Paul_D_North_Jr Look for replies from AgentKid, Kootenay Central, TrainBoy H24-66 [or similar], and at least 1 other member who photos out that way frequently [can't remember his screen name right now].
For example, trainboyH16-44 / Matthew Hicks just posted the link to a very nice photo of a CPR train along the Bow River at Exshaw, Alberta, Canada, in the thread captioned as ''Blue skies, red locomotives, and a river like glass'' at - http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/157701.aspx
- PDN.
All right then. Thank's to all, I will try it. As I said, I never ever trespass as long as I'd be aware of. The story of parking in a public car parking many feet away from tracks and still asked to move seems a bit strange to me. In such a situation I'd like to be given some reasoning. Because if you stand in front of crossbucks you are certainly closer to the tracks and I would not believe it if told that it is not permitted to shoot a photo while waiting in front of a rail crossing. If it were I would think that I'm in the old GDR, there everything was forbidden but it was a communist state, whereas the US to me still is one country representing the free world. Maybe Canada is even more free, as I had made very good railfanning experience in Australia and New Zealand 2 years ago. I have found the athmosphere in that 2 Commonwealth countries really very relaxed, just like home.
I will let you know and if I can make good shots and somebody explains to me how to load them up here I will share a few good ones with you. Thank you again.
Phoebe Vet I always thought they were afraid I was going to put it in the fuel.
I always thought they were afraid I was going to put it in the fuel.
I think I have found a workable solution. Not so sure it will work with security guards, but it does work with local cops.
At first contact, I tell them that I have a Michigan concealed weapons permit and I'm carryring. Such notification is required in Michigan, but not in Indiana and Ohio where I do a lot of railfanning. Telling them up front is something I just consider a courtesy. The officers apreciate that, and my few contacts with them have been cordial. I tell them I am simply railfanning, and that seems to satisfy them.
I realize not all of you have the ability to use the same line, but it has worked well for me. Be upfront honest and you will not usually have a problem with the local cops.
Norm
I've read about that "Controlled flight into terrain". A really big plane will knock it right off the terracks!
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
chatanuga Phoebe Vet It's a very serious threat. Similar to trying to sneak your bottle of shampoo onto an airplane. Yep. I've watched Family Guy, and shampoo can cause a plane to crash. Kevin
Phoebe Vet It's a very serious threat. Similar to trying to sneak your bottle of shampoo onto an airplane.
It's a very serious threat. Similar to trying to sneak your bottle of shampoo onto an airplane.
Yep. I've watched Family Guy, and shampoo can cause a plane to crash.
Kevin
That's only because the stylist didn't keep the shampoo out of the pilot's eyes.
"Controlled flight into terrain"?
RicHamiltonKiwigerdNow, is there somebody here from Canada who could tell me whether the situation in Canada is the same or is it a little more railfan-friendly? What does Canadian law say? I haven't had a problem but I am in the east with CN. Just stay off the right of way and don't tresspass. Let your long lenses work for you. I've never been questioned.
KiwigerdNow, is there somebody here from Canada who could tell me whether the situation in Canada is the same or is it a little more railfan-friendly? What does Canadian law say?
I haven't had a problem but I am in the east with CN. Just stay off the right of way and don't tresspass. Let your long lenses work for you. I've never been questioned.
You are unlikely to have any problem at all, unless you are blatantly trespassing in a visibly unsafe manner or place. While the Canadian railways have much the same official policies as the US roads, in practice the folks in the field recognise them as futile knee-jerk paranoid reaction and turn a blind eye to obvious railfans. (Unfortunately some also turn off the headlight.) But, as always, a little politeness will go a long way if questioned.
John in Calgary
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
zardoz htgguy I would love to hear someone try to make a logical explanation of how photographing this station in the open could be a threat. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer that makes sense. Trying to apply logic to anything that relates to the issue being discussed (DHS, cops with ego problems, etc) will only give you a headache.
htgguy I would love to hear someone try to make a logical explanation of how photographing this station in the open could be a threat.
