People Getting Hit By Trains - Who Is At Fault?

[Star-Blighter]

And you will, of course, provide evidence that the possibility of him hitting another train if he doesn't immediately stop is larger than the possibility of him hitting the kids, especially in light of communications equipment, as well as evidence the risk is actually greater than the nearly imminent destruction of two human lives. I know for a fact trains can stop without ruining schedules; I've seen trains parked over highways, I've seen trains arrive hours behind schedule; clearly, not all train schedules are as inflexible as you make them out to be.

Two lives vs a load of passengers plus the lives of whoever would be onboard the other train. Do the fucking math moron. And I've seen trains parked as well, ussually waiting for another one to finish loading cars or switching tracks, don't reduce it to black and white issue as you seem to be wont to do. Schedules are dynamic and one would have to know the exact run times for the engines on that track to say whether or not a another train was coming. You should know this, but you don't. And that is because you are firmly full of shit.

I read your whole goddamned post, asshole. It is a pile of "many times", "sometimes", "risk"s, with no concrete evidence to demonstrate an actual train wreck becomes imminent if he stops to permit the kids to get off the track, all to wave away the train operator's duty of care.

You act like this guy was driving a fucking bus you illinformed nutter. You assume that he had no other scheduled engines on that track, which is very possible. Once again more information is needed, and my post only stated the conflicting priorities of being a train operator. You still haven't acknowledged that he probably couldn't have stopped in time anyways. Even with full emergency braking, whether or not someone gets pasted is entirely up to whether or not they get out of the way in time. There is no way to change that, and unjustly accusing the operator for not being able to magically stop a passenger train whos maximum ability to slow to a stop is measured in miles is only going to make you look like a smartass dumbshit trying to talk about an issue that you don't know a damned thing about.

And if you dare attack my moral compass again, I swear I'll flame into the darkages, shit-heal. Its cheap and you've been around here long enough to know that.

[Solauren]

Knowing all I know about trains (thanks to a few years in a train enthusist club with my dad...)

Unless the Locomotive Operatior put the full brakes on, he's partially at fault.

Granted, depending on the size and speed of the train, it can take up to a mile to stop (or more), but as Mike pointed out, it does increase the odds of survival, even if by a small margin. Hell, even the noise they make on the tracks is enough to clue in anyone, 'GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY'.

The parents/guardians are also at fault for not keeping a better eye on kids with obvious mental conditions.

As for protecting the tracks.....

That's iffy. It would require more then just fencing. There are going to be breaks in the fence, ala train crossings, that would have to have some kind of system in stalled, like a train crossing. ANnoying, but doable

Then you have the entire issue of is restricting animal migration patterns. (you know people would raise hell about that), people damaging the fences, or even jack ass teenagers climbing it then not being able to get out when the train comes.

[Star-Blighter]

There were 2 tracks, one in each direction. Tell me dumbass, how the fuck is he going to hit an oncoming train unless both the control & the switching stations completely fuck up?

Well they would have to either fuckup, or the other track would have to be reserved for another train. Besides you conviently gloss over that not all train collisions are oncomming, rear-end collisions happen as well.

Please don't be dense.

[Keevan_Colton]

There were 2 tracks, one in each direction. Tell me dumbass, how the fuck is he going to hit an oncoming train unless both the control & the switching stations completely fuck up?

Well they would have to either fuckup, or the other track would have to be reserved for another train. Besides you conviently gloss over that not all train collisions are oncomming, rear-end collisions happen as well.

Please don't be dense.

You mean that the system would have to have shitty saftey measueres all round?

Or do train networks in your world not have fucking signal systems?

[Star-Blighter]

Knowing all I know about trains (thanks to a few years in a train enthusist club with my dad...)

Unless the Locomotive Operatior put the full brakes on, he's partially at fault.

Granted, depending on the size and speed of the train, it can take up to a mile to stop (or more), but as Mike pointed out, it does increase the odds of survival, even if by a small margin. Hell, even the noise they make on the tracks is enough to clue in anyone, 'GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY'.

