# AMTRAK throws 15 year old from the train



## EMDF9A (Apr 5, 2012)

The NBC affilliate in Seattle, KINGTV, is reporting that an Olympia family is taking AMTRAK to court because their 15 year old daughter was put off a southbound AMTRAK Cascades train in Centralia, 80 miles short of her Portland destination because the AMTRAK conductor determined that she was too young to travel unaccompanied. The girl was part of a group of three teenage girls travelling to Portland. The other two girls were 16, and were not asked to leave the train, but chose to, so as not to leave the 15 year old alone.

Inaddition, the conductor did not turn the 15 yrea old over to the agent in Centralia. When the girls approached th agent they were told that he was going off duty in less than thirty minutes and didnt have time to deal with them.

The girls walked to a restaurant in Centralia where they phoned the 15 year old's parents and waited three hours until the parents could drive down and pick them up.


----------



## Steel City Don (Apr 5, 2012)

Interesting


----------



## chrsjrcj (Apr 5, 2012)

Glad to see Amtrak improving customer relations.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 5, 2012)

Here's a direct link to the story:

KING Seattle


----------



## guest (Apr 5, 2012)

You just gotta hope that there is another side to this story that isn't being told, as if often the case with sensational media stories like that, especially electronic media.

However, if the substance of the story is true, the conductor and even more the station agent should lose their jobs, or at least lose a big chunk of pay through a lengthy suspension!

But let's hope there are more facts to come out that get Amtrak out of a BIG public relations hole at the moment!!


----------



## Texan Eagle (Apr 5, 2012)

Every such story reported in the media has three sides- the passenger's side, the Amtrak's side and the truth.

That being said, I don't find it completely implausible that such a thing could have happened. The behavior described is not unheard of from Amtrak staff.

Edit: Just saw the video. Obviously they have over-dramatized and over-sensationalized the story, again, not something unheard of from the great media these days.


----------



## Acela150 (Apr 5, 2012)

This will be interesting to see in court.. hboy:


----------



## sechs (Apr 5, 2012)

If it bleeds, it leads. That's why the title of this thread is "AMTRAK throws 15 year old from the train," even though nobody was thrown from anywhere.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 5, 2012)

sechs said:


> If it bleeds, it leads. That's why the title of this thread is "AMTRAK throws 15 year old from the train," even though nobody was thrown from anywhere.



As opposed to "PARENTS put minor child on Amtrak train, without following the rules and/or Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor policy."


----------



## Texan Eagle (Apr 6, 2012)

EB_OBS said:


> As opposed to "PARENTS put minor child on Amtrak train, without following the rules and/or Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor policy."


To be frank, if I am a parent booking ticket for a 15-16 year old teenager for a short intercity train ride, it wouldn't even hit me to check the Unaccompanied *Minors* policy. I mean, come on, is traveling on Amtrak such a big deal that teenagers can't do it on their own? I wouldn't have thought they actually forbid anyone under 16 from traveling alone. I have traveled by trains alone (not on Amtrak though) from when I was as young as 12.

So yeah, in Amtrak;s books they defied a rule, but it isn't a rule that would be *obvious* to a customer. Easy to miss.


----------



## manchacrr (Apr 6, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Here's a direct link to the story:
> 
> KING Seattle


The video in the news story clearly stated that Olympia-Lacey is not a manned station. According to the Unaccompanied Minors page on Amtrak's Website, this is the policy for a 15-year-old to travel without an adult:



> Children 13, 14 and 15 years old may travel unaccompanied in accordance with the Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor Policy, which includes the following conditions:
> 
> Both boarding and arrival stations must be staffed.
> 
> ...


Also on Amtrak's site:



> If a group of children are traveling, and some are 16-17, some are 13-15, and some are under 13:
> 
> The 16-17 year olds may travel without restriction.
> 
> The 13-15 year olds must travel as unaccompanied minors because no one is 18 or over. The Unaccompanied Minor Policy applies.


----------



## jebr (Apr 6, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> EB_OBS said:
> 
> 
> > As opposed to "PARENTS put minor child on Amtrak train, without following the rules and/or Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor policy."
> ...


