tree68The basic question is under what circumstances a person who tries to beat the train qualifies as 'Darwin' material. Nothing more, nothing less. And those who do are in the 1% of crossing collisions.
Why do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed in encounters with trains?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 Euclid I don’t believe you understand the above response by BaltACD to your earlier comment about trying to beat the train being okay if the motive is good. BaltACD is disagreeing with you in the above quoted comment by him. And yet you say you agree with him wholeheartedly. You two are on opposite sides if I understand BaltACD. I don’t understand your reasoning in your last two comments. You have said that it is okay to insult people killed in grade crossing crashes if they fit your carefully thought out criteria that determines whether they are victims or perpetrators. I understand that criteria since you have clearly explained it. And the most clear cut case of being a perpetrator is a driver trying to beat the train. But now you have muddied up your own criteria by adding a qualifier that it depends on the virtue of the motivation of someone who tries to beat the train. So, if someone tries to beat the train and gets killed; and if they had a motivation that you find acceptable; then you consider them to be an innocent victim. You’ve got to be kidding! Everyone who tries to beat the train has a motive for it. Where in the rules, the laws, the message of Operation Lifesaver, or the railroad industry does it say that it is okay to try to beat the train if your motive is good enough? It doesn't. And I don't think trying to beat the train is a good idea, either. Dead is dead. The basic question is under what circumstances a person who tries to beat the train qualifies as 'Darwin' material. Nothing more, nothing less. And those who do are in the 1% of crossing collisions. And it would be my contention that someone who actively tries to beat a train at a crossing for a reason that most would consider trivial, or even silly (the cold latte', or "hold my beer and watch this") qualifies. We can argue mitigating circumstances all day. None justify trying to beat the train, but some might garner at least a modicum of understanding for their rationale. The incidents where things occured outside the control of those involved aren't part of the discussion, either.
Euclid I don’t believe you understand the above response by BaltACD to your earlier comment about trying to beat the train being okay if the motive is good. BaltACD is disagreeing with you in the above quoted comment by him. And yet you say you agree with him wholeheartedly. You two are on opposite sides if I understand BaltACD. I don’t understand your reasoning in your last two comments. You have said that it is okay to insult people killed in grade crossing crashes if they fit your carefully thought out criteria that determines whether they are victims or perpetrators. I understand that criteria since you have clearly explained it. And the most clear cut case of being a perpetrator is a driver trying to beat the train. But now you have muddied up your own criteria by adding a qualifier that it depends on the virtue of the motivation of someone who tries to beat the train. So, if someone tries to beat the train and gets killed; and if they had a motivation that you find acceptable; then you consider them to be an innocent victim. You’ve got to be kidding! Everyone who tries to beat the train has a motive for it. Where in the rules, the laws, the message of Operation Lifesaver, or the railroad industry does it say that it is okay to try to beat the train if your motive is good enough?
I don’t believe you understand the above response by BaltACD to your earlier comment about trying to beat the train being okay if the motive is good. BaltACD is disagreeing with you in the above quoted comment by him. And yet you say you agree with him wholeheartedly. You two are on opposite sides if I understand BaltACD.
I don’t understand your reasoning in your last two comments. You have said that it is okay to insult people killed in grade crossing crashes if they fit your carefully thought out criteria that determines whether they are victims or perpetrators. I understand that criteria since you have clearly explained it. And the most clear cut case of being a perpetrator is a driver trying to beat the train.
But now you have muddied up your own criteria by adding a qualifier that it depends on the virtue of the motivation of someone who tries to beat the train. So, if someone tries to beat the train and gets killed; and if they had a motivation that you find acceptable; then you consider them to be an innocent victim. You’ve got to be kidding!
It doesn't. And I don't think trying to beat the train is a good idea, either. Dead is dead.
The basic question is under what circumstances a person who tries to beat the train qualifies as 'Darwin' material. Nothing more, nothing less. And those who do are in the 1% of crossing collisions.
And it would be my contention that someone who actively tries to beat a train at a crossing for a reason that most would consider trivial, or even silly (the cold latte', or "hold my beer and watch this") qualifies.
We can argue mitigating circumstances all day. None justify trying to beat the train, but some might garner at least a modicum of understanding for their rationale.