The parents/guardians are also at fault for not keeping a better eye on kids with obvious mental conditions.

As for protecting the tracks.....

That's iffy. It would require more then just fencing. There are going to be breaks in the fence, ala train crossings, that would have to have some kind of system in stalled, like a train crossing. ANnoying, but doable

Then you have the entire issue of is restricting animal migration patterns. (you know people would raise hell about that), people damaging the fences, or even jack ass teenagers climbing it then not being able to get out when the train comes.

I can agree with this. I wouldn't call it gross negligence on the operator's part but if he didn't have other factors to worry about then he should have stopped. I'd would really like to know if any other engines were running on that section of track.

[Pick]

Trains have onboard communications, if worst comes to worst, such as devices known as "cell phones" might do. No train will be running within a mile of another. They'd have time to know if they were coming up behind a braked train.

As far as I'm concerned, there is culpability on the part of the train operator, the parents, and the children. Again, I just don't think that the parents have a good case --especially since I consider them the worst offenders of the lot. Is it that hard to teach kids not to fuck around with trains?

[Star-Blighter]

You mean that the system would have to have shitty saftey measueres all round?

Or do train networks in your world not have fucking signal systems?

Cute. I live right next to a set of tracks, thank you and they have signals. Now do you want to point out the set of signals in that photo? No? Then shut the fuck up.

[aerius]

Well they would have to either fuckup, or the other track would have to be reserved for another train. Besides you conviently gloss over that not all train collisions are oncomming, rear-end collisions happen as well.

Please don't be dense.

You're the dickwad that specifically mentioned oncoming trains, or do you have a memory retention problem? Let me jog your memory.

Don't strawman me, asshole. Staying on schedule is just as important for safety reasons as it is for efficiency. If he had an oncomming train on his track, his overidding priority is to get to a switching station or siderail, so he doesn't hit another train, nitwit. Getting a train stopped and then started takes time, alot more time you seem to be aware of. It is not something you want to do on a tressal, at ALL.

You're the one screaming doom & gloom predictions of a head-on collision from an oncoming train, not me. I'm just telling you it ain't fucking likely given the layout of the tracks. And now you want to change it to being rear-ended. What's next? Well maybe al-qaeda sleeper cells will bomb the tracks, and the train will fucking derail.

[Solauren]

I can agree with this. I wouldn't call it gross negligence on the operator's part but if he didn't have other factors to worry about then he should have stopped. I'd would really like to know if any other engines were running on that section of track.

Modern Railways include constant communication with the other trains on the tracks, as well as a central control station. If one breaks, all the other trains on the track know about it.

So, if he had hit the brakes full force, the others would know about and, and anyone near him would also be required to slow down.

Like I said, he should have hit the brakes FULL FORCE. At worse, it would have caused a slow in services, and most train schedueles take that into acount.

Don't judge well run railroads by AMTRACK

[Keevan_Colton]

You mean that the system would have to have shitty saftey measueres all round?

Or do train networks in your world not have fucking signal systems?

Cute. I live right next to a set of tracks, thank you and they have signals. Now do you want to point out the set of signals in that photo? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Fuckwit.

If there are no signals then it validates the first line about shitty saftey measures all round...

Though the fact that the area with the bridge might be BETWEEN signals is also a possibility, which still means the signals exist to stop a train from rearending them etc. which puts it back again to you being a little shithead.

[Star-Blighter]

Trains have onboard communications, if worst comes to worst, such as devices known as "cell phones" might do. No train will be running within a mile of another. They'd have time to know if they were coming up behind a braked train.

As far as I'm concerned, there is culpability on the part of the train operator, the parents, and the children. Again, I just don't think that the parents have a good case --especially since I consider them the worst offenders of the lot. Is it that hard to teach kids not to fuck around with trains?