Frankly, if I was traveling on any intercity transit as a minor, I would check to make sure that the policy would allow me.

Heck, they ask for the name on the ticket. You would think that someone would also look at ID requirements, and may think to check the unaccompanied minor rule.

As an aside, maybe Amtrak needs to create two sets of policies: one for LD trains (is the Cascades considered LD?) and one for NER/corridor trains, which would be less restrictive.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 6, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> EB_OBS said:
> 
> 
> > As opposed to "PARENTS put minor child on Amtrak train, without following the rules and/or Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor policy."
> ...



I'm sorry, but in today's overly PC, litigation happy times, and with all the psychopaths and perverts everywhere I can't believe any parent would put their 15 year old girl on a train full of strangers without making any effort to contact Amtrak or at the very minimum the conductor on the platform when boarding the train.

You can't leave a dog locked in a car nowadays without someone likely to call the Humane Society and PETA on you, let alone a child. At what point are people responsible for their own actions?

The parents are outraged that Amtrak put their precious daughter off in the middle of nowhere, which isn't the case, yet it seems they had very little problem putting her on the train unaccompanied but for two also minor girls.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 6, 2012)

When one goes to the Amtrak website to book, as soon as you select "child" to add the quantity of children traveling, a note directly under the drop down pops up and says "Children and infants must travel with an adult who is at least 18 years or older."

One does not have to go looking for Amtrak's official policies buried elsewhere on the site. One only needs to open one's eyes and read!


----------



## jebr (Apr 6, 2012)

AlanB said:


> When one goes to the Amtrak website to book, as soon as you select "child" to add the quantity of children traveling, a note directly under the drop down pops up and says "Children and infants must travel with an adult who is at least 18 years or older."
> 
> One does not have to go looking for Amtrak's official policies buried elsewhere on the site. One only needs to open one's eyes and read!


Playing devil's advocate: what if her parents simply booked her as an "adult" fare? There's numerous places that cut the definition for "child", especially for discounted fares, at age 12. Heck, even Amtrak's children's menu is only available to those 12 and under!

Still doesn't excuse the parents, but it may not be quite that simple.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 6, 2012)

jebr said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > When one goes to the Amtrak website to book, as soon as you select "child" to add the quantity of children traveling, a note directly under the drop down pops up and says "Children and infants must travel with an adult who is at least 18 years or older."
> ...


Amtrak provides the age range right under the words Adult & Child. So again, one need only read what's right there on the page right at the very spot where one is selecting how many people of what type age group are traveling.

There are many things that Amtrak doesn't properly warn people about, like for example special sale tickets that aren't refundable. But IMHO this is one case where there is plenty of warning & guidance. The parents were simply not paying attention or hoped that she wouldn't get caught.


----------



## The Commissioner (Apr 6, 2012)

The girl was already on the train and according to the article behaving herself. What was the harm in letting her continue to the destination? I can see the conductor booting someone with out a ticket, but come on. Wasn't the girl in more danger by being kicked off at a strange station far from home than letting her off at her destination? Where is the common sense?

BTW, my first unaccompanied train trip was from Paoli to Harrisburg and back on the PRR. When I was in the third grade. And there were several more unaccompanied trips even into NYP before I ever entered high school. As you can see, I lived to tell about it.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 6, 2012)

The Commissioner said:


> Wasn't the girl in more danger by being kicked off at a strange station far from home than letting her off at her destination?


Olympia, Washington to Centralia, Washington is a 28 minute drive according to Google Maps.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 6, 2012)

AlanB said:


> The parents were simply not paying attention or hoped that she wouldn't get caught.


My thoughts exactly. In all likelihood the parents knew full well she wasn't old enough to travel unaccompanied and decided to skirt the rule by purchasing the adult fare.

This is just my personal opinion and thoughts by the way. I know nothing about this occurrence or it's outcome. The first I learned about it was reading the forum tonight.


----------



## Dan O (Apr 6, 2012)

> My thoughts exactly. In all likelihood the parents knew full well she wasn't old enough to travel unaccompanied and decided to skirt the rule by purchasing the adult fare.