I would love to hear someone try to make a logical explanation of how photographing this station in the open could be a threat.
Trying to apply logic to anything that relates to the issue being discussed (DHS, cops with ego problems, etc) will only give you a headache.
KiwigerdThe debate here shows clearly that railroads and big factories etc. tend to take away civil liberties from people and bossing them around even for no reason other as to demonstrate their ability to.
Hence you have companies that require you to submit to a drug test, a background check, and a credit check before being considered for hiring; additionally, if hired, you will then be required to submit to random drug testing throughout your career there, whether or not your behaviour and/or job performance give indications of abuse.
What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? By demanding a sample, they are, in effect, calling you guilty and requiring that you prove yourself innocent.
Look for replies from AgentKid, Kootenay Central, TrainBoy H24-66 [or similar], and at least 1 other member who photos out that way frequently [can't remember his screen name right now].
Kiwigerd- One strong piece of advice is to carry your passport at all times. You Europeans are more used to this than North Americans are. You should also carry your national driver's license as back up ID. Stay off railroad tracks and have a wonderful time.
The information supplied here in the discussion was really very interesting if at the same time a little disappointing too, I have to admit. Now, is there somebody here from Canada who could tell me whether the situation in Canada is the same or is it a little more railfan-friendly? What does Canadian law say?
The reason why I ask is that we will travel with a little party in BC and Alberta and from planning I know that I will have 2 half days to railfan a little in the area of Revelstoke and also around Lake Louise. I don't want to run a risk for being arrested of course, I will certainly not trespass as I never do or did knowingly, but then I know myself, when treated unfair I don't tend to give in easily. So I would rather refrain from trying it altogether. I would however be prepared to ask any CP authority and obtain a permit first if that were necessary.
Any info is highly welcome, thank you.
Phoebe Vet How are you guys generating all this animosity from Amtrak? I have openly photographed facilities, platforms, and trains in Penn Station in Baltimore, Union Station in DC, Richmond, Charlottesville, High Point, and Charlotte. No one has ever said a word to me about it, nor has any employee even given me a suspicious look.
How are you guys generating all this animosity from Amtrak?
I have openly photographed facilities, platforms, and trains in Penn Station in Baltimore, Union Station in DC, Richmond, Charlottesville, High Point, and Charlotte. No one has ever said a word to me about it, nor has any employee even given me a suspicious look.
It's all about luck, Phoebe Vet...
For example, I noted in my post that I was stoped at Burbank, CA. This is a location that I had easily shot at 100 times without ever being questioned. Then one day, I happened to shoot there when an officer decided he woudl stop me.
Another good example is Hoboken Terminal, where I was stopped in 1976 and told that photography was not allowed (at the time I was 15 and I just put my camera away and left). Since that time, I've probably shot there 20 or 30 times without ever once being stopped or given a single look.
Sometimes you just happen to cross paths with the wrong person.
Paul_D_North_Jr Charles, thanks for sharing that insight - I believe this is the first time I've seen that explanation, but it seems consistent enough with the 'real-world' attitudes and policies these days for it to be credible to me. Just curious - roughly how many of those encounters have you had that ended that way ? I agree with the rest of your post, too. - Paul North.
Charles, thanks for sharing that insight - I believe this is the first time I've seen that explanation, but it seems consistent enough with the 'real-world' attitudes and policies these days for it to be credible to me. Just curious - roughly how many of those encounters have you had that ended that way ?
I agree with the rest of your post, too.
- Paul North.
When you break things down into actual real world numbers they never feel as impressive, but lets see.
1) One time at the Amtrak Oxnard station - Amtrak ticket agent on the baggage cart.
2) Three different times (months apart) police in Wilmington CA (twiceHarbor Patrol, other was a regular black and white).
3) Two different times with private security patrol cars, also in Wilmington (both at the throat of Pier A Yard)
4) LASD at Burbank Station.