Ok, that makes it more of an everyone is at fault sittuation. I'm going to leave this thread to the vets as I'm getting a little heated and don't want to say any other rude remarks. I just know that the easiest way to have prevented this tragedy would be for the kids to have never been there in the first place. Any death is tragic, but I don't want someone's career being ruined without justcause.

[Star-Blighter]

You mean that the system would have to have shitty saftey measueres all round?

Or do train networks in your world not have fucking signal systems?

Cute. I live right next to a set of tracks, thank you and they have signals. Now do you want to point out the set of signals in that photo? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Fuckwit.

If there are no signals then it validates the first line about shitty saftey measures all round...

Though the fact that the area with the bridge might be BETWEEN signals is also a possibility, which still means the signals exist to stop a train from rearending them etc. which puts it back again to you being a little shithead.

Shitty safety measures puts the liability on the company, not the operator. And when you show me map that points out where the signals are for that section of track then I might take you seriously. I don't get why everyone seems to want to burn this guy, must be that time of the month. Or maybe its this trend of not ever blaming the damned parents for their negligence. Screwing this guy other is not going to bring those children back, only the parents could have saved them in my opinion, and guess how that turned out...

[Surlethe]

And you will, of course, provide evidence that the possibility of him hitting another train if he doesn't immediately stop is larger than the possibility of him hitting the kids, especially in light of communications equipment, as well as evidence the risk is actually greater than the nearly imminent destruction of two human lives. I know for a fact trains can stop without ruining schedules; I've seen trains parked over highways, I've seen trains arrive hours behind schedule; clearly, not all train schedules are as inflexible as you make them out to be.

Two lives vs a load of passengers plus the lives of whoever would be onboard the other train. Do the fucking math moron. And I've seen trains parked as well, ussually waiting for another one to finish loading cars or switching tracks, don't reduce it to black and white issue as you seem to be wont to do.

Hey, fuckwit: you're assuming the lives of the trains' passengers are being put at risk without presenting evidence.

Schedules are dynamic and one would have to know the exact run times for the engines on that track to say whether or not a another train was coming. You should know this, but you don't. And that is because you are firmly full of shit.

You're clearly incapable of writing without contradicting yourself, dumbass. The post I to which I responded to begin with excused the train operator's decision with the claim of tight schedules, and now you claim the schedules are dynamic. Moreover, you appeal to ignorance to support your point while evading my demand for evidence, you retarded jackass.

I read your whole goddamned post, asshole. It is a pile of "many times", "sometimes", "risk"s, with no concrete evidence to demonstrate an actual train wreck becomes imminent if he stops to permit the kids to get off the track, all to wave away the train operator's duty of care.

You act like this guy was driving a fucking bus you illinformed nutter. You assume that he had no other scheduled engines on that track, which is very possible.

Go back and read my post again, fucko. I have made no such claim, explicit or implicit; ergo, you are either retarded or illiterate. Furthermore, the onus is on you to provide evidence a collision was imminent if the operator slowed or stopped the train.

Once again more information is needed, and my post only stated the conflicting priorities of being a train operator.

Now you're just being a dishonest prick. Your earlier post stated, "You have to understand that the 'Engineer' can't afford to stop on the tressal due to the tight schedules they have and that many times they have to get to a location on time or risk a collision with another engine, sometimes oncoming even with two track tressals. The only thing I think he could have done was keep a lower speed, and even that will only work if the people get off the damned track." Your claim is a lot stronger than simply pointing out the conflicting priorities of being a train operator: you're clearly attempting to excuse the operator's actions with the tight schedule by stating he "can't afford to stop" because of the schedule.

You still haven't acknowledged that he probably couldn't have stopped in time anyways. Even with full emergency braking, whether or not someone gets pasted is entirely up to whether or not they get out of the way in time. There is no way to change that, and unjustly accusing the operator for not being able to magically stop a passenger train whos maximum ability to slow to a stop is measured in miles is only going to make you look like a smartass dumbshit trying to talk about an issue that you don't know a damned thing about.

