Wow...what a thread. Now I know why my AT&T service sucks...lol...
LE
Norm48327 schlimm schlimm: Don't take this too seriously or personally. It's just something I found on line. It's the lawyer for the Belgian Bomber speaking of his client. “He’s a little moron from Molenbeek involved in petty crimes; more of a follower than a leader. He has the intelligence of an empty ashtray. He is the perfect example of the ‘Grand Theft Auto’ generation who thinks he lives in a video game,” attorney Sven Mary told the Liberation newspaper. And you thought we were hard on grade crossing idiots. Not trying to start something. Just wanted to show that some are nastier than we are.
schlimm
schlimm: Don't take this too seriously or personally. It's just something I found on line. It's the lawyer for the Belgian Bomber speaking of his client.
“He’s a little moron from Molenbeek involved in petty crimes; more of a follower than a leader. He has the intelligence of an empty ashtray. He is the perfect example of the ‘Grand Theft Auto’ generation who thinks he lives in a video game,” attorney Sven Mary told the Liberation newspaper.
And you thought we were hard on grade crossing idiots. Not trying to start something. Just wanted to show that some are nastier than we are.
Don't overlook the fact that this is the DEFENSE lawyer trying minimize any actions his client had in the terrorist attack. His client could be anything from the European mastermind of ISIS to a coward that didn't have the wherewithall to carry through the task ISIS ordered him to perform and anything in between.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Well it's hard to take that courtroom tactic as humorous (or effective). Terrorism is not funny nor is it wise for us to dismiss them as idiots. Apparently they were clever enough to outfox Belgian intelligence and security people for months.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmHow would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse? It is not PC, it is just common decency.
Norm
No link but a ready mix truck hit today in Opelika, Al. Only reason not worse is this is 1-1/2 miles from another strike last week. CSX was still running the section under slow order for rail settlement. Understand still needs one more pass of surfacing machine.
The sad part either way is the idiot as you say leaves behind family, friends and love ones. May be a better choice of words.
mudchickenMeanwhile, South of Philadelphia (so much wrong with the picture behind this story - but the apologists will be standing up for the backhoe operator I presume?)
Since we don't know what happened yet, it wouldn't make much sense to blame that person, would it?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Meanwhile, South of Philadelphia (so much wrong with the picture behind this story - but the apologists will be standing up for the backhoe operator I presume?)
Five will get you ten the driver did not fully retract the trailer's landing gear and it hung up on the crossing.
Here at 1852 local time a northbound intermodal is now traveling over the damaged crossing. As what can only be described as " double low girl walking speed " the train is proceeding over the crossing.
Sand train appears to have died on the HOS law.
Well we have an ongoing idiot activity. A Dollar General single drive axel tractor pulling a tandem trailer is stuck on a humped crossing in our town. Wrecker has so far been unable to remove from track as somehow jammed in crossing panels.. A track inspector is standing by to check once it is cleared. The local north bound sand train is waiting on the siding for the track to be OKed.
BTW trailer tamdens are full aft that makes it more likely for a hang up on a humped crossing.
EDIT. tractor drive wheels are actually hanging in the air so may be why wrecker is not having any luck ?
Let's not forget Melbourne's Metro Trains "Dumb ways to die" song and video - still cringing about the pirahna bait.
It would be interesting to survey the general public about the relative risks of activities around RR tracks - probably a safe bet that the risks are grossly underestimated.
No, it's a lame attempt to diffuse a bad situation with (gallows) humor.
tree68 Mookie Tree: (or anyone that knows) - do railroads have a policy of the crew staying out of the way - especially if they are not hurt? Wait for the fire/emts/police/sheriff? Or should they try to render aid if aid not close? Can't speak to the Class 1's. An issue there may well be that both crew members are in the cab and are subject to being injured. And the Class 1's may not want their crew members in contact with the vehicle occupants. The engineer will probably stay in the cab, if possible. First concern will likely be the train (and the passengers thereon for Amtrak and tourist lines). After that, possibly the occupants of the vehicle that was struck. I would suppose that it depends a lot on where the incident takes place. In a populated area help will be there fairly quickly. In very rural areas, not so much. Even then, the crew isn't going to have the tools necessary to extricate the patients in the vehicle if that's necessary, and probably lacks the training to provide more than the most basic of care.
Mookie Tree: (or anyone that knows) - do railroads have a policy of the crew staying out of the way - especially if they are not hurt? Wait for the fire/emts/police/sheriff? Or should they try to render aid if aid not close?
Tree: (or anyone that knows) - do railroads have a policy of the crew staying out of the way - especially if they are not hurt? Wait for the fire/emts/police/sheriff? Or should they try to render aid if aid not close?
Can't speak to the Class 1's. An issue there may well be that both crew members are in the cab and are subject to being injured. And the Class 1's may not want their crew members in contact with the vehicle occupants.
The engineer will probably stay in the cab, if possible.
First concern will likely be the train (and the passengers thereon for Amtrak and tourist lines).
After that, possibly the occupants of the vehicle that was struck.
I would suppose that it depends a lot on where the incident takes place. In a populated area help will be there fairly quickly. In very rural areas, not so much.
Even then, the crew isn't going to have the tools necessary to extricate the patients in the vehicle if that's necessary, and probably lacks the training to provide more than the most basic of care.
I would think (and hope) that regardless of the rules, if someone's life is in danger the crew would jump to help out. One crew member (most likely the Engineer) would call in the emergency to the Dispatcher on the radio, and also call 911 on his cellphone if it's handy and you have a signal. In emergency situations some rules (like the no-cellphone policy) can be disregarded.
Being first at the scene it will usually be the train crew who finds out what condition the vehicle, its occupants, and the passengers (if a passenger train) are in. Whether or not there is anything we can do to help, we still have to go back and find out, and in the process see some not-so-pretty sights that will haunt us forever.
But once the EMTs & Firefighters show up it's up to those professionals to do their jobs, but the crew still remains on site to help if needed until relieved, and show the Train Journal and Dangerous Goods documentation to the First Responders (only show, never turn over).
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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...
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
tree68But, please explain to us why hitting cars that ignore crossing protection is part of a railroad crew's job.
Just replying to Schlimm's comment that dealing with the carnage is part of an engineer's job.
Euclid I don’t think anybody is blaming the train crews for hitting vehicles at grade crossings. And nobody thinks grade crossing crashes are not a terrible thing. And drivers involved in crossing crashes usually break the law in the course of causing the crash. I don’t see how those issues are even part of the discussion.
I don’t think anybody is blaming the train crews for hitting vehicles at grade crossings. And nobody thinks grade crossing crashes are not a terrible thing. And drivers involved in crossing crashes usually break the law in the course of causing the crash. I don’t see how those issues are even part of the discussion.
It's all just a bunch of rationalizations for a rather ghoulish outlook or worse.
schlimmSome vicarious way of meeting needs?
Nah - just calling a spade a spade.
Yes, I deal with the carnage because it's my job (even though I'm a volunteer FF/EMT), but that doesn't mean that I look forward to it. I'd prefer that people didn't do stupid stuff. It's no fun struggling to get someone out of the car they just crushed around them, hoping you can do so in time to save them, regardless of how they got that way.
But, please explain to us why hitting cars that ignore crossing protection is part of a railroad crew's job.
Most of us thought the crew's job was to get the train from point A to point B. Contrary to what sometimes seems to be public belief, we don't run trains around the countryside trying to hit someone.
And trust me, I'm not trivializing any incident - as a FF/EMT I'm probably more aware than the general public of the cost of such incidents to family and friends. But when someone does something stupid - they did something stupid.
Balt and. Vaporo, that's my point. As railfans and professional, we know what happens on impact and that the debris can be more dangerous than the original hit.
Laypeople are more used to a car vs car crash where the energy dissipates quickly and the debris doesn't travel far.
I didn't mean run up the tracks to meet the train but rather to emphasise not to run along the tracks in the direction of travel.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
EuclidI think there is considerable difference. The news is just reporting the facts as being relevant to the story, and that is their job. It may make the driver look bad, but those are the facts. What the media is not doing is going out of their way to editorialize by directly insulting the driver who caused the crash; and gloating over the fact that driver was at fault, and was therefore was a stupid idiot or moron.
