marknewton wrote: Bucyrus wrote:They were considering charging the guy with trespass, but were leaning against it because he was already in enough grief, and they were reluctant to pile on more.What a great cop-out! Commit a crime and avoid the consequences, all by claiming to be "already in enough grief". Brilliant! And you wonder why I look at your legal system and lawyers with contempt...Mark.
Bucyrus wrote:They were considering charging the guy with trespass, but were leaning against it because he was already in enough grief, and they were reluctant to pile on more.
If you're not demanding the friend be prosecuted by your own words above, then what are you complaining about? Let's get this thread back on the subject.
WIAR wrote:The attitude of your countrymen (all 39 of them) towards American capitol punishment is steeped in suspicion that the legal proceedings here are unfair, corrupt and bigoted.
According to most Europeans and you Far East Europeans (east of Europe, you see), we Americans are far too draconian in our sentencing
Yet in this case, you harshly demand the friend be charged and prosecuted under any and every possible law in order to punish his stupidity no matter what
(shall we send him to Botany Bay?)
It was the railroad's property that was trespassed-upon, and therefore the railroad can choose to pursue a complaint of trespassing, if they feel it necessary. The county could prosecute independently, but in such cases, if the property owner doesn't opt to prosecute, neither will the county.
The only other possible charge, in any imagination, beyond trespassing, would be involuntary manslaughter against the woman's friend. No other charge even remotely fits the circumstances. There's simply no evidence to support any prosecution beyond trespassing.
The attitude of your countrymen (all 39 of them) towards American capitol punishment is steeped in suspicion that the legal proceedings here are unfair, corrupt and bigoted. According to most Europeans and you Far East Europeans (east of Europe, you see), we Americans are far too draconian in our sentencing. Yet in this case, you harshly demand the friend be charged and prosecuted under any and every possible law in order to punish his stupidity no matter what (shall we send him to Botany Bay?). Once Australia reaches a population level where overloading the courts with needless prosecutions and prison over-crowding begins to matter, you may think otherwise about wasting a prosecutor's time and tax-payer money to crucify this individual.
If the Canadian railroad opts not to pursue a formal trespassing complaint, that's it, he WON'T be prosecuted.
Bucyrus wrote:It seems apparent to me that you are trying awfully hard to avoid the issue of the hole because it apparently works against your argument somehow. I don't see why it should.
You seem convinced that no trespassing signs or the fact of private property completely exonerates the CN from any responsibility in the matter.
If the police, news media, or victim's friend just made up the story about the hole in the walkway to try to blame the railroad, what difference would it make?
According to you, hole or no hole, she was trespassing, so it's all her fault. End of story, right?
Bucyrus wrote: selector wrote: Let's return to the topic...has anyone information to add that can be readily scrutinized and discussed? Conjecture at this point does not seem to be helping us to advance beyond exchanging barbs.-CrandellCrandell, I thought this was all entirely on topic. It is not my intent to exchange barbs, but there is a considerable difference of opinion here, and I am trying to debate it in a responsible, non-flaming manner.
selector wrote: Let's return to the topic...has anyone information to add that can be readily scrutinized and discussed? Conjecture at this point does not seem to be helping us to advance beyond exchanging barbs.-Crandell
Let's return to the topic...has anyone information to add that can be readily scrutinized and discussed? Conjecture at this point does not seem to be helping us to advance beyond exchanging barbs.
-Crandell
Crandell, I thought this was all entirely on topic. It is not my intent to exchange barbs, but there is a considerable difference of opinion here, and I am trying to debate it in a responsible, non-flaming manner.