And you accuse me of strawmandery? I've never claimed it was the train operator's duty to stop, and I've never claimed he could stop. It's his fucking duty to slow down if there are kids around the track and stop, if possible, when there are people on the track. Even slowing down increases the chances of survival for people who are on the track.

And if you dare attack my moral compass again, I swear I'll flame into the darkages, shit-heal. Its cheap and you've been around here long enough to know that.

Your flaming would be a whole lot more credible if you were literate, and your threats more credible if you weren't an immoral cretin.

[Star-Blighter]

You're the dickwad that specifically mentioned oncoming trains, or do you have a memory retention problem? Let me jog your memory.

Me not constructing a post to aerius much vaunted standards...

You're the one screaming doom & gloom predictions of a head-on collision from an oncoming train, not me. I'm just telling you it ain't fucking likely given the layout of the tracks. And now you want to change it to being rear-ended. What's next? Well maybe al-qaeda sleeper cells will bomb the tracks, and the train will fucking derail.

What the fuck are you on about? I didn't scream about anything. I just don't have the same inbred desire to get unjustified revenge because some stupid teenagers didn't have the either the commonsense or the parents to keep them out of harms way. But you really want to pin that bullshit on me go right ahead and try. I'm sick of your double standard.

It seems everyone wants to milk that "for the children" crap for all its worth. I don't drink that brand, thankyou.

[Ma Deuce]

The only way he might not have gone into emergency is if he was sleeping. That is a possibility.

I thought that modern locomotives have a "deadman switch" that sounds an alarm if it's not pressed after a certain amount of time, and then automatically applies the emergency brakes several seconds after the alarm if the 'engineer' still does not press the switch?

If there are no signals then it validates the first line about shitty saftey measures all round...

More than half of the trackage in North America (in terms of total milage) does not have fixed signals, and these unsignalled stretches are known as "dark territory". However, less than 20% of all rail traffic travels through these unsignalled zones, and as far as I'm aware, no Amtrak routes travel trough them either, since most dark territory is located on low-traffic branch lines and tertiary mainlines.

[aerius]

What the fuck are you on about? I didn't scream about anything. I just don't have the same inbred desire to get unjustified revenge because some stupid teenagers didn't have the either the commonsense or the parents to keep them out of harms way. But you really want to pin that bullshit on me go right ahead and try. I'm sick of your double standard.

It seems everyone wants to milk that "for the children" crap for all its worth. I don't drink that brand, thankyou.

Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem to go along with your memory retention problem, you also have a fucking writing problem. You sound like a complete fucking whack-a-loon and I have no idea what you're blabbering about. I'll get back to you when you pull off that foil hat of yours.

[atg]

Having driven trains myself I know first hand that even the engine by itself can take a long time to come to a stop.

I'm not really sure what the families involved with this case expect Amtrak to be able to do. The company line mentioned in the article of 'blowing the horn' is wrong, but the engineer went beyond that by slowing the train, the correct thing to do. Amtrak, or any other rail company, cannot afford to have their entire length of track policed by guards to stop trespassors. It would have to be guarded because fencing is never going to be enough to stop people getting onto the lines.

The main issue is that the girls jumped back onto the track the train was on. If he was only doing a couple of miles an hour over the bridge it is possible that the 'jumping back' if accidental, could have happend with the train further away and traveling slower. However it could have been the girls were playing chicken with the train, thinking they could jump out of the way again, but stumbled on something. If that was the case than doing a couple of miles an hour might not have been enough to stop the incident. The wheels on a train do nasty things to human bodies.

I personally believe the train driver should have continued to slow instead of releasing the brakes, however he only did that after the girls were out of the way. It's like braking when a kid runs onto the street when driving a car, you dont expect them to run back onto the road after they've gotten out the way.

Without knowing why the girls jumped back onto the track, I dont think we could determine if any other preventative measure would have been effective.

