From: ahk@chinet.com
conklin wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 9:34:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Finfer wrote:
>>>>There was also a statement made that Metro-North is the only application
>>>>of under running third rail in North America. That is not true.
>>>>Philadelphia's Market St. subway/elevated uses it as well. There are no
>>>>grade crossings on that line, however.
>>>I believe in the 100 year history of third rail usage in the NYC metro
>>>area, the accident history (involving the third rail) is very good to
>>>excellent.
>>>I get the impression the SUV's driver could've driven off the crossing
>>>if she wanted to, but for some reason stayed still. Maybe she thought
>>>the train would stop for her? (Was she a resident of the area?) Or,
>>>maybe it was a suicide. But, as mentioned, I want to wait for the
>>>official report.
>>. . . to determine the driver's intent, after she's dead and can't be
>>made to answer questions?
>>What does being a resident of the area have to do with anything? She
>>KNOWINGLY violated a grade crossing, then KNOWINGLY drove her vehicle
>>directly into the path of the oncoming train.
>>The design of the third rail is irrelevant. No one designs grade crossings
>>anticipating this kind of stupidity.
>Oh come on. The innocent train riders paid the price too. The whole goal
>of safety is to protect everyone, not just the person who "caused" the
>accident. We have no evidence that the woman was trying to die.
You know, George, you addressed absolutely nothing I wrote in followup, and
putting "caused" in double quotes is beyond idiotic on your part. No one
offered any pseudo psychological analysis on whether she was trying to die.
What I am stating is that despite the consequences of the collision,
the system anchoring the third rail doesn't require a different design
as a result of this collision.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