marknewton wrote: Bucyrus wrote:Mark, Let me clear some things up for you.You can't. You're not capable of clarity, only obfuscation. I wonder why you seem so reluctant to believe that there was a hole in the walkway large enough for a person to have fallen through, as the news has reported.The "news" has been known to get it wrong, to misrepresent the facts, to lie. Hence my reluctance to unquestioningly accept this claim as true.I only use the term deathtrap to differentiate relative degrees of danger. I am not saying that the bridge is not dangerous. You can call it a deathtrap if you want. Some people call small cars deathtraps.Relevance? None.But I call that hole a deathtrap to indicate that it poses a far greater danger than all the other aspects of the bridge combined. Surly you would agree.No, I wouldn't agree. You opinion as a layman counts for nothing.And it would be much more likely to not see a hole in time to avoid stepping into it if it were nighttime, as opposed to broad daylight. I don't know whether the victim had her hand on the handrail at the time of the fall, but I do agree that if there were a hole in the walkway large enough to fall through, a person would be less likely to fall through it if they had their hand on the handrail. However, even with a hand on the handrail, there is no guarantee that a person could grip the rail sufficiently to keep themselves from going down once they stepped into the hole. In addition to falling through a hole, one must plan on the possibility of breaking though the walkway because of a weakened condition at some point that is not visually apparent. For that reason, I would prefer to not walk near the guardrail where one must rely totally upon the single planks to hold him or her up. That would be like having all your eggs in one basket so to speak. If I were walking across at night, I would do it as I described, favoring the side nearest the track. This would place me so far from the handrail that it would not be possible to hang onto it. Perhaps I could reach it with my arm extended horizontally, but an extended arm is in a much-compromised position to arrest a fall. So I would forgo the handrail and plan on catching the track rail or other likely more reliable concentrations of features near the track in case my footing gave way. Those track-related structures are going to be much more structurally reliable than the single planks of the walkway. And I can assure you that I would not get hit by a train or fall off the bridge as you contend.You've demonstrated that you don't know how to conduct yourself safely in a hazardous working environment, so your assurances count for nothing, either.I am referring to the way I would do it if I had a legitimate reason to be on the bridge.I hope for your sake you never do find yourself on a high railroad bridge - you'd become an organ donor in no time.
Bucyrus wrote:Mark, Let me clear some things up for you.
I wonder why you seem so reluctant to believe that there was a hole in the walkway large enough for a person to have fallen through, as the news has reported.
I only use the term deathtrap to differentiate relative degrees of danger. I am not saying that the bridge is not dangerous. You can call it a deathtrap if you want. Some people call small cars deathtraps.
But I call that hole a deathtrap to indicate that it poses a far greater danger than all the other aspects of the bridge combined. Surly you would agree.
And it would be much more likely to not see a hole in time to avoid stepping into it if it were nighttime, as opposed to broad daylight. I don't know whether the victim had her hand on the handrail at the time of the fall, but I do agree that if there were a hole in the walkway large enough to fall through, a person would be less likely to fall through it if they had their hand on the handrail. However, even with a hand on the handrail, there is no guarantee that a person could grip the rail sufficiently to keep themselves from going down once they stepped into the hole. In addition to falling through a hole, one must plan on the possibility of breaking though the walkway because of a weakened condition at some point that is not visually apparent. For that reason, I would prefer to not walk near the guardrail where one must rely totally upon the single planks to hold him or her up. That would be like having all your eggs in one basket so to speak. If I were walking across at night, I would do it as I described, favoring the side nearest the track. This would place me so far from the handrail that it would not be possible to hang onto it. Perhaps I could reach it with my arm extended horizontally, but an extended arm is in a much-compromised position to arrest a fall. So I would forgo the handrail and plan on catching the track rail or other likely more reliable concentrations of features near the track in case my footing gave way. Those track-related structures are going to be much more structurally reliable than the single planks of the walkway. And I can assure you that I would not get hit by a train or fall off the bridge as you contend.
I don't know whether the victim had her hand on the handrail at the time of the fall, but I do agree that if there were a hole in the walkway large enough to fall through, a person would be less likely to fall through it if they had their hand on the handrail. However, even with a hand on the handrail, there is no guarantee that a person could grip the rail sufficiently to keep themselves from going down once they stepped into the hole.
In addition to falling through a hole, one must plan on the possibility of breaking though the walkway because of a weakened condition at some point that is not visually apparent. For that reason, I would prefer to not walk near the guardrail where one must rely totally upon the single planks to hold him or her up. That would be like having all your eggs in one basket so to speak.
