OldPoleBurner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Granted: if she had waited until the gate went up,
> she wouldn't have been killed. But for peet sake
> - she was only six years old - what do you
> expect!
>
> Besides, if she could have seen or heard the damn
> train, it is highly unlikely that even a six year
> old would have started across. And the only
> reason she could not see the train was because of
> that stupid sound wall - period!
>
> After forty years in this industry, I can tell
> you this much about grade crossing safety: All
> accidents (no exception) are the result of a whole
> chain of events, not just one singular stupidity.
> If any one of those events doesn't happen, the
> accident doesn't happen. Usually, they don't all
> happen at once, which often leads to complacency
> and breaking a rule "just this time". But when
> they all happen together - BOOM!
>
> You succeed at preventing accidents only by acting
> to break as many links in that chain as possible;
> because at any time, like it or not, believe it or
> not, somebody or something will screw up. But
> even if there is a screw up, and the chain of
> events is still proactively broken somewhere else;
> there still will be no accident.
>
> But at this particular crossing, the most
> important prevention of all - being able to see
> trains coming - is all botched up big time. An
> accident here was absolutely CERTAIN - in a matter
> of hours or days. In fact, this death was
> flatly predicted well over a year ago - By me. I
> just didn't know the name of the first victim. It
> was not a surprise to anyone - except maybe myopic
> politicians. Virtually any signal engineer
> seeing that grade crossing would have come to the
> same conclusion as I did. It is just too bad that
> the city was adamant that it stay that way
>
> It seems you are expecting a mere six year old
> inexperienced child to be able to make up for
> "CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE" on the part of those city
> officials. That is something many adults couldn't
> even do - are they to be condemned to death for
> lack of expertise in recognizing a hazardous
> conditions. I don't think so.
>
> That's why experts are usually hired (and heeded)
> - to make sure that accidents can be prevented in
> as many ways as practical - by the average not so
> expert public. And yes, it literally IS
> criminal negligence, when industry standard
> practices are so flagrantly ignored, and it
> results in death of a human being. Any one of
> those experts I speak of, being so negligent,
> would soon find his address changed to some place
> like Leavenworth Kansas.
>
> Bottom line: Cities should not be allowed to
> interfere in any way with the proper design of
> railways - period!
>
> OPB


The news article said she was fifteen years old--is that not correct? If she was only six, it seems like a case of parental neglect and child endangerment (not to detract from the good points you made).