Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman, gprimr1

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby Rockingham Racer » Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:53 am

Tom M wrote:And when I'm in the sleeper, snug in my bed, I should be restrained... how? Thanks for the concern, NTSB, but in the absence of turbulence, I prefer being "free to move about the cabin!"


The airlines have figured that one out.
User avatar
Rockingham Racer
 
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby Tadman » Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:01 pm

WashingtonPark wrote:
JoeG wrote:The best way to prevent railroad accidents is for trains not to move. I know that Amtrak and its host railroads are working diligently to achieve this goal but they are still failing. i have seen some trains moving faster than i can walk. Perhaps i should notify the NTSB.

Reminds me of when I was working and management was always coming up with new safety rules to prove they were doing something. When one particularly ridiculous one came up the Supervising Dispatcher told me no sacrifice was too great for safety. I said if that was the case all trains should be operating restricted-not exceeding 15MPH-speed because that would prove to be much safer than 65. That was the end of that conversation.


THIS!!!!!

A bunch of people trying to prove their value by coming up with new rules. If they really wanted to stop tragedies, they'd just outlaw anything with the potential to hurt someone. We'd all stay in our houses all day long, but hey, nobody gets hurt.
User avatar
Tadman
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby ryanov » Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:30 am

I'm guessing this must be what it was like when seatbelts were suggested in cars.

Recently, coach buses have added seatbelts. I wear them. When I need to get up for some reason, I *gasp* take it off, and then put it back on when I'm back in my seat. I also put on my big boy pants in the morning by myself.

You want to be killed in a preventable accident, enjoy.
|=| R. Novosielski |=|
User avatar
ryanov
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Newark, NJ

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby Tadman » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:48 am

ryanov wrote:I'm guessing this must be what it was like when seatbelts were suggested in cars.


Not even close. Seat belts were a great solution to a clear and present problem. At that time, over 50,000 people per year were killed in auto accidents. At today's numbers, more like 30,000 per year, a train is still 17x safer according to Northwestern University. Today's trains see annual deaths on-train from accidents of ten or less per year, some years with none. To suggest that train passengers are in any way near the peril of auto passengers is statistically impossible. The auto was and is an inherently dangerous mode of transportation. The train is not. The numbers show that the seatbelt is not necessary and there is no clear and present problem.

ryanov wrote:You want to be killed in a preventable accident, enjoy.


Of the on-train deaths every year, probably half aren't preventable by wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt is designed to prevent a passenger from being ejected from their seat. It's useful on board an aircraft due to the very frequent occurence of turbulence. It's useful in a car because after a head-on, the passengers won't eject through the glass and onto the road. On a train, however, there is no windshield or road ahead, there is no turbulence. Of the perhaps 10 deaths per year on-train in the US, many aren't ejected by mowed down. See link to Chatsworth picture below.

https://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/up ... .jpg?w=620

So long story short, we're basically at the PTC argument. Are we really going to spend millions and millions to prevent five deaths a year or less when grade crossings and trespassers present a far bigger problem? Are we really going to act like hundreds of deaths at grade crossings and trespassers are "cost of doing business" but freak out over something that might not even happen this year?
User avatar
Tadman
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby ryanov » Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:56 pm

The NTSB studies accidents, looks into what killed people, and then makes recommendations. It's incredible to me that this is controversial. They get as detailed as "the person in seat 35C was killed by a head injury caused by the armrest of the offset seat in front of them." I would definitely make a bet that an accident mentions someone who was ejected from a train (a good candidate would be the Spuyten Duyvil wreck).

The only reason I don't say I'm certain is that the last time I read an NTSB report on a rail accident wasn't all that recent). No one mentioned statistics but you. Again, I suspect this is the same sort of stuff people said about seatbelts in cars. "You can't tell me what to do!" even if that thing is save yourself in an otherwise non-fatal accident.
|=| R. Novosielski |=|
User avatar
ryanov
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Newark, NJ

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby Tadman » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:11 am

ryanov wrote: No one mentioned statistics but you.


Exactly. Statistics are how we make intelligent decisions. Emotions aren't. I'm trying to cut to the core of an issue and explain why the proposed solution is a bad idea.

If we are worried about deaths caused by trains, let's look at the numbers. Where are the problems?
User avatar
Tadman
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby BandA » Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:13 pm

Three-point seat belts should be available on trains. And luggage restraint should be studied. If you are travelling 59 or 89 or 120MPH and the train derails and flips over the kinetic forces are strong.

Trains are safer because lane changes are infrequent, and you are paying for a professional driver.

Problems with seat belts are whiplash/broken neck, strangulation of short people, possibly getting trapped.

Seatbelts will be an enormous maintenance headache and hazard to people sitting down and sliding across the seat & getting jabbed in the back with the buckle.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 2581
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby BandA » Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:16 pm

"this is your conductor. The track ahead is rather rough, and there are a couple of bridges that are over 100 years old, so the Engineer has turned on the fasten seat belts sign"
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 2581
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Attention "Experiential Riders"; Now Hear This

Postby Tadman » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:40 pm

BandA wrote:Three-point seat belts should be available on trains. And luggage restraint should be studied. If you are travelling 59 or 89 or 120MPH and the train derails and flips over the kinetic forces are strong.


That statement is absolutely true, but the frequency of that occurring is just so small and the cost so large. Whatever money you can imagine spending on train seatbelts should be spent on grade crossing intrusion measures, trespasser prevention, etc... where people are frequently killed and maimed and put others lives at risk. Recall how many people died at Metro North's Valhalla incident. Seatbelts wouldn't have saved them, and perhaps more would've been killed due to entrapment and fire.
User avatar
Tadman
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am

Previous

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mtuandrew and 3 guests