From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net   
      
   "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   news:mbvqh7$jsc$2@news.albasani.net...   
   > 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.   
      
      And it is unclear what changes should be made to increase safety when an   
   accident happens.  That decision awaits an engineering study.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)