Oh, I was thinking the opposite. They wanted the half fare so bought her the kid's ticket. If she said she's 16, she underpaid for the ticket. If she's under 16, she wasn't supposed to be traveling w/o someone over 18.

It is obvious if you try to buy a kid's ticket that the kid can't travel alone.

Looks like she was thrown off at the first station she could be. It's only a 20-30 min trip on Amtrak so I guess trying to gather sympathy by saying it took 3 hrs to go get her.


----------



## NorthCoastHiawatha (Apr 6, 2012)

manchacrr said:


> The video in the news story clearly stated that Olympia-Lacey is not a manned station. According to the Unaccompanied Minors page on Amtrak's Website, this is the policy for a 15-year-old to travel without an adult:


A little off topic but here in en lies the major problem I have with the Olympia-Lacey station (my home station) its manned by volunteers, in that there are always 2 or 3 volunteers at the station to meet each train. So technically speaking its manned or at least attended but Amtrak was never really very supportive of the program. With OLW seeing nearly 58,000 passengers a year, its the 5th busiest station in the state I don't see why it couldn't be manned. The other station mentioned in the article is the 12th in the state in terms of ridership. What really is the deciding factor on whether a station is manned or not?

http://crosscut.com/2012/02/22/transportation/21985/Amtrak-finds-it-hard-to-take-citizens--help%2C-even-when-they-build-a-station/


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 6, 2012)

If you (as a company) make the mistake of selling her the ticket and letting her on the train, despite a policy that you put in place allegedly out of a concern for the safety of minors, then let her get where she is going. To do otherwise is to threaten the safety of precisely the population you say you are trying to protect.

The Conductor could have stopped her on the platform if he was worried: instead, he let her settle into her seat, the train started rolling, and then he decided to ask her her age. Bit late (yeah, I know, maybe he didn't see her amongst the throngs boarding in Olympia). At that point, any real concern for safety dictates you get her to Portland (where she was being met at the train by adults, the parents of one of the other girls). With apologies to Letterman, this is another "stupid OBS trick." Put the wrong guy in a uniform, and he not only thinks he's God, but wants to prove it.

Further (and very much on a different-but-related topic), Amtrak's rule on this is unnecessarily restrictive. Most 15-year olds (and certainly as many 15 year old females as 20 year old males) are perfectly capable of traveling on their own on a train. Children take trains to school around the world (and in many places in the US). My first overnight solo trip on a train was when I was 10 (NY to Chicago), and by the time I was 14 I had made twenty or more, some in foreign countries: Canada and England). No, my parents were not irresponsible (or at least, they did not see themselves that way, and neither did / do I). They were very present, caring, and safety conscious, throughout my youth, to the point of actually moving to a statistically safe zip code before they had children.

Having a parent sign a release for a non-routine (intercity) trip seems reasonable enough, especially in a litigious society. But a silly rule will never be respected (think of pedestrian traffic lights on empty streets). Amtrak is asking for trouble on this one, and they are going to get it, as here. But defending court suits that should not have to happen, spurrious or not, is not a good use of her tax dollars, even if you win every one.

When the UM policy was updated a year or two ago (and age restrictions significantly raised), several of my friends groaned loudly and went back to putting their children on planes and buses, or to driving them. If we look at highway accident statistics, exactly how do we think that that has worked out for the safety of the children in question?

Finally, yet a third different-but-related topic, regarding the 3-hours-to-pick-up: the mother who had put the children on the train was at work, in a meeting with her cell phone off (understandable: my cell phone is off when I am in meetings, too). By the time she organized with the father to have the children picked up, 3 hours had elapsed. I don't find that surprising: once my kids are on the train, I figure they are safe. Silly me. Sigh.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 6, 2012)

Though I haven't ridden a train overnight until well into adulthood, as a child I rode solo on the train countless times when I was as young as 12.

At my school, there were kindergartners riding the train solo back and forth to school. Though statistically a much safer country, it isn't without problems.