EMTs and other responders, engineers and reporters have to deal with the carnage of accidents because it is their job. Folks on here seem to have some need to go out of their way trivialize accidents or gloat or heap insults on the victims that do not directly concern them. Why? Some vicarious way of meeting needs?
Yes you run in the opposite direction of train travel but not at the train. Best probably is ~~ a 45 degree angle of the track toward the train. But now we need to apply that to our every day happenings of auto, trucks, bus accidents as well. Have passed that article of your wisdom to some friends and almost all stated that they had not thought of that.
Maybe we need subsets for idiots go around gates, Then maybe persons distracted. and then others. Certainly someone whose car falls off a bridge and gets hit by train would be a different category ?
ruderunner {snip} BTW I see some posters here berate those involved in these types of wrecks for running away from the oncoming train. True we here know that its safer to run towards it but human insticnt is to get the heck away from the danger not run toward it. Since most involved in these situations are obviously not railroaders or even railfans, it's understandable that they dont have the training to run towards the train.
BTW I see some posters here berate those involved in these types of wrecks for running away from the oncoming train. True we here know that its safer to run towards it but human insticnt is to get the heck away from the danger not run toward it. Since most involved in these situations are obviously not railroaders or even railfans, it's understandable that they dont have the training to run towards the train.
I think the term 'run toward the train' is apt to be misinterpreted... you do NOT run TOWARD the train.
In general, you run AWAY from the point of imminent impact with a predisposition to the direction from which the train is approaching, not in the direction that debris will travel upon such impact.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
ruderunner BTW I see some posters here berate those involved in these types of wrecks for running away from the oncoming train. True we here know that its safer to run towards it but human insticnt is to get the heck away from the danger not run toward it. Since most involved in these situations are obviously not railroaders or even railfans, it's understandable that they dont have the training to run towards the train.
It isn't a matter of training - just a matter of understanding the basic laws of motion and what will happen when that motion impacts something. It isn't a matter of berating them, it is just the fact that they are putting themselves in a position of increased risk.
SFbrkmn Most of the public w/ no rr knowledge have the deadly mindset that trains can stop like a car and we all know, in most circumstances, that is not possible. Thus wis waht we deal w/ five nights a wk shoving over a divided four lane highway where folks drive close to 60 even though the speed is 45. No gates. only overhead lights. The lights will come on five cars away. Once those flashers come on, if no one is fouling the crossing, that trk then belongs to the train and its not stopping. People have to understand that crossing lights are there for a reason and if they are dumb enough not to heed the warning, thats on them
Most of the public w/ no rr knowledge have the deadly mindset that trains can stop like a car and we all know, in most circumstances, that is not possible. Thus wis waht we deal w/ five nights a wk shoving over a divided four lane highway where folks drive close to 60 even though the speed is 45. No gates. only overhead lights. The lights will come on five cars away. Once those flashers come on, if no one is fouling the crossing, that trk then belongs to the train and its not stopping. People have to understand that crossing lights are there for a reason and if they are dumb enough not to heed the warning, thats on them
These are the type of accidents that I feel do qualify for a Darwin award. Blatant disregard for any warning signs.
Flashing lights and gates are there for a reason, to warn of impending danger. If one ignores those warnings well what else can you call them? Its not an accident, it's not caused by inattention, its not caused by complacency. Its caused by taking wreckless chances.
A crossing that sees one train a week and is protected by just a crossbuck is entirely different, there's no active warning of a train coming. I can certainly see those accidents as just that, accidents. Caused by complacency or inattentiveness or just carelessness. These are the accidents that folks need to be educated on. We can fix this situation, but we cant fix stupid risk taking.
Our friend in Brookpark saw the lights and decided to take a chance. He fared better than most but still lost. He's not a Darwin cantidate by the rules but he is still worthy of ridicule.
Euclid ...but those are the facts.
So are the facts that make someone a candidate for a Darwin Award.
Then there was the fellow who drove around the gates yesterday in western NY. Right in front of an Amtrak train. He did not survive.
schlimm SD70M-2Dude And for the PC crowd here, I should add that in grade crossing accidents the train crew can be injured or even killed, depending on train speed and what type of vehicle is involved. So forgive us for mocking those whose negligence will not only scar our psyches (leading to depression, substance-abuse, divorce and maybe even suicide), but could very well kill us on the spot. How would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse? It is not PC, it is just common decency.
SD70M-2Dude And for the PC crowd here, I should add that in grade crossing accidents the train crew can be injured or even killed, depending on train speed and what type of vehicle is involved. So forgive us for mocking those whose negligence will not only scar our psyches (leading to depression, substance-abuse, divorce and maybe even suicide), but could very well kill us on the spot.
How would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse? It is not PC, it is just common decency.
If people were to jaywalk in front of you on a daily basis without looking, wouldn't you swear and curse them to yourself (G--d--- idiot, what's he thinking!!! etc), or while among your friends/peers? I am not writing a headline for the victim's family and entire public to see (and would not think of doing so), I am writing comments on a railroad forum with the point of trying to open a window into what railroaders see on a daily basis at work, and what we feel about it (frustrated, depressed, and in an unwinnable situation). And I would not dream of quoting some discussions I have heard among my co-workers, they truly fall outside the realm of polite discussion.
ACY To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity.
To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity.
Imagine when you hit that jaywalker, having to walk back half a mile to try and help, knowing the whole time that its too late and dreading what you know you will find. And feeling responsible for the tragedy that has befallen the victim and their family. The effect of the victim's bad decision on their friends & family and the train crew is the real cruelty here, far more so than any words anyone says. Do any of the victims ever think of the kind of cruelty they will cause when they make the decision to race a train, drive through a red light, or jaywalk?
Tree68 is also correct in that the media already (intentionally or not) shames those involved, and causes pain to their families.
And for the record, I have not yet been involved in a crossing accident so I don't know how I will react. But I have been through several near misses, and each one scared me out of my mind. I can't imagine going through that kind of mental trauma and carrying that kind of guilt for the rest of my life.
tree68 schlimm How would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse? Ya know, it's going on right now in our local media. The word Darwin doesn't come into play, but the shaming is rampant, if indirect. What happened? A driver crossed the centerline and collided head-on with another vehicle. The other vehicle was being driven by a popular high school student. The incident happened several days ago, and every day since there has been a story in the media about how great the high school student was, and how much he'll be missed. In other words, every day since the accident the family of the driver who caused the incident has had their nose publically rubbed in the dirt about how their family member killed this kid. It was initially reported (in the media) that the driver who caused the accident had been tailgating and passing other drivers. It was also mentioned that the incident occurred on a hill. I'm sure the intention is to celebrate the life of the high school kid, but they sure are making the other driver (who also died) look like a piece of you-know-what.
schlimm How would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse?
Ya know, it's going on right now in our local media. The word Darwin doesn't come into play, but the shaming is rampant, if indirect.
What happened? A driver crossed the centerline and collided head-on with another vehicle. The other vehicle was being driven by a popular high school student.
The incident happened several days ago, and every day since there has been a story in the media about how great the high school student was, and how much he'll be missed.
In other words, every day since the accident the family of the driver who caused the incident has had their nose publically rubbed in the dirt about how their family member killed this kid.
It was initially reported (in the media) that the driver who caused the accident had been tailgating and passing other drivers. It was also mentioned that the incident occurred on a hill.
I'm sure the intention is to celebrate the life of the high school kid, but they sure are making the other driver (who also died) look like a piece of you-know-what.
I think there is considerable difference. The news is just reporting the facts as being relevant to the story, and that is their job. It may make the driver look bad, but those are the facts. What the media is not doing is going out of their way to editorialize by directly insulting the driver who caused the crash; and gloating over the fact that driver was at fault, and was therefore was a stupid idiot or moron.
Russell
schlimmHow would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse?
