C-Train Accident

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Guillermo
you guys, these were accidents. everyday i walk through the hallways at the U of C, where half of the people are texting on their phones etc. instead of paying attention to where they are walking.

Being unaware of their surroundings is stupid, plain and simple. Think of it this way. Doing anything that can get you killed, and not paying attention to what you're doing. Is that stupid?

Originally posted by Guillermo
it is not uncommon for people who are walking in crowds to not be paying attention to what is happening around them - and in fact, i bet many of the critics here are guilty of this themselves.

Sure, I'll glance at my phone. But I'll stop walking first. I don't want to be that guy that falls down the escalator. Or the lady that walks into the bush. Or the guy that falls into the fountain.. (all things I've witnessed personally)

Originally posted by Guillermo
so I am not surprised that there are people crossing the tracks who are looking at their phone... maybe this isn't what we would consider a "safe" practice, but certainly it doesn't make the few who get hit by trains stupid.

Yes, it does. The anteleope on the savanah that doesn't pay attention ends up dinner. The driver that closes his eyes on the highway ends up in the morgue. Doing anything with paying attention to what you're doing is just plain stupid.

Originally posted by Guillermo
if you die from a concussion playing hockey, does that make you stupid?

In context, you'd have to close your eyes, put your head down and skate into the boards headfirst full tilt. The extra step would be to go onto the ice without a helmet.

Originally posted by Guillermo
what about if you fall to your death rock climbing - are you stupid then?

In context, you're fail to secure your belay clips because you're too busy reading email? Damn right it's stupid.

Originally posted by Guillermo
what if you're walking to work and slip on the ice, falling into traffic and getting crushed to death. are you stupid?

When you failed to notice the ice because you're too busy reading your email on your crackberry, then yes, it's stupid.

Originally posted by Guillermo
these were accidents, have a bit of respect for the friends and families and stop insulting these people.

Accidents are defined by circumstance that are beyond our control. This is why you don't rarely hear "there was a accident on 17th ave".. you hear "There was a collision.." because they're usually NOT accidents.

Now, all that being said, I still think it's tragic. It's a tragic loss to the families of these people that are killed. It's also a tragic waste that our council is floating the idea of a bylaw that says "No electronics near trains." I also think it's tragic that people feel we need these laws to protect us from ourselves. Like the hemlet laws skiing. It's sad that people need someone to tell them to wear a helmet. You would think that we as a race are smart enough. Unfortunately, we keep trying to dumb down the world with rules designed to protect the functionally stupid, when in reality we should simply let them fend for themselves. As a species, we'd benefit from it. Also, I'm not without compassion. We should still protect those who simply cannot fend for themselves. But everyday normals, they're on their own.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Guillermo
why don't you have a little respect for the deceased? Just imagine the silly-ass way you're gonna look when you die - how is your family going to feel when people start a thread on beyond about what a fucking idiot you were when you died.

jesusfuckingchrist.

Wow dude.. I don't see any where where I called the person who died a fucking idiot. Where did I show disrespect? I didn't even say they were stupid. What you need to do is relax, stop thinking with your emotions, and grow a brain.

I do know what you're trying to say. Yes it's an accident per se, but a very preventable accident. She didn't wake up one day deciding she wanted to die and the proceed to walk in front of a train. But she made the decision not to pay attention and the results were fatal.

Why should we make level crossings more safe? These incidents are extremely rare. Why should 99.9% of the riders who practice SAFETY and COMMON SENSE have to pay extra to protect those that choose none of the above? I am not saying she deserved it, but everyone else shouldn't be punished for it either.l

[Guillermo]

^^OK you got me. you didn't call them "fucking idiots" or "stupid." you only referred to them as the "lowest common denominator."

but i'm starting to see your point. i mean, why should the rest of us have to pay for seatbelts and airbags in our cars? I mean, accidents are very preventable, and exceedingly rare. why should the 99.9% of us who never have an accident have to pay for safety features?

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Guillermo
why should the rest of us have to pay for seat-belts and airbags in our cars? I mean, accidents are very preventable, and exceedingly rare. why should the 99.9% of us who never have an accident have to pay for safety features?