As for this story, I saw no intent of anyone wanting to sue Amtrak. Conductor was wrong to put a kid off the train, even if they were in violation of the rules. At least it wasn't at a grade crossing into the hands of local police! The only sensationalism I saw in the story was that they were put off 80 miles from their destination rather than 15 miles or so from home. Parents should have initiated the ride from the closest staffed station. Amtrak should allow UM to be initiated at volunteer-staffed stations. Again, as far as the parents go, ignorance of the rule isn't a defense to break it.


----------



## jmbgeg (Apr 6, 2012)

EMDF9A said:


> The NBC affilliate in Seattle, KINGTV, is reporting that an Olympia family is taking AMTRAK to court because their 15 year old daughter was put off a southbound AMTRAK Cascades train in Centralia, 80 miles short of her Portland destination because the AMTRAK conductor determined that she was too young to travel unaccompanied. The girl was part of a group of three teenage girls travelling to Portland. The other two girls were 16, and were not asked to leave the train, but chose to, so as not to leave the 15 year old alone.
> 
> Inaddition, the conductor did not turn the 15 yrea old over to the agent in Centralia. When the girls approached th agent they were told that he was going off duty in less than thirty minutes and didnt have time to deal with them.
> 
> The girls walked to a restaurant in Centralia where they phoned the 15 year old's parents and waited three hours until the parents could drive down and pick them up.


I am not sure that I read where the girls boarded the train and how long she had been on the train before they put her off. This leads to the question about what caused the conductor to determine that she was an unaccompanied minor mid-trip, as opposed to at ticket collection? The UM policy is aimed at the child's welfare. If the policy is to put an unauthorzied UM off the train, perhaps it should be at the next manned station, to be met by a station agent; and if not, to alert police in advance of arrival at an unmanned station so they can meet the train and call the parents. A few thoughts.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2012)

IMHO the Conductor exhibited poor judgement as a human being, but then again it is entirely possible that Amtrak rules put him between a rock and a hard place. But s/he certainly failed a simple "common sense" test in not properly transferring custody to a responsible adult at the point where the child was removed from the train.

OTOH, the parents were also not exactly right in arranging to place their child on a train contrary to the carrier's policies.

Unfortunately, on the whole, Amtrak comes out looking worse than any airline in this case, partly because of their operating circumstances and partly due to apparent lack of common sense of their employee.

I find it hard to see any logic in dropping off a minor short of the destination and seems to to go against the whole purpose of the UM rule. Specially on the Cascade Corridor where tickets are collected before boarding is allowed, it is kind of lame for the conductor to claim that s/he didn't know when the boarding took place. Yes I know they could have been tricked, but when processes are supposedly enforced to ensure that all tickets are collected prior to boarding, then the responsibility after that rests with the official supposedly running said process.

No matter how it came to pass, on the whole it was a public relations fiasco that is best avoided if possible.

Lets just say that Amtrak did not cover itself with glory on this one and note that they have offered to make reasonable restitution. Thank the stars that nothing bad happened to the kid, and let's leave it at that, hoping that Amtrak does not repeat this performance.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Apr 6, 2012)

In reading thru this, I agree there are two very basic questions to which I would want to know the answers before drawing any conclusion,

Did the 15 yo have a child's ticket or an adult's ticket?

What was the 15 yo possibly doing, that drew the attention of the conductor? My thinking is that something happened, the conductor might have asked "where's your parents?", and the answer led to the conductor's actions.


----------



## benjibear (Apr 6, 2012)

It appears that Centralia is the next station after they boarded in Olympia. The conductor likely asked their ages as he was collecting tickets. It probably has no relavance if they were child or adult tickets.

The parents were wrong to let her ride alone and not read the rules. However, at that point, even though they were in violation of the rules, Amtrak essentially had custody of the underaged girl and she was in their care. Where Amtrak went wrong, weather they put her off the train or allowed her to stay, Amtrak needed to oversee the girl and make sure se remains safe until they could pass off custody. This should only be to the actual parents of the girl or some other authority such as the police that would ensure she gets safely back to the parents. Amtrak should have imediatly contacted the girls mother or father to discuss the options on how they will transfer her back into her parents care.

