Teens killed on Conrail bridge in Rochester, NY
Les Wilson
From today's WOKR-TV web page (www.wokrtv.com):
Two Brighton teenagers, a boy and a girl, were killed along a railroad
track in Pittsford Saturday afternoon. Jason Pollack, 16, and Melissa
Klotz, 14, were the victims. The tragedy occurred just before 2 o'clock
and took place on a trestle which witnesses say is a favorite summer
spot for teens. According to Monroe County Sheriff's Deputy Lt. Mike
Brady, a group of teens tried to run away when they heard a train
approach. "One of the female's foot got stuck in the tracks. A boy went
back to help her get unstuck and they were both struck by the train,"
Brady said. A witness told NewsSource 13 reporter Tor Constantino the
sounds from approaching trains is spread off to the sides of the track,
and people sitting on the trestle cannot tell if the train is close or
far away. Lt. Brady said that fact adds to the danger. "A lot of kids
jump into the canal because they think it's fun. Between the rocks in
the canal and the concrete by the pilings, it's a pretty dangerous
activity to take part in."
--
This occured on a trestle over the Erie Canal on the West Shore branch
of the Conrail Mainline that runs through the Rochester area. Today's
paper quoted a Conrail spokesperson who said the train was running 40
MPH, and the tracks in that area are approved for 60 MPH. The engineer,
which saw the teens about 1/4 mile away, could do nothing but sound the
horn since it takes two miles for the 77 car train to come to a complete
stop.
--
==============================================================
E-mail: nes...@servtech.com
SkyTel Pager: 123...@skytel.com
Web Page: www.servtech.com/public/nessman
==============================================================
Lee Winson
Why is it when trespassors get killed on railroad tracks it makes the TV,
and the implication is that somehow the railroad was at fault....
HOWEVER, when a pedestrian is killed improperly crossing a highway or
interstate, it's assumed the pedestrian was stupid and careless, and it's
not newsworthy. Highway pedestrian deaths occur much more often than
railroad deaths.
I think railroads get a bum rap. The Rochester accident obviously got big
play and everyone feels bad when teens get killed. But when such
incidents happen on a highway, does it get this much play?
Richard Estock
The vast majority of us drive cars, so if a pedestrian gets
struck by a car, it's obviously the pedestrian's fault. When
it comes to trains, the vast majority of us are passengers, so
if an engineer/train strikes a pedestrian, it's obviously the
railroad's and/or engineer's fault! Majority rules!
--
Richard Estock (est...@rci.rutgers.edu)
Jon Rose
No, it's Black Darwinsim - Death Of The Dumbest.
--
Jon Rose,
Crawley, West Sussex, England
Substition required for e-mail response -
usfmdpan is to rambler as ibmmail is to aletrail
Mark Pappalardo
Some additional info...
The trestle over the Erie Canal is for double track, but now
only has one track. The rails, spikes and tieplates are
the only pieces missing from the side without a track (i.e.
there is still a wooden deck). The kids, of course, were on
the side WITH a track.
There has been no public outrage against Conrail for the
accident. The standard "The tracks should be fenced off."
argument has not been brought up (yet).
The only mention of the Conrail crew was of their actions
once they saw the kids on the bridge (they did what little
they could). As always, there was no mention of their
emotional state.
MJP
Brent and Corinna
Whenever I hear of yet another stupid person getting hit/killed by a
train, I shake my head at the astronomical odds that they have
beaten...
In order to get hit/killed by a train one must:
1)tresspass onto RR property (this usually entails ignoring various
warning signs, possibly climbing over fences)
2)ignore any extraneaous noises (rumblings of the oncoming train,
whistles, etc.)
3)not move when you realize that there is something that weights
several thousand times more than you do, bearing down on you...
Of course, following these combined acts of stupidity are the
inevitable screams from the local community. Here in the Vancouver
area, several municipalities have lobbied for - and received - a ban
on train whistling. (yes, that will really help in preventing stupid
people from being killed by oncoming - and now silent - trains
[sarcasm]). The mother of one young (and stupid) boy who got mowed
down by an Amtrak train is trying to lobby to MOVE the train tracks..
ehem? Excuse me, perhaps if you moved your children and DIDN'T WALK
ON THE TRACKS IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there would be no problem.
To sum up, I feel sorry for the people on the train who have to
witness, report, clean off, and ultimately live with the death of
these morons who walk on train tracks. I don't feel sorry for the
people who are killed. RR tracks are an industrial work site and if
people decide to tresspass, then they should be prepared to live with
- and die with - the consequences.
Corinna
Les Wilson
While both kids were killed in this tragedy, what has made it especially
newsworthy was that the boyfriend sacrificed his life while trying to
save his his girlfriend who's foot became stuck between the ties.
Everyone around here has hailed this kid a hero because of his valiant
efforts. It certainly ranks up there as one of the most selfless acts
by another person. Truly a sad story.
Les Wilson
Mark Pappalardo wrote:
> The trestle over the Erie Canal is for double track, but now
> only has one track. The rails, spikes and tieplates are
> the only pieces missing from the side without a track (i.e.
> there is still a wooden deck). The kids, of course, were on
> the side WITH a track.
I couldn't understand why they tried to run off the bridge instead of
moving to the other side and waiting for the train to pass.
> There has been no public outrage against Conrail for the
> accident. The standard "The tracks should be fenced off."
> argument has not been brought up (yet).
I don't see why there would be public outrage. It's common sense that
you don't hang out on railroad bridges.
There will be some stepped up patrol by the Sheriff's Department and
Conrail Police in the area - which will eventually fade away with the
incident's publicity. Around here, kids are shooed off railroad
property and that's about it. Perhaps a zero-tolerance policy by
issuing citations and putting some teeth into enforcing the applicable
laws will deter future trespassers.
> The only mention of the Conrail crew was of their actions
> once they saw the kids on the bridge (they did what little
> they could). As always, there was no mention of their
> emotional state.
Needless-to-say, the train engineer didn't head out to happy hour when
his shift was over. I'd hate to be in his shoes because no matter how
hard he could have tried, there was nothing he could do. It's a pretty
heavy weight he'll have to carry for the rest of his life.
Matthew C. Kelley
> While both kids were killed in this tragedy, what has made it especially
> newsworthy was that the boyfriend sacrificed his life while trying to
> save his his girlfriend who's foot became stuck between the ties.
> Everyone around here has hailed this kid a hero because of his valiant
> efforts. It certainly ranks up there as one of the most selfless acts
> by another person. Truly a sad story.
HEROISM VS. SELFLESSNESS?
I can't tell by your posting whether you agree that the boy who
"sacrificed his life while trying to save his girlfriend" should be
considered a hero. Allthough I do think he acted selflessly in an
attempt to save his girlfriend's life, he would have been more of a hero
in my book if he had made the decision to stay off the tracks in the
first place, and persuade his girlfriend to do the same (assuming it was
his idea). Then he would have saved two lives that day, not to mention
preventing the grief suffered by the train crew at watching such a
tradgedy unfold before them.
He made the conscious decision to take the chance and place himself in
danger that day, and he lost. By staying around to try to save his
girlfriend's life in the face of such a poor decision, he demonstrated
selflessness and grit. Should we honor the boy for his heroism? I
think not.
Matthew C. Kelley
BNSF Hostler
Ted
Brent and Corinna wrote:
> Of course, following these combined acts of stupidity are the
> inevitable screams from the local community. Here in the Vancouver
> area, several municipalities have lobbied for - and received - a ban
> on train whistling. (yes, that will really help in preventing stupid
> people from being killed by oncoming - and now silent - trains
> [sarcasm]). The mother of one young (and stupid) boy who got mowed
> down by an Amtrak train is trying to lobby to MOVE the train tracks..
> ehem? Excuse me, perhaps if you moved your children and DIDN'T WALK
> ON THE TRACKS IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there would be no problem.
As I recall, the boy was playing chicken with the train, a fact rarely
mentioned after the story first came out.
There aren't any current whistle bans pending, are there? CP is lobbying
to permit whistles in Coquitlam after the trackwalker got nailed a few
months ago...
Ted
Robert J. Niland
Les Wilson (nes...@servtech.com) wrote:
> "One of the female's foot got stuck in the tracks. A boy went
> back to help her get unstuck and they were both struck by the train,"
Isn't this the exact scenario depicted in one of the recently released
series of rail safety TV ads? ...the same series that some critics
were decrying as "too graphic"? ...apparently not graphic enough.
Anyone want to take a bet that the parents will sue, claiming that
the ads gave the kids the idea?
Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland Suite 503
Internet: r...@sni.net Fort Collins
Unless otherwise specifically stated, Colorado 80525 USA
expressing personal opinions and NOT
speaking for any employer, client or
Internet Service Provider.
Randy Treadway
bad...@direct.ca (Brent and Corinna) wrote:
>RR tracks are an industrial work site and if
>people decide to tresspass, then they should be prepared to live with
>- and die with - the consequences.
When an industrial site becomes incompatible with the surrounding
community, due to explosion of population density in that community,
then something's gotta give.
Usually that ends up being the industrial work site, and not
the community.
Factories move. Airports move (or are converted from major airlines
to private Cessnas). So why not railroads?
I'm not saying the railroads should bear all the move cost.
It should be a shared cost of the parties involved.
If regional transportation authorities can fund a new airport
outside city limits (DFW, for instance), then they can certainly
figure out how to pay to relocate main lines to a less populous
location.
(either that, or go for the even more expensive grade separations
and fencing)
Better to contend with contented cows in pastures than hundreds of
pre-schoolers in the developed housing subdivisions.
BTW- I get tired of hearing about how parents deserve the consequences
if they don't teach their kids to stay away from tracks (or the kids,
being kids, don't listen). No parent deserves that.
I can feel for the train crew. Hopefully railroads have professional
help on call to help these people deal with the tragedy.
And I also feel for the families of the deceased. Right or wrong,
a life is snuffed out. Placing blame is a whole lot less important
than trying to figure out the best way to avert future repetitions.
Obviously, scattered "RR Property Keep Out" signs and scattered media
campaigns like Operation Lifesaver just aren't working. I certainly
wouldn't suggest taking down the signs or stopping the campaigns, but
they're not enough.
Maybe humans and trains just don't mix. If we recognize that, then
maybe the thing to do is take more action to separate them.
Most prisons don't put Mexican gang members and Black gang members in
the same cell. Otherwise, it won't take long before you just have two
dead prisoners.
Same goes for railroads and pedestrians (and perhaps cars/trucks).
Why do you think, way back in the 50's, they decided to fence off
the interstate highways, and make them limited access? (hint- it wasn't
to keep the cars from straying off the road!)
Brent and Corinna
>BTW- I get tired of hearing about how parents deserve the consequences
>if they don't teach their kids to stay away from tracks (or the kids,
>being kids, don't listen). No parent deserves that.
Too true. I can't agree with you more. However, why should these
parents start blaming the RR for what their kids did? I mean, if your
kids are jumping out in front of cars on a busy street, would the
drivers get the blame? Would the parents then lobby to move the
roadway?
>I can feel for the train crew. Hopefully railroads have professional
>help on call to help these people deal with the tragedy.
They do. But how in the world can a person ever get over knowing that
they killed someone? Especially since a lot of the people who die are
children. And then there's the matter of someone having to clean the
locomotive off. It's not pretty.
>And I also feel for the families of the deceased. Right or wrong,
>a life is snuffed out. Placing blame is a whole lot less important
>than trying to figure out the best way to avert future repetitions.
This is where I definately disagree. Perhaps if blame is put where it
is deserved - have the educators and media announce that little Johnny
and little Susie would be alive today if THEY hadn't of trespassed,
perhaps others will learn. I'm not saying to drag the deceased
through mud, but rather call a spade a spade - educate the public that
when they walk on tracks, they are trespassing and they are
endangering their lives. In too many fatal rail accidents, the RR
employees are forced to go through all these investigations when it
boils down to some kid playing chicken.
>
>Obviously, scattered "RR Property Keep Out" signs and scattered media
>campaigns like Operation Lifesaver just aren't working. I certainly
>wouldn't suggest taking down the signs or stopping the campaigns, but
>they're not enough.
Agreed! I personally believe that 12 foot high electrified fences
*might* do the trick. It would certainly stop any casual train track
walkers. Only the determined would put themselves into the position
of being hit by a train.
>
>Maybe humans and trains just don't mix. If we recognize that, then
>maybe the thing to do is take more action to separate them.
Actually, I think it's a matter of the general public realizing that
they can't have it both ways. Here in the Vancouver area, several
municipalities have the no-whistling bi-law. The home-owners don't
want to be disturbed. Ok, fine, then the inevitable happens - someone
gets hit and killed (while walking on the tracks) by the West Coast
Express (commuter train). Now, had the no-wistling bi-law not been in
effect, the train would have whistled prior to the corner.
In my opinion, train traffic is one of the most economic and
environmentally friendly ways to move things and people. The same
people who want to get all the big trucks out off of the roads have to
realize that there will be some sacrifice with the benefits of having
train traffic. Whether it be whistles or ugly, electrified fences,
someone is going to have "their rights" infringed upon for the safety
of the majority.
Corinna
Mark Pappalardo
Les Wilson wrote:
>
> Mark Pappalardo wrote:
>
> > There has been no public outrage against Conrail for the
> > accident. The standard "The tracks should be fenced off."
> > argument has not been brought up (yet).
>
> I don't see why there would be public outrage. It's common sense
> that you don't hang out on railroad bridges.
