zardoz wrote: edblysard wrote: Three safety measures...we always get pick up trucks with built in cup holders...that way, we have some place to set our beer so we can keep both hands on the steering wheel...ya know, safety first!YEE-HAW!!!!Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
edblysard wrote: Three safety measures...we always get pick up trucks with built in cup holders...that way, we have some place to set our beer so we can keep both hands on the steering wheel...ya know, safety first!
Three safety measures...we always get pick up trucks with built in cup holders...that way, we have some place to set our beer so we can keep both hands on the steering wheel...ya know, safety first!
YEE-HAW!!!!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
And two more, ya wants to make the guns are tarp strapped down good in the racks, plus the huntin dog box has enough balin wire an duct tape to hold it in place.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
Bucyrus wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: A man played a form of Russian Roulette. He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill. Who alleged that he was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill?
Poppa_Zit wrote: A man played a form of Russian Roulette. He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill.
A man played a form of Russian Roulette. He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill.
Who alleged that he was attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill?
The No. 1 definition of allege is "to assert without proof." That was the word I chose carefully. No one claimed his "jumping the crossing" was anything but pure speculation.
Running a stop sign at that rate of speed over that crossing would get you airborne. Maybe that wasn't his intent. One could theorize he was attempting to take his own life, as well.
I spend a lot of time taking pictures of trains in rural northern and central Illinois. I wish I had five bucks every time I saw some stuntman wannabee put the pedal to the floor as he approached a slightly elevated rural train crossing (in open fields with clear sightlines) and jump the tracks. One of the earlier posts linked to a video of this activity.
There are three sets of roadside crosses/memorials within four miles of my house where people were killed in cars running steep little hills at night to get airborne. One young man (now deceased) in a TransAm ended up hitting an oak tree -- rear end up, roof into the tree trunk, front bumper down -- eight feet off the ground a mile from my house. Another bounced several times before knocking down a fence and ending up in a stone quarry, also within a mile -- only a half mile from the first.
spokyone wrote: Steam Is King wrote: spokyone wrote: eolafan wrote:[ "After seeing those guys in the video jump the tracks and go airborne and listening to the camera guy's stupid giggle, [warning, sarcasm coming] there's no way you could label them as "morons". No way."OK, perhaps not morons (I may still want to debate that one)...but how about "brain dead Hillbillies"?Rednecks are having fun. I did notice seatbelts and full face helmets.As a redneck myself, lets be more clear spoky -- stupid rednecks.Redneck is not a synonym for 'dumb countrified person.'Nor are all rednecks hillbillies.Some of us educated rednecks went to schools like UGA, Tulane, Baylor, The Citadel, LSU and Mississippi.And if these morons wrecked and were injured they'd expect the insurace co. to pay out on the claim? And sue the RR? I do not see anything in my post about them being stupid or dumb. I did note however that they employed 2 safety measures.
Steam Is King wrote: spokyone wrote: eolafan wrote:[ "After seeing those guys in the video jump the tracks and go airborne and listening to the camera guy's stupid giggle, [warning, sarcasm coming] there's no way you could label them as "morons". No way."OK, perhaps not morons (I may still want to debate that one)...but how about "brain dead Hillbillies"?Rednecks are having fun. I did notice seatbelts and full face helmets.As a redneck myself, lets be more clear spoky -- stupid rednecks.Redneck is not a synonym for 'dumb countrified person.'Nor are all rednecks hillbillies.Some of us educated rednecks went to schools like UGA, Tulane, Baylor, The Citadel, LSU and Mississippi.And if these morons wrecked and were injured they'd expect the insurace co. to pay out on the claim? And sue the RR?
spokyone wrote: eolafan wrote:[ "After seeing those guys in the video jump the tracks and go airborne and listening to the camera guy's stupid giggle, [warning, sarcasm coming] there's no way you could label them as "morons". No way."OK, perhaps not morons (I may still want to debate that one)...but how about "brain dead Hillbillies"?Rednecks are having fun. I did notice seatbelts and full face helmets.
eolafan wrote:[ "After seeing those guys in the video jump the tracks and go airborne and listening to the camera guy's stupid giggle, [warning, sarcasm coming] there's no way you could label them as "morons". No way."OK, perhaps not morons (I may still want to debate that one)...but how about "brain dead Hillbillies"?
