Did the train swerve off the tracks and assult the car? Come on guys
This is a long running greivance. How would you write the headline?
I live in the area and use the Oak Lawn station. The headline is a statement of fact. The auto was indeed on the tracks on the grade crossing and was struck by an inbound suburban train. How the car got there is still under investigation. Early reports from witnesses indicate that the warning devices (bell, lights and gates) were working properly and the driver just drove onto the tracks. I would suspect that the driver used this route regularly on his way to work and wasn't paying attention.
It does depend on the paths of the two vehicles colliding. T-boning means one vehicle hits another from the side. Although it does happen, the other way around is very rare...I can think of one such incident in the past five years or so, one discussed at length here. In this case, the vehicle was struck, or t-boned, by the train.
Words are important.
The point that the O.P. is making is that saying the train hit the vehicle makes it sound like the train started the fight, and is therefore at fault for the collision. This comes up all the time on the forums.
The headline that would address this imagined problem is this:
"Metra SE Sevice Halted After Moron, Idiot, Dawin Award Candidate Drove Into the Path of Innocent Train."
The principle is simple: Either the train hits the vehicle or the vehicle hits the train. It has nothing to do with whether the train or the driver was at fault.
Euclid"Metra SE Sevice Halted After Moron, Idiot, Dawin Award Candidate Drove Into the Path of Innocent Train."
You should have taken up journalism. LOL. Great headline.
Norm
A kinder, gentler approach:
Automobile suffers major damage after violating rail vehicle's right of way.
Note that trains always have the right of way at grade crossings. The laws of physics (about which most rubber-wheel drivers are woefully ignorant) make that true.
Chuck
The original head line is correct when stating simple facts...the train did in fact hit the vehicle, regardless of how it got there.
Nonetheless, methinks the OP's intent here is to shift the blame to the driver, not the railroad. Perhaps something as simple as "Errant Driver Struck by Train," followed by a sub-head of "May have ignored warning signals" might do the trick...
We want to teach folks the right way to do things.
The "Darwin" thread of a while back got a bit touchy...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Why would anybody assume that the striking vehicle is automatically at fault?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR The original head line is correct when stating simple facts...the train did in fact hit the vehicle, regardless of how it got there.
Agree. There's nothing wrong with the original headline. When writing one of these, economy is of the essence. There's no room for all the details and nuances. That's what the story is for.
I speak as a 20-year newspaperman (retired).
EuclidWhy would anybody assume that the striking vehicle is automatically at fault?
The big bad railroad picking on the poor defenseless driver/car...
I mean, trains can stop on a dime, can't they?
tree68 Euclid Why would anybody assume that the striking vehicle is automatically at fault? The big bad railroad picking on the poor defenseless driver/car...
Euclid Why would anybody assume that the striking vehicle is automatically at fault?
I understand that is what some perceive the phrase "train hits car" means, but that is just an errant interpretation of the language. To me, it raises the question of why such misinterpretation in this case is so common these days.
Vehicles have been reported to have "hit" or "struck" by trains for over a century, and for the most part, I doubt that anyone has interpreted that to mean that the train was at fault. That interpretation is relatively recent, and it strikes me as incredibly defensive about trains being unfairly maligned as a purpetrator.
To me, the reason for this is telling and obvious.
EuclidI understand that is what some perceive the phrase "train hits car" means, but that is just an errant interpretation of the language.
Let's change who's involved here and see how it plays out.
Headline: "Man Strikes Woman." Who's the agressor? Who's the victim?
Headline: "Woman Assaults Man, Man Hits Back." He still hit her, but hasn't the context changed?
The first headline is factually accurate, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
In this day of individual "Davids" against corporate "Goliaths" and "it's all about me," I would opine that many would place the blame on the train. A simple change in the headline places the blame on the driver of the car, which seems to be appropriate inasmuch as there are indications he ignored the warning devices for whatever reason.
Trains only take up 4.75 feet of track and 2 feet on either side of all the space on this planet and 200000 miles of road why does a car have to be here?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.