While nothing in the artilce mentions anything about a lawsuit, I bet many lawyers saw this story and are probably in conatct with all the girls families to take a case. Amtrak knows this so they don't want to admit any fault that could come back and bite them in court. At this point they are saying they only want an apology but as soon as Amtrak apologize and admit fault, the family(ies) will then try to get money. This is the world we live in.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

Sounds like both the parents and the station agent screwed up. The conductor did what they had to do, but the station agent sounds like pure laziness. It should be the policy that non-registered unaccompanied minors should be kicked off at either the first staffed station and turn them over to the station agent or anywhere else and turned over to the police.

The policy posted somewhere above is a bit OCD in my book so it sound like Amtrak is trying to cover all the bases and not get sued, but for people trying to circumvent it they just treat them like they are adults without valid tickets and that is wrong in my book. Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't just kick a child to the curb and say good luck.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Apr 6, 2012)

Glad I traveled UM the last few times to LA!


----------



## AKA (Apr 6, 2012)

EB_OBS said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > EB_OBS said:
> ...



At what point do people become responsible ? At all points. At every point. Does anyone think this idea might take hold ?


----------



## RRrich (Apr 6, 2012)

As I read this thread I am trying to remember when I started riding the New York Subways as a UM. I also wonder what their policies about UM are


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 6, 2012)

Without having all of the facts it is difficult to judge what this incident is all about. Was the 15 year old really 16 and traveling on a child's ticket or was she in fact 15 yrs old and rode in violation of the rules. Regardless this appears to be a case of bad judgement by a conductor. He should have phoned in a complaint to corporate and asked how the problem should be handled. Responsible people don't leave children off at a station in the middle of a trip. I say that the family has a chance of winning the lawsuit.


----------



## benjibear (Apr 6, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> Without having all of the facts it is difficult to judge what this incident is all about. Was the 15 year old really 16 and traveling on a child's ticket or was she in fact 15 yrs old and rode in violation of the rules. Regardless this appears to be a case of bad judgement by a conductor. He should have phoned in a complaint to corporate and asked how the problem should be handled. Responsible people don't leave children off at a station in the middle of a trip. I say that the family has a chance of winning the lawsuit.





What is the point of a lawsuit? To pay for damages incurred? Sounds like there is not much expensis that were incurred by the family. To get rich quick? That is just wrong.


----------



## RampWidget (Apr 6, 2012)

The Commissioner said:


> The girl was already on the train and according to the article behaving herself. What was the harm in letting her continue to the destination? I can see the conductor booting someone with out a ticket, but come on. Wasn't the girl in more danger by being kicked off at a strange station far from home than letting her off at her destination? Where is the common sense?
> 
> BTW, my first unaccompanied train trip was from Paoli to Harrisburg and back on the PRR. When I was in the third grade. And there were several more unaccompanied trips even into NYP before I ever entered high school. As you can see, I lived to tell about it.


It's a changed, litigious era today. Even 20-30 years ago was different, let alone 90 years ago:

From a 1920's era S.A.L. Ry. Rules of the Operating Department - "_Persons of unsound mind, and female passengers at night, must not be ejected except at an open station."_ hboy:


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 6, 2012)

EMDF9A said:


> When the girls approached th agent they were told that he was going off duty in less than thirty minutes and didnt have time to deal with them.


No one is making that claim, actually. Take a listen to the story again. The girls never even approached the station agent. If a teenager is responsible enough

to travel on their own, you'd hope they'd be resourceful enough to contact the nearest person of authority, instead of wandering around town.



Guest said:


> The conductor did what they had to do, but the station agent sounds like pure laziness.


It sounds like you didn't actually listen to the TV story. The station agent was not contacted by the conductor or by the teenagers (who apparently wandered off into town). I'm having a little trouble understanding why this makes the station agent "lazy."



jmbgeg said:


> I am not sure that I read where the girls boarded the train and how long she had been on the train before they put her off. This leads to the question about what caused the conductor to determine that she was an unaccompanied minor mid-trip, as opposed to at ticket collection?