Now you're just being argumentative and deliberately obtuse. Shake your head and act like an adult.

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by codetrap


Now you're just being argumentative and deliberately obtuse. Shake your head and act like an adult.

but that was a valid argument in the 1960s. in 50 years, calgarians are going to look back and laugh at the arguments in this thread, too.

(note how i replied without resorting to insults.)

[clem24]

Originally posted by Guillermo
but i'm starting to see your point. i mean, why should the rest of us have to pay for seatbelts and airbags in our cars? I mean, accidents are very preventable, and exceedingly rare. why should the 99.9% of us who never have an accident have to pay for safety features?

WTF? There's a difference between something that benefits MANY and others with only marginal benefits, if any at all.

Originally posted by Guillermo


but that was a valid argument in the 1960s. in 50 years, calgarians are going to look back and laugh at the arguments in this thread, too.

No they're going to look back and laugh at your posts.

[Go4Long]

here's my argument to that point. If you are out driving and you get hit by another car, there's a chance that you've done nothing wrong, or nothing that could even be classified as a lapse of attention. You've now been injured by someone elses lack of attention. The laws were put in place because your actions and the actions of those around you can greatly affect the lives of other people.

If you disctractedly walk in front of a train/into a fountain/down a flight of stairs/off a cliff your lack of attention stands to injure only you, and there for, we shouldn't pay to protect you from yourself.

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by clem24

WTF? There's a difference between something that benefits MANY and others with only marginal benefits, if any at all.

you think so? find me some data comparing per capita car accident rates and per capita YYC train crossing rates (not jsut deaths, all at-grade accidnets).

Originally posted by clem24

No they're going to look back and laugh at your posts.

Well I'm right and you're just a big dumbhead!!!!

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally posted by Guillermo
^^OK you got me. you didn't call them "fucking idiots" or "stupid." you only referred to them as the "lowest common denominator."

but i'm starting to see your point. i mean, why should the rest of us have to pay for seatbelts and airbags in our cars? I mean, accidents are very preventable, and exceedingly rare. why should the 99.9% of us who never have an accident have to pay for safety features?

We have plenty of safety features at these crossings already. You are talking "seat belts and airbags" but what you really seem to want is "60km speed limit and crash cages on all cars".

Want to save lives? Take the millions you want to spend making marginal improvements to the design of these crossings and spend it on any number of social programs. It would do a lot more good.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by Guillermo


you think so? find me some data comparing per capita car accident rates and per capita YYC train crossing rates (not jsut deaths, all at-grade accidnets).

There are about 160,000 road accidents in Canada every year.

According to the Transportation Safety Board approximately 2800 to 2900 people are killed on Canadian roads each year.

Over a thousand train accidents occur per year in Canada. In 2009 alone, there were 1038 accidents. Almost 50% of these were non-main-track train derailments. Almost 18% were crossing accidents, and these crossing accidents resulted in 19 fatalities.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_t...#ixzz1g3t7fItD

just googled some answers.

[Skyline_Addict]

Originally posted by clem24


Wow dude.. I don't see any where where I called the person who died a fucking idiot. Where did I show disrespect? I didn't even say they were stupid. What you need to do is relax, stop thinking with your emotions, and grow a brain.

I do know what you're trying to say. Yes it's an accident per se, but a very preventable accident. She didn't wake up one day deciding she wanted to die and the proceed to walk in front of a train. But she made the decision not to pay attention and the results were fatal.

Why should we make level crossings more safe? These incidents are extremely rare. Why should 99.9% of the riders who practice SAFETY and COMMON SENSE have to pay extra to protect those that choose none of the above? I am not saying she deserved it, but everyone else shouldn't be punished for it either.l

I agree.

Guillermo:

I've skimmed through all of the posts relating to this incident and I don't see anywhere that the posters you have been arguing with have shown any personal disrespect to the victim. In fact, many people made an effort to acknowledge that this is a tragic and unfortunate incident for the victim and her friends/family. I don't see why you feel there is a need to ask people to show remorse/respect/etc.

