They were taking photographs on one of the bridges close to Refugio. Of the four people on the bridge two got run over and were critically hurt, one was knocked clear into the side of a hill and was killed, one was able to get off the bridge before being struck.
Additional information: SANTA BARBARA, CALIF. — Several of the people struck by a train on the Southern California coast over the weekend were visiting scholars at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
One woman was killed and two others injured Saturday when they were caught on a bridge overlooking to the Pacific Ocean as the Amtrak train bore down. A man was able to make it to safety.
KEYT-TV reported Monday (http://bit.ly/1sJKpV0) that a university spokesman confirmed three of the four were visiting scholars.
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's department did not release any names, but the station said the department confirmed it was working with officials from the Chinese government.
The accident happened around sunset near Vista Point, a popular spot to take photos off Highway 101.
So, apparently, the people involved were from China, and were, perhaps, unfamiliar with American rules and customs, not to mention dangers.
i consider your headline abusive, and will ask that this posting be removed unless you edit it. amtrak did not kill. these people died because of their own illegal, dangerous, and foolhardy actions. a proper headline is three tespassers died and one injured when an amtrak train arrive unexpectadly -- or something like that.
please put the blame where it belongs
Don't you know that trains swerve just to kill people and hit cars & trucks? Seriously, your headline makes you sound like the kind that would attempt to rob a building, get caught, and then blame the building owner for having a window that you could climb through.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
"+1" to daveklepper's post above about the poorly constructed title of this thread. We can do better than that here.
- Paul North.
This headline is not much different than what will run in local paper and go out over AP wire. While I understand your point methinks your skin is too thin.
Mac McCulloch
Stupidity kills one and injures two others north of Santa Barbara.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Put me on the list of people who are offended by the headline.
...and you are right that the melodramatic news media will use a similar headline.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
"+ a few"; They schould be using the word trespassing. (but probably won't, being they typically don't believe in personal accountability in that state either.)
You can add me to list of people offended by this headline. They caused their own "DEATH BY STUPIDITY"".
Too bad, people. Get a life. Amtrak should have sounded their horn at least a half mile before a bridge, just like freight trains do before they enter a tunnel, especially when in this section of track, which is closely followed by Hwy 101. They know where the bridges are. Is pushing the horn button a couple of times so tiring to the engineer's hand? Stupid people cross the tracks all the time here, but is Amtrak ignorant of this? I doubt it. I am putting the blame where it lies. And if a freight train had killed those clueless people, I would be blaming UP. It's called being corporately proactive! My point is that no train should have arrived unexpectedly, passenger or freight. Especially here.
And just because you find my headline abusive, is no reason to remove it, just because you disagree with how I write it. Who are you, anyway? Certainly, no better than me.
OK guys. Don't feed the troll.
Phoebe VetOK guys. Don't feed the troll.
Russell
I see how it is. When somebody doesn't agree with your opinion, yet presents a reasoned argument for his own opinion, he is suddenly branded a troll. Call me all the names all you want. It doesn't change the strength of my argument in the slightest, especially if that's all you can do against it.
Buxtehude Too bad, people. Get a life. Amtrak should have sounded their horn at least a half mile before a bridge, just like freight trains do before they enter a tunnel, especially when in this section of track, which is closely followed by Hwy 101. They know where the bridges are. Is pushing the horn button a couple of times so tiring to the engineer's hand? Stupid people cross the tracks all the time here, but is Amtrak ignorant of this? I doubt it. I am putting the blame where it lies. And if a freight train had killed those clueless people, I would be blaming UP. It's called being corporately proactive! My point is that no train should have arrived unexpectedly, passenger or freight. Especially here. And just because you find my headline abusive, is no reason to remove it, just because you disagree with how I write it. Who are you, anyway? Certainly, no better than me.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Thank you. If Amtrak does sound their horn as a matter of policy, and did here, then my argument is completely moot. To my knowledge, they don't, but they should, if only because they must know by experience how many stupid people cross throughout this section of railroad, and how dangerous an area it is. If any article actually says that Amtrak did sound the horn, then I'll change the headline as fast as my little fingers can type the difference. Otherwise, there are sins of commission, but equally of omission as well. This situation was of the latter type.
mudchicken "+ a few"; They schould be using the word trespassing. (but probably won't, being they typically don't believe in personal accountability in that state either.)
