Really ? !! I can’t believe that kids can be this stupid !
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/austin-price-dead_n_3069789.html
also - pictures at bottom of story showing the veterans parade that was hit by train.
Steve
Another example of the known disconnect between teen’s brains and reality.
Divided Highway, Four Quadrant Gates on each side. This may be in a quiet zone.
Even so, you cannot play chicken with a train that is not there, so yes, they knew the train was there.
Railway accidents do not qualify for a Darwin Award, but this one will not be having any offspring in any event. Of course, he was a good boy, they all are. But good kids can be just as dead as any other kind.
ROAR
One can’t help but wonder if attitudes about these accidents would be any different if the victims were your relatives? “Dancing on the graves.”
Why does everyone insist on calling this an “accident”? The boy intentionally ran in front of the train, not accidently. That makes it not an accident! He did it on purpose! What’s to investigate? Maybe he can be an example to others not to do such things, then at least some good could come of this.
Tim
All kid’s aren’t that stupid, we only hear about the stupid ones. Condolances to the family, maybe others may profit from this young man’s example.
Sad, tragic and should never have happened.
Any you can safely bet a weeks pay the railroad will be holding the short end of the stick.
Maybe the solutiion is to go the route followed by my local Air Force Base. Gates were replaced by massive steel cylinders about sixteen inches in diameter on four foot centers that pop out of their in-ground sockets to positively block the road between substantial concrete walls.
The car would have been just as thoroughly smashed, and the occupant(s) would probably be just as dead, but at least they wouldn’t have gotten in front of the train.
In The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert Heinlein wrote, “Stupidity is the only capital crime.” I think he might have been onto something…
Chuck [USAF MSgt(Ret)]
Ideas like that have been invented as an solution to the crossing problem. They are, of course, very expensive with their heavy, moving barricades, hydraulics, etc. But another major objection is that automatic barricades constitute a crash hazard that can kill people in cars if they run into them.
Or if it starts to rise when they’re on top of it.
Or if it rises and traps them INSIDE the crossing area.
I suppose we could always revert to that old ‘safety’ standby “Treadles Damage Tires.” Just what people in the old Democratic Party would embrace as a perfect solution…
The insurance industry could settle the crossing issue in about two seconds. All they have to say is “the train had the right of way. You didn’t yield. Sorry, no coverage.”
It wouldn’t matter if the crossing warning devices were working or not.
Once people discovered it was all them if they hit or were hit by a train, running the gates would practically cease to be an issue, and they’d be sure to look both ways before crossing the tracks.
A few headlines that read “Car that failed to yield to train hit, passengers killed” might make a difference, too.
I just don’t see that we are going to scare people into safe behavior.
I am not so sure that would solve the problem. People would not take the chance if they expected to get hit. So if they are not worried about getting hit, why would they worry about insurance not covering them if they were hit?
I remember a similar discussion many years ago and someone suggested hiring marksmen to shoot drivers that go around the gates! A reply to that comment was that it would not stop people from going around the gates, all that it would do is teach people to duck when doing so.
Red light cameras would stop everyone from going around the gates. Oddly, there is a hesitation to use that remedy though.
They don’t seem to keep everyone from going through red lights…
Although I would like to think that red light cameras would stop people from going around the gates, evidence from the city where I live is that the city is making operating revenue from people that run red lights where there are cameras.
The state legislature is arguing bills that would outlaw these cameras (as well as speed enforcement cameras) (or have the state abscond with the funds collected) and the cities that have them are fearful of the loss of revenue if they went away.
Although I can appreciate that my property taxes are lower because tourists and travelers end up paying for some of the resident city services I enjoy, I have never really been comfortable knowing that my government is being paid for by the fines that people pay for committing infractions of the law. If ALL law-breaking were to cease, my taxes would be unbearable (but maybe the decrease in the cost of enforcement would counteract that?)
The red light cameras have been largely discredited because they are perceived rightly so as being cynically intended to be revenue generators. So it must be true that a lot of people are running red lights or there would not be a controversy over the cameras. But I wonder about the warning signs.
If you want to generate revenue, you make the signs as unobvious as possible. If you want to prevent people from running the lights, you make the warning signs as obvious as possible. There does seem to be a part of the controversy saying that the warning signs are not obvious enough. It makes sense because I cannot imagine many people running lights if they know they are sure to get horrendous fine, and we know that is the main motive.
So the key to grade crossing cameras is to use them to keep people from running the signals rather than to prey on people running signals in order to generate revenue. To do that, you make the warning sign really large and obvious. And give the driver a little latitude in order to prevent a ticket being issued when the lights turn on when he or she is too close to stop. The time saved in beating the train is never going to be worth $300 to a driver if the choice is clearly presented.
But I have read that the red light cameras are viewed as the most effective way to prevent running around crossing gates, except that there is such a public backlash and discrediting of the cameras that it is difficult to get them approved. So they had the best tool for the job, but they got greedy for revenue and ruined the tool.
Explaining the controversy about red light cameras here in New Jersey would take a book. But the short story is that they do work and when they are used violations decrease. I’m sure they would decrease violations at railroad tracks too. And I think your original point is close to right, Bucyrus. They are not a perfect solution but they are effective.