"After seeing those guys in the video jump the tracks and go airborne and listening to the camera guy's stupid giggle, [warning, sarcasm coming] there's no way you could label them as "morons". No way."
OK, perhaps not morons (I may still want to debate that one)...but how about "brain dead Hillbillies"?
As a redneck myself, lets be more clear spoky -- stupid rednecks.Redneck is not a synonym for 'dumb countrified person.'Nor are all rednecks hillbillies.Some of us educated rednecks went to schools like UGA, Tulane, Baylor, The Citadel, LSU and Mississippi.And if these morons wrecked and were injured they'd expect the insurace co. to pay out on the claim? And sue the RR?
23 17 46 11
TimChgo9 wrote: I would daresay, that in all grade-crossing, and train vs pedestrian accidents, the accident occurs because someone decided that trying to beat the train was a good idea, or they were playing, walking, running, etc. on the railroad tracks where they don't belong, because that is trespassing.
I would daresay, that in all grade-crossing, and train vs pedestrian accidents, the accident occurs because someone decided that trying to beat the train was a good idea, or they were playing, walking, running, etc. on the railroad tracks where they don't belong, because that is trespassing.
Actually, trying to beat the train or trespassing isn't the only two reasons for people getting hit or killed by trains. In the case of a friend of mine (http://chatanuga.org/HOL.html), he had his license for only about three months before he drove his car into the side of the first locomotive of Amtrak's Capitol Limited back in 1990. Our high school was out in the country and just north of the crossing where the crash happened. He, like many other people, got used to there not being many trains on the route (Conrail's former Pennsy route through Bucyrus, Ohio). As a result, he just quit stopping at the stop signs at the crossing and apparently stopped looking, thinking there would never be a train. On that morning however, the Capitol Limited was over an hour late and entered the crossing at the same time he did. He wasn't trying to beat the train since he was only doing 50MPH (speed limit is 55). He just didn't look and see the train coming.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Bucyrus wrote: The premise that this crash victim was attempting to "jump the tracks" is pure speculation by the way.
The premise that this crash victim was attempting to "jump the tracks" is pure speculation by the way.
But the best premise; since no one will ever know what really hapened.
We will hear about the blood alcohol tests in a few day. It may be telling even though the guy who claims to be the victims friend is adamant about nothing saying the victim was inotxicated. How fast does an Ford explorer have to be going to sqeeze itslef under a tank car and end up on the other side? And the police report says: no skidmarks. So right now the high speed crossing ramp jump seems most plausable because the evidence fits it.
Chico
AmtrakRider wrote: I feel kinda sorry for the guy who was jumping the tracks and hit the train. He should have thought better, but at least he might have been said to have been crossing without realizing the train was there.The lady with the children in the minivan, though, continues to stymie me. She started out WAY behind that train, raced at high speed in an attempt to beat the train. Looking at the video, even without the involvement of the second train it seems unlikely she would have beat the first one anyway. What could have motivated her, with her FOUR children in her car, to play "Russian roulette" with that train?On the original title of the post, I can see the relationship. The meeting was called about trains "parked" across road crossings; the man died because the train was parked there when he attempted to jump. There is a link, no matter how you interpret fault.
I feel kinda sorry for the guy who was jumping the tracks and hit the train. He should have thought better, but at least he might have been said to have been crossing without realizing the train was there.
The lady with the children in the minivan, though, continues to stymie me. She started out WAY behind that train, raced at high speed in an attempt to beat the train. Looking at the video, even without the involvement of the second train it seems unlikely she would have beat the first one anyway.
What could have motivated her, with her FOUR children in her car, to play "Russian roulette" with that train?