>
A few years ago, Rochester had a rash of people being hit by
trains. In their grief, the relatives said that there should
be fences to keep people off the tracks. It wasn't the first
time I heard this argument. What they don't (or can't at the
moment) realize is that a fence is not going to keep kids or
anyone else from using their favorite short-cut or hang-out.
Fences can be climbed over or under, or more likely will be
cut through with a pair of wire or bolt cutters.
>
> > The only mention of the Conrail crew was of their actions
> > once they saw the kids on the bridge (they did what little
> > they could). As always, there was no mention of their
> > emotional state.
>
> Needless-to-say, the train engineer didn't head out to happy hour
> when his shift was over. I'd hate to be in his shoes because no
> matter how hard he could have tried, there was nothing he could do.
> It's a pretty heavy weight he'll have to carry for the rest of his
> life.
>
I've been around railroads long enough to know that the Conrail
crew was most-likely devastated. I just wish the media (TV &
newspapers) would start recognizing and communicating what the
crew had to experience and now live with. Trains and their
crews are almost always depicted as cold, emotionless machines
that go on with their work after the police forms have been
filled out. I think it would be very eye-opening for a lot
of people if they knew what the crew went through as they
helplessly watched the train overtake the two kids, as they
walked back to find the kids' bodies, and as they start the
long process of trying to emotionally deal with the tragedy.
MJP
Damon R Hudac
Someone wrote:
>>BTW- I get tired of hearing about how parents deserve the consequences
>>if they don't teach their kids to stay away from tracks (or the kids,
>>being kids, don't listen). No parent deserves that.
Corinna wrote in response:
>Too true. I can't agree with you more.
(Rest of post snipped)
Yet in a post prior to that one, Corinna writes:
Excuse me, perhaps if you moved your children and DIDN'T WALK
ON THE TRACKS IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there would be no problem.
To sum up, I feel sorry for the people on the train who have to
witness, report, clean off, and ultimately live with the death of
these morons who walk on train tracks. I don't feel sorry for the
people who are killed. RR tracks are an industrial work site and if
people decide to tresspass, then they should be prepared to live with
- and die with - the consequences.
-----
I say:
So should I or should I not feel sorry for kids who get splattered by
trains? What about their parents?
I think the bottom line is that no one likes to see people get mowed down
by a train (unless you need the pix for your web site, but that's another
matter). The RR workers don't like it, the dead people don't like it, and
the dead people's families don't like it. Yes, they should have been more
aware of their surroundings. Yes, they should have told their kids not
to play on the tracks, and yes, the kids should have had more common
sense, but nobody deserves to die for walking on railroad tracks. yet
they are indeed dead. Since they didn't deserve to die and they did it
anyways, I would say that yes, I do feel sorry for them!
If you don't feel sorry for them, then you must think that they had it
coming to them.
Nathan Scott Pettit
tracks and ended up with a hole in it less than a week after. But I do
think that there needs to be fences, enforcement, and education to try
and prevent these accidents from occuring.
Nathan Pettit
Steve Holmes
> >people decide to tresspass, then they should be prepared to live with
> >- and die with - the consequences.
>
> community, due to explosion of population density in that community,
> then something's gotta give.
> Usually that ends up being the industrial work site, and not
> the community.
> Factories move. Airports move (or are converted from major airlines
> to private Cessnas). So why not railroads?
>
> I'm not saying the railroads should bear all the move cost.
> It should be a shared cost of the parties involved.
> If regional transportation authorities can fund a new airport
> outside city limits (DFW, for instance), then they can certainly
> figure out how to pay to relocate main lines to a less populous
> location.
> (either that, or go for the even more expensive grade separations
> and fencing)
>
> Better to contend with contented cows in pastures than hundreds of
> pre-schoolers in the developed housing subdivisions.
>
> if they don't teach their kids to stay away from tracks (or the kids,
> being kids, don't listen). No parent deserves that.
> help on call to help these people deal with the tragedy.
> a life is snuffed out. Placing blame is a whole lot less important
> than trying to figure out the best way to avert future repetitions.
>
> campaigns like Operation Lifesaver just aren't working. I certainly
> wouldn't suggest taking down the signs or stopping the campaigns, but
> they're not enough.
>
> maybe the thing to do is take more action to separate them.
>
> the same cell. Otherwise, it won't take long before you just have two
> dead prisoners.
> Same goes for railroads and pedestrians (and perhaps cars/trucks).
>
> Why do you think, way back in the 50's, they decided to fence off
> the interstate highways, and make them limited access? (hint- it wasn't
> to keep the cars from straying off the road!)
>
> R.T.
> ko...@earthlink.net
Randy Treadway wrote:
>
> bad...@direct.ca (Brent and Corinna) wrote:
> >RR tracks are an industrial work site and if
> >people decide to tresspass, then they should be prepared to live with
> >- and die with - the consequences.
>
> When an industrial site becomes incompatible with the surrounding
> community, due to explosion of population density in that community,
> then something's gotta give.
> Usually that ends up being the industrial work site, and not
> the community.
> Factories move. Airports move (or are converted from major airlines
> to private Cessnas). So why not railroads?
>
> I'm not saying the railroads should bear all the move cost.
> It should be a shared cost of the parties involved.
> If regional transportation authorities can fund a new airport
> outside city limits (DFW, for instance), then they can certainly
> figure out how to pay to relocate main lines to a less populous
> location.
> (either that, or go for the even more expensive grade separations
> and fencing)
>
> Better to contend with contented cows in pastures than hundreds of
> pre-schoolers in the developed housing subdivisions.
>
> BTW- I get tired of hearing about how parents deserve the consequences
> if they don't teach their kids to stay away from tracks (or the kids,
> being kids, don't listen). No parent deserves that.
> I can feel for the train crew. Hopefully railroads have professional
> help on call to help these people deal with the tragedy.
> And I also feel for the families of the deceased. Right or wrong,
> a life is snuffed out. Placing blame is a whole lot less important
> than trying to figure out the best way to avert future repetitions.
>
> Obviously, scattered "RR Property Keep Out" signs and scattered media
> campaigns like Operation Lifesaver just aren't working. I certainly
> wouldn't suggest taking down the signs or stopping the campaigns, but
> they're not enough.
>
> Maybe humans and trains just don't mix. If we recognize that, then
> maybe the thing to do is take more action to separate them.
>
> Most prisons don't put Mexican gang members and Black gang members in
> the same cell. Otherwise, it won't take long before you just have two
> dead prisoners.
> Same goes for railroads and pedestrians (and perhaps cars/trucks).
>
> Why do you think, way back in the 50's, they decided to fence off
> the interstate highways, and make them limited access? (hint- it wasn't
> to keep the cars from straying off the road!)
>
> R.T.
> ko...@earthlink.net
Your heart's in the right place, and my heart goes out to the families
who will never see loved ones again. But there are three points to
make:
1) Moving the railroads is far more difficult than moving an airport.
2) It will not keep teenagers or idiotic railfans from getting in
trouble. If the tracks aren't there, they'll find 'em. It's a common
affliction for teenagers to believe they are invincible, will live
forever and that anything bad "always happens to the other guy."
3) There is a limit to what we can -- and should -- do to protect the
stupid from themselves.
We've been dealing with that here. When someone jumped off a bridge
over a dam, the railings were heightened as a safeguard. Last year,
some idiot tried to leap from the pedestrian walkway to the highway part
of the bridge about five feet away. He didn't make it. There's been
talk of improving the safeguards even further. It won't work, though.
People will still find a way to kill themselves, and no amount of money
or prevention will stop them. I hate to be callous, but it's nature's
way of weeding out the dumbest among us.
--
Steve Holmes, Steve Holmes Productions
(helping companies communicate through award-winning video)
Iowa City, IA, USA
http://www.shpvideo.com
(remove "y" in "sigersony" to reply)
debbie....@cyber-quest.com
You are kidding, right? It's early and I've only had one cup of coffee.
Please tell me I missed the sarcasm.
Brent and Corinna
>So should I or should I not feel sorry for kids who get splattered by
>trains? What about their parents?
>
Feel whatever you want to feel - but how I feel is that I DON'T feel
sorry for the people who were tresspassing. It is difficult to get
killed by a train, and these people have obviously gone out of their
way to do so, and therefore do not deserve my sympathy. Instead, my
sympathy goes to the families, and to the RR employees who have to
witness this.
And as far as moving tracks away from cities, etc., I honestly don't
think that can be done. First of all, the way cities expand, it'll
only be a couple of years before the tracks are in a residential zone
again. Second, the train tracks always go to the cities - to where
the populations are (why would someone want to take a train from the
middle of nowhere to the other middle of nowhere). And third - why in
the world should RR's move their tracks because delinquents insist on
tresspassing? When I speak with my brother, who works for CP, he
tells me of tresspassers (mostly teenagers and young adults) who play
chicken in front of his freights. Much of this happens in rural areas
- the areas where many people think the tracks should be moved to
because of the lack of population. I don't think it will make a big
difference. Stupid people will be stupid people.
>If you don't feel sorry for them, then you must think that they had it
>coming to them.
Well, they did tresspass, didn't they?
Our society has a very bad habit of martyr-izing the dead, whether
they deserve it or not. Perhaps it's time that we point the fingers
where it is deserved - at the people who tresspass and then put their
own lives in danager. The RR workers should be angry at these
tresspassers, and the families should be angry at the tresspassers.
Unless they were tied to the tracks, no one forced them to get in the
way of the train.
Call me heartless if you wish, that's your choice, however I choose to
be angry at these people who disreguard their lives, the emotional
health of the RR employees, and don't care about the love from their
families.
Corinna
RWGundrum
In article <5on5p1$of6$3...@news-2.csn.net>, r...@csn.net (Robert J. Niland)
writes:
>
>Les Wilson (nes...@servtech.com) wrote:
>
>> "One of the female's foot got stuck in the tracks. A boy went
>> back to help her get unstuck and they were both struck by the train,"
>
>Isn't this the exact scenario depicted in one of the recently released
>series of rail safety TV ads? ...the same series that some critics
>were decrying as "too graphic"? ...apparently not graphic enough.
>
>Anyone want to take a bet that the parents will sue, claiming that
>the ads gave the kids the idea?
>
>
If the parents do file suit, then the the RR should file a countersuit for
all the expenses of RR personnel involved, delay of delivery of items
being shipped via that train, pain & suffering caused to the operating
crew, delayed of other trains, etc. On second thought maybe the RR should
file suit anyway, that would get the attention of people and maybe they
would then learn "DON'T MESS WITH A TRAIN" it can be expensive & fatal.
Mark Pappalardo
In the "They'll Never Learn" category...
With Rochester TV and newspaper reporters and photographers
in tow (it was probably their idea), some friends and
relatives of the two teenagers killed Saturday returned
to the scene of the accident to lay flowers and speak to
the media. They were shown walking along the same tracks
and on the same bridge where the kids got killed doing
the same thing two days earlier.
I don't know if Conrail gave them permission and an escort
to do this, but I doubt it. There was no sign of a Conrail
employee or a mention that they were involved.
Its too bad these kids' deaths didn't teach these people
anything.
Darwin, you were right.
MJP
Les Wilson
Mark Pappalardo wrote:
> I don't know if Conrail gave them permission and an escort
> to do this, but I doubt it. There was no sign of a Conrail
> employee or a mention that they were involved.
The Rochester Trainmaster was there.
Les Wilson
Brent and Corinna wrote:
> Feel whatever you want to feel - but how I feel is that I DON'T feel
> sorry for the people who were tresspassing. It is difficult to get
> killed by a train, and these people have obviously gone out of their
> way to do so, and therefore do not deserve my sympathy. Instead, my
> sympathy goes to the families, and to the RR employees who have to
> witness this.
FWIW, it was 2 teenagers, boyfriend/girlfriend, who were killed. The
girl's foot was stuck between the ties in the path of the oncoming
freight, and the boyfriend gave his life in an attempt to save hers.
They were kids hanging out out on the first day of summer vacation on a
little-used siding.
> Call me heartless if you wish, that's your choice, however I choose to
> be angry at these people who disreguard their lives, the emotional
> health of the RR employees, and don't care about the love from their
> families.
I don't think they intended for this tragedy to happen.
Rich Rainaldi
I'm a little out of touch. Are they still running SP coal trains
through Tennessee Pass, or is that over with?
Thanks.
The Black Hat
Steve Holmes wrote:>
(snip)
> 3) There is a limit to what we can -- and should -- do to protect the
> stupid from themselves.
>
> We've been dealing with that here. When someone jumped off a bridge
> over a dam, the railings were heightened as a safeguard. Last year,
> some idiot tried to leap from the pedestrian walkway to the highway part
> of the bridge about five feet away. He didn't make it. There's been
> talk of improving the safeguards even further. It won't work, though.
> People will still find a way to kill themselves, and no amount of money
> or prevention will stop them. I hate to be callous, but it's nature's
> way of weeding out the dumbest among us.
You're not callous, you're smart!
I just can't understand why people get sooooo upset when morons do
themselves in.
Bob in NJ. Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Riffle19
How does someone go about getting involved in Operation Lifesaver
education programs? Is there anything that people such as myself, who
care about these issues, do to help, besides lecturing friends and family?
Just curious.
Thanks!
Dave Riffle
Auburn, WA
RIFF...@AOL.COM
Kevin L. Wagner
In article <19970628064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
riff...@aol.com (Riffle19) wrote:
> How does someone go about getting involved in Operation Lifesaver
> education programs? Is there anything that people such as myself, who
> care about these issues, do to help, besides lecturing friends and family?