ACY Schlimm: Absolutely correct. To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity. Tom
Schlimm:
Absolutely correct. To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity.
Tom
SD70M-2DudeAnd for the PC crowd here, I should add that in grade crossing accidents the train crew can be injured or even killed, depending on train speed and what type of vehicle is involved. So forgive us for mocking those whose negligence will not only scar our psyches (leading to depression, substance-abuse, divorce and maybe even suicide), but could very well kill us on the spot.
It doesn't surprise me that some railfans would favor making public Darwin award recommendations based on second-hand accounts of grade-crossing accidents; however the concept of train-crew members taking that approach surprises me. My personal frame of reference is the military; and I never had any even semi-humerous thoughts about people whom I perceived as a threat. I can't say that it would have been, in some way, wrong for me to have taken a mocking approach to them; however it never occurred to me to do that.
ACY There are specific rules for winning the Darwin Award, as set out by Wendy Northcutt in her 2000 book, The Darwin Awards, Evolution in Action (Dutton). Since the publication of that first book, there have been at least two successors. 1. The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool. (This is usually, but not necessarily, by his death.) 2. The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment. ("Using bullets as fuses, reenacting the William Tell stunt, and bungee jumping with rubber bands are all worthy Darwin activities.") 3. The candidate must be the cause of his own demise. ("A hapless bystander done in by a heavy anvil dropped from a skyscraper is an unfortunate tragedy. If, however, you are smashed by the anvil you rigged above your own balcony to kill those squawking pigeons, then you are a Darwin contender.... A tourist trampled to death by a rampaging bull in a parking lot is merely suffering from bad luck. If you are gored to death during the 'running of the bulls' while riding naked in a shopping cart piloted by your drunken friend, you are a candidate for a Darwin Award.") 4. The candidate must be capable of sound judgment. ("....That means no children, Alzheimer's disease sufferers, or Downs Syndrome patients [sic]....") 5. The event must be verified. Does that clear things up? There has to be an element of recklessness. Tom (Edited & amplified)
There are specific rules for winning the Darwin Award, as set out by Wendy Northcutt in her 2000 book, The Darwin Awards, Evolution in Action (Dutton). Since the publication of that first book, there have been at least two successors.
1. The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool. (This is usually, but not necessarily, by his death.)
2. The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment. ("Using bullets as fuses, reenacting the William Tell stunt, and bungee jumping with rubber bands are all worthy Darwin activities.")
3. The candidate must be the cause of his own demise. ("A hapless bystander done in by a heavy anvil dropped from a skyscraper is an unfortunate tragedy. If, however, you are smashed by the anvil you rigged above your own balcony to kill those squawking pigeons, then you are a Darwin contender.... A tourist trampled to death by a rampaging bull in a parking lot is merely suffering from bad luck. If you are gored to death during the 'running of the bulls' while riding naked in a shopping cart piloted by your drunken friend, you are a candidate for a Darwin Award.")
4. The candidate must be capable of sound judgment. ("....That means no children, Alzheimer's disease sufferers, or Downs Syndrome patients [sic]....")
5. The event must be verified.
Does that clear things up? There has to be an element of recklessness.
(Edited & amplified)
Considering that every member of our society should know that trains are fast, powerful death-dealing machines (thanks to Operation Lifesaver etc), racing one to a crossing seems pretty reckless to me. And how fitting is that book cover!
And for the PC crowd here, I should add that in grade crossing accidents the train crew can be injured or even killed, depending on train speed and what type of vehicle is involved. So forgive us for mocking those whose negligence will not only scar our psyches (leading to depression, substance-abuse, divorce and maybe even suicide), but could very well kill us on the spot.
Undoubtedly a bright woman (though her academic career fizzled) and a worthy nominee for the Marquis de Sade Award.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PixJ_y_ilmI&t=6m57s
schlimm making unnecessary crude, insensitive, inane insults so that some insecure people can feel better about themselves.
Hey, let's be happy that the incident did not happen at a silent crossing, because then we'd have to sift through endless rounds of anti-nimby type insults as well.
schlimm Perhaps some folks on here are seeking nomination for the Marquis de Sade Award.
Perhaps some folks on here are seeking nomination for the Marquis de Sade Award.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid tree68 Euclid A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,” The very crux of a Darwin Award is that it was not a mistake - it was an intentional action. Well perhaps the formal "Darwin Award" has specific rules that rule it out in cases of mistakes. However, the formal Darwin Award is commonly linked on an informal basis to the moron/idiot insults that flow from the public in the comments that follow every news report of a grade crossing crash. Clearly, these critics are not cutting anyone slack because their demise was caused by a mistake. And that is what I think we are talking about here. I am not sure where you stand with this matter. I have the impression that you have gone back and forth here on whether a person should be insulted for making a mistake; but it might have something to do with how you define a mistake. Earlier, in this thread we pursued this matter, and you told me: “Miscalculation and distraction are not chance." The context was that an innocent mistake cannot be based miscalculation and distraction. But just for clarification let me ask it this way: What would be an example of a driver getting killed in a crossing crash where it was caused by an innocent mistake?
tree68 Euclid A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,” The very crux of a Darwin Award is that it was not a mistake - it was an intentional action.
Euclid A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,”
The very crux of a Darwin Award is that it was not a mistake - it was an intentional action.
Well perhaps the formal "Darwin Award" has specific rules that rule it out in cases of mistakes. However, the formal Darwin Award is commonly linked on an informal basis to the moron/idiot insults that flow from the public in the comments that follow every news report of a grade crossing crash. Clearly, these critics are not cutting anyone slack because their demise was caused by a mistake. And that is what I think we are talking about here.
I am not sure where you stand with this matter. I have the impression that you have gone back and forth here on whether a person should be insulted for making a mistake; but it might have something to do with how you define a mistake.
Earlier, in this thread we pursued this matter, and you told me: “Miscalculation and distraction are not chance."
The context was that an innocent mistake cannot be based miscalculation and distraction.
But just for clarification let me ask it this way: What would be an example of a driver getting killed in a crossing crash where it was caused by an innocent mistake?
EuclidBut just for clarification let me ask it this way: What would be an example of a driver getting killed in a crossing crash where it was caused by an innocent mistake?
Does it really matter? No matter what I offer, you'll put your spin on it...
In my youth about 300,000 American troops on R&R to Sydney visited Darwin, very briefly, to refuel the plane and maybe have a warm dark beer.
My research on Darwinism has been limited to two Darwin award discussions by Fred Frailey on his Trains.com blog. I don't believe that he's made an award to anyone who has been seriously injured or killed; however I don't know if that's a criterion for exclusion.
EuclidA simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,”
tree68 Euclid What the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law. Most "Darwin" candidates aren't breaking any laws, except perhap those of physics and/or common sense. The only death they cause is their own, and then through some intentional action that defies logic and common sense. It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense. I'm sure all of us have, at one time or another, noted that someone did something that defied logic and/or common sense, or did so ourselves. Flame away.
Euclid What the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law.
Most "Darwin" candidates aren't breaking any laws, except perhap those of physics and/or common sense.
The only death they cause is their own, and then through some intentional action that defies logic and common sense.
It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense.
I'm sure all of us have, at one time or another, noted that someone did something that defied logic and/or common sense, or did so ourselves.
Flame away.
It is more than just another way to note what someone did. If you want to note that someone made a mistake and got killed as result, why not just note that they made a mistake and got killed? The “Darwin Award” is so much more and I suspect that using it in this perverted way will have its own Darwinian effect on the evolution of the race.
A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,” as you say. That is the cause of many grade crossing fatalities. Does something that merely defies logic and common sense really rise to the point of requiring ridicule?
schlimm More concisely: "Natural selection is a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment."
More concisely: "Natural selection is a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment."
Now, wouldn't that include being aware of one's surroundings and staying out of the way of moving locomotives, trucks, cars, turning propellers, etc?
Exiting this thread before the arrival of the forum police.
