11-01-2010, 09:49 PM
Guys --
In my opinion you are barking up the wrong tree here.
The original article (from October 31st) is just fine - it points out that the people struck most likely were trying to spray paint graffiti when they were struck by the train. No attempt whatsoever to make the claim that they were hit by no fault of their own, or to suggest that they were on the tracks for some legal and innocent reason when struck.
Also, it does *not* try to define the problem as the train being too quiet. The police constable interviewed points out that they people struck had been in a place where it was not smart to be, as local conditions at the place make it even harder than usual to hear an approaching train. No suggestion I was able to discern that the railroad was to blame for that.
On the other hand, in the followup article (from November 1st) there are things it would be possible to take issue with. Even though it briefly mentions trauma to railroad crews, it spends far too much (in my opinion) time on stuff like describing the vandals as "graffiti artists", talking about a tribute to one of them on YouTube, where in town you can see his "tags", and gives attention to a some "graffiti festival founder" who apparently feels that it is okay for "experienced" teenager vandals to trespass onto the railroad tracks to spray graffiti as long as they put a person on lookout duty to warn the others about approaching danger.
But nowhere in either of these two articles was it suggested that VIA rail was to blame for their trains being too quiet, or that these people were struck through no fault of their own. It was clear from the start that the people struck were trespassing, and that they had put themselves in a dangerous spot. Editorializing about how NIMBYs want quiet zones, and then blames the railroad for being too quiet seems somewhat overblown in this case.
Stein
In my opinion you are barking up the wrong tree here.
The original article (from October 31st) is just fine - it points out that the people struck most likely were trying to spray paint graffiti when they were struck by the train. No attempt whatsoever to make the claim that they were hit by no fault of their own, or to suggest that they were on the tracks for some legal and innocent reason when struck.
Also, it does *not* try to define the problem as the train being too quiet. The police constable interviewed points out that they people struck had been in a place where it was not smart to be, as local conditions at the place make it even harder than usual to hear an approaching train. No suggestion I was able to discern that the railroad was to blame for that.
On the other hand, in the followup article (from November 1st) there are things it would be possible to take issue with. Even though it briefly mentions trauma to railroad crews, it spends far too much (in my opinion) time on stuff like describing the vandals as "graffiti artists", talking about a tribute to one of them on YouTube, where in town you can see his "tags", and gives attention to a some "graffiti festival founder" who apparently feels that it is okay for "experienced" teenager vandals to trespass onto the railroad tracks to spray graffiti as long as they put a person on lookout duty to warn the others about approaching danger.
But nowhere in either of these two articles was it suggested that VIA rail was to blame for their trains being too quiet, or that these people were struck through no fault of their own. It was clear from the start that the people struck were trespassing, and that they had put themselves in a dangerous spot. Editorializing about how NIMBYs want quiet zones, and then blames the railroad for being too quiet seems somewhat overblown in this case.
Stein