If I were walking across at night, I would do it as I described, favoring the side nearest the track. This would place me so far from the handrail that it would not be possible to hang onto it. Perhaps I could reach it with my arm extended horizontally, but an extended arm is in a much-compromised position to arrest a fall.
So I would forgo the handrail and plan on catching the track rail or other likely more reliable concentrations of features near the track in case my footing gave way. Those track-related structures are going to be much more structurally reliable than the single planks of the walkway. And I can assure you that I would not get hit by a train or fall off the bridge as you contend.
I am referring to the way I would do it if I had a legitimate reason to be on the bridge.
Well if you don't trust the news when they say there was a hole in the walkway, why trust anything else they say about the incident? They reported many facts. Why not disbelieve them all, and just let the whole story go away? It seems apparent to me that you are trying awfully hard to avoid the issue of the hole because it apparently works against your argument somehow. I don't see why it should. You seem convinced that no trespassing signs or the fact of private property completely exonerates the CN from any responsibility in the matter.
If the police, news media, or victim's friend just made up the story about the hole in the walkway to try to blame the railroad, what difference would it make? According to you, hole or no hole, she was trespassing, so it's all her fault. End of story, right? So why worry about the truthfulness of the alleged hole? With all due respect, it seems like you are not as sure of your position as you want us all to believe.
And it would be much more likely to not see a hole in time to avoid stepping into it if it were nighttime, as opposed to broad daylight.I don't know whether the victim had her hand on the handrail at the time of the fall, but I do agree that if there were a hole in the walkway large enough to fall through, a person would be less likely to fall through it if they had their hand on the handrail. However, even with a hand on the handrail, there is no guarantee that a person could grip the rail sufficiently to keep themselves from going down once they stepped into the hole. In addition to falling through a hole, one must plan on the possibility of breaking though the walkway because of a weakened condition at some point that is not visually apparent. For that reason, I would prefer to not walk near the guardrail where one must rely totally upon the single planks to hold him or her up. That would be like having all your eggs in one basket so to speak. If I were walking across at night, I would do it as I described, favoring the side nearest the track. This would place me so far from the handrail that it would not be possible to hang onto it. Perhaps I could reach it with my arm extended horizontally, but an extended arm is in a much-compromised position to arrest a fall. So I would forgo the handrail and plan on catching the track rail or other likely more reliable concentrations of features near the track in case my footing gave way. Those track-related structures are going to be much more structurally reliable than the single planks of the walkway. And I can assure you that I would not get hit by a train or fall off the bridge as you contend.
WIAR wrote:Oh dear. Someone in Australia holds our laws and our legal system in contempt.
3.) A strange argument is yours: Usually the Europeans as well as the "Far-East Europeans" (a.k.a. Australians)
raise the loudest howl over Americans persisting in our support of capitol punishment. This, even though in many, many cases, the convicted murderers stand a better chance of death by natural causes before the chair takes its' toll, as the result of seemingly endless legal appeals.
Yet here, you condemn our legal procedures for not convicting and punishing the grieving friend on charges that, at least so far, the railroad hasn't opted to press and without supporting evidence for manslaughter.
Good job with those electrodes WIAR.
Oh dear. Someone in Australia holds our laws and our legal system in contempt. I doubt I'll sleep tonight with such disappointment.
1.) The woman's friend of which we speak hasn't been convicted of anything as of yet, and the owners of that bridge, CN, have the right to press forward or not with a complaint of trespassing. Therefore, to-date, he's not officially committed any crime - that is a legal clarification as we all know they were trespassing, but until he's been charged, tried and found guilty he's not committed a crime for which he's to be punished.
2.) There has to be evidence of criminal negligence on his part that would've lead to her death in order to charge him accordingly. So far we've heard of none. Simply because he didn't tackle her to prevent her walking that bridge or otherwise physically restraining her from doing so doesn't constitute negligence. She was an adult and able to make her own choices, albeit with tragic consequences.