When that natural process is hijacked by a class or political party in control of a state, it becomes a distorted corruption of Social Darwinism.
https://archive.org/stream/originofspecies00darwuoft#page/n5/mode/2up
tree68That some seem to think that anyone who refers to someone as a "Darwin" candidate is bitter, unfeeling, etc., is completely out of the ballpark. It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense.
Whoever came up with that rationalization lacks an understanding of the theory of natural selection, which was Charles Darwin's contribution to biology.
None of the following ended in death or serious injury, to my knowledge; however, had they - the individuals would have been Darwin candidates for the stupidity they displayed
EuclidWhat the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law.
Most "Darwin" candidates aren't breaking any laws, except perhap those of physics and/or common sense. And while their actions may cause the deaths of others, generally they do not. In fact, if they do cause the deaths of others, they are usually referred to as "negligent," and if they survive the incident, they'll be criminally charged.
That some seem to think that anyone who refers to someone as a "Darwin" candidate is bitter, unfeeling, etc., is completely out of the ballpark. It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense.
I'm sure all of us have, at one time or another, noted that someone did something that defied logic and/or common sense, or did so ourselves. Those of us of an age probably heard at least once from their mother, "You could have been killed!" That person may not have died as the result of their action, but it's likely that it was said to their face that what they did was stupid.
Norm48327 Euclid It seems to me that this is going both ways here. If somebody says you are wrong, you can either accept that by not responding or respond back in a way that you feel will futher clarify your point. It is just the practice of debating. Why should one side be required to stop and accept something that they believe is wrong? I was under the impression the discussion was between schlimm and myself. Your opinion was not solicited.
Euclid It seems to me that this is going both ways here. If somebody says you are wrong, you can either accept that by not responding or respond back in a way that you feel will futher clarify your point. It is just the practice of debating. Why should one side be required to stop and accept something that they believe is wrong?
I was under the impression the discussion was between schlimm and myself. Your opinion was not solicited.
Discussions on a thread are open to all. PMs are the place for private discussions.
EuclidIt seems to me that this is going both ways here. If somebody says you are wrong, you can either accept that by not responding or respond back in a way that you feel will futher clarify your point. It is just the practice of debating. Why should one side be required to stop and accept something that they believe is wrong?
Norm48327I do not object per-se to your responding to others about that. What I, and presumably others, object to is the constant hammering away at those who may disagree with you. You said it isn't right to denegrate them. I agree, but we don't need to be reminded of that in your every other post.
Norm, I am in general agreement with that. You have not been one of the insulters. But when one of them resurfaces with the need to hurl insults on the dead, some of us will continue to call them out.
Norm48327 I do not object per-se to your responding to others about that. What I, and presumably others, object to is the constant hammering away at those who may disagree with you. You said it isn't right to denegrate them. I agree, but we don't need to be reminded of that in your every other post. I would quantify your method as "If you can't get them to agree, then shout them down".
I do not object per-se to your responding to others about that. What I, and presumably others, object to is the constant hammering away at those who may disagree with you. You said it isn't right to denegrate them. I agree, but we don't need to be reminded of that in your every other post.
I would quantify your method as "If you can't get them to agree, then shout them down".
It seems to me that this is going both ways here. If somebody says you are wrong, you can either accept that by not responding or respond back in a way that you feel will futher clarify your point. It is just the practice of debating. Why should one side be required to stop and accept something that they believe is wrong?
schlimmPrecisely! Norm (and others) objects to responding to those who keep insisting on insulting those victims. When the insults and denigration cease, the calling them out for what they do can cease.
EuclidWhat the critic is doing is insulting the deceased, if the deceased is not a friend or relative of the critic; and also if the deceased was not working in an occupation approved of by the critic.
Precisely! Norm (and others) objects to responding to those who keep insisting on insulting those victims. When the insults and denigration cease, the calling them out for what they do can cease.
What the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law. Nobody here is defending them for breaking the law.
People here are defending them against having their memory insulted by self-righteous critics who presume to know that the deceased had a motive that the critic finds unsuitable. Since the critic rarely knows what that motive was or even the state of mind of the dead driver, the critic is in no position to be so judgmental of the driver.
What the critic is doing is insulting the deceased, if the deceased is not a friend or relative of the critic; and also if the deceased was not working in an occupation approved of by the critic. If any of that were the case, the deceased would be forgiven by the critic, and be honored as being a victim of circumstances.
schlimmGive me a break! It is not about "political correctness" at all. It is about not needlessly dancing on the graves of the dead by making unnecessary crude, insensitive, inane insults so that some insecure people can feel better about themselves. It's about good manners and civility in public, stuff we should have learned as children.
Nah, you give us a break. You made your point many posts ago.
Norm48327 Carl, Then there's the side that says we should be politically correct and never offend anyone. Some will be offended because they have nothing to be offended about.
Carl,
Then there's the side that says we should be politically correct and never offend anyone. Some will be offended because they have nothing to be offended about.
Give me a break! It is not about "political correctness" at all. It is about not needlessly dancing on the graves of the dead by making unnecessary crude, insensitive, inane insults so that some insecure people can feel better about themselves.
It's about good manners and civility in public, stuff we should have learned as children.
I think that a lot of the problem is that we're all in the choir here, and don't need no stinkin' preachers. We look on the victims as people who should know as much about trains, their weight, and their momentum as we do, and when something happens we shake our heads, think the victims should have known better (because we do!), and somehow perversely feel that they won't have any more kids as "inferior" as they were.If, somehow, our knowledge about such things got out in the direction of the people who need to hear the message, we wouldn't get very far with comments questioning their intelligence.A few months ago, there was a sequence of railroad/highway collisions shown on videos, with trains from all of the major railroads, Amtrak included, wiping out the cars, trucks, or whatever involved. I wonder how myuch footage like that would make people think. Internalize the message--this is what could happen to you if you take trains too lightly in such situations.(Coming to and from Michigan on the "scenic route", we often drive east to west across Hammond, Indiana. And even thought I don't see the scene itself, whenever we drive in the vicinity of the NICTD station there, I recall the video of the driver racing across the parking lot with a carload of kids, hoping to get out of there in advance of the CSX train on adjacent trackage. We didn't see the result on the video, but remember vividly what happened.)
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
wanswheel
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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'.
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
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.
Murphy SidingIf there's an internet forum for undertakers, I'm staying clear.
As a matter of fact,..................................... there are such forums. RIP.
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'.
What about a public internet forum?
Just how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?
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.
zugmann BaltACD What about a public internet forum?
BaltACD
Under the cloak of annominity - all things are likely.
BaltACDEver 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.
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.
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?
Missed that the first time through - still a moron
EuclidWhy do you and others find it so important to ridicule folks who get killed or maimed for any reason?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
This thread has degenerated to the point it's no longer worth reading.
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?
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?
EuclidEveryone 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?
zardozI noticed that the train was an oil train. If that van had got caught underneath the train and caused a derailment, and possibly an explosion or fire, then what would we be calling the driver?
Could also have been an Ethanol train.
Someone here needs a class on reading comprehension.
BaltACD "Disagree Tree - everyone that tries to 'beat the train' feels they have motivation - they don't when the penalty is their own demise." Where in that statement do you find the qualifier of "good"? Don't put words into other people's mouths. Somehow, this post format got screwed up.
tree68 BaltACD Disagree Tree - everyone that tries to 'beat the train' feels they have motivation - they don't when the penalty is their own demise. Agree wholeheartedly - if they didn't have some motiviation to beat the train, they would wait it out. The crux of the matter is whether that motivation would be considered rational - hence my mostly nonsensical example of the driver who dislikes cold latte'. Methinks most folks would consider something like that not worth risking one's life over. I suspect that if said driver was rushing to the hospital to be with a dying relative, people would feel a great deal of sympathy.
BaltACD Disagree Tree - everyone that tries to 'beat the train' feels they have motivation - they don't when the penalty is their own demise.
Agree wholeheartedly - if they didn't have some motiviation to beat the train, they would wait it out.
The crux of the matter is whether that motivation would be considered rational - hence my mostly nonsensical example of the driver who dislikes cold latte'. Methinks most folks would consider something like that not worth risking one's life over.