Interestingly, lots of case law going back to the previous turn of the century and before to the effect of "you play on railroad track, you don't win when big bad train runs you over." An oddity in California law, but the courts have been pretty consistent in tossing trespasser claims. I know UP is pretty strong on fighting those suits and a case out of Sacramento several years ago was pretty well on point in upholding a summary judgment against plaintiff in a case remarkably similar to what was alluded to here.
ChuckCobleigh: Sorry... I am unable to follow the "who" of your "plaintiff" and the result of the case you mention. Who sued whom, for what reason, and who won?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo ChuckCobleigh: Sorry... I am unable to follow the "who" of your "plaintiff" and the result of the case you mention. Who sued whom, for what reason, and who won?
The particular case was an unpublished 3rd District Court of Appeal opinion in the past few years affirming a summary judgment against a plaintiff who was crossing a railroad bridge near Roseville and was struck by a UP freight. The opinion included a lengthy recitation of California case law which in essence held that a railroad track itself is sufficient warning of danger to trespassers. It is not citable, which means that nothing in it was new law nor a new interpretation or application. I'll see if I can find it on the sleeping computer.
EDIT: After awakening the sleeping beast, I found two similar cases, one being the case I mentioned above. Turns out that a month after releasing the unpublished opinion, the Third District ordered the case published: Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 134 Cal App 4th 118. This is obtainable online from the California Courts website, starting at their link to LexisNexus: http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/.
My favorite quote in the discussion is this from an 1893 case:
"A railroad track upon which trains are constantly run is itself a warning to any person who has reached years of discretion, and who is possessed of ordinary intelligence, that it is not safe to walk upon it, or near enough to it to be struck by a passing train . . . ." (Holmes v. South Pac Coast Ry. Co. (1893) 97 Cal. 161, 167..."
The Christoff case was cited in Lindsley v. Union Pacific Railroad (unpub. opn H030587, 6th District Court of Appeal, 2008) where again, trestle trespassers sued the railroad, the city, and one other defendant and had summary judgment entered against them, which was affirmed on appeal. To me, it's almost legal malpractice to go forward with a case when there is nearly exact precedent against the client's position, but that's just my opinion.
How is this any different than the Alman movie trespassing? 1/2 mile would only be 30 seconds warning at 60mph, no change, idiots still dead.
Have fun with your trains
Which makes sense, of course. The idea that a railroad track itself is sufficient warning of danger to trespassers. Actually, I agree with that. Above I always called these people who walk on the section as clueless or as stupid, which is what they are. I think I should change the wording of what was of commission and of omission. "Crime" might be too strong a word. "Sin" might be better, in that it assumes decency, rather than the breaking of a law. If I were an engineer, and I were traveling through that area, I'd be tooting my horn every 15 seconds or so, just because it was the right thing to do. This is NOT a new problem.
Buxtehude They were taking photographs on one of the bridges close to Refugio. Of the four people on the bridge two got run over and were critically hurt, one was knocked clear into the side of a hill and was killed, one was able to get off the bridge before being struck.
Dave, I understand your meaning, but the three didn't kill themselves; they were killed, yes trespassing, but by contact with a rushing locomotive....belonging to Amtrak. They didn't die running, they died via collision, and the collision was with a train. So, the train did kill them. You could argue philosophically that they killed themselves, but their instrumentality was only in being in a certain place. Afterwards came the collision.