> Just curious.
>
Check out my webpage at http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~kevinw/HOL.html. It tells
about how I got involved with Operation Lifesaver.
Kevin
--
*********************************************************************
Kevin L. Wagner
kev...@cs.bgsu.edu
http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~kevinw/
__________________
_______| | ___________________________||_______
_______| | | | _____ | ____ |
_______| | | CONRAIL | | | | | | | | SO LONG
_______| | | QUALITY | |_|_| | |__| | CONRAIL!!!
_______| | | | |_________| CR2462 | |
_______|_________| |__|____________________________|__|
O\_/O H O|__|O\_/O O\_/O|__|O
=====================================================================
*********************************************************************
HaRRy Sutton
On 28 Jun 1997 06:48:00 GMT, riff...@aol.com (Riffle19) wrote:
>How does someone go about getting involved in Operation Lifesaver
>education programs? Is there anything that people such as myself, who
>care about these issues, do to help, besides lecturing friends and family?
> Just curious.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Dave Riffle
>Auburn, WA
>RIFF...@AOL.COM
Start by visiting the Operation Lifesaver web site:
http://www.oli.org/oli/
Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
(http://pages.prodigy.com/railHaRRy/)
Expect a train on any track, at any time, in any direction!
(Remove -NOSPAM to e-mail reply)
Brent and Corinna
>FWIW, it was 2 teenagers, boyfriend/girlfriend, who were killed. The
>girl's foot was stuck between the ties in the path of the oncoming
>freight, and the boyfriend gave his life in an attempt to save hers.
>They were kids hanging out out on the first day of summer vacation on a
>little-used siding.
If they hadn't of been tresspassing, they wouldn't have been in that
predicament.
>I don't think they intended for this tragedy to happen.
No, but they intended to tresspass.
Perhaps if everyone put the blame where it should lie (these two young
tresspassers), then others wouldn't make the same fatal mistakes of
thinking that it's cool to hang out on private property, and these
discussion will become a thing of the past. Stop trying to make these
tresspassers into heros. They broke the law, they put themselves in
danger, and they paid the price.
Corinna
Randy Treadway
bad...@direct.ca (Brent and Corinna) wrote:
I think Brent and Corinna and others need to stop putting walking
across railroad tracks in the same category as intentionally
climbing over the fence surrounding Three Mile Island Nuclear Power
Plant.
While legally it may be in the same technical category (trespassing
on private property)- It most certainly is NOT the same from a
practical standpoint or from a common use standpoint.
There are hundreds of thousands of miles of tracks crisscrossing this
country through every city, village, burg and county. Most don't
have any warning signs- at least any posted signs are miles apart.
There are virtually no fences at all.
But MOST OF ALL- there is 150 years of tradition where the railroad
right of way (the raised-elevation tracks and adjacent graded
ballast, including bridges crossing creeks or whatever), have been
used as local pedestrian paths by citizens.
My dad tells me that as a small boy in the 30's he was sent by his
father to go buy a six-pack, and the only way was to walk a couple
of miles down the tracks to where the store was located.
Also, his mom and all the neighbor ladies would go out and
pick up coal which had spilled, in order to heat their pot-bellied
stove. This was during the depression in the hills of eastern
Kentucky and Tennessee.
Like it or not, walking down the tracks, crossing them constantly
when out hunting rabbit or squirrel, fishing from creek bridges,
it's been an American way of life for 150 years.
Is there some danger inherent in it?
Sure. (in fact, the wearing of Walkman headphones while walking down tracks
is one of the most stupid things).
Maybe you train engineers don't realize it, but every time you
observe a pedestrian on or near the tracks from your passing
locomotive, there are probably 10,000 every day that you don't see
(the ones who are smart enough to clear themselves away when the
train comes).
If you don't like it, then either put up fences (and listen to the
political howling), or move your tracks somewhere else.
(but leave the clearing after you pull up the rails, so there will
still be a nice path through the woods).
Life is tough. Live with it.
Railroads invited the problem by laying tracks with absolutely no
right of way fences or other protections. If they're willing to
live with deer and bear crossing their hallowed tracks, then they
can live with other warm-blooded beings crossing, too.
Randy
Tom Kirchhoff
Just for the record: The West Shore Line (CR) is NOT a little used siding
as someone below stated and the speed limit is 50 mph in the accident area.
Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> wrote in article
<33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>...
Duane Cooke
ko...@earthlink.net (Randy Treadway) wrote:
>>If they hadn't of been tresspassing, they wouldn't have been in that
>>predicament.
>>
>>>I don't think they intended for this tragedy to happen.
>>
>>No, but they intended to tresspass.
>
**====>>I agree that this is a terrible tragedy,but, these young
people were TRESPASSING in the middle of an Industrial Worksite!
Anyone who walks or crosses on train tracks should realize that they
are at risk with heavy, moving equipment! And think about the train
crew--did they go to work that day INTENDING to run over a
tresspasser? Think not! These guys are going to have to live with the
fact for the rest of their lives!
>I think Brent and Corinna and others need to stop putting walking
>across railroad tracks in the same category as intentionally
>climbing over the fence surrounding Three Mile Island Nuclear Power
>Plant.
***===>>How come you don't walk along the center line of a freeway???
Why not????
>Is there some danger inherent in it?
>Sure. (in fact, the wearing of Walkman headphones while walking down tracks
>is one of the most stupid things).
***===>>Yea, especially listening to OZZY Osborne's Crazy Train!!!!
>Maybe you train engineers don't realize it, but every time you
>observe a pedestrian on or near the tracks from your passing
>locomotive, there are probably 10,000 every day that you don't see
>(the ones who are smart enough to clear themselves away when the
>train comes).
***===>>I invite you to ride in the cab of a lead locomotive on a
train someday and play witness to some of the stupidity that takes
place out there...
>If you don't like it, then either put up fences (and listen to the
>political howling), or move your tracks somewhere else.
**===>>So what you are saying here is that if your kid went out and
played in the middle of the freeway, gets nailed by a truck,
the highways dept. should pack up the Interstate and move
it elsewhere??
>(but leave the clearing after you pull up the rails, so there will
>still be a nice path through the woods).
***===>>Sure, I'll come out and give you a hand to remove the first
spike--Maybe then we can finally have much-needed more
trucks on our highways...And don't forget that the
railroads pay taxes on their right-of-ways--Trucks don't!
>Life is tough. Live with it.
>Railroads invited the problem by laying tracks with absolutely no
>right of way fences or other protections. If they're willing to
>live with deer and bear crossing their hallowed tracks, then they
>can live with other warm-blooded beings crossing, too.
****===>>You are obviously ignorant to the fact that the North
American railroads play a major role in our economy!!
**How about the car that you drive?
**What about the lumber used to frame your home?
**How about the apples in your lunch?
>>>>>>>>>Think About It <<<<<<<<<<
Also, you should realize that many tracks were layed prior to
population expansion.As railroads were the main source of
transportation years ago, many towns and cities today owe their very
exisitance to the railroad.
...Duane...
>Randy
Sirsonic
I hope that you were not serious about what you wrote, because if you are,
you are as dumb as George Conklin (man made famous in this group for his
unrivaled consumption of paint chips when he was a boy).
>I think Brent and Corinna and others need to stop putting walking
>across railroad tracks in the same category as intentionally
>climbing over the fence surrounding Three Mile Island Nuclear Power
>Plant.
WHAT! When you set foot on the right of way, you are doing two things,
first, you are tresspassing on private property. This is both a criminal
act as well as a civil tort. Even more important, you are taking your
life in your hands. Going into TMI is different from tresspassing on RR
property, you have a lesser chance of dying. Thikning that it is OK or
even worse, safe to tresspass on PRIVATE RR property is just wrong, and
will get you killed. You would be better served playing on an interstate
with a blindfold on.
>Is there some danger inherent in it?
??????! See above.
>Maybe you train engineers don't realize it, but every time you
>observe a pedestrian on or near the tracks from your passing
>locomotive, there are probably 10,000 every day that you don't see
>(the ones who are smart enough to clear themselves away when the
>train comes).
And your point is...... Most drivers routenely dirve well above the
speed limit (myself included), but this in no way makes it legal to speed,
and if you are caught you will be punished. The only thing is that if you
get caught speeding, you will have to pay a fine. If you get caught
tresspassing by a train, you will have to pay a doctor, or your family
will have to pay for a funeral.
>If you don't like it, then either put up fences (and listen to the
>political howling), or move your tracks somewhere else.
How about this, YOU MOVE! The railroads were there first, and the
population grew up around them. You came second, and the only thing that
has built up around you is the stench of stupidity. If you dont like the
fact that when kids or adults tresspass on a railroad they get killed,
move away, or teach your kids to stay the hell of the tracks. You may be
sad about the kids in Rochester, and you can cry me a river, I feel sad
for their families, who learned the hard way that they should teach their
kids about staying off private property. I feel even more sad for the
trains crew, and the greif they will have for the rest of their lives.
Ive known guys who had to end their career after hitting a kid, and one
engineer who ended his life to end the greif. I feel bad for the cop who
was not in time to get the kids off the bridge (A cop was heading to the
bridge to get the kids off, but the train got there first) I feel bads
for the paramedics who had to remove the bodies. But I will NEVER feel
bad for someone who, for all intents and purpposes, commits suicide.
>(but leave the clearing after you pull up the rails, so there will
>still be a nice path through the woods).
Now I know that you are kidding, no person can be this stupid or vain.
>Life is tough. Live with it.
>Railroads invited the problem by laying tracks with absolutely no
>right of way fences or other protections. If they're willing to
>live with deer and bear crossing their hallowed tracks, then they
>can live with other warm-blooded beings crossing, too.
No, people created the problem by breaking the law and putting themselves
in front of thousands of tons of metal. Also, there is a difference
bettween the deer and bear that cross the tracks, they dont get hit as
much, and also seem to be smarter than the average tresspasser.
Expect a train on ANY track, at ANY time in ANY direction.
Sirs...@aol.com M.P. 20.05 Conrail Lehigh Line
Goodbye Conrail, It was nice to know you :-(
Id love to help you out, which way did you come in?
Warren Brill
Rich Rainaldi (pi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I'm a little out of touch. Are they still running SP coal trains
: through Tennessee Pass, or is that over with?
: Thanks.
I was on I-70 last Sunday, and though I did not go to the Pass myself,
I saw several WBs waiting to continue past Dotsero. There was also a
slow-moving merchandiser WB near Gypsum.
YMMV,
Warren Brill
morgul
Reply to: mor...@worldnet.att.net (morgul)
Responding to: ko...@earthlink.net
>So you ask why aren't railroads treated like interstates? You can't
>play both sides of the argument- if they're just as dangerous as
>freeways, then they should be rebuilt with the same safety features
>and accessibility/crossing features as freeways. If they're not as
>dangerous, then stop using that argument.
Apples and oranges.
Interstates are publically funded, publically-owned institutions. The
public has the right to be there. You cannot trespass on a road.
Railroads, however, are privately owned businesses, and non-employees have
ni right to be on the property and are subject to prosecution for trespass.
You're comparing 2 totally different things here.
>The whole thing boils down to money. I don't care what trucks and
>highways or doing. What's the solution for railroads?
>Obviously pulling up tracks and abandoning service isn't the answer.
>Re-routing to avoid areas which have become congested with human life
>is a cost-trade off to be compared against expensive infrastructure
>upgrades, grade separations, fencing, etc. Also, it may be temporary-
>wherever they move to might become congested in future years.
>That leaves us with the infrastructure upgrades.
Actually, the solution is even simpler than that. Respect the private
property of the railroad industry. To put it simpler, "STAY OFF THE TRACKS".
Boom. Problem solved. Don't trespass, and you won't get hurt.
It doesn't get any simpler than that. Simple respect for the property of
others.
* Notice! The Header Address is incorrect on purpose! Email responses
* Should be directed to mor...@worldnet.att.net
****************************************************************
* This Message Written from The Trading Post [SOUTH] WWIV BBS! *
* 803-731-0690 * WWIV Support BBS! * SIGs, Files, Games, More! *
* Located: Columbia, South Carolina * United States Of America *
* WWIVNet @6100 * Filenet @350 * Fidonet 1:376/126 * Internet! *
* For Information, E-mail the SysOp at MOR...@WORLDNET.ATT.NET *
****************************************************************
Randy Treadway
dco...@netcom.ca (Duane Cooke) wrote:
>>I think Brent and Corinna and others need to stop putting walking
>>across railroad tracks in the same category as intentionally
>>climbing over the fence surrounding Three Mile Island Nuclear Power
>>Plant.
>
> Why not????
Two factors here:
#1-Take a single lane in a freeway- here in the L.A. area, that means
a car whizzing over that lane about every .7 seconds (or about
10 cars every 7 seconds).
Compare that to a mainline railroad track that features a train
that takes 6 minutes to get by, but only shows up maybe every hour
and a half. That means the track is occupied by a train only 6 minutes
out of every 90 minutes, or only 7% of the time.
That compares to 99% occupancy on L.A. freeways.
#2-Given that kind of traffic on freeways, it's no wonder that there are not only
fences on both sides of all interstates, but plenty of access points
to cross over or under the interstate to get to the other side.
So you ask why aren't railroads treated like interstates? You can't
play both sides of the argument- if they're just as dangerous as
freeways, then they should be rebuilt with the same safety features
and accessibility/crossing features as freeways. If they're not as
dangerous, then stop using that argument.