[Star-Blighter]

And you will, of course, provide evidence that the possibility of him hitting another train if he doesn't immediately stop is larger than the possibility of him hitting the kids, especially in light of communications equipment, as well as evidence the risk is actually greater than the nearly imminent destruction of two human lives. I know for a fact trains can stop without ruining schedules; I've seen trains parked over highways, I've seen trains arrive hours behind schedule; clearly, not all train schedules are as inflexible as you make them out to be.

I don't think its even possible to provide that evidence without having access to information that I wouldn't be allowed to have. I still think you just want to be "right" as far as debate goes, which shows exactly were your priorities are better than any well written refutation.

Hey, fuckwit: you're assuming the lives of the trains' passengers are being put at risk without presenting evidence.

And is that an unreasonable assumption? I've already made a post that acknowledges that if no other factors were present that he should have stopped. What more do you want? I guess being a dickhead is the only thing that satisfies you.

You're clearly incapable of writing without contradicting yourself, dumbass. The post I to which I responded to begin with excused the train operator's decision with the claim of tight schedules, and now you claim the schedules are dynamic. Moreover, you appeal to ignorance to support your point while evading my demand for evidence, you retarded jackass.

Once again you treat this like anyother hypothetical debate and are taking it way too far. It isn't possible to prove that there indeed was an imminent threat. It also isn't possible for you to prove that the train operator is at fault. Its the difference between two dead children, and two dead children and a operator losing his livelyhood. You might be right in reference to debate, but it makes you seem very inhuman as well.

I read your whole goddamned post, asshole. It is a pile of "many times", "sometimes", "risk"s, with no concrete evidence to demonstrate an actual train wreck becomes imminent if he stops to permit the kids to get off the track, all to wave away the train operator's duty of care.

Duty of care will only reduce the number of deaths do to train impacts, it will never negate them entirely and it is unreasonable to expect such.

Go back and read my post again, fucko. I have made no such claim, explicit or implicit; ergo, you are either retarded or illiterate. Furthermore, the onus is on you to provide evidence a collision was imminent if the operator slowed or stopped the train.

Very well, conceeded. I'm not dishonest by intent. And I still think if anyone is imoral, its you by far for probing me like some schoolyard punk.

Now you're just being a dishonest prick. Your earlier post stated, "You have to understand that the 'Engineer' can't afford to stop on the tressal due to the tight schedules they have and that many times they have to get to a location on time or risk a collision with another engine, sometimes oncoming even with two track tressals. The only thing I think he could have done was keep a lower speed, and even that will only work if the people get off the damned track." Your claim is a lot stronger than simply pointing out the conflicting priorities of being a train operator: you're clearly attempting to excuse the operator's actions with the tight schedule by stating he "can't afford to stop" because of the schedule.

I'll conceed that statement, if you conceed any claim that I lack an appropriatly tuned moral compass. Not until, bully. When I claim that keeping on schedule for its own sake at the expense of human lives is necessary, then you have the right to comment on my morality. I never said those kids live were forfeit, and yet thats exactly what you are trying shoehorn into my mouth. You're low, you're inhuman, and if we ever meet in life, I'll make you feel it.

And you accuse me of strawmandery? I've never claimed it was the train operator's duty to stop, and I've never claimed he could stop. It's his fucking duty to slow down if there are kids around the track and stop, if possible, when there are people on the track. Even slowing down increases the chances of survival for people who are on the track.

And he did slow down, until the kids left the track. Whether or not he should have let up on the brake is a decision that only he could make, and I doubt any train operator expects people to jump right back into the path of a train. I'll conceed this only on the grounds that it is a strawman and I should have caught it before posting.

Your flaming would be a whole lot more credible if you were literate, and your threats more credible if you weren't an immoral cretin.

So I'm an imoral cretin because I don't want a person I believe is innocent of liability to have his career ruined because two people died in circumstances that I don't think anyone but the parents or children themselves could have prevented? Boy aren't we a fucking saint. I don't know what your deffinition of moral is, but for me it doesn't mean throwing blame around to feel better about myself. The grammar nazi bullshit ain't going to get you off that easy either.