That's it off the top of my head... a total of seven times that I can think of, where I a have actually had a person in authority say to me something along the lines of it's not allowed and I responded that's inacurate and they backed off.
Let me once again point out, in every single case, I was EXTREMELY POLITE. Never once did I get angry or rude. I believe that the second you give even a hint of attitude, you're done for. Even if you're in the right, you're going to be grilled over the coals.
Stay polite, friendly, open, and honest. And know what is really legal (don't claim what you are doing is legal if you are trespassing, or if you are breaking a traffic law).
Charles F
Erie Lackawanna [snips] I have been confronted by Amtrak employees, private security guards, and local police, all of whom have said to me flat out, "we do not allow railroad photography," or "taking train pictures is illegal," or something else of the sort. Every time that this has happened, I have politely said to the person, "That's actually not true," and they have immediately backed off, telling me that they knew that it wasn't true, but they used it as a standard line to get rid of people, and only gave in to those of us who actually were willing to let them know that we knew our rights. [emphasis added - PDN]
I applaud you for asking, and I applaud you for being polite (there is way too much ugliness and attitude in today's world).
Unfortunately, I also find a HUGE problem with this story (not with the reality of events, but with what happened).
The guard gave you false information and because of that, you were unable to partake in a hobby that there is no law against you partaking in. While you do feel good that you were polite and he was polite and everyting went nicely... you were not allowed to do something that you in fact had every legal right to do.
Don't you think that's unfortunate?
Were I in the same situation, I would have taken the image first, and if the guard came up, I would have very politely said to him, I'm sorry, but this is a public location, so I know you're mistaken. If you would like, I'd be happy to wait with you while you check with your supervisor to find out what the actual law is. If not, I'm done anyway and happy to move on.
I would never have been impolite either.
I have been confronted by Amtrak employees, private security guards, and local police, all of whom have said to me flat out, "we do not allow railroad photography," or "taking train pictures is illegal," or something else of the sort. Every time that this has happened, I have politely said to the person, "That's actually not true," and they have immediately backed off, telling me that they knew that it wasn't true, but they used it as a standard line to get rid of people, and only gave in to those of us who actually were willing to let them know that we knew our rights.
That's the EXACT question that needed to be asked. This weekend I went back to the chemical plant in question on my original post and got all the photographs I needed of the facility. (I am modeling the line by the way - and no I didn't do it just to spite the respresentative from GP). The legal points that have been brought up have been very informative, but I guess it boils down to being told NO or in the back of my mind feel I am "guilty" of doing something "wrong".
Bill
pajrrOn Friday, 7/24/09, I was in a major train station in a fairly good sized northeastern city. I was dressed in a train shrt, not hiding anything. I wanted to take a picture of the waiting room. I could have done it, but rather than pull out my camera I approached a security guard and asked if photography in the station was ok. The answer was no. I said thank you and have a nice day. As I walked away with my camera still tucked away in its case, the security guard replied the same to me, but added "thank you for asking about our photo policy". I showed respect to authority. They showed respect right back to me. So I didn't get a picture. I'm not going to die because of it.
Can you think of a valid reason why photography inside the train station is a security threat? My opinion is there is no reason it would be a threat, and furthermore, in a place of public assembly, if you are taking pictures without causing a disruption, you are exercising what has been interpreted as a constitutional right by the courts.
Visit look4trains.com
Use a cell phone camera and don't stop walking while you take it an no one will even notice. Anyone who looks at you will think you are texting.
Meant to put this in with one of my previous posts -
Pretty much the law is that if asked by someone who appears to have the proper authority, then you have to provide your ID - name, DL number, address, etc. But that's a '2-way street' - they do, too. Stated another way, ''If you show them yours, then they have to show you theirs, too''. And as someone else here mentioned - if you're then feeling adventuresome and maybe more than just a little bit daring - you could ask the officer if their windshield-mounted camera [a/k/a a 'dash-cam'] is on and recording, and if not, to please turn it on, so that you'll both have a record of the conversation/ encounter/ interrogation. What happens after that is anyone's guess - and your bet.