>>If you don't like it, then either put up fences (and listen to the
>>political howling), or move your tracks somewhere else.
>
>**===>>So what you are saying here is that if your kid went out and
> played in the middle of the freeway, gets nailed by a truck,
>
> the highways dept. should pack up the Interstate and move
> it elsewhere??
See above argument- if you want to treat railroads like Interstates,
then be willing to put in the same infrastructure upgrades that
Interstates were built with to begin with. Otherwise stop the
comparisons.
>
>>(but leave the clearing after you pull up the rails, so there will
>>still be a nice path through the woods).
>
>***===>>Sure, I'll come out and give you a hand to remove the first
> spike--Maybe then we can finally have much-needed more
> trucks on our highways...And don't forget that the
> railroads pay taxes on their right-of-ways--Trucks don't!
My comment here was tongue-in-cheek. Of course we need rail freight
service. The country's economy depends on it, ALONG with the trucks.
The whole thing boils down to money. I don't care what trucks and
highways or doing. What's the solution for railroads?
Obviously pulling up tracks and abandoning service isn't the answer.
Re-routing to avoid areas which have become congested with human life
is a cost-trade off to be compared against expensive infrastructure
upgrades, grade separations, fencing, etc. Also, it may be temporary-
wherever they move to might become congested in future years.
That leaves us with the infrastructure upgrades.
How to pay for it?
#1- (tongue-in-cheek again) Get in a war like happened to Europe
50 years or so ago, get all your railroads bombed out, so you are
FORCED to rebuild them all after the war, and this time do them
RIGHT- total grade separations, high speed lines, etc.
#2- (probably the only real option) Have the federal government buy up
all rail lines from the railroads nationwide, and set up a new
quasi-government operation to run them, perform all MOW, etc.
Charge every railroad who wants to use them a standard fee for moving
across the rails. The fees charged to railroads could cover operations,
switching, routing, MOW, etc. The government would have to set up
nationwide routing system kind of like Air Traffic Control.
The railroads could still do dispatching as far as scheduling
freight movements, but once they move onto mainlines, control goes
over to government Traffic Control. Just like airline freight.
Capital upgrades for grade separations, conversion to high speed rail,
electrification, etc, could be subsidized by the U.S. Government as
benefitting the national economy. (Over and above the fees charged
to railroads to move freight over the system).
That should get you rail-nuts happy again, as it would put the
railroads back on a level that is more comparable to the interstate
highway system. (okay, so straighten out the tax system, too).
So stop complaining about highway subsidies and all the supposed
"perks" that highways get, and stop proposing to kill highway funds
and kill all the truckers.
Instead, bring the railroads UP to the same proportional level of administration
and funding as the highways. Gee- an innovative thought, or what? Duh.....
What, you say the railroads might not want to give up their tracks to the
government at a reasonable reimbursement price? Then by golly, they better
stop arguing about the capital upgrade benefits that the highway system
gets from the government!!! To share the gain, ya gotta play the game!
This proposal may be in line with that report that came out of Washington
last week to return Amtrak to a 'normal' operating railroad.
The comparison to highways would be if Washington ran a trucking business
or Greyhound bus line.
Owning and running the right-of-way and being responsible for capital
improvements makes more sense for governmental support. That frees the
railroads (as trucking companies already have it) to concentrate on moving the
freight and updating their rolling stock, personnel training and benefits, etc.
Same with Amtrak (or whoever else might want to get into the business)
with moving passengers.
Maybe the feds could own primary interstate mainlines, the states could
own regional mainlines, and local counties/municipalities could own and
maintain feeder lines, short lines, industrial park lines, etc.
That would compare favorably with the interstate system, U.S. highway system,
state highway system, city streets, etc etc.
>Also, you should realize that many tracks were layed prior to
>population expansion.As railroads were the main source of
>transportation years ago, many towns and cities today owe their very
>exisitance to the railroad.
I've heard this argument many times. WHO CARES????
We are where we are today. It doesn't matter who was there first.
The chicken or the egg. Did various cities in an area "bid" and present
their case to the railroads on WHICH one the railroad should route through
back in the 19th century, or did cities spring up and grow AFTER the railroads
made their decisions? Probably both, but again WHO CARES??? that's ancient history.
There's a problem that needs solving.
So towns and the news media should stop pointing fingers at railroads, and
railroad employees and rail-nuts should stop pointing fingers
at ignorant 'trespassers' onto the railroads' hallowed, holy ground.
Instead, start thinking about if there were NO RAILROADS AT ALL
today, and you could build it however makes the most sense, what would
you do? Then and only then, start figuring out how to make that
vision a reality over the next 50-75 years.
Enough whining.
R.T.
Randy Treadway
sirs...@aol.com (Sirsonic) wrote:
>Going into TMI is different from tresspassing on RR
>property, you have a lesser chance of dying.
Oh really???
I'll take my chances ANY day, looking both ways first, and
then stepping directly across some track, than foolishly
climbing over a fence and taking invisble gamma ray hits
that might kill you within days.
>Thikning that it is OK or
>even worse, safe to tresspass on PRIVATE RR property is just wrong, and
>will get you killed. You would be better served playing on an interstate
>with a blindfold on.
I don't know of any railroad in the country that is more dangerous
than the interstates where I live. Nobody in their right mind would
take a single step across an 18-lane interstate. You wouldn't live
more than 2-3 seconds at best.
Your chances crossing a railroad are millions of times better.
Check with Vegas- I'll bet they'll quote you odds.
By the way, as long as it's Private Property (capital letters yours),
I'll bet the railroads are the only industry in the whole country
that doesn't fence any property that they feel important enough
to keep people off of, and yet owns so much of that property as
to effectively fence IN and SEAL off citizens from access to
surrounding areas!
What a scam!
>How about this, YOU MOVE! The railroads were there first, and the
>population grew up around them.
That is often a lie, but is always used as an argument. Besides,
what happened 150 years ago has absolutely NOTHING to do with the
problem we're talking about.
>You may be
>sad about the kids in Rochester, and you can cry me a river, I feel sad
>for their families, who learned the hard way that they should teach their
>kids about staying off private property. I feel even more sad for the
>trains crew, and the greif they will have for the rest of their lives.
>Ive known guys who had to end their career after hitting a kid, and one
>engineer who ended his life to end the greif.
I'm sure you also feel more sad for SS guards who have to deal with the
lifetime trauma of dealing with memories of opening and shutting the
doors to the gas chambers, while Jews deserved what they got.
I'm sure I'll get flames over that.
Railroad employees deserve professional help along with policemen and
ambulance attendants. It's not their fault. I don't disagree.
But they have a CHANCE to recover, in most cases.
>But I will NEVER feel
>bad for someone who, for all intents and purpposes, commits suicide.
I'll bet that 99 times out of hundred, the person killed did not
INTENTIONALLY place himself to end his life. So it is not suicide.
They made an unfortunate mistake.
BUT TO SAY THEY DESERVE DEATH MAKES YOU A NAZI IN MY EYES!
I'm sure you will also support right-to-die for terminally ill, and
eventually euthanasia for those deemed by the authorities to be so
stupid or lacking of value they will serve not valuable role in the
future for society.
My Bible says that everyone has value in God's eyes, no matter whether
we can see it or not, and no matter what their actions currently seem
to imply.
R.T.
Doug Smith
Randy Treadway wrote:
>
>(Blah, blah, blah, etc.)
And Smitty replies:
And here I thought there wasn't someone else as moronic as
George........
Doug Smith
Randy Treadway wrote:
>
> Like it or not, walking down the tracks, crossing them constantly
> when out hunting rabbit or squirrel, fishing from creek bridges,
> it's been an American way of life for 150 years.
And Smitty retorts:
So was killing Indians (or Native Americans, American aborigines,
or whatever term you want to use). But that was something that someone
saw wise enough to stop. Just because it happens doesn't make it right.
Duane Cooke
pi...@ix.netcom.com(Rich Rainaldi) wrote:
>I'm a little out of touch. Are they still running SP coal trains
>through Tennessee Pass, or is that over with?
>Thanks.
===>>Last week I photographed an SP coal train at the loader between
Clear Creek and Scofield Ut.--Almost due south of S.Summit
3 SP dash-9's on the point. (SP #284, 281, 279)
Hope that's what you're looking for...
...Duane...
Randy Treadway
mor...@dont.spam.me.worldnet.att.net (morgul) wrote:
> Actually, the solution is even simpler than that. Respect the private
>property of the railroad industry. To put it simpler, "STAY OFF THE TRACKS".
>
> Boom. Problem solved. Don't trespass, and you won't get hurt.
>
> It doesn't get any simpler than that. Simple respect for the property of
>others.
It's no wonder that the railroad situation is so bad in this country.
You'll all a bunch of idiots.
Respect for property to me equals don't damage the property of others.
So how is crossing the tracks damaging anything? Huh? Can you answer that Dufus?
If something is your property and you want to protect it then you damn better
put up a fence, create access pedestrian bridges overhead or tunnels underneath,
or put your rent-a-cops every 50 feet on every strip of track in this country,
along with signs every 20 feet. Or you always have the option of moving.
Otherwise, if the track isn't sign-posted and my kid gets killed for doing
something (simply crossing) that every other citizen in town does, then the
RR will pay me in court, and they will lose (for negligence for allowing it
to happen by not fencing off dangerous industrial areas).
Do I really believe that? Of course not- it's outrageous. But it's an argument
as far to the left-wing as you are on the right-wing.
Why can't people work toward a meaningful solution by finding a common middle
ground instead of sticking to the same time-worn arguments that continue to see
people killed week after week?
Railroads need to work big-time on their image. If they're perceived as unfeeling
unwelcome monsters who don't care about individuals or their needs, they will
quickly become "bad neighbors". There will be a push through citizens to their
Congressman to repeal the stupid archaic laws that protect railroads from local
and regional legislation. Right now they're exempt from way too many rules.
Local jurisdictions should be able to buy up RR property by immiment domain rules,
if they think that's the best solution and arrange alternate routes for the RR,
or be able to impose local taxes on RRs (like cities can do with airport taxes
on airlines for landing fees and gate fees) to pay for the infrastructure changes
which are necessary. Or maybe impose those fees on the companies whose goods are
being shipped. Whatever formula works.
There's too many people in this group who have been so involved with railroads
for so long that they have their head stuck in the ground.
I'm all for railroads. We need them. But WHY IN THE WORLD are Americans so
arrogant that we think we can operate the railroads in a cavalier manner that
most of the rest of the industrialized world discarded many, many years ago?
(Duh..cuz we're Americans and Americans always know better than anybody else! ???)
R.T.
morgul
Reply to: mor...@worldnet.att.net (morgul)
Responding to: ko...@earthlink.net
>It's no wonder that the railroad situation is so bad in this country.
>You'll all a bunch of idiots.
Kindly explain to me why respecting the law is idiotic?
>Respect for property to me equals don't damage the property of others.
Respect for property also means don't trespass on private property.
>So how is crossing the tracks damaging anything? Huh? Can you answer that Dufu
It's obvious that you realize how wrong your position on this is, when
you resort to insults and name-calling.
>If something is your property and you want to protect it then you damn better
>put up a fence, create access pedestrian bridges overhead or tunnels underneat
>or put your rent-a-cops every 50 feet on every strip of track in this country,
>along with signs every 20 feet. Or you always have the option of moving.
Why? Why should you have to fence your property in to keep people out?
Why can't people realize that private property is private property, and they
should stay off themselves? Why must we constantly protect ourselves FROM
ourselves.
*I* at least have the common sense to know that unless I'm invited on
private property, or have legitimate business there, I should stay off. It's
that simple.
Sirsonic
>Railroads need to work big-time on their image. If they're perceived as
unfeeling
>unwelcome monsters who don't care about individuals or their needs, they
will
>quickly become "bad neighbors". There will be a push through citizens to
their
>Congressman to repeal the stupid archaic laws that protect railroads from
local
>and regional legislation. Right now they're exempt from way too many
rules.
>Local jurisdictions should be able to buy up RR property by immiment
domain >rules,
>if they think that's the best solution and arrange alternate routes for
the RR,
>or be able to impose local taxes on RRs (like cities can do with airport
taxes
>on airlines for landing fees and gate fees) to pay for the infrastructure
changes
>which are necessary. Or maybe impose those fees on the companies whose
>goods are
>being shipped. Whatever formula works.
Railroads can not be governed by municipal gvts. and state gvts are
limited in their authority. Its in the Constituion that certain
authorities are given to state gvts, and certain to the federal gvt.
authority over intersate commerce falls solely in the hands of the federal
gvt.
Sirsonic
>>Going into TMI is different from tresspassing on RR
>>property, you have a lesser chance of dying.
>Oh really???
>I'll take my chances ANY day, looking both ways first, and
>then stepping directly across some track, than foolishly
>climbing over a fence and taking invisble gamma ray hits
>that might kill you within days.
My point is that, without going off topic too far, the chance of dying of
radiation posioning from TMI (there is not that much radiation around
there), is small compared to the chance of dying when you get hit by a
train. Granted that the chance of getting hit by a train is low, you cant
tell when one will swing around that bend and supprise you. If you want
to cross the tracks, do so at a grade seperation, or a road crossing.
>>Thikning that it is OK or
>>even worse, safe to tresspass on PRIVATE RR property is just wrong, and
>>will get you killed. You would be better served playing on an
interstate
>>with a blindfold on.
