Undoubtedly a bright woman (though her academic career fizzled) and a worthy nominee for the Marquis de Sade Award.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
Tom
(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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
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.
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.
Schlimm:
Absolutely correct. To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity.
ACY Schlimm: Absolutely correct. To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity. Tom
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?
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.
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...
Russell
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's all just a bunch of rationalizations for a rather ghoulish outlook or worse.
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.
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?
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
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.
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.
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).
No, it's a lame attempt to diffuse a bad situation with (gallows) humor.
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.
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 ?
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.
Five will get you ten the driver did not fully retract the trailer's landing gear and it hung up on the crossing.
Norm
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.