Cho Cho Charlie said:


> What was the 15 yo possibly doing, that drew the attention of the conductor? My thinking is that something happened, the conductor might have asked "where's your parents?", and the answer led to the conductor's actions.


This is actually quite clear if you watch the video report. They got on the train and handed over their tickets. That's what "drew the attention" of the conductor. Shocking, isn't it?


----------



## SubwayNut (Apr 6, 2012)

RRrich said:


> As I read this thread I am trying to remember when I started riding the New York Subways as a UM. I also wonder what their policies about UM are


I was 12 when I began traveling alone on the NYC subway, this was after a UM trip to Syracuse when I was 9 or 10, a trip to Westerly on the Acela Regional when I was 10, on a weekend when its station is unstaffed, remember being put in Buisiness Class so the crew could keep an eye on me. And a few to Vermont when I was 11 (first was when Rutland still had its agent) and 12 (including getting on in Windsor). I also remember taking Metro-North to connecticut when I was 11 (and my mother buying me just a child's ticket). Amtrak's new policy is absolutely ridiculous.

Metro-North's is much more reasonable (and found in all of there timetables, under unaccompanied Children, not minors):





> MTA Metro-North Railroad recommends that children under the age of 8 be accompanied by an adult or a responsible youth (at least 12 years old) when riding its trains. Children age 8 and above may ride alone, but we strongly suggest that they carry identification showing their name, address, home phone number and the name and phone number of the person who will be meeting them. No child should be traveling unaccompanied during late night hours. For further information, please visit our website at www. mta.info.


Greyhounds is 8-14 are okay alone as long as the trip is less than five hours and agencies are open for both arrivals and departures, a $5 fee and the standard UM paperwork at either end. There is this strange note: *Exception: *In accordance with Illinois state law, NO tickets will be sold to unaccompanied minor children under the age of 17 for interstate or intrastate travel from locations within the state of Illinois. Wonder what this is about Metra's policy is no child under 7 alone (that is common sense if you ask me).


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 6, 2012)

There's a difference between a kid riding alone on a local transit system, and riding an intercity passenger train that travels several hundred miles along its journey.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Apr 6, 2012)

It would seem that Amtrak again has demonstrated that it needs further training for its employees. :unsure:

As has been stated, the conductor did not act in the best interest of the minor girls or Amtrak by putting them off by themselves at the Centralia station. At the very least he/she should have notified authorities and allowed the police to determine what to do with the girls until their parents arrived to pick them up. This would have relieved Amtrak of further responsibilities and probably have lessened the impact of this story. Common sense would dictate that this would have been the appropriate course of action. 

Although many would also agree that letting them ride to Portland may also have been a better choice than putting them off the train.??

There may be all kinds of legal points in Amtrak's favor regarding the 15 year old's right to ride the train. But since the conductor did not check the IDs of any of the girls when they boarded, and took their tickets--there was an acceptance of service.

Whether Amtrak is responsible for the girls' welfare under loco-parenti rules will be an issue if legal action is sought.

I would hope that the parents will accept an apology from Amtrak along with their refund of fares as appropriate compensation for this event. We shall see!!


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 6, 2012)

Railroad Bill said:


> But since the conductor did not check the IDs of any of the girls when they boarded, and took their tickets--there was an acceptance of service.


Actually, the conductor didn't "take their ticket," or rather, it was apparently in the process of taking the ticket that the age question was broached.

So, no tacit acceptance of service there.

Secondly, as far as "checking the IDs" when they boarded...do we REALLY want Amtrak to go down that route? Do we REALLY want to require

conductors or station agents to check the ID's of all passengers BEFORE boarding? Think of the impact this would have on time-keeping at

unstaffed stations. Think of how early this would make you have to arrive at staffed stations where literally dozens if not a 100 people or more

board a train at major station stops. No more showing up a few minutes before departure since now you gotta go through an ID check. No

thanks.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 6, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> There's a difference between a kid riding alone on a local transit system, and riding an intercity passenger train that travels several hundred miles along its journey.


With a final destination out of state no less.

