My thoughts on the matter, as someone who grew up near trains and who rides them to work:
Kids (and other people) on the tracks is a constant problem. I live in the Chicago area, which is one of the most (if not THE most) train-intensive areas in North America. Certainly, in the urban areas there are crossing gates, warning lights, and miles and miles of fencing of various sort. Well, people (adults as well as children) get complacent about the gates and the crossings. Fences can fall down or be breached. On the other hand, you have rural crossings that are unguarded yet have no incidents for decades. In Michigan City and South Bend, Indiana you have a passenger train that goes
down the middle of residential streets as if it were an oversized trolley, but they haven't had an accident on those streets for over half a century. In the Miller district of Gary, however, they seem to nail a car about once every other month. Fences can keep people out - but they can also prevent escape for people who do trespass.
I think it's safe to say that
people - of any age - are unpredictable and sometimes stupid.
The railroads are not indifferent to human carnage - even when you win lawsuits it's expensive. A significant percentage of engineers and train crew involved in these accidents quit and never set foot on a train again, requiring new hires and training which also costs money. Another percentage of train crew require leave and/or counseling to be able to return to the job, which the companies pay for. Whether you are human decency or financial bottom line, it is in no one's interest to have accidents (even if they argue a lot about the best way to prevent them, or cost-effectiveness of certain precautions).
Do keep in mind this was an Amtrak train - that is, a
passenger train. If you brake full force on a frieght the worst you might do is break a few items. I've been on an Amtrak that had the emergency brake applied full-force - I was off my feet and face down on the aisle carpet before my brain processed the fact that our speed had changed and maybe I should brace myself. Other people were thrown from their seats. It was raining suitcases and other luggage items. Passengers injured under such circumstances can and do sue the railroad, too. If the braking derails the train the possibility of injury to the passengers and crew goes up even further.
So the driver of a passenger train has to weigh not only the unpredictable actions of the person on the tracks ahead, he/she also has to consider the safety and well-being of those aboard. I don't think anyone wants to trade one life on the tracks for a half dozen plus some serious injuries on the train.
There ARE times the railroad is at fault - I have a friend who was hit by a train at a crossing where the safety gear was found to be defective (he lived and recovered - very lucky man). That wasn't his fault. There are other times when it's clear the person getting hit is at fault. Most cases, however, really do involve "mixed liability.
While I agree with Mike that children are stupid and unpredictable a great deal of the time, the 11-14 age group in this accident is old enough to be somewhat responsible for their actions. Even at the age of 8 I knew trains were dangerous and I was forbidden to approach tracks. So I don't think it can be argued that these children - who, as far as we know, were of normal intelligence - were unaware that there was a potential for danger and what they were doing was of questionable nature. At that age children know they're not supposed to run out into the middle of traffic, too - yet they do.
I also agree that it would have been better if the engineer had continued to brake even after the two girls had jumped away. People can and do panic under those circumstances, and it's the nature of panic that you do stupid shit. However, a full application of emergency braking power may not have been safe under the circumstances, and there's no guarantee that even a passenger train (which is less massive than a frieght ) can stop quickly. They are still massive, massive machines.
Pick wrote:One is listed as having cerebral palsey. Leaving a kid with a serious disability --age eleven-- in a neighborhood that trains run through is not responsible parenting.
Cerebral palsy is not an either/or situation. Not everyone with the condition is strapped into a wheelchair and drooling. There is no indication given of the severity of this case. Maybe she has trouble walking steadily (in which you have to wonder how she manages a train track). Maybe it's a very minor clumsiness. Maybe it affects just one arm. Maybe it affects all her limbs.
Regardless, she's able enough to run, which to my mind indicates a very low level of disability.
At that age my husband actually
was a wheelchair. Oh, shocking - he was allowed out unsupervised, just as any other 11 year old in the neighborhood.
Of course there were trains around - he lived in
Chicago, there is nowhere that doesn't have trains. Somehow, he managed to avoid getting run over. Growing up, both he and I knew blind kids and deaf kids who were allowed out to play and somehow managed to avoid being run over by trains or cars. Come to think of it - the folks who got run over were able-bodied. Maybe it's because the crippled kids had a better understanding of pain and maiming and weren't so sure of the invulnerability and immortality.
Serious disability is not a good reason to keep people a prisoner in their own home, which is essentially what you're suggesting. One must, of course, take into consideration the mental capabilities as well as physical ones of a particular child, but I don't agree that
physical disability alone is a reason to restrict a child from going out into the nieghborhood.
Alyeska wrote:Amtrak trains move at speeds in excess of 70 mph.
Depends on location - like cars, trains have different speed limits in different areas. If I recall correctly, the maximum is 79 mph/127 kph although that might have changed over certain routes.