The incidents where things occured outside the control of those involved aren't part of the discussion, either.
Well, as you know, I think this piling on with the Darwin Award, idiot, and moron insults is petty and small. But if anybody wants to do it, I can’t stop them. I understand your position that incidents where things occurred outside of a person's control defines a victim rather than a perpetrator, but I am not clear on what you consider to be outside of a person’s control.
Even if the crossing signals fail, some people will say that the person killed should have looked before crossing. Even if a person has a moment of inattention, people will say that the person should have made sure not to have a moment of inattention. In the news articles about that woman killed in Chicago when the signal maintainers tested their work with an Amtrak train, lots of people were blaming the victim for not yielding to the train. I did not see anyone calling those maintainers morons. In my opinion, what they did was bone headed for sure.
It sounds like very selective indignation to me when you say one person deserves the Darwin Award for trying to beat the train to get to their latte, but when police do it, it is okay because their cause is noble. How do you know that the cops aren’t trying to get to their coffee and doughnuts when they try to beat the train?
This thread has degenerated to the point it's no longer worth reading.
Norm
schlimmWhy do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed in encounters with trains?
It's not limited to trains. Pay a visit to the Darwin Awards site. Actually, I'm not sure there are any incidents listed there that involve trains....
Norm's right.
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...
tree68 schlimm Why do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed in encounters with trains?
schlimm Why do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed in encounters with trains?
Why do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed for any reason?
BOB WITHORNSo, what about the idea the driver was not paying attention, texting, reading, what ever, and looked up at the last second to see a semi trailer a few feet away, yanked the wheel to avoid it and got stuck. Not necessarily trying to pass the truck on the left??? Still makes him a moron for distracted driving.
Bob, go back and look at the video and see if you think that explains the vehicle motion in the several seconds before it gets stuck.
An interesting thing to me is how quickly the responding officer noticed the problem and started moving ... I think he had some 'warning' from watching the situation.
Wizlish BOB WITHORN Bob, go back and look at the video and see if you think that explains the vehicle motion in the several seconds before it gets stuck. An interesting thing to me is how quickly the responding officer noticed the problem and started moving ... I think he had some 'warning' from watching the situation.
BOB WITHORN
Looked like the driver came to a stop behind the 18 wheeler - heard the crossing protection begin the ring and 'thought' he could pull to the right of the trailer to clear the crossing and got hung up on the crossing. Had the presence of mind to exit the vehicle, get the his tools that were in the back of his truck and follow the officers instructions to get away from the vehicle.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidWhy do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed for any reason?
Because I've seen too much of it.
And - it's not "any reason." It's for stupid reasons. There is a difference.
Missed that the first time through - still a moron
tree68 Euclid Why do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed for any reason? Because I've seen too much of it. And - it's not "any reason." It's for stupid reasons. There is a difference.
Euclid Why do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed for any reason?
And is that how you speak to the families of victims of these "non-accidents," ridiculing the newly deceased with your ghoulish insults? Real professionalism, real compassion.
I'm kind of jealous. I wish I could be perfect and never make a foolish and possibly dangerous mistake. If nothing else, it would have saved me a lot of embarrassment and money over the years.
Tom
schlimm tree68 Euclid Because I've seen too much of it. And - it's not "any reason." It's for stupid reasons. There is a difference. And is that how you speak to the families of victims of these "non-accidents," ridiculing the newly deceased with your ghoulish insults? Real professionalism, real compassion.
tree68 Euclid Because I've seen too much of it. And - it's not "any reason." It's for stupid reasons. There is a difference.
Euclid
Ever wonder what undertakers have to say out of the presence of their clients? Doubt that it is always 'pretty'.
schlimmAnd is that how you speak to the families of victims of these "non-accidents," ridiculing the newly deceased with your ghoulish insults? Real professionalism, real compassion.
I've helped care for patients in a vehicle that struck another head-on - while passing on a hill. It was reported there may have been some "racing" going on. The driver of the car they struck died at the scene, trapped in her vehicle.
It's "around the dinner table" with our peers that we might take note of the deficiencies in the deceased's choices. And we feel sorry for the family and friends for what the deceased has put them through.
