Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  by DutchRailnut
 
you mean the Danger High voltage 12.5Kv signs on each and every catenary pole are not sufficient ??
  by Travelsonic
 
DutchRailnut wrote:you mean the Danger High voltage 12.5Kv signs on each and every catenary pole are not sufficient ??
There is a point where no more can be done, and people must exercise common sense... then again, common sense isn't that common it seems. Look at some of the lawsuits of the last 8 years [in general, not specific to railroads], some of them are just plain stupid. >_<]
  by joseph
 
i was tongue in cheek when suggesting he could sue the company,but then it is not that far fetched an idea. people get drunk on the subway,fall to the tracks and then sue MTA NYC TRANSIT and win. common sense is now a rare virtue today. people are no longer responsible for their mistakes, it is always the fault of some other party. as for myself,the company was more to blame but i take some responsibility for that incident so long ago.
  by Otto Vondrak
 
railaw wrote:I didn't know that death, or near-death is the "deserved" result of theft, assuming that's what was going on. The lack of compassion routinely displayed on this board for those injured or killed in rail-related events (caused by their own actions or otherwise) staggers me.
I have no compassion for anyone who goes out to intentionally injure themselves or cause harm to others. This was clearly not an "accident." Touch the wires, get fried. Seems like a forgone conclusion to me.

I think we've run the course on this thread, though...
  by HBLR
 
I agree, sad as it may be to see such events, everyone knows what overhead lines carry (electrical current), and it is no one's fault but their own if they ignore the self preservation instinct.
  by Clean Cab
 
No one really wants to see anyone get hurt, but one has to wonder what this guy was thinking?
  by Otto Vondrak
 
DanD3815 wrote:The correct term is SHOCKED. Electrocuted is used when the victim is dead.

I thought the same thing:

electrocute |iˈlektrəˌkyoōt|
verb [ trans. ] (often be electrocuted)
injure or kill someone by electric shock : a man was electrocuted when he switched on the Christmas tree lights.
  by HBLR
 
Electrocute is the technical terminology. Shock is more a vernacular. For example "i got a good shock from that" would likely be heard vs "i was slightly electrocuted by that" in a general social setting. Maybe on a jobsite you'd use electrocute, because shock also means other things.