I suspect that if said driver was rushing to the hospital to be with a dying relative, people would feel a great deal of sympathy.
Tree,
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?
The whole concept of the so-called "Darwin awards" seems to be bred in a belief that "I'm too smart for that to happen to me" that makes the deceased to be a somehow inferior being who deserved his fate.
Carelessness, inattention or a sudden attack of the stupids can happen to anybody, even those who pride themselves on not letting that happen. I've seen on these pages enough complaints about 3-point protection in switching moves to believe that carelessness won't happen to some people. All of us can and will cut corners at some point, we may have been fortunate enough that an incident didn't occur. That doesn't mean that it won't happen.
The Darwin awards have no place in these pages.
tree68 I suspect that if said driver was rushing to the hospital to be with a dying relative, people would feel a great deal of sympathy.
They have the choice - they can meet them in the hospital, alive, or they can meet them in the great beyond.
BaltACDDisagree Tree - everyone that tries to 'beat the train' feels they have motivation - they don't when the penalty is their own demise.
tree68 Euclid My understanding of Larry's position is that he would definitely put those two state troopers in the same category as any other driver trying to beat the train. And you would be so, so wrong. Period. There is a huge difference between the motiviation for their action and that of someone who's in a hurry to get home before their latte' gets too cool to drink... That said, they would still be criticized for a lack of situational awareness, and their incident would be held up as an example of how not to do things. A similar incident happened some years ago when a Canadian fire department vehicle driver assumed that since the train they were waiting for was past that the way was clear. It was a two track main, and there was another train.... Four firefighters died.
Euclid My understanding of Larry's position is that he would definitely put those two state troopers in the same category as any other driver trying to beat the train.
And you would be so, so wrong. Period.
There is a huge difference between the motiviation for their action and that of someone who's in a hurry to get home before their latte' gets too cool to drink...
That said, they would still be criticized for a lack of situational awareness, and their incident would be held up as an example of how not to do things. A similar incident happened some years ago when a Canadian fire department vehicle driver assumed that since the train they were waiting for was past that the way was clear. It was a two track main, and there was another train.... Four firefighters died.
Disagree Tree - everyone that tries to 'beat the train' feels they have motivation - they don't when the penalty is their own demise.
EuclidMy understanding of Larry's position is that he would definitely put those two state troopers in the same category as any other driver trying to beat the train.
Norm48327Around twenty years ago there were two state troopers on their way to assist another trooper who was in a bind. They tried to beat the train but it resulted in them losing their lives. Would I consider them morons or idiots? Not by any stretch. They were trained in safe driving from the get go. They were the guys who picked up the pieces after a crash. Their move that night was simply a huge error in judgement that cost them dearly.
Well how is that any different than any other person who tries to beat the train? People call them morons, and idiots all day long. What difference does it make that the two troopers were trained in safe driving? Everybody agrees that trying to beat the train is bone headed.
My understanding of Larry's position is that he would definitely put those two state troppers in the same category as any other driver trying to beat the train.
schlimmMaybe you do not use pejorative terms for persons involved in incidents with trains, but many on here have done so for years
It's actually a form of self elevation. Many believe that such misfortunes only happen to stupid/careless/dishonest people, making the holder of said belief (in their minds) "better than" the one suffering. Until it happens to them of course, then it becomes a matter of "honest mistakes can happen to anybody".
I see people all the time who tend to view fire safety regulations (notably "housekeeping") as excessive, since "only fools start fires", until a motor or a ballast overheats and sends an unexpected shower of sparks into something combustible.
Empathy is a lot like wisdom, there is a learning curve involved. Many of the abusive types you refer to still have some learning ahead of them.
tree68In most cases, they are the result of an inappropriate action by someone, and with grade crossing collisions, it's virtually always the motorist. (
Absolutely.
Around twenty years ago there were two state troopers on their way to assist another trooper who was in a bind. They tried to beat the train but it resulted in them losing their lives. Would I consider them morons or idiots? Not by any stretch. They were trained in safe driving from the get go. They were the guys who picked up the pieces after a crash. Their move that night was simply a huge error in judgement that cost them dearly.
And on the subject of "accidents", our local cops do not file accident reports. They file crash reports.
tree68 The point is this - if someone makes a totally bone-headed move that results in their demise, then Darwin comes into play.
The point is this - if someone makes a totally bone-headed move that results in their demise, then Darwin comes into play.
Okay, I understand how you look at it. Let’s put this into terms of a grade crossing crash. Case number one: A person tries to beat the train. Say the gates are down, the lights are flashing, and train is blowing the horn. Then this driver comes speeding up behind three other cars that are stopped with the first one at the gate. This driver swerves out, goes around the three stopped cars, goes around the gate, and gets killed by a train. I think you would say that person is not a victim, but rather, is a perpetrator.
Now in another example, case number two: At a passive crossing, a driver forgets to look both ways and gets killed by a train. He was distracted or just forgot to look. He was unaware of the danger, so he was not consciously taking a risk. He had no intention of trying to beat the train. Is he a victim or a perpetrator?
In both of these cases, the driver broke the law, and yet there is a lot of difference in the elements of the cause for each case. I am just trying to understand where you draw the line. You have given examples that sound like my case number one, and I can certainly see someone having contempt for such a person. But if you use the criteria of whether a person broke the law, then you would have to also include my case number two. I believe this accounts for a large number of grade crossing crashes.
Keep in mind that the person in this case number two simply forgot. What could he have done to prevent that? Was he a victim of his own unconscious act of forgetting or was he a perpetrator by his act of forgetting? Would you have contempt for the driver in case number two equal to that of case number one? I believe that most people who have this contempt would have it for the drivers in both cases.
In the case which begat this thread, the driver tried to pass the semi on the right. There is no lane there. Even without the crossing, he was trying to "cheat" the system. Instead of driving up on the curb or over some grass, he got hung up on the tracks. If he was aware of the impending danger, he could have passed the semi on the left...
Everyone can come up with an incident where there was some possible mitigating circumstance, but as I said before, if the action taken by the person involved (note - they're not a victim, except of their own actions) defies common sense (or legality), it's not an accident.
In many areas of the country, the police refer to "traffic collisions" (TC), not to "accidents." OLI refers to "collisions" not accidents, in both cases because the vast majority are not accidents. In most cases, they are the result of an inappropriate action by someone, and with grade crossing collisions, it's virtually always the motorist. (Yes, there are those instances involving poorly designed intersections, but even then...)
I've been in fire and EMS for almost 40 years - and I've seen my share of the results of bone-headed moves. And I tend not to feel sorry for them. Their victims, yes. Their families, yes. But not the clown who decided to do something stupid that caused the incident in the first place. He or she is not a victim, except of their own stupidity.
Accident:
1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
This is the most common meaning of the term. If someone says so-and-so was killed in a car accident, they are not attempting to convey the fault of the mishap.
I think it is overly fussy to distinguish that the term cannot apply to grade crossing collisions because they cannot be accidents since they are the driver’s fault. Insisting on that stipulation is really just one step short of dancing on their grave with the Darwin insults.
But just to avoid unnecessary distraction in these complex discussions, I always use the term “crash” for grade crossing/vehicle death or injury occurrences.
schlimm tree68 tree68 wrote the following post 1 hours ago: schlimm Thank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here. I don't think that most of us call accident victims names.
tree68 tree68 wrote the following post 1 hours ago: schlimm Thank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here. I don't think that most of us call accident victims names.
Wizlish The precise issue in this thread, though, is that the AT&T guy got hung up by mistake, not by aggressively trying to beat the train. I was also reminded of the problem with that real-estate lady in Westchester or wherever who had the crossing arm drop on her shiny new Mercedes and got confused enough to run right into the path of the train. To call this 'conscious decision' and then make fun of it is not the same thing as deriding people who intentionally make foolish choices, like the driver in the Michigan Amtrak horror or those people who play the roll game under moving trains at crossings. And yes, it says more about the commenter than the victim when someone makes fun of death, even if the cause is verifiably and undeniably pitifully stupid.
