“Uh-oh,” I thought as I saw the headline in the Seattle Times: “Sound Transit light-rail train kills man on tracks in Seattle.” All those anti-rail zealots will crawl out of the woodwork disingenuously arguing that at-grade light rail (traveling at the same speed as the surrounding cars and buses) is an inherently unsafe technology. And then I read the article…
The victim, identified only as an adult male, was struck along a transit corridor between Fourth Avenue South and Sixth Avenue South a few blocks south of Safeco Field. Police spokeswoman Renee Witt said early information from traffic-collision investigators indicates that as the southbound train approached, the man — for unknown reasons — climbed over a concrete Jersey barrier south of South Holgate Street and “jumped into the path of the train.”
That’s right… the man was struck along the non-pedestrian transit corridor after climbing over a barrier and jumping in front the train. The headline implies “train kills man,” when in reality it should have read “man kills self.”
And for this, John Niles and his so-called Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives argues Sound Transit should be legally and financially liable?
UPDATE:
Clearly, rendering trucks are an inherently unsafe technology:
Washington State Patrol troopers say a rendering truck that lost its load scattered dead animal parts across the northbound lanes of Interstate 5 in Tacoma.
Of course, I suppose that’s preferable to scattering the freeway with live animal parts—that would have been eerie—but icky nonetheless.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
Souped up 1974 Chevy Novas are an inherently unsafe technology.
UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
Merce Cunningham dead at 90. Clearly, modern dance is an inherently unsafe technology.
If not for the train, the man would be alive today.
Shouldn’t the same logic be applied to those that make bad health choices (obese, alcohol, drugs) and die because the healthcare system couldn’t keep them alive? Man kills self.
Apply the Times’ logic to deaths due to firearms, and see what that yields.
@1 “If not for the train, the man would be alive today.”
Wrong-o. If there was no light rail train to throw himself in front of, he would have jumped off a bridge, thrown himself in front of a car, shot himself, or drowned himself in a bathtub — but he still would be dead. And then it would be the bathtub’s fault instead of the train’s fault, LOL!
And this really has nothing to do with light rail. Trains have been running through this corridor for almost 100 years.
Isn’t that an assumption? Would you have accepted that when you were a judge?
From the same article…
If it’s not a suicide, then isn’t your assumption he would have shot himself, drowned himself in the bathtub not accurate.
Do all the people stoopid enough to try and beat a train that drive across tracks with a train speeding down on them also committing suicide?
If it wasn’t a suicide, it sure sounds like this poor guy was pretty damned stupid. Not that he’s alone–there seems to be an all-too-common sort of fatality in which someone tries to play chicken with a freight train at an uncontrolled crossing, stalls his car and then gets out and stands between his vehicle and the oncoming train.
Granted, there may be a need for a modicum of public education. It’s been about 100 years since they shut down the Interurban here, and although people pretty much have it figured out that cars and trucks aren’t to be trifled with, maybe the most of us don’t have the same respect for other large, heavy moving things we’re not familiar with.
@5 “Would you have accepted that when you were a judge?”
Yes, and any judge who wouldn’t is incompetent and should be removed from the bench. The standard of proof applicable to most civil cases is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means “more likely than not.” On the given facts of this case, i.e., the victim climbed over a jersey barrier and jumped in front of an oncoming train, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the victim intentionally put himself in harm’s way.
@5 (continued) “Isn’t that an assumption?”
No, it’s an inference drawn from the facts established by the evidence. Courts and juries are not only allowed, but are required, to make inferences.
@6 ” … most of us don’t have the same respect for other large, heavy moving things we’re not familiar with …”
Yeah, like the suicidal stupidity of recreational boaters on Puget Sound who expect aircraft carriers and huge container ships to get out of their way.
“Res Ipsa Loquitor”. The thing speaks for itself.
Absent other evidence which would indicate that the man had a reason for jumping over the jersey barrior and into the path of a clearly visable oncoming train, the presumption is that the man intended the clearly probable results of such conduct: i.e., his own death.
I seem to recall that once or twice a year we hear about someone jumping off an I-5 overpass into oncoming freeway traffic, which are routinely accepted as being suicide attempts. I don’t see why this would be treated any differently.
By the way, a souped up 1970’s Nova is indeed inherently dangerous technology.
When I was in high school and an undergraduate in college, I drove a 1971 Ventura, which was the Pontiac version of the Chevy Nova. It had a big V-8 up front, with rear-wheel drive. It got about 8 MPG, 12 on the highway, and had virtually NO traction on the rear end. It was difficult to drive in rain, and impossible to drive in the slightest dusting of snow.
Soup up the engine a bit more, put it on a winding road with an inexperienced driver behind the wheel, and it’s just a matter of time (and not much time at that) before the driver loses control and the car ends up in a ditch (if you are lucky) or plows into some runners and bike riders (if you aren’t lucky).
Still, I missed that old Ventura. It was a lot better car than the ’78 Grand Prix we bought as it’s replacement. I could maintain it myself with little difficulty. As long as you drove straight and steady on dry pavement, it worked fine – if you could afford the gas.
I don’t know the area so this might not apply…
I have crossed RR tracks in my travels before, even when there have been trains within sight.
I have never jumped off an overpass to get somewhere.
don, good point. In fact, the Busway that parallels the LINK route in SODO used to be a passenger corridor, UP and Milwaukee Road crews used it to get into Union Station(Which saw it’s last passenger train on May 1, 1971 when Amtrak consolidated their trains in Seattle at King Street Station, which is a run-through station, unlike Union Station which was a stub-ended terminal.)I have crossed those tracks, at legal crossings, many a time, and always look both ways, even on the freight trackage East of 4th Ave that sees sporadic use or not at all.(Force of Habit)
I predicted there would be a post here exactly on this point…as some sort of defensive mechanism.
Personally, I only saw irony and unfortunate timing for pro light-rail supporters.
And, it didn’t change my opinion that these things remain light white elephants wasting taxpayer money and sorrow for the dude that either committed suicide or was supremely stupid.
Having been a railfan my self (long time ago) I agree with your checking the tracks. The rule is to expect a train at any time from any direction, even if you have never seen a train there before. Although I chuckle when riding the bus down near Southcenter and the drivers always stop at a set of tracks where there are weeds and small bushes blocking the tracks on both sides of the street.
Have you ever driven an 1974 Chevy Nova? Talk about a death wish…
Yes, mass transit is such a waste of money, but spending PUBLIC billions to build asphalt jungles for single occupancy vehicles to choke us with their pollution while destroying the human-friendly ecosystem makes perfect sense.
“Yeah, like the suicidal stupidity of recreational boaters on Puget Sound who expect aircraft carriers and huge container ships to get out of their way.”
I keep a copy of standard maritime right of way laws near my til (sailboat) to hurl onto the bow of powerboaters. Boaters should pass a license test too since seemingly every jackass who buys a Bayliner is unclear of the rules.
Here ends the O.T. rant
” tpn spews:
Apply the Times’ logic to deaths due to firearms, and see what that yields.
That ‘logic’ has long been well-accepted among gun control advocates. For example here Sarah Brady claims that the risk of suicide in households with guns is 5 times greater.
It never made sense to me. If someone is determined to commit suicide there is always a way, even if trains and guns are unavailable. Japan has strict gun control and has always had a higher suicide rate than the U.S.
Anyway, progressives cannot have it both ways. They can’t argue that a gun in the home increases the odds of a suicide, but light rail in the town does not.