WSORatSussex . . . I'd add one more step: 0.) Switch camera to video mode and press record. My understanding is that as long as one person involved in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded, it is legal.
0.) Switch camera to video mode and press record.
My understanding is that as long as one person involved in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded, it is legal.
To the best of my knowledge, that 'legality' is limited to the context of whether the results of a court-approved 'wire' recorder on a person - or wiretap of a phone, etc. 'search warrant' - can be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial. The old theory to justify this was that the person being taped had no way of knowing if the other person was using a tape recorder or not, and hence did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy/ confidentiality or not being recorded - unless he/ she asked and received assurances that they weren't [which may have its own logical inconsistency].
So that you may better understand how limited this is - it may seem to be a 'thin' rationale, and it is - a short explanation is in order. Without getting way far afield, this doctrine came out of the jury-tampering trial of Teamsters Union Prez Jimmy Hoffa - the guy who ran the union of the mode that competed with the railroads, as well as the railroad's own piggyback trucks [= attempt to keep linked to topic of thread]. The U.S. Supreme Court was basically faced with the 'Hobson's choice' of either approving the evidence from the 'wired' recording that was used to convict Hoffa - or letting him go free after clearly attempting to bribe or coerce one of their own Federal court juries. [This would be like someone attempting to harm one of your own kids.] In that situation, the Court approved the use of the wire, because the alternative was unacceptable to them - but they were very uncomfortable with doing so. From that troubled beginning, the law regarding unkowning or surreptitious recordings and wiretaps has evolved into its present complex and jumbled mess, to use a technical term.
Kiwigerd So if asked by the judge they would truthfully reply that they are not biased against, but when it finally comes to balance pro's and con's of a specific case then it might well be that they side with the little man on the street.
So if asked by the judge they would truthfully reply that they are not biased against, but when it finally comes to balance pro's and con's of a specific case then it might well be that they side with the little man on the street.
I suppose that might happen.
But sometimes a railroad can level the playing field, so to speak, outside the courtroom.
Do an Internet search for "Ray Harron Robert Pierce CSX". Although you won't find anything related to railfanning, you will find some interesting railroad-related legal discussions.
I am sorry, I obviously was too unprecise. I didn't suggest that potential jurors would untruthfully answer, what I mean is that many people have an unconscious underlying unease against big business, particularly in the wake of the finance crisis. This will not be targeted towards railroads specifically. So if asked by the judge they would truthfully reply that they are not biased against, but when it finally comes to balance pro's and con's of a specific case then it might well be that they side with the little man on the street.
Here in this forum I would assume that most of us are of course a little biased in favor of railroads, after all we are railfans, hobby railroaders, modellers or all of this.
Kiwigerd The debate here shows clearly that railroads and big factories etc. tend to take away civil liberties from people and bossing them around even for no reason other as to demonstrate their ability to. Now, the courtroom is one of the last resorts where ordinary members of the public, then called jurors, can hit back. Now the people may just have had enough and hit back when they can. What do you think of this my theory?
The debate here shows clearly that railroads and big factories etc. tend to take away civil liberties from people and bossing them around even for no reason other as to demonstrate their ability to. Now, the courtroom is one of the last resorts where ordinary members of the public, then called jurors, can hit back. Now the people may just have had enough and hit back when they can.
What do you think of this my theory?
I have two thoughts.
First, if the participants in this debate were being considered for selection to a jury in the trial of a case against a railroad or a big factory, they would be asked, before being selected, if they had any prejudice against railroads or big factories. If they said that they did have that prejudice, they would not be selected for the jury.
Second, if the participants in this debate were asked if they had any prejudice against railroads or big factories, I am sure that each and every one of them would give a completely truthful answer.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.