If it's any consolation to you, we're just as hard on ourselves when someone pulls a bone-headed move. And in the case of a fatality of a firefighter, we can look forward to a federal review of the incident. Those reviewing the incident won't be using the term "Darwin," but they will be just as harsh as anyone on the decedent and those who were involved in the incident if their actions contributed to the end result.
Search on "NIOSH firefighter fatality." They don't mince words. But they do make suggestions on how we can improve.
The driver in the incident I cited lived. I wonder what your reaction would have been had he died - and the driver he killed in the other car was your loved one.
BaltACDEver wonder what undertakers have to say out of the presence of their clients? Doubt that it is always 'pretty'.
What about a public internet forum?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann BaltACD What about a public internet forum?
BaltACD
Under the cloak of annominity - all things are likely.
BaltACDUnder the cloak of annominity - all things are likely.
Under an assumed cloak of annominity. They bettter hope that cloak doesn't fall off.
Mabe I'm getting older, but I now figure if someone did something stupid and died as a result - they are square with the house. Calling a dead person an idiot or darwin winner or whatever just seems in poor taste. We all do stupid stuff. Or we are liars.
wanswheel
Just how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?
zugmann BaltACD Ever wonder what undertakers have to say out of the presence of their clients? Doubt that it is always 'pretty'. What about a public internet forum?
BaltACD Ever wonder what undertakers have to say out of the presence of their clients? Doubt that it is always 'pretty'.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingIf there's an internet forum for undertakers, I'm staying clear.
As a matter of fact,..................................... there are such forums. RIP.
BaltACD schlimm tree68 Euclid Because I've seen too much of it. And - it's not "any reason." It's for stupid reasons. There is a difference. And is that how you speak to the families of victims of these "non-accidents," ridiculing the newly deceased with your ghoulish insults? Real professionalism, real compassion. Ever wonder what undertakers have to say out of the presence of their clients? Doubt that it is always 'pretty'.
I do not know, do you? In any case, this is a public forum. Relatives of victims may read these ghoulish examples of "gallows humor" and Schadenfreude. And research points to taking pleasure in the suffering of others actually relates to a form of envy.
Comedy is based on the pain of others; everyone likes to laugh, especially when something happens to someone else; because you know it could very easily have been yourself and you would be crying as a result.
I would like to request that in the future we not use judgemental comments when reporting about crossing incidents. The use of "idiot" or "moron" or references to Darwin just incites accusations of callousness or insensitivity followed by discussions on the meaning of "accident", &c., &c. These incidents are common enough that they don't really merit their own title. There are two existing threads that these reports can be added to:
Freight vs vehicle:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/248244.aspx
Passenger vs vehicle:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/245526.aspx
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
It just occurred to me that the forum as a whole generally laments the lifetime of emotional pain a crossing collision causes the crew, yet here we are defending the very people who cause that pain...
BaltACD Comedy is based on the pain of others; everyone likes to laugh, especially when something happens to someone else; because you know it could very easily have been yourself and you would be crying as a result.
That may be the case sometimes, but I don't think it is the case with these Darwin Award, idiot, moron responses directed at people killed in grade crossing accidents. The people using these labels are not doing it out of humor. They are bitter and filled with disadain. They are dancing on the grave of the deceased and gloating about how he/she got what they had comming. This attitude, if nothing else, is bad karma.
EuclidThe people using these labels are not doing it out of humor. They are bitter and filled with disadain. They are dancing on the grave of the deceased and gloating about how he/she got what they had coming.
You're reading way too much into it, and labelling people in exactly the same way you lament besides.
wanswheelHome»Trains Magazine»Forums»General Discussion New Reply Fill out the form below to create a new reply to the thread RE: Another idiot at a RR Xing. wanswheel wrote the following post 5 hours ago:
It's not a humorous topic so why repeatedly trivialize it?
Wow! Picture Two reminds me of a song American GI's stationed in Darwin during World War Two used to sing...
Red dust in your navel, red dust in your shirt, see beautiful Darwin, see beautiful dirt!"
I suppose pictures three and four were taken during a full moon weekend.
Or something.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.