-Crandell
selector Buxtehude They were taking photographs on one of the bridges close to Refugio. Of the four people on the bridge two got run over and were critically hurt, one was knocked clear into the side of a hill and was killed, one was able to get off the bridge before being struck. -Crandell
But by that logic, someone that jumped off a 10 story building didn't commit suicide; the sidewalk at the end of the free-fall killed them.
BaltACD Stupidity kills one and injures two others north of Santa Barbara.
Good shot, Oswald.
Another case of the vicious hunter-killer train not only swerving but jumping off the tracks and running down the roads and across the countryside maiming and killing everyone it sees (sarcasm dripping copiously).
BuxtehudeIf I were an engineer, and I were traveling through that area, I'd be tooting my horn every 15 seconds or so, just because it was the right thing to do. This is NOT a new problem.
Alas, in the "land of fruit and nuts", said engineer would probably find himself charged (maybe even sued) for excessive noise/disturbing the peace.
Trying to figure out which trestle was involved. Don't think it was the Gaviota Trestle itself, but I can't find a reference to "Vista Point" as mentioned in several news items. The Arroyo Honda trestle would appear to be the best candidate, as the approach to the Canada Alcatraz trestle is a straight shot. There is also a curve approaching Gaviota Trestle southbound.
In this article, a UP spokesperson specifically says that being on the tracks is trespassing: http://www.keyt.com/news/amtrak-train-hits-three-people-kills-one/29072716
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...
Buxtehude Which makes sense, of course. The idea that a railroad track itself is sufficient warning of danger to trespassers. Actually, I agree with that. Above I always called these people who walk on the section as clueless or as stupid, which is what they are. I think I should change the wording of what was of commission and of omission. "Crime" might be too strong a word. "Sin" might be better, in that it assumes decency, rather than the breaking of a law. If I were an engineer, and I were traveling through that area, I'd be tooting my horn every 15 seconds or so, just because it was the right thing to do. This is NOT a new problem.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68 Buxtehude If I were an engineer, and I were traveling through that area, I'd be tooting my horn every 15 seconds or so, just because it was the right thing to do. This is NOT a new problem. Alas, in the "land of fruit and nuts", said engineer would probably find himself charged (maybe even sued) for excessive noise/disturbing the peace. Trying to figure out which trestle was involved. Don't think it was the Gaviota Trestle itself, but I can't find a reference to "Vista Point" as mentioned in several news items. The Arroyo Honda trestle would appear to be the best candidate, as the approach to the Canada Alcatraz trestle is a straight shot. There is also a curve approaching Gaviota Trestle southbound. In this article, a UP spokesperson specifically says that being on the tracks is trespassing: http://www.keyt.com/news/amtrak-train-hits-three-people-kills-one/29072716
Buxtehude If I were an engineer, and I were traveling through that area, I'd be tooting my horn every 15 seconds or so, just because it was the right thing to do. This is NOT a new problem.
Not certain, tree68, but I think you're correct on the location being Arroyo Honda. Between the factoids in the news accounts, and my visit to Google Earth, that place looks like the most likely candidate.
As for the suggestion (and consequences) of having an engineer perform warning toots above and beyond what is required by the FRA, I would only note that the Santa Barbara area has its full share of California's most-prosperous NIMBYs, probably ready and willing to hyperventilate (and litigate) over this.
Without making light of a tragedy, I'd like to see Amtrak and UPRR get to step out of this whole issue and just pit the would-be trespassers (and their advocates) directly against the NIMBYs, and see who prevails.
Yes, the title could have been worded a bit better, I agree that it is very similar to what I would expect a newspaper to write as the story headline.
As far as someone being OFFENDED by the thread title, sure wish my life's problems were so small that a thread title like that would be Offensive. Definitely a bit of thin skin around here.
I DON"T agree that Amtrak was at fault in any way, shape or form, the Trespassers put themselves in harms way, no excuses there.
Unfortunately, a likely ending will involve the trespassers, or their Family collecting some un-deserved money, because an out of court settlement will be less expensive than the legal fees and unpredictable jury award.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.