From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   conklin  wrote:   
   >   
   >"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.   
      
   No, it's not unclear at all, George. Nothing should be done. There's no   
   reason to spend any money on this as it couldn't possibly pay off in   
   the long term.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)