>I don't know of any railroad in the country that is more dangerous
>than the interstates where I live. Nobody in their right mind would
>take a single step across an 18-lane interstate. You wouldn't live
>more than 2-3 seconds at best.
>Your chances crossing a railroad are millions of times better.
>Check with Vegas- I'll bet they'll quote you odds.
Its the same Russian roulete idea. Anyway, a car can stop much faster
than a train, and if you get hit by a car, there is a chance you will
live. You dont get the same odds if you get hit by a train. Also, it is
not tresspassing when you cross a road, it is when you cross a railroad
where you should not.
>By the way, as long as it's Private Property (capital letters yours),
>I'll bet the railroads are the only industry in the whole country
>that doesn't fence any property that they feel important enough
>to keep people off of, and yet owns so much of that property as
>to effectively fence IN and SEAL off citizens from access to
>surrounding areas!
>What a scam!
Why should they have to? Why is it not my fault if I get hit by a train
just because there was no fence? Regardless, I have seen a fence go up
one day, and a hole in it the next. Fenceing wont work against the people
who feel that it is their God given rights to be assholes.
>>How about this, YOU MOVE! The railroads were there first, and the
>>population grew up around them.
>That is often a lie, but is always used as an argument. Besides,
>what happened 150 years ago has absolutely NOTHING to do with the
>problem we're talking about.
First, how is that a lie? If you want to say Im lying you damn well
better be able to suppport it. Second, it isnt. Population, especially
in the west, grew up around railroads, its a well known fact. Did you fail
history in school? Also what happened 150 years ago matters alot to this
point, since that is when the rails were laid down. They were there when
you were born, they were there when you moved next to them, and they were
there when you decided that they were public property because there was no
fence around them. They were there when those kids were born and grew up
around them. The kids took their life in their own hands when the went
out on that bridge. Nobody made them go out there, and they knew that
what they were doing was illegal, and that if a train came they could be
killed. They decided to go out on the bridge and they lost, and they
payed with their lives. It may be sad that they died so young, but what
they got, they brought upon themselves. They have nobody to blame but
themselves.
>>You may be
>>sad about the kids in Rochester, and you can cry me a river, I feel sad
>>for their families, who learned the hard way that they should teach
their
>>kids about staying off private property. I feel even more sad for the
>>trains crew, and the greif they will have for the rest of their lives.
>>Ive known guys who had to end their career after hitting a kid, and one
>>engineer who ended his life to end the greif.
>I'm sure you also feel more sad for SS guards who have to deal with the
>lifetime trauma of dealing with memories of opening and shutting the
>doors to the gas chambers, while Jews deserved what they got.
This comparison is disgusting. The Jews did not have a choice, they could
go in the gas chamber or be shot. The kids in Rochester had no gun to
their head when they went out on that bridge. They played a deadly game
and lost.
>I'm sure I'll get flames over that.
You should. You cant make a good point so you just piss people off.
Could it be that you are George Conklin with a different name?.
>Railroad employees deserve professional help along with policemen and
>ambulance attendants. It's not their fault. I don't disagree.
>But they have a CHANCE to recover, in most cases.
But the kids cant. I know that, and that is why you should NOT tresspass
on private property.
>>But I will NEVER feel
>>bad for someone who, for all intents and purpposes, commits suicide.
>I'll bet that 99 times out of hundred, the person killed did not
>INTENTIONALLY place himself to end his life. So it is not suicide.
>They made an unfortunate mistake.
>BUT TO SAY THEY DESERVE DEATH MAKES YOU A NAZI IN MY EYES!
WHERE DID I SAY THAT THEY DESERVE DEATH! YOUR BULLSHIT IS REALLY PISSING
ME OFF! If you cant make a point you go with a personal attack. That is
really good, are you in first grade still? They caused their own death,
and in my eyes they commited suicide. They knew the risks and decided to
ignore them.
>I'm sure you will also support right-to-die for terminally ill, and
>eventually euthanasia for those deemed by the authorities to be so
>stupid or lacking of value they will serve not valuable role in the
>future for society.
My views on these issues is irrelevant, and besides I dont support
euthanasia.
>My Bible says that everyone has value in God's eyes, no matter whether
>we can see it or not, and no matter what their actions currently seem
>to imply.
The kids have value, and its sad that they are dead, but they died as a
result of their own illegal and stupid actions.
If you can not keep to the issues and away from personal attacks, then I
will just ignore you in the hopes you will just go away, and take your
mistaken ideas with you.
Richard Hyde
Brent and Corinna (bad...@direct.ca) wrote:
: Either way, the whole issue boils down to common sence. If you have
: it, you will stay off the tracks. If you don't, you will continue
: walking on the tracks, playing russian-roulette with your life and the
: mental well-being of people just doing their jobs.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, but perhaps not as you
intended. People have different ideas of what common sense means.
Equating "walking on the tracks" with "russian-roulette" is pretty
silly. Putting a gun in my mouth with one loaded chamber and pulling
the trigger is nothing like looking both ways and then crossing RR
tracks that are only used once an hour.
We have a range of behaviors here and peoples idea of what is risky
will fall at different places in that range depending on their
experience and attitudes.
Private property concerns aside, most of us would agree that crossing
a one mile long trestle frequently occupied by high-speed trains is
risky behavior.
Most of us would also agree that crossing a lightly used line with
good visibility in both directions is not risky behavior.
Anything in between may or may not be risky based on the knowledge
and alertness of the individual concerned.
Now we come to the question of private property. We all agree that
trespassing is illegal and technically should not be done.
Most of us would agree that walking around a railroads intermodal
terminals without permission is a "severe" form of trespass.
Most of us would agree that crossing a lightly used rail line
once a week when going to the store is a "mild" form of trespass,
especially if the "legal" way around is long and inconvenient.
How seriously we rate the trespass depends on our experience and attitudes.
If we argue (discuss?) specific examples rather than using one extreme
or the other to flog the opposition, I think the flame rate in the
group will go way down.
Cheers,
Rick
--
Include "wombat" in Subject: line of mail sent to me [to override spamgard(tm)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Richard Hyde | R...@netcom.com | This space intentionally left blank |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent and Corinna
ko...@earthlink.net (Randy Treadway) wrote:
>It's no wonder that the railroad situation is so bad in this country.
>You'll all a bunch of idiots.
>
>Respect for property to me equals don't damage the property of others.
>
>So how is crossing the tracks damaging anything? Huh? Can you answer that Dufus?
<snip>
>I'm all for railroads. We need them. But WHY IN THE WORLD are Americans so
>arrogant that we think we can operate the railroads in a cavalier manner that
>most of the rest of the industrialized world discarded many, many years ago?
>
>(Duh..cuz we're Americans and Americans always know better than anybody else! ???)
First of all, there is absolutely no need to begin insulting people.
this is a discussion, and if you wish to portray the image of a
desperate person, swearing because you ran out of logic, well, keep it
up. However, if you want us to continue listening to you and perhaps
have a real dialogue, please stop it. There's no need for it.
Second, I would like to remind you that NOT EVERYONE on the internet,
in this newsgroup, or participating in this discussion is an American.
I am a Canadian, and for the most part, there aren't high fences
surrounding the tracks up here. However, I honestly think that there
should be. Why not? As long as there are people like you who think
that they have a right to tresspass on private property, I'm all for
12metre high electric fences. But the problem is that this won't
solve the problem completely. Plain and simple.
There are kids and young adults throughout the world who think it's
cool to tresspass - just look at all the graffitti that gets behind
fences throughout the larger cities. They know they shouldn't go
there.. that's part of the appeal.
And then there are people like yourself. People who think that you
have a right to walk on the tracks. That it's part of the "American
way of life". Sorry, if it's part of your way of life, I think you
just identified where the problem is: walking on tracks should NOT be
part of anyone's way of life, except perhaps the trained workers for
the various RR companies.
I'm not even going to start into the discussion about what the various
communities would think about the aethestic qualities of a 12 metre
electric fence running along the tracks that run through their
city/town/whatever.
Either way, the whole issue boils down to common sence. If you have
it, you will stay off the tracks. If you don't, you will continue
walking on the tracks, playing russian-roulette with your life and the
mental well-being of people just doing their jobs.
Corinna
Ken Stitzel
Rich Rainaldi (pi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I'm a little out of touch. Are they still running SP coal trains
: through Tennessee Pass, or is that over with?
According to the July 1 news squib over on Altamont Press:
The first major shift in rail traffic to faster and more
efficient routes as part of the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific
merger will begin today.
The traffic changes involve implementation of unique "hub and
spoke" labor agreements to allow increased flexibility in the
assignment of train crews. Affected will be the Rocky Mountain
region between Denver and Salt Lake City and portions of
Kansas. Traffic will be shifted from slower, steeper mountain
passes to Union Pacific's main line across Wyoming.
Coal trains originating in the region will move more directly
to eastern customers via Union Pacific's route from Denver
across Kansas to midwestern and eastern utilities. The change
follows months of planning. The key steps in preparing for the
move were completing the cutover of the railroad's
computerized Transportation Control System (TCS) for the
2,000-mile region and labor implementing agreements.
Here's the URL: http://altamontpress.com/news/7-1-97.html
(Used without permission, but I will say check out Altamont because
they've got good stuff! The main page is at:
and the master newspage is at:
http://altamontpress.com/news/newsline.html.
Good pages to bookmark. Check 'em out!)
For amusement, see the July 2 update to see how UP might be doing with
the rerouting:
http://altamontpress.com/news/7-2-97.html
I guess the rerouting of traffic was slated to begin in June but some
labor negotiations and contract squabbles delayed it. Allegedly they
will only move one train at a time until everything is off the
Pass. :-(
--
Ken Stitzel (k...@fc.hp.com)
Learning Products Engineer (tech writer with functional enhancements)
Hewlett-Packard Company (a pretty cool company to work for)
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
(Opinions stated herein are provided without warranty and are not
representative of official or unofficial HP policy on losing trains
off of Tennessee Pass)
Chris Vernell
Randy Treadway (ko...@earthlink.net) writes:
>
> I'll bet that 99 times out of hundred, the person killed did not
> INTENTIONALLY place himself to end his life. So it is not suicide.
> They made an unfortunate mistake.
They were deliberately stupid, or stupidly deliberate.
As for fencing off the right of way, a child was killed hereabouts a few
years ago because he crawled through a hole in a fence cut by people too
lazy to walk to an underpass some yards down the line. Predictably, the
yowls over the Bad Railway Not Protecting Innocent Children From Its Nasty
Trains could be heard to high heaven (and probably in the other place too).
The rail line had been around about 100 years before the houses were
built, but trains and their dangers don't enter most people's
consciousness these days. *Nothing* enters some people's consciousness.
--
Chris Vernell | Ottawa Valley N-Trak
Nepean, Ontario
Frederick W. Hyde
Scotty Hiddelston wrote:
>
> Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> TASTEFULLY wrote in article
> <33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>...
>
It seems to me that Corrina is getting frustrated with some of the
attitudes she ses on this topic.
> Tell me, are you for REAL, or are the railroads using your name as a
> pseudonym to influence this newsgroup?
No. She may just be a concerned parent or individual who just doesn't
understand how someone can put their lives on the line like many
trackwalkers do.
> How you can so callously transform
> two naive and foolhardy high school kids into "trespassers" sends a shiver
> up my spine.
Why? They were where they were not supposed to be.
> These were KIDS for Christ's sake, doing something that I bet
> every kid in America or for that matter the world has either done or wanted
> to do.
Probably true, and we see on this newsgroup the consequences of kids
doing what they always wanted to do by walking or playing on the tracks.
These kids who were killed were just the latest in a string of kids who
have met their end by playing on the tracks.
> How you can justify their deaths by citing Private Property (my
> capitals) issues scares the hell outa me. What the hell is going on here?
Private property probably isn't the right way that this is being
portrayed.
> This newsgroup is fast becoming a platform for the pro-railroaders to play
> politics, suck up to their beloved employer and cite the law.
From Thomas the Tank Engine: "The Law is the Law and we can't change
it". The legal(or illegal) part of walking on the tracks usually NEVER
plays into ANYONE's thought when they decide to take a shortcut or walk
the tracks. 'Tis a Federal Law, too.
> Another
> poster, while getting a bit flamy brings up the responsibility of the
> railroads to keep people off of their property and Smitty calls him a
> moron.
Railroads put up fences all the time. They are very INeffective at
keeping people away from the rails.
I think Smitty has made great contributions to this group, but this
> kind of sanctimonious " I work on the railroads so I'll pass judgement on
> all thinking" hooey doesn't cut it .Let's share ideas, not criticize them.
If you're in train service, I wonder how you will feel when you hit
someone walking on the tracks.
Will you feel the same way as you do now?
Remember Rule M: "Expect a train on any track from any direction". All
railroaders know this as it is the lynchpin of safety. Do all kids and
other trackwalkers know this? I think not.
Fred
Randy Treadway
Good grief, I was beginning to think this group might soon be
renamed misc.transport.rail.corp.propaganda.dept, when along
comes Richard Hyde and Scotty Hiddelston to show us that there
are some voices of moderation and reason among us- we just don't
hear from them often enough.
I have to admit that I threw out too many flames and argumentative
lines on this topic, and I apologize.
Thank you, Richard and Scotty for trying to get us back to
some common ground for discussion.
I'll make just one more (hopefully mild) comment before moving
on and ending my involvement with this thread (do I hear cheers
out there?!):
Frederick W. Hyde" <fred...@citilink.com> wrote:
>I think Smitty has made great contributions to this group, but this
>> kind of sanctimonious " I work on the railroads so I'll pass judgement on
>> all thinking" hooey doesn't cut it .Let's share ideas, not criticize them.