Imagine this scenario. Amtrak takes said minor to Portland and parents, unaware their child took the train, raise holy hell and accuse Amtrak of violating their own policy by allowing the 15 year old onto the train and transporting her out of the state.

See how easily Amtrak gets a black eye either way?

What I would have done is called Child Protective Services and handed the child over to them and let them deal with the parents.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 6, 2012)

It's standard practice on the Cascades, and on most trains for that matter, to board the passengers and get moving again quickly. Then the conductors canvas the train to collect tickets and to check IDs if needed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 6, 2012)

Let us not ignore that if the conductor let her stay on into Portland, he could easily be going to jail- at that point the minor is crossing state lines.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Apr 6, 2012)

EB_OBS said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > There's a difference between a kid riding alone on a local transit system, and riding an intercity passenger train that travels several hundred miles along its journey.
> ...


Under normal circumstances, this might be a good idea, but calling the police would be much quicker since there is no guarantee that Child Protective Services would be able to arrive in a reasonable amount of time to avoid undue delays for the train. And if Washington's CPS is anything like here in Ohio, they would ask why you are bothering them on this issue.  As a former high school principal, I can attest that the event must be something producing endangerment to the child before they will act quickly. They would probably have suggested you notify authorities, who may or may not decide to handle it In-house or turn it over to CPS.


----------



## DocJohnB (Apr 6, 2012)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Let us not ignore that if the conductor let her stay on into Portland, he could easily be going to jail- at that point the minor is crossing state lines.


And, exactly what would he be going to jail for? I believe the transporting a minor across state lines issue also includes "for immoral purposes".

I think, pretty much, all involved share in the blame game here.

Certainly the conductor didn't make the wisest of choices . . . . would notifying the local authorities that they would be de-training the minor would have been a much better choice. Holding the train at that location until the authorities arrived would not be an unheard of delay, would it? (Even though I believe he didn't have a choice in the matter . . . . . . just the manner)

The girl and her friends wandering off in an strange environment wasn't the wisest decision, but some would argue that is typical for teens. Apparently she tried unsuccessfully to contact mommy but wasn't able to. Did not the other two girls have parents who could have been notified. Actually should have.

The parents . . . . . ahhh, the parents, let's not forget them. I will leave the purchase of the tickets aside as I don't have a clue how that transaction took place in this case. However, if I read it correctly above, mom turned off her cell phone while she attended a meeting causing the delay in notifying the dad. If it were my kid, my cell-phone would be on vibrate and/or my spouse would have her cell phone available. It would not be the first "important" meeting ever to be interrupted by an emergency.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 6, 2012)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Let us not ignore that if the conductor let her stay on into Portland, he could easily be going to jail- at that point the minor is crossing state lines.


Twelve year olds can travel alone without restriction on American, Southwest, and United. Crossing state lines is not an issue.


----------



## caravanman (Apr 6, 2012)

Hi,

Just as a matter of interest, at what age can youngsters drive a car, or own a gun, in America?

Ed


----------



## benjibear (Apr 6, 2012)

I even suggested calling the police but what do you think their reaction would have been? Why are you bothering us?

I don't know what the mother does, but I have been in meetings where people have had their phones ring and/or vibrate. It is always an emergency and then they get distracted from what the meeting was about. I was in a meeting once that the client told another consultant straight out after his phone vibrated that if something is more important than this project, he was welcome to leave and they would find somebody else to work on the project. Also, many places of work have policies against cell phone use during work and you can't even have one with you.

Twelve may be a little young but by 14, a person should be able to travel alone. Also, I beleive some states have laws where kids can drive as ealy as 14.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 6, 2012)

Railroad Bill said:


> Although many would also agree that letting them ride to Portland may also have been a better choice than putting them off the train.??


Bill,

I would never agree that letting them ride to Portland would have been the correct thing to do. In addition to the following posted by EB_OBS



EB_OBS said:


> Imagine this scenario. Amtrak takes said minor to Portland and parents, unaware their child took the train, raise holy hell and accuse Amtrak of violating their own policy by allowing the 15 year old onto the train and transporting her out of the state.


there is also the consideration that if the parents actually knew what they were doing and deliberately allowed her to travel figuring that no one would notice, now Amtrak has rewarded the parents bad behavior.

