EuclidWhy 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.
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...
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Norm
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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.