""Can't fix stupid" view on the forum all the time."
It's much more prevalent than you think. I have some sheriff's deputy friends, and you should hear how they speak of criminals and brain dead motorists. "Can't fix stupid" is part of their daily lexicon. BTW, none of them are railfans.
Of course, in a utopian world there are no stupid people; only victims.
Norm
Euclid Norm48327 schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks. Disagree. There is always room for improvement. Whether the powers that be are willing to pay those costs is open to speculation. There seems, however, an unwillingness on the part of some posters to acknowledge that others may have a valid opinion. Snarky comments only reinforce that image. The train is always in the right in a crossing collision. Yet, no matter how much crossing protection is installed, collisions continue to occur. While the collisions kill drivers, they also damage trains, injure or kill trainmen and passengers, and often cost money for settlements on behalf drivers despite the right of the train to pass. Apparently nothing can completely prevent problem even though it is only a matter of controlling driver discretion. I believe that 150 years of this experience has left the industry frustrated and taking it personally as an affront on the part of drivers. The frustration inspires monstrous science fiction grade crossing machines shouting warnings and death threats, or solid steel walls that rise up out of the roadway to completely seal off a crossing from any passage. Even though drivers can simply make a mistake, the industry’s bitterness over the perpetual crossing problem causes it to label grade crossing crash victims as “stupid.” This allows the industry to justify the lack of a fix for the problem with the conclusion that, “You can’t fix stupid.” If you can’t fix the problem because drivers are stupid, then the only hope is to kill them all off. That is the basis of the “Darwin Award.” It refers nature weeding out the weak so only the strong survive, except in this case, it is nature weeding out the stupid. So the Darwin Award is a celebration of the death of a crossing victim because they won’t breed and produce anymore stupid people. It is the only solution in the minds of many. Adding more safety measures to crossings conflicts the Darwin solution to the grade crossing problem. Added safety might preserve the stupid, and thus perpetuate the crossing problem.
Norm48327 schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks. Disagree. There is always room for improvement. Whether the powers that be are willing to pay those costs is open to speculation. There seems, however, an unwillingness on the part of some posters to acknowledge that others may have a valid opinion. Snarky comments only reinforce that image.
schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks.
Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks.
Disagree. There is always room for improvement. Whether the powers that be are willing to pay those costs is open to speculation.
There seems, however, an unwillingness on the part of some posters to acknowledge that others may have a valid opinion. Snarky comments only reinforce that image.
This is the point that I was making.
Paul_D_North_Jr I suspect he was either impaired in some way (drugs, alcohol, medications, sleep deprivation, etc.), or else very distracted ("head in the cockpit" syndrome) from either a cell phone or trying to read and follow his directions, etc., to miss these rather obvious features of his location. His 'situational awareness' evidently was about zero.
I suspect he was either impaired in some way (drugs, alcohol, medications, sleep deprivation, etc.), or else very distracted ("head in the cockpit" syndrome) from either a cell phone or trying to read and follow his directions, etc., to miss these rather obvious features of his location. His 'situational awareness' evidently was about zero.
Possibly he was distracted thinking about his dead daughter.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-metrolink-crash-20150226-story.html
Euclid The train is always in the right in a crossing collision. Yet, no matter how much crossing protection is installed, collisions continue to occur. While the collisions kill drivers, they also damage trains, injure or kill trainmen and passengers, and often cost money for settlements on behalf drivers despite the right of the train to pass. Apparently nothing can completely prevent problem even though it is only a matter of controlling driver discretion. I believe that 150 years of this experience has left the industry frustrated and taking it personally as an affront on the part of drivers. The frustration inspires monstrous science fiction grade crossing machines shouting warnings and death threats, or solid steel walls that rise up out of the roadway to completely seal off a crossing from any passage. Even though drivers can simply make a mistake, the industry’s bitterness over the perpetual crossing problem causes it to label grade crossing crash victims as “stupid.” This allows the industry to justify the lack of a fix for the problem with the conclusion that, “You can’t fix stupid.” If you can’t fix the problem because drivers are stupid, then the only hope is to kill them all off. That is the basis of the “Darwin Award.” It refers nature weeding out the weak so only the strong survive, except in this case, it is nature weeding out the stupid. So the Darwin Award is a celebration of the death of a crossing victim because they won’t breed and produce anymore stupid people. It is the only solution in the minds of many. Adding more safety measures to crossings conflicts the Darwin solution to the grade crossing problem. Added safety might preserve the stupid, and thus perpetuate the crossing problem. This is the point that I was making.