[Star-Blighter]

What the fuck are you on about? I didn't scream about anything. I just don't have the same inbred desire to get unjustified revenge because some stupid teenagers didn't have the either the commonsense or the parents to keep them out of harms way. But you really want to pin that bullshit on me go right ahead and try. I'm sick of your double standard.

It seems everyone wants to milk that "for the children" crap for all its worth. I don't drink that brand, thankyou.

Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem to go along with your memory retention problem, you also have a fucking writing problem. You sound like a complete fucking whack-a-loon and I have no idea what you're blabbering about. I'll get back to you when you pull off that foil hat of yours.

I was very, very angry at the time of posting. I apologize.

[Surlethe]

I don't think its even possible to provide that evidence without having access to information that I wouldn't be allowed to have. I still think you just want to be "right" as far as debate goes, which shows exactly were your priorities are better than any well written refutation.

It's in the fucking rules, asshole: if you don't have the information, you concede the point. That's not too much to ask, now is it? I'll leave aside the red herring about my "priorities": they've nothing to do with whether or not my position is actually correct.

And is that an unreasonable assumption? I've already made a post that acknowledges that if no other factors were present that he should have stopped. What more do you want? I guess being a dickhead is the only thing that satisfies you.

Why, you've just now put your finger on it! Yes: yes, it is an unreasonable assumption, in light of modern communications equipment, dynamic schedules, and your inability to provide evidence of any collisions more imminent than the children on the tracks.

You're clearly incapable of writing without contradicting yourself, dumbass. The post I to which I responded to begin with excused the train operator's decision with the claim of tight schedules, and now you claim the schedules are dynamic. Moreover, you appeal to ignorance to support your point while evading my demand for evidence, you retarded jackass.

Once again you treat this like anyother hypothetical debate and are taking it way too far. It isn't possible to prove that there indeed was an imminent threat. It also isn't possible for you to prove that the train operator is at fault. Its the difference between two dead children, and two dead children and a operator losing his livelyhood. You might be right in reference to debate, but it makes you seem very inhuman as well.

What the fuck do you mean, "in reference to the debate"? If it isn't possible to prove there was an imminent threat to the train, then, as you yourself have said, the operator should have stopped the train, or, at the very least, slowed it drastically. He didn't.

I read your whole goddamned post, asshole. It is a pile of "many times", "sometimes", "risk"s, with no concrete evidence to demonstrate an actual train wreck becomes imminent if he stops to permit the kids to get off the track, all to wave away the train operator's duty of care.

Duty of care will only reduce the number of deaths do to train impacts, it will never negate them entirely and it is unreasonable to expect such.

More strawmandering. Go back and read my post, dimwit; where did I ever claim duty of care would completely do away with deaths from train impact?

Go back and read my post again, fucko. I have made no such claim, explicit or implicit; ergo, you are either retarded or illiterate. Furthermore, the onus is on you to provide evidence a collision was imminent if the operator slowed or stopped the train.

Very well, conceeded. I'm not dishonest by intent.

I accept.

And I still think if anyone is imoral, its you by far for probing me like some schoolyard punk.

Oh, you're whining now? "He's questioning my points! Waah! A bully!"

Now you're just being a dishonest prick. Your earlier post stated, "You have to understand that the 'Engineer' can't afford to stop on the tressal due to the tight schedules they have and that many times they have to get to a location on time or risk a collision with another engine, sometimes oncoming even with two track tressals. The only thing I think he could have done was keep a lower speed, and even that will only work if the people get off the damned track." Your claim is a lot stronger than simply pointing out the conflicting priorities of being a train operator: you're clearly attempting to excuse the operator's actions with the tight schedule by stating he "can't afford to stop" because of the schedule.

I'll conceed that statement, if you conceed any claim that I lack an appropriatly tuned moral compass. Not until, bully.

Oh, waah! More attempts to claim the moral high ground!

When I claim that keeping on schedule for its own sake at the expense of human lives is necessary, then you have the right to comment on my morality. I never said those kids live were forfeit, and yet thats exactly what you are trying shoehorn into my mouth. You're low, you're inhuman, and if we ever meet in life, I'll make you feel it.