>If you're in train service, I wonder how you will feel when you hit
>someone walking on the tracks.
>Will you feel the same way as you do now?
This is like saying that the aircraft manufacturers are best equipped to
make decisions on airline safety, ocean shipping magnates have the best
knowledge to make ocean pollution rules, etc.
Does anybody besides me see either outright conflict of interest here,
or even at best, a lack of wide enough perspective, if railroad employees
are the only ones whose perspective is considered?
Sometimes the best people to make decisions are the most intelligent
people who can be found who do NOT have any background, interests, or
prior allegiance to the industry that is being examined. They can
listen to ALL involved parties, research all the facts, and make
independent decisions.
(no, I would not offer myself up as a candidate for such a decision-
making position of authority- I don't have enough patience and political
savvy to make progress, and I get too frustrated with individuals
who stake out ground based on illogical arguments).
I'll be content to state an occasional opinion on a nondescript forum
like this, to be considered along with thousands of other opinions.
Oh, that's right- we don't have any right to even voice that opinion
because the railroads were already here 150 years ago, before any of
us were born. Unless you're 150 years old, you have no rights in the
matter. And once a decision is made in an age of 19th-century
western expansion and unbridled economic explosion of the industrial age,
those decisions can never again be questioned, even as we move into
the 20th Century and are well beyond the industrial age and quickly
progressing into the 'information age' (as this communication medium
will attest).
And any 3-year old child should know that it is less dangerous to go
cross the freeway because it was built just 35 years ago, as opposed
to that 150 year-old strip of ties and rails.
That must make the street the safest place of all to play because it was
built just 12 years ago.
More serious question-
Somebody mentioned the implications of interstate commerce law- how
local jurisdictions have no authority over railroads because the
U.S. Constitution vests authority to govern interstate commerce with
the federal government.
So how do these local towns enforce their rules about railroads not
blowing their whistles or horns disturbing citizens? Apparently the
railroads try to comply with such rules- is it only out of their desire
to be good neighbors, or is there really some legal authority that the
local towns do have after all?
And local jurisdictions have all kinds of rules (especially here in
California) governing the way airlines take off and land at airports.
They have to be within designated hours (not at night)- they have
to keep it under x number of decibels in noise, etc. Far more
stringent than FAA noise rules. And apparently it is enforceable,
because they fine airlines that take off even a couple of minutes
too early in the morning. Aren't airlines, being involved in interstate
commerce, protected by the U.S. Constitution from local government
rules the same way as railroads?
(or maybe the Constitutional argument is less than valid?)
R.T.
Scotty Hiddelston
Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> TASTEFULLY wrote in article
<33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>...
> No, but they intended to tresspass.
>
> Perhaps if everyone put the blame where it should lie (these two young
> tresspassers), then others wouldn't make the same fatal mistakes of
> thinking that it's cool to hang out on private property, and these
> discussion will become a thing of the past. Stop trying to make these
> tresspassers into heros. They broke the law, they put themselves in
> danger, and they paid the price.
Tell me, are you for REAL, or are the railroads using your name as a
pseudonym to influence this newsgroup? How you can so callously transform
two naive and foolhardy high school kids into "trespassers" sends a shiver
up my spine. These were KIDS for Christ's sake, doing something that I bet
every kid in America or for that matter the world has either done or wanted
to do. How you can justify their deaths by citing Private Property (my
capitals) issues scares the hell outa me. What the hell is going on here?
What about the kid down in Lousiana who got shot for ringing some yahoo's
doorbell to ask directions? Hey, he was on private property, screw 'em.
This newsgroup is fast becoming a platform for the pro-railroaders to play
politics, suck up to their beloved employer and cite the law. Another
poster, while getting a bit flamy brings up the responsibility of the
railroads to keep people off of their property and Smitty calls him a
moron. I think Smitty has made great contributions to this group, but this
kind of sanctimonious " I work on the railroads so I'll pass judgement on
all thinking" hooey doesn't cut it .Let's share ideas, not criticize them.
--
Scotty sco...@whidbey.net
>> " Jings!!" --- oor wullie <<
Tom Kirchhoff
Again, Fences as the cure all could be tough to backup with safety record
improvements -- but two more points to consider:
The word around Rochester (not confirmed by me) is that county Deputies are
shagging kids off the bridge AGAIN -- lesson learned?
This Bridge over the Erie Canal also runs over the towpath park next to the
canal, a linear park stretching from Newark, NY to Gasport, NY mostly
unbroken -- An Attractive Nuisance perhaps, but whose? or which? Or, what
to do with a bike path, a "waterhole" and a place to jump from? It has
been, according to reports, a magnet for kids for a long time now.
Frederick W. Hyde <fred...@citilink.com> wrote in article
<33BC78...@citilink.com>...
> Scotty Hiddelston wrote:
> >
> > Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> TASTEFULLY wrote in article
> > <33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>...
> >
> > > No, but they intended to tresspass.
>
> It seems to me that Corrina is getting frustrated with some of the
> attitudes she ses on this topic.
> snip.
>
> Fred
>
>
Kevin L. Wagner
I am getting really fed up with some of the people who have posted about
the issues of trespassing as well as crossing accidents. It amazes me
that people this stupid are allowed to even be let out on the streets.
Here are some things that I've seen over the years that have really pissed
me off:
1. People wanting fences up along railroad tracks. And just who is going
to pay for this? Do you really think it's possible to fence in every mile
of track in the US? What are you going to do about grade crossings then?
People walking down a road could easily turn and go onto the right of way
there. What about vandals who could cut holes in the fences?
2. People suggesting that railroads move the tracks away from populated
areas. What planet are thes people from? Suppose I go out and I'm
jogging down the street and a car hits me. Well, I suppose we'd better
move those streets. Can't have those dangerous cars hitting joggers.
3. People who blame the railroad when somebody is hit. I used to fall
into this category for about a month after a friend of mine was killed
(http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~kevinw/HOL.html), but now that I'm pretty much
ovr the grief, I believe that you have to be stupid to think that a train
can dodge or stop in time to keep from hitting a kid on the tracks or a
car on a crossing (sometimes, not even at a crossing). There is too much
weight in motion to be able to stop quickly with a train, and they run on
a fixed path (i.e. they can't swerve!).
4. People who blame the railroad if crossing signals are malfunctioning
or there are no crossing signals and somebody is involved in a crash with
a train. There are signs up that warn you that you are approaching a
grade crossing and that you are to yield the right of way to trains.
That's what the yellow warning signs and the crossbucks are for. If you
go on only the signals, then you are, in my opinion, a poor driver. Do
you go through an intersection without glancing to the sides at all to see
if vehicles are approaching that might run that stop sign or that traffic
light or for approaching emergency vehicles?
5. An episode of "Eye to Eye" with Connie Chung that was aired in
December of 1993 called "Mixed Signals". This show had to have had the
most mistakes about railroads that I've ever seen. They tell about a girl
who was injured for life when she pulled up to a crossing in her town.
The signals at the crossing had been "malfunctioning". People, of course,
had always gone around the lowered gates. On the day she went up to the
crossing, there was a stopped train on the first track to her left. She
drove around the gates, and was hit by a second train on the second
track. They also made sure to point out that the engineer of the second
train had the throttle "wide open". The mother of the girl went on about
how they should have fixed the malfunctioning gates. But the gates
weren't malfunctioning on that day. There was a train coming! And why
didn't she listen for the horn? She certainly should have heard it
coming. They also tell about a crossing where five kids had been killed
at and the parents were blaming the railroad. They show the crossing, and
there are crossbucks at the crossing as well as stop signs. Proof enough
that people didn't obey the law. However, during the entire show, all
they do is blame the railroads because they claim that malfunctioning
signals confuse drivers and cause the accidents. I remember that at the
end of the segment, Connie Chung says to the person reporting the story,
"I can't believe this! There ought to be a law!" Doh!
6. An episode of "20/20" (?) where they showed people hoboing. This was
discussed before, I believe, and I feel that this was completely ignorant
of ABC to air something like this. I remember that the crew was with one
hobo and they ran to the end of the inside of a boxcar to avoid the
police. Wouldn't it have been hilarious if they would have gotten
arrested and gotten it on video? I would have much rather seen that.
7. Another episode of "20/20" where they reported on some kids killed in
a couple of incidents in Virginia where they were on bridges and got run
over. The parents blamed the railroad (Norfolk Southern), and wanted NS
to get the trains to blow their horns for the bridges. Now, this has to
be really stupid. That would do nothing more than say that it's alright
to go out on the bridge because the trains will be warning you when they
come through. Now if they do that, then they'll have to start blowing for
everyplace else where trespassers can appear. When that happens,
engineers will have to tie down the horn to keep it blowing. Blowing for
bridges in my opinion is stupid.
As you can probably see, I have a lot of strong feelings when it comes to
trespassing and grade crossing accidents. The way I see it, if people
respect railroad property as private property and stay off and use common
sense and obey the law at crossings, accidents like these will be
eleminated and we won't need silly things like fences.
Kevin
--
*********************************************************************
Kevin L. Wagner
kev...@cs.bgsu.edu
http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~kevinw/
__________________
_______| | ___________________________||_______
_______| | | | _____ | ____ |
_______| | | CONRAIL | | | | | | | | SO LONG
_______| | | QUALITY | |_|_| | |__| | CONRAIL!!!
_______| | | | |_________| CR2462 | |
_______|_________| |__|____________________________|__|
O\_/O H O|__|O\_/O O\_/O|__|O
=====================================================================
*********************************************************************
Brent and Corinna
"Scotty Hiddelston" <sco...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>Tell me, are you for REAL, or are the railroads using your name as a
>pseudonym to influence this newsgroup?
Yes, I am for real. I do not work for a RR, but instead (as someone
pointed out), I am sick and tired of hearing about stupid people who
are getting hit and killed by trains. In the Vancouver area in the
past year, there has been several people hit and killed by trains.
One by the West Coast Express (high speed commuter train) and another
child by jumping in front of an oncoming Amtrak train. I had someone
e-mail me and tell me the general (but not publicized) knowledge that
the child was actually playing chicken with the train.
In the latter case, the mother of the deceased child put the blame
complete on the RR. Tell me, what was the RR to do? Those tracks
have been there longer than the town of White Rock (where this
occurred), Amtrak has an extensive train safety course that they give
to all the local schools, and the idea of putting a fence up along the
tracks would be abhorrant by the local residents who don't want to
lose their view.
When I hear of situations like this, it makes me angry that the public
is more concerned about what they perceive as rights as opposed to
their responsibilities. We have to live side-by-side with a lot of
things that are dangerous - roadways, airports, rivers, oceans and
trains. We have a responsibility to be diligent when we are in and
around these potential hazards. Certainly, if kids were playing on a
run-way, the public won't have a huge outcry against airports and the
airlines. It should be the same with the RR's - if you insist that
you must play on the tracks you do so at your own risk. Period.
>two naive and foolhardy high school kids into "trespassers" sends a shiver
>up my spine. These were KIDS for Christ's sake, doing something that I bet
>every kid in America or for that matter the world has either done or wanted
>to do. How you can justify their deaths by citing Private Property (my
>capitals) issues scares the hell outa me.
This is where I ask you, are you for real? Obviously, you are, and I
grant your right to your own opinion. However, allowing children to
think that it's ok and perpetuating the dilutional idea that playing
on RR tracks is OK, even part of the "American way of life" is
irresponsible and doesn't help anyone!
About the whole private property issue, my question to you is: do you
have a fence all the way around your yard? My next question is that
if you don't, does this mean that anyone is invited into your yard
because of the lack of a fence? My answer is that for the most part
(at least in Canada) many yards aren't fenced, but the idea of staying
off of someone's private property goes hand-in hand.
>What about the kid down in Lousiana who got shot for ringing some yahoo's
>doorbell to ask directions? Hey, he was on private property, screw 'em.
That's a completely different thing. When that student was killed,
there was an intent to kill the student. I haven't heard about the RR
employees shooting at tresspassers or trying to run them down. The
employees make every effort NOT to hit/kill tresspassers.
>This newsgroup is fast becoming a platform for the pro-railroaders to play
>politics, suck up to their beloved employer and cite the law.
I think you are mistaken. Again, neither do I work for any RR, nor is
it in my interest to "suck up" to any RR company. However, it is in
my interest, and the interest of anyone who has ever made the wrong
assumption that it's ok to walk on the tracks, to voice my own
opinion.
And for those of you who get all hot under the collar over my opinion,
think about this - am I flaming or using abusive language for anyone
else's opinions? As I value your opinions as being yours, I would
expect the same courtesy.
Corinna
neilmac
> But WHY IN THE WORLD are Americans so
> arrogant that we think we can operate the railroads in a cavalier manner that
> most of the rest of the industrialized world discarded many, many years ago?
> >
> >(Duh..cuz we're Americans and Americans always know better than anybody else! ???)
>
It's the Americans who are cavalier about their understanding of the
dangers of railroads. I kinda like the attitude that the Brits have
about trains. Plenty of opportunities to do something stupid, like doors
and windows that passengers open themselves, but a very basic
understanding that if you're a dumb bloke and stick your head out the
Intercity 125 at speed, too bad. In order to "protect" us from
ourselves, American trains are relative prisons by comparison. Americans
ARE arrogant in thinking that there is always someone else to blame when
they do something wrong/dumb.