On the original title of the post, I can see the relationship. The meeting was called about trains "parked" across road crossings; the man died because the train was parked there when he attempted to jump. There is a link, no matter how you interpret fault.
There is definitely a relationship between the risk-taking cause of car/train collisions and the incidents of trains blocking grade crossings. Without a doubt, the latter fuels the former. I believe this is something that the railroad industry and its representative organizations do not like to admit, even though it is clear that trains always have the right of way over motor vehicles, and so collisions between them are never the fault of the railroad.
Nevertheless, there would be less risk-taking if there were less crossing blockage. The linkage is axiomatic. And in a town such as Friendship, Wisconsin where crossing blockage is frequent, of severely long duration, and simultaneously affecting multiple crossings, the risk-taking is bound to be relatively high.
However, it seems all but certain that this particular crash was not due to the risk-taking cause because that cause can only apply to instances of a driver trying to beat a train. If I am not mistaken, the train in this case had been stopped on the crossing, before the motor vehicle arrived there. The only way a vehicle can run into the side of a train with a risk-taking motive is to fail to beat the train, and then fail to stop in time to avoid running into the side.
I can only think of three causes for running into the side of a train that has been stopped on a crossing prior to the arrival of the motor vehicle. The most likely cause would be inattention; the driver is either asleep, intoxicated, or distracted. The least likely cause would be suicide. The other possible cause would be speeding, whereby the driver is overdriving his or her range of vision. It is also possible that there could be a combination of the distraction and speeding causes. The speeding cause might come into play when someone is driving faster than what is safe for conditions that limit visibility such as fog or rain, even though they are not exceeding the posted limit.
So while it is ironic that the issue of blocked crossings was scheduled to be officially reviewed when this serious RIT crash occurred, it does not seem that crossing blockage could have contributed to the motive of the driver. If a train in this town broadsided a car operated by an undistracted, non-suicidal driver then the risk-taking cause would be highly probable.
zardoz wrote: djjoe wrote:Has it ever entered your head that we're, all of us, pretty much alike living a harried existence, with not enough sleep, too much to do, so little time, tracked by GPS, hounded by cellphone, working more hours than any other industrialized nation, some working a couple three jobs maybe and , in a nod or a blink, we're dead, which is bad enough. But does that death have to validate a bunch of foamers in a RR forum?First of all, I'm nothing like you. I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have. I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that). However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness. If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content. No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc. And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me.
djjoe wrote:Has it ever entered your head that we're, all of us, pretty much alike living a harried existence, with not enough sleep, too much to do, so little time, tracked by GPS, hounded by cellphone, working more hours than any other industrialized nation, some working a couple three jobs maybe and , in a nod or a blink, we're dead, which is bad enough. But does that death have to validate a bunch of foamers in a RR forum?
First of all, I'm nothing like you. I keep my life organized, and I am content with what I have. I do not need to live a "harried existence"--I prefer to 'live', not 'exist'.
I only turn on my cell phone when I need to, I work only enough hours such that I can actually enjoy my life, and getting enough sleep is a priority.
Certainly, there are some people that, due to no fault of their own, have had life setbacks such that they need to scramble for a while in order to get back on their feet (been there, done that). However, for the majority, it is the ceaseless desire to always have more, bigger, better, faster, etc...a path can only lead to frustration and unhappiness. If one is not content with what one has, one will never be content. No matter what you have, there will always be something better, bigger, faster, etc. And no matter how many hours you work, how many jobs you have, how many things you buy, it will never be enough.
If your philosophy is "He who dies with the most, wins", then you better stop reading this and go ouit there and work harder, work more, and buy more; then perhaps you will "win", although your 'victory' will likely come sooner for you than for me.