The precise issue in this thread, though, is that the AT&T guy got hung up by mistake, not by aggressively trying to beat the train. I was also reminded of the problem with that real-estate lady in Westchester or wherever who had the crossing arm drop on her shiny new Mercedes and got confused enough to run right into the path of the train. To call this 'conscious decision' and then make fun of it is not the same thing as deriding people who intentionally make foolish choices, like the driver in the Michigan Amtrak horror or those people who play the roll game under moving trains at crossings.
And yes, it says more about the commenter than the victim when someone makes fun of death, even if the cause is verifiably and undeniably pitifully stupid.
The Westchester incident was a concious decision by the driver to pass the railroad crossing gate apparatus before it began operating without having an assured ability to clear the crossing. Just because crossing protection isn't operating at the time you enter a crossing, doesn't mean it won't operate while you are on the crossing.
In traffic, NEVER pass the crossing protection unless you KNOW you will clear the crossing. If there is ANY DOUBT, stop clear of the crossing until you KNOW YOU WILL CLEAR.
Norm48327True, that. OTOH, in grade crossing collisions, at least one person, the driver or pedestrian, does have some control over the situation; much more than the train crew has. Therefore it is by conscious decision that those folks get themselves in dire straits.
Norm,
I agree with your point, but just to keep the rather confusing context of this discussion clear, the quote that you attibute to me was actually said by Larry.
Euclid Accidents are just that, accidents. But true accidents are rare - they are incidents in which none of the participants have any control over the situation.”
True, that. OTOH, in grade crossing collisions, at least one person, the driver or pedestrian, does have some control over the situation; much more than the train crew has. Therefore it is by conscious decision that those folks get themselves in dire straits.
tree68 schlimm Thank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here. I don't think that most of us call accident victims names. Accidents are just that, accidents. But true accidents are rare - they are incidents in which none of the participants have any control over the situation. More often are incidents in which someone's failure to act in an appropriate manner for the situation at hand causes a problem. Those are not accidents (although they often referred to as such), and the perpetrators of these incidents are not victims. It's the people whose actions thoroughly violate the norms of common sense that we tend to call names. You don't check how much gasoline is in the can with a match...
schlimm Thank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here.
I don't think that most of us call accident victims names. Accidents are just that, accidents. But true accidents are rare - they are incidents in which none of the participants have any control over the situation.
More often are incidents in which someone's failure to act in an appropriate manner for the situation at hand causes a problem. Those are not accidents (although they often referred to as such), and the perpetrators of these incidents are not victims.
It's the people whose actions thoroughly violate the norms of common sense that we tend to call names.
You don't check how much gasoline is in the can with a match...
In the post by chatanuga on page one, he told a story about a friend being killed at a grade crossing. He said this in describing the cause:
“I don't classify everybody who is in a crossing accident as an idiot or Darwin candidate. For example, in high school a friend of mine was killed in a crossing accident during our sophomore year just south of our high school. He, like everybody else in the area, fell into the trap of believing that there would never be a train at that crossing before classes started.”
He was responding to a comment by Schlimm, who he said this:
“Here we go again with maligning crossing victims: "idiot" "darwin, darwin." Does that make you feel better?”
The point Schlimm was making is that the snarky insults directed to grade crossing victims as being idiots, morons, and recipients of the Darwin Award goes far beyond just “holding them accountable for their actions,” as you call it.
Then you responded to Schlimm in your defense by saying this:
“I don't think that most of us call accident victims names. Accidents are just that, accidents. But true accidents are rare - they are incidents in which none of the participants have any control over the situation.”
To me, that started out sounding like you were agreeing with Schlimm, or chatanuga, who said that he does not classify everybody who is in a crossing accident as an idiot or Darwin candidate. But then, as you have explained further, you don’t regard grade crossing fatalities to be accident victims.
You went on to explain that no grade crossing victims are “accident victims” unless the signals failed or something very unusual happened.
Yet the point of this Darwin Award ridicule is entirely about grade crossing crashes. And this would include the example cited by chatanuga where he described his friend getting killed. Yet this is the example where you seemed to push back against the idea by implying that people who call such subjects of misfortune morons, idiots, and winners of the Darwin Award were being painted with too broad of a brush when you said this:
So, just to be clear, you do think it is appropriate to call the subjects of grade crossing fatalities morons, idiots, or other insulting names simply because they were at fault. Is that right?
I am just curious because I think the point being discussed is that a lot of us do not feel that way about it.
You said this: “Referring to someone as a candidate for a Darwin Award is simply holding them accountable for their actions.”
I think it goes far beyond that. It says more about the person making the charge than it does about the person who died.
tree68Referring to someone as a candidate for a Darwin Award is simply holding them accountable for their actions.
An utterly silly remark. If you mean in general, are you suggesting that people who make careless mistakes should be held accountable by being eliminated from the gene pool, which is what the association with Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection would mean? Or if you are referring strictly to those killed in rail crossing incidents, don't you think paying the ultimate sacrifice is sufficient without piling on with ghoulish insults that hurt their grieving families?
I have always thought that the award should be reserved for the fellow that says,
"Here, hold my beer and watch this!"
EuclidIs he a victim or a perpetrator?
You answered your own question: What failed?
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
someone or something that has been ​hurt, ​damaged, or ​killed or has ​suffered, either because of the ​actions of someone or something ​else, or because of ​illness or ​chance
Miscalculation and distraction are not chance.
If he sneezed and that caused the incident, yeah - he's a victim. If something sudden occurred (a loud noise, etc) that distracted him, he's a victim. If he was distracted by a spirited conversation with another worker - nope.
I knew a guy who was killed when a log he was sawing kicked back and struck him. Odds are it was an unseen flaw in the log - he was a victim.
Back in the day it was not uncommon in the lumber industry for the boilers used to power the mills to explode. Those who suffered as a result were victims - unless they were the one who tied down the pop-off valve...
Not everyone who suffers an injury, or worse, is a victim. Sometimes their situation is a direct result of their own actions. These days it seems to be politically incorrect to say so, however.
Referring to someone as a candidate for a Darwin Award is simply holding them accountable for their actions.
tree68 Euclid Is that person a perpetrator of an incident or just someone who was the victim of an accident? This is the question, of course. If the saw in question has had all of the available guards removed, if the person who suffers the injury routinely disregards safety procedures that others would consider prudent, then he's the perpetrator. If the safeguards fail, he's the victim. The test will usually be this - if you look at an incident and say to yourself, "that wouldn't have happened if he had only..."
Euclid Is that person a perpetrator of an incident or just someone who was the victim of an accident?
This is the question, of course.
If the saw in question has had all of the available guards removed, if the person who suffers the injury routinely disregards safety procedures that others would consider prudent, then he's the perpetrator.
If the safeguards fail, he's the victim.
The test will usually be this - if you look at an incident and say to yourself, "that wouldn't have happened if he had only..."
Well what if the guards are all in place as required and the person has been trained to run the saw and generally does so while being safety conscious? And yet, he misjudges something or is momentarily distracted; and because of that, he cuts off a finger.
So if you were to look at that incident, would you say to yourself, “That wouldn’t have happened if he had only paid attention and kept his finger out of the saw.”
Would you call that an accident or an incident?
Is he a victim or a perpetrator?
EuclidIs that person a perpetrator of an incident or just someone who was the victim of an accident?
tree68tree68 wrote the following post 1 hours ago: schlimm Thank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here. I don't think that most of us call accident victims names.
Call it an incident then. Maybe you do not use pejorative terms for persons involved in incidents with trains, but many on here have done so for years. The title of this thread is an example, as is the Darwin Award insult.
DeggestyWhat caused the inattention that led to the mishap? Was the victim overconfident in his ability to avoid such a mishap and did not take every precaution against such?
Ignorance is not stupidity ... inexperience isn't either. We all know teens feel invulnerable to 'likely consequences' of what older people probably consider dangerous actions. One way we learn is via the 'burned child shuns the fire' consequences of our actions, like the solder example.