The train is always in the right in a crossing collision. Yet, no matter how much crossing protection is installed, collisions continue to occur. While the collisions kill drivers, they also damage trains, injure or kill trainmen and passengers, and often cost money for settlements on behalf drivers despite the right of the train to pass. Apparently nothing can completely prevent problem even though it is only a matter of controlling driver discretion. I believe that 150 years of this experience has left the industry frustrated and taking it personally as an affront on the part of drivers. The frustration inspires monstrous science fiction grade crossing machines shouting warnings and death threats, or solid steel walls that rise up out of the roadway to completely seal off a crossing from any passage. Even though drivers can simply make a mistake, the industry’s bitterness over the perpetual crossing problem causes it to label grade crossing crash victims as “stupid.” This allows the industry to justify the lack of a fix for the problem with the conclusion that, “You can’t fix stupid.” If you can’t fix the problem because drivers are stupid, then the only hope is to kill them all off. That is the basis of the “Darwin Award.” It refers nature weeding out the weak so only the strong survive, except in this case, it is nature weeding out the stupid. So the Darwin Award is a celebration of the death of a crossing victim because they won’t breed and produce anymore stupid people. It is the only solution in the minds of many. Adding more safety measures to crossings conflicts the Darwin solution to the grade crossing problem. Added safety might preserve the stupid, and thus perpetuate the crossing problem.
You're putting words into someone else's mouth. Can you show the railroads really think and say that?
Caltrain posted this link that KRON shot of several persons violating crossing laws. Police stopped one woman.
http://kron4.com/2015/03/04/people-behaving-badly-faster-than-a-speeding-train/
The snarky, condescending attitude of Stanley Roberts is really annoying.
blue streak 1 Caltrain posted this link that KRON shot of several persons violating crossing laws. Police stopped one woman. http://kron4.com/2015/03/04/people-behaving-badly-faster-than-a-speeding-train/
Johnny
Deggesty The drivers shown stopped are, apparently, unaware that they are too close to the vehicles in front of them; if someone came up too fast behind them and hit them, they could be pushed into the rear of the vehicles in front of them. I undestand that you should be able to see where the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you are touching the pavement. At times when someone stops so closely behind me I am tempted to get out and ask the driver if he wants to see what I have in my trunk.
The drivers shown stopped are, apparently, unaware that they are too close to the vehicles in front of them; if someone came up too fast behind them and hit them, they could be pushed into the rear of the vehicles in front of them. I undestand that you should be able to see where the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you are touching the pavement. At times when someone stops so closely behind me I am tempted to get out and ask the driver if he wants to see what I have in my trunk.
No need - they are reading the small print on the yearly registration sticker on your rear license plate.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Deggesty The drivers shown stopped are, apparently, unaware that they are too close to the vehicles in front of them; if someone came up too fast behind them and hit them, they could be pushed into the rear of the vehicles in front of them. I undestand that you should be able to see where the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you are touching the pavement. At times when someone stops so closely behind me I am tempted to get out and ask the driver if he wants to see what I have in my trunk. No need - they are reading the small print on the yearly registration sticker on your rear license plate.
I think this might apply to this.
https://www.facebook.com/330449407114931/photos/a.338324486327423.1073741828.330449407114931/404453353047869/?type=1
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.