Thanks Zardoz, you said it perfectly...
djjoe wrote:DJJOE, what would you call a person who willingly puts themself in position where they can get killed....Note that I said willingly which implies someone who, through their own volition, puts themselves in that position. What would you term someone who willingly puts themselves, and the others with them at that same risk? No, your "willingly" implies an omniscience that's pretty widespread in this forum but goes suddenly absent when it's rail employees doing head-ons or playing on the tracks. Your very self-serving in your witlessness if you can exercise your know it all only on non RR types. Better that some RR should hire you to tell why, despite, the millions spent on safety campaigns, RR workers insist on being victimized. Has it ever entered your head that we're, all of us, pretty much alike living a harried existence, with not enough sleep, too much to do, so little time, tracked by GPS, hounded by cellphone, working more hours than any other industrialized nation, some working a couple three jobs maybe and , in a nod or a blink, we're dead, which is bad enough. But does that death have to validate a bunch of foamers in a RR forum?
Witlessness??? Pardon me while I take offense. Have you no idea what you are talking about? Okay, get this straight: The desire to go around the gates to beat the train, or any other kind of tom foolery around the tracks is a CHOICE... get it, A CHOICE! Are you saying that because of our "harried life styles" that people are FORCED to act in a foolish manner?? If that is your point sir, then you are totally missing what happened to these people. You are right my "willingly" does imply an omniscience, because at that moment, when someone is at a crossing when the gates go down, or ignores warning signs near a railroad crossing makes a conscious choice to either wait it out, or try to beat the train. Don't give me any garbage about how it is our lifestyles that contribute to these accidents. Those excuses do not hold water, at all. To bring that up is a cop out, and a lame attempt to blame "modern society" instead of the individual responsible. Please explain how that mother in the minivan "harried by cellphones, GPS" and what have you, was forced to race the train, and try to go around it....she raced the train, okay? It's quite evident on the video tape of her racing through the parking lot. Sir, that is a CHOICE. Ultimately she paid the price and so did two of her children. I really do feel sorry for those who are killed at railway crossings, or in accidents involving trains. I really feel for the families they leave behind. It is a senseless, stupid way to die.
Don't even equate someone's foolish behavior, with an industrial accident. Railroading is a dangerous business, and I can be pretty certain, that the railroaders don't "play" around. When a worker dies in an industrial accident, or a cop, or firefighter dies in the line of duty, it is not because they were "playing". In the case of last two, they are put in situations because of someone else's stupidity in many cases.
So, the characterization of people who die in accidents with trains around here is a little rough, but, it's not because we are "foamers" defending the almighty railroads. We call it for what it is because common sense, and a little thought would prevent these incidents. We know the dangers of trains, and that they are very unforgiving to be careless around. I wish more people realized this. But, unfortunately they don't.
djjoe wrote: Has it ever entered your head that we're, all of us, pretty much alike living a harried existence, with not enough sleep, too much to do, so little time, tracked by GPS, hounded by cellphone, working more hours than any other industrialized nation, some working a couple three jobs maybe and , in a nod or a blink, we're dead, which is bad enough. But does that death have to validate a bunch of foamers in a RR forum?
No. But none of what you say applies to the subject of this thread except the part of "in a nod or a blink, we're dead".
A man played a form of Russian Roulette. He illegally ran a stop sign at night at a very high speed, allegedly attempting to go airborne at a crossing for a thrill. In his case, it turned out to be the wrong crossing.
That type of incident is not even remotely related to an unfortunate railroader getting killed in an industrial accident while working. Find me one reference on this forum to a railroader getting killed "doing head-ons or playing on the tracks" as you claim. Or in any legitimate news source.
Your mistake is failing to understand what happened to the driver of that truck was no accident. Tragic? Yes. Unlucky? Yes. Accident? Nope.
BTW, coming here and wrapping up your diatribe by calling us names does nothing to lend any credibility to your rant, either. Who are you to call the opinions of others here "witless" solely because they don't agree with you?
I'm glad this thread and some like it survive. Reminds me of the video I watched in Drivers Ed with all the graphic footage of car accidents. Nothing like a little reminder that the odds sometimes catch up with you. It's a shame when anyone is killed either at work or in the pursuit of their lives.
In this world where lots of people are afraid to say what's on their mind its nice to hear a spade called a spade from time to time.
