Seattlest: Amtrak Fatality Makes News Everywhere But on Train

bpm2000

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:13:07 -0800

and your attitude reminds me of some internet warrior who clearly doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about, but whos to say what right?

alpo777

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:31:46 -0800

bpm2000, the unluckiness of your being delayed for a couple of hours of your life pales in comparison to having it snuffed out as violently as this girl's was. Your attitude brings to mind an incident a few years ago when a group of "ladies" complained to the Victoria Clipper management about how the captain made them late for a lunch reservation when he stopped to rescue some people whose boat was sinking.

RonfromBeaconHill

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:06:13 -0800

Michael the perpetually angry guy, always looking for the injustices in the world. Keep up the good work, dude. *sigh*

Michael van Baker

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:55:57 -0800

Railing against rail, Ron? A pun? *sigh*

RonfromBeaconHill

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:45:08 -0800

Also, regarding Amtrak and what they should say to passengers, or not say to passengers, after an accident - perhaps they could give out a small amount of information and they could stand to have a better policy in such matters. But really, it's not a big deal MIchael, and I would think you can find many, many more important matters to rail against in this space.

RonfromBeaconHill

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:30:18 -0800

Well, I just saw the updated story on the Times website. And police say it does appear the girl was so engrossed in her phone conversation that she did NOT hear the train coming. She lived near the tracks, and crossed there many times, and police speculate she may have become very used to the noise of the train. A shame.

Michael van Baker

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:36:40 -0800

Yeah, once again, Amtrak's default policy is to say nothing at all. The train stops, they may apologize for the mysterious delay, but they don't tend to tell you if there's been a serious accident, they don't tell you it's going to be a while because there's been a serious accident. They say things like, "When we know more we'll tell you," and then an hour or two later they say, "Sorry about the delay, we should be on our way in about 5 minutes." I'm not asking for descriptions of the scene or updates on people's condition. If you read the post, it says "Amtrak, naturally, didn't want to let its passengers know..." That "naturally" means I understand their position. I just think they err on the side of information control. What happens then is people sneak down to the lounge where the conductors' hang out and eavesdrop on walkie-talkie bursts, then hotfoot it back down to their car and spread half-heard rumors.

buddhabrad

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:04:57 -0800

Why would anyone expect Amtrak or any other organization to make an announcement immediately? Likely she was rushed to the hospital, and the official word on her condition wasn't known for at least an hour (even if her condition was readily apparent at the accident scene). After the accident, the train crew should be focused on following the post-accident protocol and getting the train moving again safely. I'm pretty certain the last thing on their mind was calling the hospital to get a condition update. They have a train to run. Also, even if the crew knew the situation, they had no way of communicating the info to the in-train crew. They communicate via walkie-talkie, and do you want the conductor standing next to your 5-year-old when the engineer comes over the air saying "Yeah, she's dead. Nearly tore her head off. Blood everywhere...." Not likely. And imagine the screaming here if the crew told the passengers that the girl had died, and somehow she lived.

bpm2000

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:44:27 -0800

as a person (un)lucky enough to have been on an Amtrak when it struck and killed someone before - (yup, Seattle->Portland) I can attest to the fact that they don't tell you much of anything for the first couple hours. Expect to be delayed 2-4 hours at least - and go directly to the bar and buy as much beer/wine as you care to pass the time because when the train stops like that it runs dry QUICK.

bigyaz

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:28:55 -0800

Cell phones aside, quite a few people are killed every year on train tracks. Depending on wind, the direction of the train, bends in the track, etc., it isn't as unlikely as you might think not to hear the train coming. The distraction of talking on the phone just adds to that. Michael, I think you're the one reaching to place blame here. The headline is pretty straightforward, and highlights the most telling detail of the story -- which is what a headline should do. As for Amtrak, it's pretty naive to think they're going to walk up and down the aisles proclaiming, "Sorry, we just flattened a 17-year-old girl; sorry for the inconvenience."

RonfromBeaconHill

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:59:57 -0800

As long as you're not driving a car Jeremy, we'll all be okay here.

Jeremy M. Barker

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:55:59 -0800

I swore off Amtrak a couple years ago in the winter. I love taking the train, and am looking forward to using the train in Europe this October, where it's actually efficient. But the west coast Amtrak lines are always (a) late at best due to snows in Northern California; (b) delayed by allowing non-passenger trains right-of-way (which I think may be against the law); and (c) frequently don't show at all, leading to my having to ride a bus back to Seattle last time I tried using the train. So I can only imagine how pissed people must have been, assuming this was just another instance of the same old crap when it came to riding Amtrak, only to feel doubly-guilty when it turned out there were pieces of a person scattered all over the place.

RonfromBeaconHill

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:35:47 -0800

hahaha; That's a great headline, Clint!

Clint

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:30:37 -0800

Cell phone kills girl, 17, who was standing on train tracks.

Michael van Baker

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:09:51 -0800

Ron - the assumption is that she was talking on the phone and didn't hear the train. So they're blaming the phone. I'm sure if she'd been wearing an iPod, that'd be in the headline, too. But actually no one really knows why she didn't get out of the way. The phone hasn't been invented that's louder than a train whistle. So I would argue that it's not worth pulling out in the headline. As Jeremy says, you do want to know what's going on. A "serious accident" might be message enough. But as I heard it, it was one of those situations where you didn't know why you'd stopped or how long it was going to take. On a train, that's always especially frustrating, though it wouldn't be if (as in this case) you knew there were far more important things going on.

Jeremy M. Barker

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:52:30 -0800

I think it's one of those things, Ron--there's a good reason for not telling people about events like that, but at the same time, everyone would want to know.

RonfromBeaconHill

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:49:20 -0800

Michael, I'm a little confused by your post. Firstly by your line labeling The Seattle Times blame-placers. Who exactly are they blaming by that headline? Seems to me their headline was factual. And one can read into it that the train was at fault, or the girl herself was at fault. Secondly, do you really fault Amtrak for not informing passengers, right there on the spot, minutes after the train killed the girl? That serves no purpose, imho. It would just make people feel terrible.

Jeremy M. Barker

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:48:59 -0800

That is so weird. How could you not hear the train coming?

Michael van Baker

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:35:03 -0800

Just to preempt any wiseacres, "If this ever happens to you" refers to being stuck on a train wondering what's going on, not being run over by one.