With a single engine on an Amtrak train moving 60+ mph, its going to take a mile to stop easily.
True. The figures quoted are for dry and good conditions. It doesn't take much to reduce traction and therefore braking power. During the winter and during rainstorms the commuter trains I ride sometimes slide past the station stopping point because of track conditions.
In the really bad Amtrak accident I was on board for we stopped about a mile past what was left on the tracks (a substantial portion of the man wound up splattered all over the engine and a couple passenger cars). And that was with full emergency brake.
Darth Wong wrote:You assume that he did everything in his power to stop. Until I have some reason to think otherwise, I'll assume that the Appeals Court which felt otherwise had some reason for this conclusion,
This is a good point - it's unsusual for such a decision to be overturned, which would indicate there is something here that indicates culpability on the part of the engineer. Even if he
can't stop he is still compelled to do what he can to prevent an accident, which would include maximum safe brake application and continued blowing of his horn. The fact the kids are tresspassing does not mean it's open season on them.
I do take issue with the statement that engineers are not tested for impairment. I don't know the legalities of it, but as I said, I live in area with a lot of trains and quite a few accidents. It's SOP that the engineer gets tested, at least in the Chicago area. There might be circumstances where the fault is so clearly that of the person getting squashed that it's not done, but it's in the interest of a number of parties to have the person tested.
Star-Blighter wrote:And who exactly are these witnesses? The passengers? Fuck they wouldn't have a clue if it hit them in ass. The one survivor? A teenage girl stupid enough to be there in the first place? You think she wouldn't lie about it? I go with experience, personal or otherwise
These days, between GPS tracking and trains carrying "black boxes" similar to what are found in airplanes, there could be quite a bit of
objective evidence as to what happened.
There isn't much the driver could have done, there NEVER is when dealing with trains.
The slower the train is going to more time people have to get out of the way. I'd say he's under obligation to slow that train down as much as possible without endangering his passengers.
And where the fuck were the parents? I'd like to know what caused these kids to be in a place they shouldn't have been in the first place. Gross negligence should be on the parents.
Am I the only who finds it strange that people think children should be on lock-down 24/7? Of course, I come from an era where children routinely walked or biked a mile to school even when 7 years old. (Although we were not expected to cross train tracks - at one point a rode a bus despite being within walking distance to school specifically because no one wanted the kids crossing those tracks unsupervised)
atg wrote:The majority of accidents/deaths involving trains occur, I believe, because people are not crossing at the proper places.
Maybe in overall... around here, it's almost always someone going around a lowered gate. It's a real problem on the commuter trains, because people will be running late and running for their train. They get so focused on
getting to the train that they run right in front of another train. Nor it is a matter of running in front of a
fast train - a train barely moving at all is still massive enough and powerful enough to take off a limb or kill you.
Basic, basic rule - don't EVER step in front of a train that's moving
at all, even a little bit.
Wicked Pilot wrote:If not already so I'd just make it flat out illegal to be on the tracks other than simply crossing.
It's already illegal.
In Illinois it's a $500 ticket if you're caught where you're not supposed to be. They do enforce it - I've seen people issued tickets. They howl and scream about it, but tough shit.
Now, wasn't that fun? To sum up about the accident:
Yes, the kids were fucking stupid. This is partly because they're kids, however, not all kids play on the railroad tracks (I somehow managed to avoid doing so, despite ample opportunities) so it's not a compulsion of childhood to be on the rails. Therefore, MOST of the fault is with the kids
I think the parents bear some responsibility - however, by 14 kids are not always obedient. It's a trait of adolecence to rebel and disobey. Did the parents teach basic train safety? (i.e. - don't go on the tracks, you can get killed. And if you aren't killed and I find out about it your ass is mine)
Do the railroads have some reponsibility to restrict access to tracks? Yes, but there isn't money enough to build fences and hire guards for every length of track in the US. So there is a balance between money and safety, and you spend more money where accidents are more likely, and less where they aren't. That's a complicated issue and the article gives us no real information we can use to make that determination.
The only really questionable thing here are the actions of the engineer. Did he act appropriately, that is, did he do everything he could to prevent the accident? (Driving a train does not give you a license to kill) Did he use maximum safe braking? Even if he couldn't stop, did he maximize the amount of time the girls had to get clear? Did he sound his warning horn? If the answer to all of the above is yes then I don't hold him liable. if the answer to any of them is no, then he IS partly responsible. Is that sufficient liability for a disciplinary action from his employer? Does that justify removing him from the job? Does that justify criminal charges? Well, that really is for the courts to decide. But, again, we do not have all the facts.
What a whiny twat you are. You get flamed a bit, and you act like this. I do wish this was a real daring... I do so wish that.