Dan
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
djjoe wrote: It's a shame that those who run this forum allow threads like this one to continue to see the light of day. A chance to launch the "Moron" epithet or the Darwin snark can't be passed up and goes on for pages. And why is it when a RR worker's life ends because of his inattentiveness, miscalculation, or just plain bad luck it's always a "tragic accident" and hearts overflow and bouquets are laid, thoughts are with the loved ones, prayers are said? Hmmm?
It's a shame that those who run this forum allow threads like this one to continue to see the light of day. A chance to launch the "Moron" epithet or the Darwin snark can't be passed up and goes on for pages.
And why is it when a RR worker's life ends because of his inattentiveness, miscalculation, or just plain bad luck it's always a "tragic accident" and hearts overflow and bouquets are laid, thoughts are with the loved ones, prayers are said? Hmmm?
Prayers are said regardless of who it is that dies needlessly. Here is the "but"..... When a railroad worker gets killed, I would say, by and large, it is NOT because of a reckless choice made out of impatience.... I would daresay, that in all grade-crossing, and train vs pedestrian accidents, the accident occurs because someone decided that trying to beat the train was a good idea, or they were playing, walking, running, etc. on the railroad tracks where they don't belong, because that is trespassing.
Every occupation has deaths that occur as a result of the work being done (Firefighters, police officers, construction workers, electricians, railroad employees, etc)
DJJOE, what would you call a person who willingly puts themself in position where they can get killed....Note that I said willingly which implies someone who, through their own volition, puts themselves in that position. What would you term someone who willingly puts themselves, and the others with them at that same risk?
Live or dead.... to me, they are just plain stupid. If they manage to survive, then, they were stupid, AND lucky....
Yes, it's a tragedy they died, and an even bigger tragedy for the family, and whenever I read stories like the one about Mr. Novotny, or the father in New York, I sadly shake my head, praying for the family, and at the same time, knowing it could have been prevented with just a little bit of common sense, and logic..... That's all. That's all there is to it.
My sympathies to the loved ones of those who die as a result of their bonehead decisions.
I agree with your point, however, I am thankful that the forum allows the thread to continue. If it had not been allowed to continue, it might have not gotten to your point, which you have said well.
Mr_Ash wrote: I'd call them "Brain Doners"
I'd call them "Brain Doners"
"Brain Donors"
tree68 wrote: How do you do that without intending to?By drawing the fine line between intentially parking the train across the crossing (ie, being held out of a receiving yard, etc), and having it left there as the result of switching. Doesn't change the end result....We encounter the same thing here at work, when CSX is doubling (tripling, quadrupling...) out trains. Sometimes they have three crossings blocked while they make the air, etc.
How do you do that without intending to?
By drawing the fine line between intentially parking the train across the crossing (ie, being held out of a receiving yard, etc), and having it left there as the result of switching.
Doesn't change the end result....
We encounter the same thing here at work, when CSX is doubling (tripling, quadrupling...) out trains. Sometimes they have three crossings blocked while they make the air, etc.
I agree that it does not change the end result. And it does not excuse running the stop sign. My point was only about the obfuscation of having it both ways by pretending that blocked crossings are unintentional. In some cases, they could be unintentional or even an act of God, but that cannot be the case with switching operations.
There is nothing new about trains blocking crossings, and even the laws that forbid it have a time period that allows limited blocking. But if the town has multiple crossings routinely blocked for over an hour at a time, and no legal recourse, then they have a problem that needs to be fixed; and they should not let the railroad blow smoke up their nose by claiming that the blockages are unintentional.
Bucyrus wrote: outback 76,It is interesting that you have posted here with your first-hand relationship with this accident. What is your opinion about the reason your friend ran the stop sign?
outback 76,
It is interesting that you have posted here with your first-hand relationship with this accident. What is your opinion about the reason your friend ran the stop sign?
Yes, I'm interested to know as well. We're waiting.Whistling Jeopardy theme tune
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.