3.) A strange argument is yours: Usually the Europeans as well as the "Far-East Europeans" (a.k.a. Australians) raise the loudest howl over Americans persisting in our support of capitol punishment. This, even though in many, many cases, the convicted murderers stand a better chance of death by natural causes before the chair takes its' toll, as the result of seemingly endless legal appeals. Yet here, you condemn our legal procedures for not convicting and punishing the grieving friend on charges that, at least so far, the railroad hasn't opted to press and without supporting evidence for manslaughter.
Modelcar wrote:...Unless there is possitive proof of wrong doing to the young lady by said fellow.....how could he be prosecuted for such....?The young lady was an adult and presumedly could make her own decisions.
...Unless there is possitive proof of wrong doing to the young lady by said fellow.....how could he be prosecuted for such....?
The young lady was an adult and presumedly could make her own decisions.
marknewton wrote: Bucyrus wrote:The news reports have stated that a plank was missing, leaving a 6-foot-long hole presumably as wide as the plank.News reports on matters like these are about as reliable as the average lawyer, in my experience. Maybe you would hang onto the handrail, Yes, I would. but I doubt that most people would.Then most people would probably fall off eventually. I might keep my hand running along it ready to grip if the conditions seemed really treacherous. You're 180' above the ground on a live railroad bridge with a narrow wooden walkway - how much more treacherous do you think it could get? There is no obvious reason to hang onto it unless the wind is blowing hard and/or there is a lot of snow or ice.The obvious reason is that you're 180' above the ground on a live railroad bridge with a narrow wooden walkway. But now I'm beginning to understand what sort of person US liability laws were intended to benefit when they were framed. Idiots with a death wish... But if I were walking across, I would favor the side of the walkway nearest the track and keep an eye out for trains. I would also keep my eyes on the walkway. You'd find it very hard to do both - you'd probably either get struck by a train, or fall off and get killed.If you are aware of all possibilities, you must consider that the walkway may have gotten torn up by a passing train and nobody knows it yet.Really - torn up how, exactly?Mark.(I know I wrote earlier that continuing this exchange was a waste of time,but I admit to being fascinated by the sheer bone-headedness of the OP's attitude to personal safety and responsibility.)
Bucyrus wrote:The news reports have stated that a plank was missing, leaving a 6-foot-long hole presumably as wide as the plank.
Maybe you would hang onto the handrail,
but I doubt that most people would.
I might keep my hand running along it ready to grip if the conditions seemed really treacherous.
There is no obvious reason to hang onto it unless the wind is blowing hard and/or there is a lot of snow or ice.
But if I were walking across, I would favor the side of the walkway nearest the track and keep an eye out for trains. I would also keep my eyes on the walkway.
If you are aware of all possibilities, you must consider that the walkway may have gotten torn up by a passing train and nobody knows it yet.
Mark, Let me clear some things up for you. I wonder why you seem so reluctant to believe that there was a hole in the walkway large enough for a person to have fallen through, as the news has reported. The news has also reported that the woman did accidentally fall through that hole. I only use the term deathtrap to differentiate relative degrees of danger. I am not saying that the bridge is not dangerous. You can call it a deathtrap if you want. Some people call small cars deathtraps. But I call that hole a deathtrap to indicate that it poses a far greater danger than all the other aspects of the bridge combined. Surly you would agree. And it would be much more likely to not see a hole in time to avoid stepping into it if it were nighttime, as opposed to broad daylight.
Also, perhaps I should clarify that I am not advocating this crossing technique as a way to trespass without getting killed. I am referring to the way I would do it if I had a legitimate reason to be on the bridge.
Bucyrus wrote: Mr_Ash wrote: Safty First!If it were me walking across that bridge I would have a white knuckle death grip on that railing! IMO they should track down this guy who was with her, arrest him and charge him with Tresspassing and Criminally Negligent Manslaughter The authorities did question the guy who was with her. They were considering charging the guy with trespass, but were leaning against it because he was already in enough grief, and they were reluctant to pile on more. As far as charging manslaughter, the authorities are apparently convinced that she accidentally fell. I am sure they consider all of the circumstances before reaching such a conclusion.
Mr_Ash wrote: Safty First!If it were me walking across that bridge I would have a white knuckle death grip on that railing! IMO they should track down this guy who was with her, arrest him and charge him with Tresspassing and Criminally Negligent Manslaughter
Safty First!