Scotty Hiddelston
Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> ,replying to my somewhat emotional
diatribe, wrote in article <33bdaab1...@news.direct.ca>...
> Yes, I am for real. I do not work for a RR, but instead (as someone
> pointed out), I am sick and tired of hearing about stupid people who
> are getting hit and killed by trains.
I am too, I just feel that de-humanizing the stupid ones makes it easy to
overlook the main problem, which is keeping rail tracks and people
separate.
>I had someone e-mail me and tell me the general (but not publicized)
knowledge that
> the child was actually playing chicken with the train.
An idiot, no doubt, but how do we deal with this? Again, calling them
trespassers or gene-defective or whatever only makes it easier to deal with
their deaths. I doubt many kids spend much time in this newsgroup or
anywhere else learning the hazards of railroads.
> In the latter case, the mother of the deceased child put the blame
> complete on the RR. Tell me, what was the RR to do?
Ignore it, which I'm sure they did.
>Those tracks have been there longer than the town of White Rock (where
this
> occurred).
Again, the " we were here first" excuse. No they were not. I bet some
Native American tribe lived quietly on the right-of-way, and were quickly
booted off when the railroad showed up. And as far as towns around
railroads go, after getting this land for free from the Government, most
railroads quickly maximized their profits by selling land adjacent to the
tracks as quickly as possible,even offering free or subsidized travel to
these lots. They created the monster.
> When I hear of situations like this, it makes me angry that the public
> is more concerned about what they perceive as rights as opposed to
> their responsibilities.
I agree, but change 'public' to 'railroad' and you will see the other side
of the problem.
>We have to live side-by-side with a lot of
> things that are dangerous - roadways, airports, rivers, oceans and
> trains. We have a responsibility to be diligent when we are in and
> around these potential hazards. Certainly, if kids were playing on a
> run-way, the public won't have a huge outcry against airports and the
> airlines. It should be the same with the RR's - if you insist that
> you must play on the tracks you do so at your own risk. Period.
Again, I agree, but I feel that if runways were not fenced off kids would
be on them, either taking a shortcut or getting closer to the planes. I
think the public would be screaming for something to be done if this were
the case.
> This is where I ask you, are you for real? Obviously, you are, and I
> grant your right to your own opinion. However, allowing children to
> think that it's ok and perpetuating the dilutional idea that playing
> on RR tracks is OK, even part of the "American way of life" is
> irresponsible and doesn't help anyone!
I didn't mean to advocate playing on the tracks. I just meant that kids are
apt to do this regardless of legalities. Take a look at teenage smoking as
an example. Has all the 'educating' and under-age tobacco sales laws
helped?
>
> About the whole private property issue, my question to you is: do you
> have a fence all the way around your yard? My next question is that
> if you don't, does this mean that anyone is invited into your yard
> because of the lack of a fence?
No I don't have a fence. However I expect people to respect my property as
I respect theirs. Respect, however, not "stay the hell off" , which seems
to be the increasing norm.
But, if I enjoyed leaving my garage door open, then firing up my car and
quickly flying out of the garage onto my driveway I might consider fencing
it in case somebody just happened to be walking along there.
Especially if I seemed to be killing a lot of passers-by whilst doing this.
> And for those of you who get all hot under the collar over my opinion,
> think about this - am I flaming or using abusive language for anyone
> else's opinions? As I value your opinions as being yours, I would
> expect the same courtesy.
Exactly.
Damon R Hudac
In article <33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>,
Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> wrote:
>If they hadn't of been tresspassing, they wouldn't have been in that
>predicament.
Since when has trespassing been a capital offence?
>>I don't think they intended for this tragedy to happen.
>
>No, but they intended to tresspass.
And they died just like they should have, right?
>Perhaps if everyone put the blame where it should lie (these two young
>tresspassers), then others wouldn't make the same fatal mistakes of
No one here is blaming anyone but the trespassers. But you seem to be the
only one saying they deserved to die for doing it. That's pretty harsh to
say the least.
Bob Officer
On 4 Jul 1997 01:45:46 GMT, "Scotty Hiddelston" <sco...@whidbey.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> TASTEFULLY wrote in article
><33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>...
>
>> No, but they intended to tresspass.
>>
>> Perhaps if everyone put the blame where it should lie (these two young
>> tresspassers), then others wouldn't make the same fatal mistakes of
>> thinking that it's cool to hang out on private property, and these
>> discussion will become a thing of the past. Stop trying to make these
>> tresspassers into heros. They broke the law, they put themselves in
>> danger, and they paid the price.
>
>Tell me, are you for REAL, or are the railroads using your name as a
>pseudonym to influence this newsgroup? How you can so callously transform
>two naive and foolhardy high school kids into "trespassers" sends a shiver
>up my spine. These were KIDS for Christ's sake, doing something that I bet
>every kid in America or for that matter the world has either done or wanted
>to do. How you can justify their deaths by citing Private Property (my
>capitals) issues scares the hell outa me. What the hell is going on here?
<snip>
>This newsgroup is fast becoming a platform for the pro-railroaders to play
>politics, suck up to their beloved employer and cite the law. Another
>poster, while getting a bit flamy brings up the responsibility of the
>railroads to keep people off of their property and Smitty calls him a
>moron. I think Smitty has made great contributions to this group, but this
>kind of sanctimonious " I work on the railroads so I'll pass judgement on
>all thinking" hooey doesn't cut it .Let's share ideas, not criticize them.
I'll put on my flame proof bibbers for this one.
1. Children and adults today have a problem, they want to place the
blame of the "other" guy. I see adults routinely break laws, small
laws, big laws. this teaches children the rules are not to be
respected. Once you have a breach, the lawlessness will continue to
cascade.
2. A train doesn't care one wit as the age of the tresspasser. OLD or
young, it is all the same.
3. Operation lifesaver has been trying to get the word out for years.
Railroads are not playgrounds.
4. I am sorry the someone died.
5. I am more sorry for the brother or sister of mine that was at the
controls of the train. I know the nightmares that can follow.
Electronic mail sent to "bo...@vortec.com" is automatically retreived by a
FAX machine, under the definition of Title 47 USC Sec.227 (a)(2)(B).
Therefore, unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address
is in violation of Title 47 USC Sec. 227 (b)(1)(C). Violation is
punishable under Title 47 USC Sec.227 (b)(3)(B), " recover for actual
monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for
each such violation, whichever is greater..."
Chain letters, even if transmitted via the Internet, violate Title 18
USC Section 1302, the Postal Lottery Statute.
Full text of USC 47 Sec.227 is available at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html.
Full text of Title 18 USC Section 1302 is available at
http://www.usps.gov/websites/depart/inspect/usc18/lottery.htm
Violators will also be reported to ab...@postoffice.us and
postm...@offenders.ISP, at the very least and appropriate legal
authorities.
Bob Officer
Bob Officer
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 03:48:26 GMT, ko...@earthlink.net (Randy Treadway)
babbled:
>mor...@dont.spam.me.worldnet.att.net (morgul) wrote:
>> Actually, the solution is even simpler than that. Respect the private
>>property of the railroad industry. To put it simpler, "STAY OFF THE TRACKS".
>>
>> Boom. Problem solved. Don't trespass, and you won't get hurt.
>>
>> It doesn't get any simpler than that. Simple respect for the property of
>>others.
>
>
>It's no wonder that the railroad situation is so bad in this country.
>You'll all a bunch of idiots.
Please R.T. keep this rational... name calling only shows who is
really ignorant.
>Respect for property to me equals don't damage the property of others.
IT also equals if it isn't your property, and it isn't public use
property, you STAY OUT!.
>So how is crossing the tracks damaging anything? Huh? Can you answer that Dufus?
because it puts a person at personal risk, it violates the LAW.
Please watch the name calling it only lowers your credibilty...
>If something is your property and you want to protect it then you damn better
>put up a fence, create access pedestrian bridges overhead or tunnels underneath,
>or put your rent-a-cops every 50 feet on every strip of track in this country,
>along with signs every 20 feet. Or you always have the option of moving.
or we teach people to be courtious... if it isn't theirs or post
public use property, then common sense should tell you it belongs to
someone else, so KEEP OUT!
>Otherwise, if the track isn't sign-posted and my kid gets killed for doing
>something (simply crossing) that every other citizen in town does, then the
>RR will pay me in court, and they will lose (for negligence for allowing it
>to happen by not fencing off dangerous industrial areas).
I hope to god your kid never gets killed... and for one I am glad you
don't live out here. perhaps this statemant should be used to show you
as an unfit parent.
>Why can't people work toward a meaningful solution by finding a common middle
>ground instead of sticking to the same time-worn arguments that continue to see
>people killed week after week?
Becase the root of the problem is found in people. People like you,
and other which cause these incidents to happen over and over agian.
Above you menetioned your childern. Have you ever told your children
to stay off the tracks, and only cross at crossings?
I am sure you told you kids to look both ways before crossing the
street. Have you ever seen someones kids run out in the street
without looking both ways? ever had a close call?
>Railroads need to work big-time on their image. If they're perceived as unfeeling
>unwelcome monsters who don't care about individuals or their needs, they will
>quickly become "bad neighbors". There will be a push through citizens to their
>Congressman to repeal the stupid archaic laws that protect railroads from local
>and regional legislation. Right now they're exempt from way too many rules.
LOL... RR's have more rules than just about any other industry...
While their image may be tarnished, they must be doing something
right.
>Local jurisdictions should be able to buy up RR property by immiment domain rules,
I am sure that will work, recently (within the last 10 years) there
was a some discussion of moving the tracks here... the cost was
prohibitive, using fair-value under eminment domain laws.
Do you have any idea of what the cost per mile of new ROW is?
>if they think that's the best solution and arrange alternate routes for the RR,
>or be able to impose local taxes on RRs (like cities can do with airport taxes
>on airlines for landing fees and gate fees) to pay for the infrastructure changes
>which are necessary. Or maybe impose those fees on the companies whose goods are
>being shipped. Whatever formula works.
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about??? RR's already pay
property taxes... They pay taxes for every inch of rail, switch, tie,
and electronics on the right of way. They pay for the rolling stock
and yes they also pay for all improvments such as underpasses and
overpasses.
>There's too many people in this group who have been so involved with railroads
>for so long that they have their head stuck in the ground.
or there are some people that might have their heads stuck
elsewhere...but like I said you haveno idea of what you are writing
about.
Robert Heller
"Tom Kirchhoff" <t...@eznet.net>,
In a message on Fri, 04 Jul 1997 19:20:09 GMT, wrote :
"K> Again, Fences as the cure all could be tough to backup with safety record
"K> improvements -- but two more points to consider:
"K>
"K> The word around Rochester (not confirmed by me) is that county Deputies are
"K> shagging kids off the bridge AGAIN -- lesson learned?
"K>
"K> This Bridge over the Erie Canal also runs over the towpath park next to the
"K> canal, a linear park stretching from Newark, NY to Gasport, NY mostly
"K> unbroken -- An Attractive Nuisance perhaps, but whose? or which? Or, what
"K> to do with a bike path, a "waterhole" and a place to jump from? It has
"K> been, according to reports, a magnet for kids for a long time now.
One (totally off the wall?) idea:
What would it cost to put up a foot bridge across the Erie Canal?
Question: is there still any barge traffic on the Erie Canal at this
point? Or has the Erie Canal become a historical landmark? If the latter,
there would probably not be any problem with a low light-duty foot bridge. This
assumes that the *most* of the non-railroad use of the RR bridge is just to get
across the canal or to use as a diving platform. A lower foot bridge could be
used for this and keep all but the terminally stupid off the RR bridge.
"K> Frederick W. Hyde <fred...@citilink.com> wrote in article
"K> <33BC78...@citilink.com>...
"K> > Scotty Hiddelston wrote:
"K> > >
"K> > > Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> TASTEFULLY wrote in article
"K> > > <33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>...
"K> > >
"K> > > > No, but they intended to tresspass.
"K> >
"K> > It seems to me that Corrina is getting frustrated with some of the
"K> > attitudes she ses on this topic.
"K>
"K>
"K> > snip.
"K>
"K>
"K> >
"K> > Fred
"K> >
"K> >
"K>
"K>
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: Hel...@CS.UMass.EDU
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller ||FidoNet: 1:321/153
http://netmar.com/mall/shops/heller /\
Tom Kirchhoff
In answer to the question of canal use, yes, tour boats, private craft and
the occasional commercial barge still use the canal. The Bridge in
question was a two track model with one track still there (room for a
walkway on the second track lane?) However, does a walkway constitute
permission (or at least liability) for the railroad and/or the Thruway
Authority which "owns" the canal. Railroad accidents aside, the canal
itself has quite a history of fatal accidents due to unsupervised swimming.
Tom
Robert Heller <hel...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in article
<5poaf6$r...@kernighan.cs.umass.edu>...
Les Wilson
Tom Kirchhoff wrote:
> In answer to the question of canal use, yes, tour boats, private craft and
> the occasional commercial barge still use the canal. The Bridge in
> question was a two track model with one track still there (room for a
> walkway on the second track lane?) However, does a walkway constitute
> permission (or at least liability) for the railroad and/or the Thruway
> Authority which "owns" the canal. Railroad accidents aside, the canal
> itself has quite a history of fatal accidents due to unsupervised swimming.
> Tom
Happens in Brockport almost every year.