Tell me, where did I ever say you said those kids' lives were forfeit? Oh, wait; I didn't, did I? I said that you were attempting to excuse negligence on the part of the operator with a rigid timeschedule and claims of imminent harm to the passengers on the train, not that the kids' lives were forefeit. I also like how you jacked in "for its own sake" as a condition, since you've never claimed that, and I've never called you on that.

And you accuse me of strawmandery? I've never claimed it was the train operator's duty to stop, and I've never claimed he could stop. It's his fucking duty to slow down if there are kids around the track and stop, if possible, when there are people on the track. Even slowing down increases the chances of survival for people who are on the track.

And he did slow down, until the kids left the track. Whether or not he should have let up on the brake is a decision that only he could make, and I doubt any train operator expects people to jump right back into the path of a train.

And that's why I said, in my first post in this thread, the operator had a momentary lapse in judgment and let up on the brake instead of staying slow until he was past the kids.

I'll conceed this only on the grounds that it is a strawman and I should have caught it before posting.

I accept.

Your flaming would be a whole lot more credible if you were literate, and your threats more credible if you weren't an immoral cretin.

So I'm an imoral cretin because I don't want a person I believe is innocent of liability to have his career ruined because two people died in circumstances that I don't think anyone but the parents or children themselves could have prevented?

No, you're an immoral cretin because you think keeping the train to the schedule, in the absence of any imminent danger to the train posed by other trains, despite the lives of two children on the line, is more important.

Boy aren't we a fucking saint. I don't know what your deffinition of moral is, but for me it doesn't mean throwing blame around to feel better about myself. The grammar nazi bullshit ain't going to get you off that easy either.

Who the fuck is talking about throwing blame around? The kids were retarded; the train operator was negligent; the parents were not there; there's plenty of blame to be spread among all parties involved.

[RedImperator]

Star-Blighter, I suggest you learn what in the Goddamn merry fuck you're talking about. Rail lines are divided into blocks, and there's only one fucking train allowed in each block at any one time. Furthermore, if the block in front of a train is occupied, it has to run at caution and prepare to stop at the next signal if the block isn't cleared. Unless the train behind ignores the signal, there's no Goddamn way that train was in danger of getting rear ended by another train.

Jesus Christ, it's not 1845 anymore. You're not risking a horrible disaster every time you make an unscheduled stop.

[DPDarkPrimus]

This reminds me of another recent case where a Texas beauty queen was killed by a train. She was Miss Deaf Texas, and guess what? She was using her cell phone to text a friend when she was hit.

[Pick]

I remember some people coming around to the schools in my area when I was in elementary school because a kid had been run down by a train by the skate park. Apparently there were a lot of witnesses, and it was very traumatic for a lot of young people who were there. It reminded my of my dad's Early Lesson on Trains, that being at the local Farmer's Market. He pointed out a train running by in front of us (unguarded) and he said, "See how huge this thing is? Get in front of one and you're totally creamed. Don't do it."

Not that I was planning to, but I always thought that covered the basics, really.

[Alyeska]

Or do train networks in your world not have fucking signal systems?

I worked almost exclusively in dark territory in Wyoming. However, Amtrak moves exclusively on signaled tracks because you can't pass 49 mph unless the tracks are signaled.

To compensate for safety measures, trains run under the more restrictive track warrant system. This is where a radio opperator has control over a certain network and they give authorization to a specific train to run a set distance on track. That train owns all authority to that specific track distance and no other train can violate it. That specific train must not move beyond its track authority or it violates some other trains authority. You move only by track warrants and if dispatch is running slow, some times you sit and wait for an hour or two at the end of your authority until you get a new warrant.

[atg]

The problem is that its an excitement rush to many kids to do crap like running infront of trains, exploring the trestle bridges, not use the proper crossings etc.

The majority of accidents/deaths involving trains occur, I believe, because people are not crossing at the proper places.