It doesn't change the fact - as many of those posters have pointed out - that this was HER FAULT. Your obligation (it seems), to defend her with arguments about "herd mentality" and "nature" are absolutely obsurd. I'd like to think that humans are a little bit above cattle being prod along their daily lives (to their daily deaths) by the invisible hand "nature". Speaking of disrespect, you basically equated her to a mindless cow.

She was far above that, but paid the ultimate price for HER indecision and choices. Yes she made the choice not to pay attention. It wasn't the be-all-end-all power of "herd mentality" that pushed her in front of the train.

Just because some of us are pointing out that it was her own fault for this, does not mean we are heartless, disrespectful people.
The only event of "nature" that took place here is death. Everything leading up to that event was man-made.

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by Go4Long

just googled some answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by Skyline_Addict

It doesn't change the fact - as many of those posters have pointed out - that this was HER FAULT. Your obligation (it seems), to defend her with arguments about "herd mentality" and "nature" are absolutely obsurd. I'd like to think that humans are a little bit above cattle being prod along their daily lives (to their daily deaths) by the invisible hand "nature". Speaking of disrespect, you basically equated her to a mindless cow.

The only event of "nature" that took place here is death. Everything leading up to that event was man-made.

OK you're right. humans are not a part of nature, and we don't obey the same laws of physics at any scale of observation. i feel comfortable saying that because my bible promises me an afterlife.

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Skyline_Addict



It doesn't change the fact - as many of those posters have pointed out - that this was HER FAULT.

It was a design flaw, in her.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by Guillermo
why should the 99.9% of us who never have an accident have to pay for safety features?

your percentages are a little off...

In the third quarter of 2010, the C-Train system had an average of 252,600 revenue riders per weekday, the second busiest light rail system in North America behind the Monterrey Metro

even without factoring weekend ridership that's 65'676'000 revenue riders a year...even if you call it 50 accidents a year(which is absurdly high) that's only 1 accident per 1313520 revenue riders, or 0.0000008% give or take.

[Skyline_Addict]

Originally posted by Guillermo



OK you're right. humans are not a part of nature, and we don't obey the same laws of physics at any scale of observation. i feel comfortable saying that because my bible promises me an afterlife.

Not sure if serious.

In any case, I hope you didn't miscontrue my response as me saying that I believe humans transcend nature, physics and the laws of the universe.

But you probably did.

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by Go4Long


your percentages are a little off...



even without factoring weekend ridership that's 65'676'000 revenue riders a year...even if you call it 50 accidents a year(which is absurdly high) that's only 1 accident per 1313520 revenue riders, or 0.0000008% give or take.

but you're still just making up the data here.

maybe there are more per capita car accidents than per capita at-grade c-train accidnets. i am not convinced of that because there isn't any data, but even so, is that a reason to not try and improve safety of the train? i don't think so. i think we should be striving to improve everything all the time - particularly major infrastructure like this that could potentially be used for hundreds of years.

[kenny]

While we're assuming that only 1 person gets hurt in each of these train accidents, I'll throw another one out there:

At least a dozen people ON the train get hurt in some way, shape or form.

Now, the person that causes the collision aren't only hurting themselves. Does that change anything? Should we try to reduce at grade crossings?

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by Guillermo


but you're still just making up the data here.

maybe there are more per capita car accidents than per capita at-grade c-train accidnets. i am not convinced of that because there isn't any data, but even so, is that a reason to not try and improve safety of the train? i don't think so. i think we should be striving to improve everything all the time - particularly major infrastructure like this that could potentially be used for hundreds of years.

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpr...e-rail-safety/

or the cliff notes:

US: 27.26 billion passenger-km/year (both Amtrak and commuter rail), 159 deaths over 20 years. Note the rate is more than twice that of China per capita, let alone per rail passenger. This is one death per 3.4 billion passenger-km.

For comparison, the US road network has 33,000 accident deaths and 7.35 trillion passenger-km per year, which is one death per 220 million passenger-km.

still digging for pedestrian specific data...keep in mind this data INCLUDES pedestrians struck by passenger trains, and also keep in mind that this number is just fatalities, and a train hitting a pedestrian or another car has a much higher likelihood of causing a fatality than a car hitting a pedestrian or another car. their numbers for accidents are even better than mine according to this pdf

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Ca...RB_revised.pdf