is there any difference in logic between the thoughts, "Train
> surfing is dangerous, there is a risk I'll be injured, but I just
> *know* I won't," and, "Heroine is dangerous, there is a risk I'll
> become addicted, but I just *know* I won't."
I doubt that people taking heroin for the first time are thinking about
addiction at all. They've either just suppressed those concerns, or they
simply don't believe the warnings they've heard, considering them to be
nothing more than propaganda.
I'd be inclined to agree that the fact that it's illicit is a factor -
the forbidden fruit effect - which is another reason to make it lawful.
Then we can say "Look, if you want to take this stuff, you can, and
we're not that bothered, frankly, but it's really not a good idea."
Sylvia.
Koala Bay
> On Feb 27, 2:58 pm, Wolfgang Wildeblood <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Given that: "We think of his family in this time." My question is what
> > do we think of them?
> >
> > I think they were hopeless parents, probably drunken layabouts, or
> > layabout drunkards, if their kid grew up to be that stupid.
> > How do yobs like that get onto the roof of a train anyway? I recall
> > travelling on a suburban train in Sydney once. I'm sure it had glass
> > in the windows. Are things that bad in the rustbelt states that your
> > government has done away with glass in train windows?