Problem is that the learning curve for railroad impact accidents is extremely steep, and the only 'learning experience' is likely to be extremely short and the exam extremely final. It's difficult to explain this to peers who don't really understand the physics involved, or that life sometimes doesn't give second chances.
Euclid tree68 schlimm Thank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here. I don't think that most of us call accident victims names. Accidents are just that, accidents. But true accidents are rare - they are incidents in which none of the participants have any control over the situation. More often are incidents in which someone's failure to act in an appropriate manner for the situation at hand causes a problem. Those are not accidents (although they often referred to as such), and the perpetrators of these incidents are not victims. It's the people whose actions thoroughly violate the norms of common sense that we tend to call names. You don't check how much gasoline is in the can with a match... I am just curious. What if someone fails to act in an appropriate manner for the situation at hand because they had a short lapse of attention to the situation at hand? I am talking about one of those mistakes like when somebody cuts a finger off in a saw. Would you say that person had control over the situation or not? Is that person a perpetrator of an incident or just someone who was the victim of an accident?
I am just curious. What if someone fails to act in an appropriate manner for the situation at hand because they had a short lapse of attention to the situation at hand? I am talking about one of those mistakes like when somebody cuts a finger off in a saw. Would you say that person had control over the situation or not?
Is that person a perpetrator of an incident or just someone who was the victim of an accident?
Back when I was in high school (this puts it >60 years back), I was cleaning the solder off the terminals of a potentiometer. The process was melt the solder, give the pot a flip--and the molten solder arcs away from you--but the solder on one lug arced back and landed on the base of my thumb (it did not feel "too pretty good"). The scar has since vanished, but I still wonder why the solder went the wrong way--did I stop the flip too soon?
Johnny
schlimmThank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here.
chatanugaAs was said about Dale's crash, he wasn't being an idiot and trying to beat the train.
Thank you for sharing a moving story. I hope that will finally put an end to the name-calling of accident victims on here.
Please accept my condolences. Then think of your friend. Dale, every time you hear someone complain about the police trying to fill some imaginary quota by enforcing traffic laws instead of fighting "real" crime. No one thinks that ignoring an inconvenient traffic law is going to end, or change their life forever. 30,000 people a year are wrong. The pain goes far beyond the person or people who died in the collision. Trauma is also experienced by the friends and family of the deceased, the EMS personel who have to pick up the pieces, the Police Officer who has to knock on the door and notify the next of kin, and the Engineer who will have nightmares reliving it unfolding in front of him/her as he watches helplessly.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
schlimm Here we go again with maligning crossing vctims: "idiot" "darwin, darwin." Does that make you feel better? So how about the thread on here about the Amtrak employee that was killed recently by a train? An Amtrak employee was struck and killed by a New Jersey Transit train during Tuesday’s early-morning commute. The incident happened at about 4:45 a.m. as the train passed through New Brunswick, NJ. The train was carrying about 300 passengers from Trenton to Penn Station in Manhattan. The Amtrak employee was working on the tracks, which are part of the Northeast Corridor and shared by Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. Amtrak officials are investigating the incident. He, more than ordinary folks, should have known better about the dangers of standing on a track. Double standard?
Here we go again with maligning crossing vctims: "idiot" "darwin, darwin." Does that make you feel better?
So how about the thread on here about the Amtrak employee that was killed recently by a train? An Amtrak employee was struck and killed by a New Jersey Transit train during Tuesday’s early-morning commute. The incident happened at about 4:45 a.m. as the train passed through New Brunswick, NJ. The train was carrying about 300 passengers from Trenton to Penn Station in Manhattan. The Amtrak employee was working on the tracks, which are part of the Northeast Corridor and shared by Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. Amtrak officials are investigating the incident.
He, more than ordinary folks, should have known better about the dangers of standing on a track. Double standard?
I can't say anything about the Amtrak employee since I am not familiar with that incident, but I would like to say something about calling crossing "victims" idiots, etc.
I don't classify everybody who is in a crossing accident as an idiot or Darwin candidate. For example, in high school a friend of mine was killed in a crossing accident during our sophomore year just south of our high school (http://chatanuga.org/HOL.html). He, like everybody else in the area, fell into the trap of believing that there would never be a train at that crossing before classes started.
My bus went through the crossing literally a minute or two before the crash. As into trains as I am, I'll admit that I even stopped hoping to see a train at the crossing since in the nearly five years that my morning bus ride went through the crossing, there'd never been a train. That morning, I could see the approach-lit ex-Pennsy signal to the west of the crossing lit up for a westbound on Conrail's former Pennsy route west of my hometown of Bucyrus, Ohio. I didn't see the train, which I thought at the time was going to be a freight train, not thinking that Amtrak would be coming through that late in the morning.
Shortly after our bus went through the crossing, protected only by crossbucks and stop signs, Dale's car had turned north onto that road as he'd been doing every morning since turning 16 that previous December (the accident was in March 1990). As he approached the crossing, the kids in the car behind him saw the train and saw that Dale wasn't applying the brakes. He was also only going about 50 MPH, under the 55 MPH speed limit. There was no indication that he even looked or saw the train. The engineer of Amtrak's westbound Capitol Limited saw Dale pass the advanced warning sign without slowing and hit the brakes and held down on the horn. There were slight skid marks leading up to the crossing about at the crossbuck and stop sign, possibly from Dale seeing the train and hitting the brakes at the last second. He impacted the lead truck of the first F40PH on the train. The front of his car was twisted upside down to the rest of the car and shoved into the passenger compartment killing him. The car was flung into the edge of the field along the tracks.
We found out at school later that morning what had happened. Needless to say, it was quite difficult to deal with. For a long time afterwards, I went through what I believe would be called "survivor's guilt", thinking that had I taken just a little longer getting on the bus that morning that we would have been stopped at that crossing with Dale stopped behind us. It was only a few years ago that I finally told myself that there was nothing that I could have done that morning to have prevented what happened.
So, do I call Dale an idiot for running the stop signs at the crossing? No. He was a relatively new driver, and he fell into the trap of thinking every drive to school at that time would be the same. In other words, he made a mistake. Except for times when I remember seeing trains on that route, the only vehicles that I remember ever seeing stop for the stop signs at the crossing were school buses (and anybody behind them). Some people didn't learn to stop at the crossing, even after the crash, until they got ticketed in a sting operation the sheriff's office set up on the crossing. Unfortunately for Dale, he learned his lesson by paying the ultimate price for his mistake.
To me, the idiots in crossing accidents are the people who are ignoring the flashing lights, gates, etc. and trying to save time and beat a train. Sometimes they make it. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they live and hopefully learn their lesson before it's too late for them. Unfortunately, some take innocent victims with them like in the crash in Michigan a few years ago where a car went around stopped vehicles and a lowered gate in front of an Amtrak train and got hit in the side and shoved down the track, killing the driver and all four passengers, who I believe were innocent victims unless they were encouraging the driver to go around and not wait. Words alone can't begin to describe the anger I get when I see somebody risking their life and those around them at a crossing just because they feel that it's worth risking their life and the lives of their passengers to keep from having to wait a couple minutes. So often I wish they could just see the picture of Dale's car after the crash (http://chatanuga.org/pics/ol/hol6.jpg) and see what could happen to them because of their stupidity and risk taking.
As was said about Dale's crash, he wasn't being an idiot and trying to beat the train. Yes, he should have stopped for the stop signs at the crossing, and maybe he did when he started driving that route. Yes, he should have heard the train's horn, but if he was in the trap of never expecting a train, he quite possibly had the radio on, drowning out the sound of the horn, especially with the windows up. With so little experience on the road, he forgot to expect the unexpected.