--
==============================================================
E-mail: nes...@servtech.com
SkyTel Pager: 123...@skytel.com
Web Page: www.servtech.com/public/nessman
==============================================================
Les Wilson
Robert Heller wrote:
> Question: is there still any barge traffic on the Erie Canal at this
> point? Or has the Erie Canal become a historical landmark? If the latter,
> there would probably not be any problem with a low light-duty foot bridge. This
> assumes that the *most* of the non-railroad use of the RR bridge is just to get
> across the canal or to use as a diving platform. A lower foot bridge could be
> used for this and keep all but the terminally stupid off the RR bridge.
The canal is used mainly for recreational boating... commercial barges
are virtually non-existant - at least here in the Rochester area. The
only "commercial" uses are the excursion boats.
Personally, I think the state should throw in the towel and stop
siphoning tax dollars and Thruway tolls to maintain a waterway (along
with the bridges, liftbridges, dams, spillways, employees and
structures) that is used by a handful of boaters every summer.
jl...@wcl.on.ca
In article <5pm6fo$c...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
drhs...@pitt.edu (Damon R Hudac) wrote:
>
> In article <33b7dda3...@news.direct.ca>,
> Brent and Corinna <bad...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> >If they hadn't of been tresspassing, they wouldn't have been in that
> >predicament.
>
> Since when has trespassing been a capital offence?
>
> >>I don't think they intended for this tragedy to happen.
> >
>
>
> >tresspassers), then others wouldn't make the same fatal mistakes of
>
> only one saying they deserved to die for doing it. That's pretty harsh to
> say the least.
I don't believe anyone on this NG is saying that the trespassers should
have died but that the fact they are dead is all their OWN doing. No one
else can be held responsible. The RR companies advertise here in Canada
that a person who trespasses puts his own life in jeopardy. ( More
dangerous with dirt bikes and snowmobiles , where the trespasser cannot
here the approaching train. Also a person using a walkman is in a more
dangerous situation> ) I don't understand why some people on this NG
think that walking down the center of the freeway is different than
walking down the centre of the railway track. Both are inherently
dangerous! Yet people who would not even cross the freeway at 3:00 AM
with no traffic insist that it is their RIGHT to walk down the center of
the tracks with no regard for anyone. They do not think of the people who
have to scrape their body parts off the tracks. They do not think of the
train operator or his family, or their own family.
Nothing is more important than their RIGHT to place themselves in
immediate danger.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Fred Foxworthy
pi...@ix.netcom.com(Rich Rainaldi) wrote:
>I'm a little out of touch. Are they still running SP coal trains
>through Tennessee Pass, or is that over with?
>
Was at Canon City on July 2nd & 3rd. UP was still operating a manifest and coal
through Royal Gorge and over Tennessee Pass on those days during daylight. I was
taken by surprise by these trains. Is there a cutoff date for Tennessee Pass or will
it happen when it happens.
Warren Brill
Scotty Hiddelston (sco...@whidbey.net) wrote:
(major snippage)
: Again, the " we were here first" excuse. No they were not. I bet some
: Native American tribe lived quietly on the right-of-way, and were quickly
: booted off when the railroad showed up. And as far as towns around
: railroads go, after getting this land for free from the Government, most
: railroads quickly maximized their profits by selling land adjacent to the
: tracks as quickly as possible,even offering free or subsidized travel to
: these lots. They created the monster.
Now, let's see if we can put this "free land" myth to bed. The RRs did not
get free land. There it is. The US Government TRADED alternate sections of
at the time "worthless" land for the RRs _agreement to carry military and
other government cargoes for discounted prices_. As has been mentioned a
number of times on this NG, the RRs more than paid the government back
before the deal lapsed, which was not that long ago (1940s?). What was
wrong with selling this land? Could YOU build a railroad? At $1M+/mile?
:
: > When I hear of situations like this, it makes me angry that the public
: > is more concerned about what they perceive as rights as opposed to
: > their responsibilities.
: I agree, but change 'public' to 'railroad' and you will see the other side
: of the problem.
I don't see the RRs perceiving anything as "rights." I think this has more
to do with the RRs and other sensible people trying to lessen the number of
injuries and deaths due to trains and people occupying the same space. The
arguments which use "private property" are just trying to explain this in
terms which Americans, who jealously guard what they see as "private," are
capable of understanding. (I'm an American, BTW)
: >We have to live side-by-side with a lot of
:
Warren Brill, Severance, CO
Shalom Septimus
On 3 Jul 1997 15:04:26 GMT, sirs...@aol.com (Sirsonic) wrote:
>>I'm sure you also feel more sad for SS guards who have to deal with the
>>lifetime trauma of dealing with memories of opening and shutting the
>>doors to the gas chambers, while Jews deserved what they got.
>
>This comparison is disgusting. The Jews did not have a choice, they could
>go in the gas chamber or be shot. The kids in Rochester had no gun to
>their head when they went out on that bridge. They played a deadly game
>and lost.
Godwin's Law is hereby invoked.
This thread is now officially dead.
>>I'm sure I'll get flames over that.
>You should. You cant make a good point so you just piss people off.
What he said.
Mike Polo
Folks --
It comes down to this... It isn't the railroads' responsibility to teach
young people to think about what they're doing... that responsibility rests
with the parents. All you who are parents -- teach your children to think
before they act, and to accept responsibility for their own actions. It
isn't up to the rest of the world to protect them from their ignorance
and/or foolhardiness. I am responsible for the actions of myself and my
children until such time as they are old enough to be resonsible for
themselves. If my child falls off his bike while pulling a wheelie, I have
failed in my responsibility to make him understand that that is a stupid
thing to do. For that I should sue they contractor who built the street?
Sorry... I don't buy that... and neither should you.
I know it sounds cruel and heartless, but the real world is a dangerous
place for people who refuse to think.
Randy Treadway
"Mike Polo" <mp...@dnrec.state.de.us> wrote:
Using this logic, we shouldn't need fences around airports or bordering
the interstates and freeways, right? Any human with any sense should
know that they shouldn't play on runways where jumbo jets are landing,
right? If kids go out there and play, it's the parents fault for not
teaching them to stay away, right?
So just what are those fences there for?
Now real world. Planners have to take into account a judgement on where
to draw a fine line between human perfection and reality/human expected
behaviour. While humans can at times display perfect judgement, and humans
can at times analyze situations and produce an uncannily accurate
prediction of cause & effect, they don't always display such prowess.
In fact, the 'average' human behaviour is quite a bit less than that.
So planners take into account REASONABLE precautions.
This is called Human Factors Engineering. You design around the way
average (or sometimes less than average) humans can be expected to
act in the presence of this structure or improvement. You might not
try to achieve 100% success, but at least a level which is acceptable
socially and politically.
Can humans cut through fences? Probably. Can they climb fences? Probably.
Is a 9-foot galvanized fence with barb wire on top enough to dissuade
99% of those recalcitrant humans who might be tempted? Probably.
Is there a better solution than a fence? Possibly.
But how good a job that Human Factors Engineer does can have a direct
corollation on the resulting number of injuries and deaths.
It seems that railroad planners are less willing than those of other
transportation modes to expect real behaviour from people rather than
higher standards of near-perfection. Maybe it's because once an
infrastructure is in place, there isn't much impetus to go back and
periodically re-examine the assumptions that the original "build"
were based on, with regard to human interaction with the operations
of the railroad. Facts change. Equipment changes. Technology
evolves. The surrounding environment changes.
Continual reassessment should be expected and required.
Perhaps very few of the human factors assumptions from 1885 still
hold true a century later.
Perhaps in 1885, with the population density so much lower than it is
today, the mathematical probabilities of human interaction with
railroads resulting in injury or death was so much lower as to be
acceptable from a social standpoint. (or cynical viewpoint: maybe
the 1885 railroads could care less about human interaction in their
era of rapid industrialization, low unionization, etc, and they had
the political backing to do whatever they wanted)
That population density has definately changed! So those mathematical
probability models should have dramatically changed as well, *AND*
society's expectations (and the political backing) may have also
changed. Those all need to be taken into account.
Every railroad should take all incidents, injuries, accidents,
wrecks, the whole thing, and feed them back into a computer model
to see if there are indications that human interaction is proving
to be within or outside expected 'norms'. If outside 'norms',
then conduct a study to determine root causes, possible solutions,
and corrective implementation plans. That sounds like a bunch of
management jargon, but if you're not doing it on a recurring basis,
you're negligent in my book.
Do the analysis on a national basis, by state, by region, whatever
makes sense, even right down to a single crossing if necessary.
It's not just railroads. I'll bet that once a railroad or interstate
highway is in place, not much more thought goes into whether the
existing precautions are proving to be adequate to their intended
purpose. Those 'human factors engineers' are now off working
some other new airport or highway.
...just some thoughts...
R.T.
Rich Neitzel
In article <33c4051c...@news.zippo.com>,
ko...@earthlink.net (Randy Treadway) writes:
|> Using this logic, we shouldn't need fences around airports or bordering
|> the interstates and freeways, right? Any human with any sense should
|> know that they shouldn't play on runways where jumbo jets are landing,
|> right? If kids go out there and play, it's the parents fault for not
|> teaching them to stay away, right?
|> So just what are those fences there for?
To keep out errant dogs, cows, deer, etc. To discourage malicious
tresspassers, such as thieves. To clearly mark the limits of the
airport's security zone. To mark off private property running along
roadways. Keeping out foolish children is not a high factor is such
fencing.
BTW, plenty of freeways aren't fenced, but I don't seem to have to
dodge children playing on them.
--
Richard Neitzel th...@atd.ucar.edu Torren med sitt skjegg
National Center For Atmospheric Research lokkar borni under sole-vegg
Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000 Gjø'i med sitt shinn
303-497-2057 jagar borni inn.
Chris Vernell
Rich Neitzel (th...@ymir.atd.ucar.edu) writes:
>
> BTW, plenty of freeways aren't fenced, but I don't seem to have to
> dodge children playing on them.
>
Everybody these days either uses freeways, or at the
very least knows about them: therefore, they are aware of the dangers.
Relatively few use trains, or live close to the tracks (by comparison with
earlier generations). Thus trains and their dangers have faded from the
public mind. And so we have people living in housing that should never
have been built right next to the tracks.
Yes, every parent living near tracks should warn their children -- after
they've driven too fast home from work, endangering other people's kids.
(Down flames: I know every one of you is an excellent driver and would
never do such a thing -- unlike the idiots who keep trying to knock me off
my bicycle |-( )
Jon Rose
Rich Neitzel wrote:
>
> In article <33c4051c...@news.zippo.com>,
> ko...@earthlink.net (Randy Treadway) writes:
>
> |> Using this logic, we shouldn't need fences around airports or bordering
> |> the interstates and freeways, right? Any human with any sense should
> |> know that they shouldn't play on runways where jumbo jets are landing,
> |> right? If kids go out there and play, it's the parents fault for not
> |> teaching them to stay away, right?
> |> So just what are those fences there for?
>
> To keep out errant dogs, cows, deer, etc. To discourage malicious
> tresspassers, such as thieves. To clearly mark the limits of the
> airport's security zone. To mark off private property running along
> roadways. Keeping out foolish children is not a high factor is such
> fencing.
>
> dodge children playing on them.
>
> Richard Neitzel th...@atd.ucar.edu Torren med sitt skjegg
> National Center For Atmospheric Research lokkar borni under sole-vegg
> Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000 Gjø'i med sitt shinn
> 303-497-2057 jagar borni inn.
There seems to be no limit to the stupidity of kids. My local police
are on the lookout for a gang of schoolboys who have decided to take a
shortcut home across the London to Brighton mainline in my town. This
line is 4 track, 750V 3rd rail electrification (unguarded), with trains
up to 90mph. They kids have hacked their way through fences and thick
undergrowth on both sides of the track. I know this is nothing to do
with America, but it illustrates the recklessness of youth all over
I guess.
--
Jon Rose,
Crawley, West Sussex, England
Substition required for e-mail response -
jrose2 is to rambler as ford is to aletrail
kpen...@gmail.com
ange...@gmail.com
Adam H. Kerman
>I'm so sorry for your loss..let's face it children,teens are curious but do=
>n't call them stupid! That's not right...we a were curious as youths...yes=
> maybe they should of not gotten on the tracts,but calling g them stupid ki=
>ds,is just mean...lm sure these teens surely didn't expect the end results =
>as they turned out...it was a horrible accident and lives were lost...that'=
>s a tragedy indeed...their poor families.. the train engineer and what he w=
>itnessed when he could it stop the train! Such a sad ending to this story..=
>.prayers to the families.=F0=9F=99=8F=F0=9F=8F=BD
I have no idea what you're on about because you couldn't be bothered to
quote, and it was probably years ago, but a collision and death that results
from putting one's self in harm's way isn't an accident.
All you're concerned about is not calling someone stupid who
deliberately put himself in harm's way? How does that save anyone's life
in future?
Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from all this death but it whooshed
right over your head.
Dumas Walker
> quote, and it was probably years ago, but a collision and death that results
> from putting one's self in harm's way isn't an accident.
* SLMR 2.1a * Quick, call a Witch Doctor. My witch is sick!
John Levine
>I have no idea what you're on about because you couldn't be bothered to
>quote, and it was probably years ago, but a collision and death that results
>from putting one's self in harm's way isn't an accident.
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/16776016/a-wake-up-call/
Apparently kids sunbathed and dove into the canal from the bridge.
They weren't deliberately playing chicken with the train, but they
seriously underestimated how long it would take to get out of the way
when they heard a train coming.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
bandit hickaloo
pH
> saddened by this horrific tragedy!!!!!!!
pH in Aptos
bandit hickaloo
it was in 1997