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?
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...
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
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidIs 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..."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 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?
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 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.
I have always thought that the award should be reserved for the fellow that says,
"Here, hold my beer and watch this!"
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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?
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.
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.
Norm
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
The point is this - if someone makes a totally bone-headed move that results in their demise, then Darwin comes into play.
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.
tree68 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Disagree Tree - everyone that tries to 'beat the train' feels they have motivation - they don't when the penalty is their own demise.
BaltACDDisagree 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.
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.
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 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.
Tree,
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.