Passenger Trains > Caltrain #227 kills pedestrian in San Jose

This is the scene at the Skway crossing.    There are several schools in the area (my wife works at one of them)..  No word on the age of the pedestrian. 

UPDATE:    Caltrain is now reporting is causalty is a woman trespasser.    As always, our thoughts are toward the crews.  



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/19 11:39 by KMiddlebrook.

---

Many operating crew members have spoken eloquently of the trauma of being involved in these type of collisions. And of their increased horror when accused later of “killing” someone.  Would you be open to hearing this?

A more neutral tern is “trespasser strike” -   which serves to educate that trespassing can have tragic consequences. 


Nickatnight

 

nickatnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many operating crew members have spoken eloquently
> of the trauma of being involved in these type of
> collisions. And of their increased horror when
> accused later of “killing” someone.  Would
> you be open to hearing this?
>
> A more neutral tern is “trespasser strike” -
>   which serves to educate that trespassing can
> have tragic consequences. 
>
>
> Nickatnight
>
>  


"Caltrain #227 kills pedestrian in San Jose" is the perfect title. Succinct, accurate.

Because that's what happened.

“trespasser strike” is a fuzzy virtue signaling. Words have meanings.

There's nothing stopping you from starting a fresh, more sensitive thread with “trespasser strike” as in the title.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/19 15:13 by Duna.

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because that's what happened.

How do you know what happened? Pedestrians cross tracks at marked and protected crossings and heed their warnings. But, did the crossing warning devices function as designed? If not, yeah, pedestrian. If so, and they ignored them, which is how these usually go down, trespasser. All I know is that I see gates and lights in the picture, although that doesn't necessarily tell the entire story. If they were not at a marked pedestrain crossing, trespasser. Using terms that make you sound like an apologist for trespassers serves nobody. I'll reserve my judgement on this until the facts come out because, frankly, we don't yet know what happened. Either way though, condolences to the crew.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because that's what happened.
>
> How do you know what happened? Pedestrians cross
> tracks at marked and protected crossings and heed
> their warnings. But, did the crossing warning
> devices function as designed? If not, yeah,
> pedestrian. If so, and they ignored them, which is
> how these usually go down, trespasser. All I know
> is that I see gates and lights in the picture,
> although that doesn't necessarily tell the entire
> story. If they were not at a marked pedestrain
> crossing, trespasser. Using terms that make you
> sound like an apologist for trespassers serves
> nobody. I'll reserve my judgement on this until
> the facts come out because, frankly, we don't yet
> know what happened. Either way though, condolences
> to the crew.



A pedestrian is a person walking. Their purpose, legal standing, place in space, etc doesn't change that.

It's not complicated.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedestrian

Tresspasser is a subset of the universe of pedestrians. That is, if they are walking.

Title is fine becuause it's true.


 

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because that's what happened.
>
> How do you know what happened? Pedestrians cross
> tracks at marked and protected crossings and heed
> their warnings. But, did the crossing warning
> devices function as designed? If not, yeah,
> pedestrian. If so, and they ignored them, which is
> how these usually go down, trespasser. All I know
> is that I see gates and lights in the picture,
> although that doesn't necessarily tell the entire
> story. If they were not at a marked pedestrain
> crossing, trespasser. Using terms that make you
> sound like an apologist for trespassers serves
> nobody. I'll reserve my judgement on this until
> the facts come out because, frankly, we don't yet
> know what happened. Either way though, condolences
> to the crew.

Caltain is now reporting it was a woman trespasser.     Should I now change my intiitial title of this thread?

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A pedestrian is a person walking. Their purpose,
> legal standing, place in space, etc doesn't change
> that.

It most certainly does in the railroad world. Anyone walking around on railroad property that is not authorized to be there is a trespasser. People crossing tracks at authorized locations are pedestrians. We don't report pedestrians, but we do report trespassers, and they are usually the ones who get clocked by trains. Context is everything. Calling a trespasser a pedestrain may be technically true, but it is incomplete. How about trespassing pedestrian? Happy now? 

nickatnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many operating crew members have spoken eloquently
> of the trauma of being involved in these type of
> collisions. And of their increased horror when
> accused later of “killing” someone.  Would
> you be open to hearing this?
>
> A more neutral tern is “trespasser strike” -
>   which serves to educate that trespassing can
> have tragic consequences. 
>
>
> Nickatnight

I'm an operating crewmember, I don't mind "Killed" as long as it's used appropriately.  I would prefer the term "trespasser" over "pedestrian" though, because if they're somewhere where they can be hit by a train, then they're trespassing, and that distinction NEEDS to be made to help educate people.  I feel that once they trespass they are no longer just a pedestrian, but a lawbreaker.  "Trespasser killed by train" clarifies that they were in the wrong when they were struck.

Now, my first ever trespasser strike one news outlet claimed my train had "mowed down" the "pedestrian", "crushing them to death"...  THAT'S a little uncalled for, and my railroad's legal department made sure they were aware of it.

"Speeding train" is also another media/press abuse of terms. 