The thing I see when I see people making bad decisions around railroad crossings, whether they are trying to beat a train to save time or simply making a mistake, is what I see elsewhere whenever I'm on the road. People have to put down their cell phones, pay attention to driving their vehicle, and be aware of what is going on around them.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
JayPotter Euclid's characterization of "sanctimonious and immature" put me in mind of myself a number of years ago. One Sunday, when the minister of our church was on vacation, we had a substitute minister. He had been retired for quite awhile and was considerably older than our own minister. When it came time for the scripture reading, he read somewhat more slowly than I was used to hearing; and several times he paused briefly in the middle of sentences. After the service, I mentioned to one of the other members that I was disappointed that we had been provided with a minister who was so advanced in years that he had difficulty reading the Bible. The member replied that the difficulty was probably due to the fact that the elderly minister was reading, and translating as he read, the original Greek. I can't say that this experience prevented me from being sanctimonious or immature in the future; however it did reduce the frequency.
Euclid's characterization of "sanctimonious and immature" put me in mind of myself a number of years ago. One Sunday, when the minister of our church was on vacation, we had a substitute minister. He had been retired for quite awhile and was considerably older than our own minister. When it came time for the scripture reading, he read somewhat more slowly than I was used to hearing; and several times he paused briefly in the middle of sentences. After the service, I mentioned to one of the other members that I was disappointed that we had been provided with a minister who was so advanced in years that he had difficulty reading the Bible. The member replied that the difficulty was probably due to the fact that the elderly minister was reading, and translating as he read, the original Greek. I can't say that this experience prevented me from being sanctimonious or immature in the future; however it did reduce the frequency.
As for Darwin, in this case yes it is a good comparison. The driver ignored the warning lights and drove off pavement.
Had this been an unsignaled crossing with no warning of oncoming train, then that would be different.
Murphy Siding Is the poor lady who misjudged something on the highway and gets killed in a car accident a prime candidate for derision?
Is the poor lady who misjudged something on the highway and gets killed in a car accident a prime candidate for derision?
If she tried to make a U turn on a busy Interstate from the right lane, across three lanes of high speed traffic to the "No U Turn" U turn because she missed her exit because she was talking on her cell phone, then yes.
Balt's note notwithstanding, Darwin awardees have generally suffered their fate as the result of some action that totally defies logic at pretty much any level - like the copper thieves who try to steal wire while it's still in use, carrying thousands of volts at who knows how many amps. Or jumping a fence (after several warnings to the contrary) and swimming across the moat to the tiger enclosure at a zoo...
On the other hand, the judges at Darwin Awards ruled that an incident involving a fellow who said the gun was empty, then pointed it at his head and pulled the trigger, was "too common."
It's hard sometimes to define a potential Darwin Award recipient, but usually you know one when you see one...
Let's back up a bit here.
Certainly a trackside death is nothing to laugh at or make jokes about, I wouldn't do it and I'm sure most of the posters here wouldn't do it either, it would certainly indicate an unhealthy level of hard-heartedness to say nothing of being in bad taste, however THIS particular incident is another matter.
No-one died or was injured, it was more like a "Demolition Derby" between a locomotive and a van, a prime candidate for inclusion on an "America's Dumbest" TV show. It could have ended badly but didn't, thank God, so in my opinion it's OK to make jokes or snarky comments.
I'm reminded of the old circus clown rule, "If it bends, it's funny. If it breaks, it ain't funny." Aside from the AT&T van, nothing "broke" here.
Honestly though, in the case of a trackside tresspasser death my REAL sympathies go out to the head-end crews. I can't imagine what it's like to be in a situation where you know something terrible's going to happen and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Murphy Siding Would the same amount of scorn be piled on to those who die in traffic accidents? Is the poor lady who misjudged something on the highway and gets killed in a car accident a prime candidate for derision?
Would the same amount of scorn be piled on to those who die in traffic accidents? Is the poor lady who misjudged something on the highway and gets killed in a car accident a prime candidate for derision?
I should hope not!!
Absolutely not.
BaltACD ACY People make mistakes. Sometimes it is stupidity, but I think more often it's a naive lack of understanding of the real situation. As for the Amtrak employee, I understand trains were running wrong main that day. Was there a lack of communication? Was he so used to thinking in terms of right-hand running that he failed to adjust his thinking? I'm sure we'll never know, but I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he's not around to defend his actions. By the way, death is not the only way to qualify for a Darwin Award. One can do so by rendering oneself incapable of reproducing, thus removing oneself from the gene pool, and a number of people have "won" the award in that way. Tom In the case of railroad employees being killed in incidents that defy the understanding of fellow employees in how it could happen - some desire that their final statement on earth being something that stains the record of the company that employs them. Suicide is something that is difficult to 'prove' in railroad operations as a simple 'legitmate' oversight can fully explain the happening.
ACY People make mistakes. Sometimes it is stupidity, but I think more often it's a naive lack of understanding of the real situation. As for the Amtrak employee, I understand trains were running wrong main that day. Was there a lack of communication? Was he so used to thinking in terms of right-hand running that he failed to adjust his thinking? I'm sure we'll never know, but I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he's not around to defend his actions. By the way, death is not the only way to qualify for a Darwin Award. One can do so by rendering oneself incapable of reproducing, thus removing oneself from the gene pool, and a number of people have "won" the award in that way. Tom
People make mistakes. Sometimes it is stupidity, but I think more often it's a naive lack of understanding of the real situation. As for the Amtrak employee, I understand trains were running wrong main that day. Was there a lack of communication? Was he so used to thinking in terms of right-hand running that he failed to adjust his thinking? I'm sure we'll never know, but I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he's not around to defend his actions.
By the way, death is not the only way to qualify for a Darwin Award. One can do so by rendering oneself incapable of reproducing, thus removing oneself from the gene pool, and a number of people have "won" the award in that way.
In the case of railroad employees being killed in incidents that defy the understanding of fellow employees in how it could happen - some desire that their final statement on earth being something that stains the record of the company that employs them. Suicide is something that is difficult to 'prove' in railroad operations as a simple 'legitmate' oversight can fully explain the happening.
Thank you!! A very thoughtful and compassionate comment. Do we not owe the same to non-rail folks killed in rail RoW incidents?
The driver was cited for ignoring the lights - remember that the lights start well before the gates start down. He had plenty of time to stop.
http://fox8.com/2016/03/11/driver-cited-for-ignoring-lights-after-train-hits-van-in-brook-park/
On top of that, he tried going around the truck on the right side. If he was concerned about getting off the crossing, the pavement on the left side was the safer bet.
The crossing is here: N 41 23' 49" W 81 50' 32"
Here is the criteria for an actual "Darwin Award:" "In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival." Local officials acknowledged that he was a candidate by citing him for his bone-headed actions.
"In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival."
Local officials acknowledged that he was a candidate by citing him for his bone-headed actions.
I see a couple issues here.
The tractor trailer driver also went across the crossing without adequate space to clear the tracks. AT&T Van shouldn't have been following blindly, but got trapped on the tracks, too. Looks like he panicked and tried to get off the tracks.
Is that traffic light tied into the crossing? If it is, it looks like it didn't change (going by the reaction of the cars) until the gates were already dropping. Not good. Granted nobody should be stopped on the tracks to begin with, but these crossigns next to intersections like that are messed up.
Good job on the officer. I hope he gets some recognition. As far as going towards the oncoming train - perhaps a public awareness campaign is needed?
steve24944 Police dash cam of a NS Train crushing a van. See video in the attached link. http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2016/03/16/Van-destroyed-by-train-seconds-after-police-officer-chases-driver-away/9101458140699/
Police dash cam of a NS Train crushing a van.
See video in the attached link.
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2016/03/16/Van-destroyed-by-train-seconds-after-police-officer-chases-driver-away/9101458140699/
Neither the Cop or the Driver of the hung up vehicle showed all that much situational awareness as they moved in the direction of the trains travel and could have been hit by the vehicle as a secondary impact after the train struck the vehicle - fortunately the truck continued with the train after the initial impact.
Firelock76 Can't speak for everyone else, but I never said a thing about that Amtrak employee.
Can't speak for everyone else, but I never said a thing about that Amtrak employee.
Of course not. You would not. And that is my point. Nobody ever suggested he was a Darwin winner or mentally defective. And they should not have. But an ordinary civilian's death at a crossing brings out the ghoul squad on here
Paging Mr Darwin, Mr. Darwin please...
Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do back at the AT&T shop!
As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.