If it were me walking across that bridge I would have a white knuckle death grip on that railing!
IMO they should track down this guy who was with her, arrest him and charge him with Tresspassing and Criminally Negligent Manslaughter
The authorities did question the guy who was with her. They were considering charging the guy with trespass, but were leaning against it because he was already in enough grief, and they were reluctant to pile on more. As far as charging manslaughter, the authorities are apparently convinced that she accidentally fell. I am sure they consider all of the circumstances before reaching such a conclusion.
"Circumstances," like his father's political clout, perhaps? And grief is a mitigating after-the-fact circumstance that excuses illegal activity? In a military court, the death of his companion would be an additional charge, not a reason to dismiss the original charge.
Not to be cynical, but I favor the memorial sign - topped by a great big DEAD smiley. Just don't make it a bronze plaque. Some metal bandit would find it irresistable.
Chuck
Quentin
How about teaching today's kids another four letter word: O-B-E-Y.
If we still had nuns teaching in schools a lot more kids would heed warning signs and not believe they're put there for others to heed, but not them.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Folks:
About ten years ago this bridge was part of my supervisory territory when I was Trainmaster for the Wisconsin Central. As a WC supervisor I also was a/am a locomotive engineer /conductor and made many trips over the "High Bridge" and always was very happy to be on either side of it but not on it, due the extreme length and hight. I am very familiar with the problem of tresspassers on the bridge.
After reading these posts let me first say that there is no reasonable way to physically keep people off of it. If you put up fencing and a gate they would just walk around them and walk directly between the rails to gain access to the catwalk or worse yet and more usual, just walk down the center of the track. Also, the idea of having other folks on the bridge to supervise and run a businees there would just invite the public to visit the site and place an " approval" rating at the site which would encourage more liabiliites. This is a dangerous area which only freight trains pass over and not a public park.
Folks now days feel they have a "right" to go anywhere they please and often don't or won't stop to think of the consequences of failing to obey rules or the law. The general public has no clue as to how long it takes to stop a train of any length and feels everyone and particularly big companies like railroads need to provide protection from hazards rather than folks knowing, and complying with all rules and regulations to keep themselves safe.
This is one reason that I became "soured" about having railfans and passenger/steam excursions on the properties I managed due to the increasing problems of unsafe behavior and extreme libilities to the company because of the public being around the rrailroad. It becomes very exhausting hosting excursions and public gatherings on the rails due to most folks not understanding the risks they take when for example, standing in the middle of the track to get a photo just before a steam locomotive passes or climbing on railroad property to get a better view. This is one reason why so many Class 1 railroads and most others either limit or don't allow such activites because first there are too many trains on most routes and the liability risk is just too high. The best place to enjoy the railroad is either at an operating railroad museum on on public property where you can view and photograph the railroad from a safe distance.
Enjoy the "rails"... but safely and off the property.
Barry, training railroaders in the midwest
.....After a generous quanity of posts have been displayed, perhaps it would make sense if someone could ID an address to the bridge owners and supply a copy of all our suggestions how one might prevent another terrible accident from happening again.
If everyone has to have an adventure on the bridge then why not make a job out of it by having people in shacks at each end renting, maintaining, and selling safety clothes, harnesses, and tethers. The tethers from the harnesses would clip into newly installed tracks on each side of the bridge. That is the only way to put it in perspective for everybody who must see everything.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Maybe a placard listing the names of those know to have died on the bridge, with dates and the cause of death.
Latest entry (with full sobriety and respect to this lady):
August 10, 2008 - Laura MacDonald, aged 20, in darkness, fell to her death through the decking.
.....Not bad. Who knows, might be more effective than other approaches.
How about if they get permission from the girl's family to post her picture with a thoughtful and well-worded description of how she died (nothing graffic or insensitive) at both ends of the bridge? Have it lit during evening/night-time hours (and adequately protected from vandalism).
Maybe this would give someone time to get their brains in gear before they trespass.
....Anyone have any positive ideas.....?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.