OTG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nickatnight Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Many operating crew members have spoken
> eloquently
> > of the trauma of being involved in these type
> of
> > collisions. And of their increased horror when
> > accused later of “killing” someone.  Would
> > you be open to hearing this?
> >
> > A more neutral tern is “trespasser strike”
> -
> >   which serves to educate that trespassing can
> > have tragic consequences. 
> >
> >
> > Nickatnight
>
> I'm an operating crewmember, I don't mind "Killed"
> as long as it's used appropriately.  I would
> prefer the term "trespasser" over "pedestrian"
> though, because if they're somewhere where they
> can be hit by a train, then they're trespassing,
> and that distinction NEEDS to be made to help
> educate people.  I feel that once they trespass
> they are no longer just a pedestrian, but a
> lawbreaker.  "Trespasser killed by train"
> clarifies that they were in the wrong when they
> were struck.
>
> Now, my first ever trespasser strike one news
> outlet claimed my train had "mowed down" the
> "pedestrian", "crushing them to death"...  THAT'S
> a little uncalled for, and my railroad's legal
> department made sure they were aware of it.



When I was a RR operationg officer, I would have written this up as "pedestrian" because it was someone on foot. "Trespasser" would have been in the narrative if it was known at the time that the pedestrian (aka person walking) was indeed trespasser. The fact that it was a person walking vs. driving, whatever, is more important than the LEGAL CONCEPT of "trespasser".

"Trespassing" is a status for legalman to determine sometime after the initial report of the pedestrian being hit.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Speeding train" is also another media/press abuse
> of terms. 



Unless the train is actually speeding.

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I was a RR operationg officer, I would have
> written this up as "pedestrian" because it was
> someone on foot.

Fair enough but times have changed. Interchanging the term "pedestrian" with "trespssser" has done a disservice to the railroads and their attempts to keep people from getting killed along the ROW. Calling them trespassers, when it's appropriate, and it usually is, places the liability for their actions on them. Calling them pedestrians automatically places the liability on the railroad, at least in the eyes of the public, which, let's face it, is mostly mouth-breathers these days.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When I was a RR operationg officer, I would
> have
> > written this up as "pedestrian" because it was
> > someone on foot.
>
> Fair enough but times have changed. Interchanging
> the term "pedestrian" with "trespssser" has done a
> disservice to the railroads and their attempts to
> keep people from getting killed along the ROW.
> Calling them trespassers, when it's appropriate,
> and it usually is, places the liability for their
> actions on them. Calling them pedestrians
> automatically places the liability on the
> railroad, at least in the eyes of the public,
> which, let's face it, is mostly mouth-breathers
> these days.



I agree with two caveats:
1) If the OP was certain the pedestrian was a trespasser. You even used the word "usually". (This one probably was too, but I'm not certain. Haven't followed up. It doesn't matter)
2) My comment applied only to this thread, not to "real world" media. Which frequently (usually?) goofs stories pertaining to railroads.

I agree with Duna. I myself am a nobody but I figure this much....
I would likely say there is a 99% chance that the deceased was 100% in the wrong. How’s that for the math?
The terminology is merely in the eye of the reader. No matter if I said my sister passed away or she died or she blew her brains out or she committed suicide or she overdosed or the flu did her in or she was ran over by a train.....
Bottom line is dead = dead and that tends to be kinda final.

Posted from iPhone

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nickatnight Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Many operating crew members have spoken
> eloquently
> > of the trauma of being involved in these type
> of
> > collisions. And of their increased horror when
> > accused later of “killing” someone.  Would
> > you be open to hearing this?
> >
> > A more neutral tern is “trespasser strike”
> -
> >   which serves to educate that trespassing can
> > have tragic consequences. 
> >
> >
> > Nickatnight
> >
> >  
>
>
> "Caltrain #227 kills pedestrian in San Jose" is
> the perfect title. Succinct, accurate.
>
> Because that's what happened. 
>
> “trespasser strike” is a fuzzy virtue
> signaling. Words have meanings.
>
> There's nothing stopping you from starting a
> fresh, more sensitive thread with “trespasser
> strike” as in the title.
>
>  



My point was (and is) that a simple change in wording could both perhaps lessen the trauma of railroad personnel involved AND serve to educate the public about the dangers of railroad trespass.  Seems you’d rather argue instead. And argue for harshness, at that. 

Duna, we do agree on one point, and it is this:     Words have meaning. 


Nickatnight

 

nickatnight Wrote:

>
> My point was (and is) that a simple change in
> wording could both perhaps lessen the trauma of
> railroad personnel involved AND serve to educate
> the public about the dangers of railroad trespass.
>  Seems you’d rather argue instead. And argue
> for harshness, at that. 
>
> Duna, we do agree on one point, and it is this:  
>   Words have meaning. 
>
>
> Nickatnight




You missed where I wrote "My comment applied only to this thread, not to "real world" media."

A post here on Trainorders "traumatizing RR personnel" or "educating the public?  lol, right.

Any railroaders reading this traumatized?  Let's hear from you.

Any public educated?  Let's hear from ya'll too.

Maybe the only one tramatized (and now educated) was you?
 

Unless the person has been convicted of trespassing in court, they are an alleged trespasser.

I would stick with pedestrian, or person. If their gender is known, then man or woman.

Posted from iPhone

And for those without a timetable, #227 is a northbound morning commute train departing at 7:06 AM making all stops from Gilroy to Menlo Park, thereafter running as a limited with 4 more intermediate stops before arriving at San Francisco at 9:29 AM.