So no, I for one believe 100% that the correct course of action was putting them off at the very next station. The area for debate is just how the conductor did that.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 6, 2012)

Let's back up and look at the facts. No laws were broken here. It was Amtraks own policy that dictates that 15 year olds cannot travel unescorted. All the conductor had to do was to conduct a citizens arrest of the 15 year old so that she was held in violation of Amtrak's regulations and in protective custody. If something bad happened to this girl when she was put off of the train Amtrak could be held liable.

As for being banned from the train until age 15; I grew up in Brooklyn, NY and started taking the NYC subway around age 12 and everything was fine. I would go with 4 or 5 friends to New York City or to Coney Island. We didn't have much money back then so the train provided a means to get to all of the free stuff in the city at that time


----------



## MattW (Apr 6, 2012)

caravanman said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just as a matter of interest, at what age can youngsters drive a car, or own a gun, in America?
> 
> Ed


It varies from state to state with some allowing Learner's permits and restricted licenses during year 14, with the earliest full license available at 16 in some places and 18 in others.

Guns are even more complex as there are differences from state to state over the gun being a long gun vs a pistol, conceal carry vs open carry, parental supervision vs. not, hunting vs. not, one's own property vs. other private property vs. in public, but I believe the general rule of thumb is 18 for long guns, and 21 for pistols with most states having exceptions for supervised use on private property.


----------



## fairviewroad (Apr 6, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> As for being banned from the train until age 15;


Amtrak does not "ban" 15 year olds from the train. There is a specific procedure to follow, which the parents ignored either purposefully or by failing to properly

research Amtrak's policies. In this case, the parents could have driven the girls to the next staffed station and had her board there as an unaccompanied minor.

Or, they could have driven her all the way to Portland. Or, they could have hired a taxi. Or, they could have prevented her from going. Lots of options, yet they

chose the one that violated a clearly stated policy.


----------



## IowaGirl (Apr 6, 2012)

> Just as a matter of interest, at what age can youngsters drive a car, or own a gun, in America?


In my state of Iowa, a youth can obtain a learners permit at age 14. After passing the appropriate lessons and driving time, they can obtain a school permit to drive on their own at age 14.5 to school and back to home ONLY. At age 16 they can drive anywhere, with a restriction of only between the hours of 5:30 am and 12:30 am, unless they have a supervising adult with them. At age 17 they have a full license.

Federal gun laws allow the purchase of long guns and ammo to anyone (meeting a background check) over the age of 18. Age 21 for hand guns... This does not mean you have to be this old to use a firearm. My son had his first shotgun at the age of 12 and his first rifle at the age of 15. Technically, I purchased them, but they are his. He is responsible for them, under my supervision. They are kept in a locked gun safe, with the ammo kept in a different gun safe. He is schooled in gun safety and shoots competitively.


----------



## DocJohnB (Apr 6, 2012)

benjibear said:


> I even suggested calling the police but what do you think their reaction would have been? Why are you bothering us?
> 
> I don't know what the mother does, but I have been in meetings where people have had their phones ring and/or vibrate. It is always an emergency and then they get distracted from what the meeting was about. I was in a meeting once that the client told another consultant straight out after his phone vibrated that if something is more important than this project, he was welcome to leave and they would find somebody else to work on the project. Also, many places of work have policies against cell phone use during work and you can't even have one with you.
> 
> Twelve may be a little young but by 14, a person should be able to travel alone. Also, I beleive some states have laws where kids can drive as ealy as 14.


For the sake of argument, I'll give you that mom was unavailable. There were still 3-5 parents who could have been contacted and these young ladies wait would have been lessened.

Too many folks here are giving this girls parents a free ride . . . . . . they don't deserve it for a number of reasons.

I'm sorry Benjibear, 14 is too damn young to be traveling alone as a rule. Too many hustlers, perverts, molesters in today's world. And 14, 15 year olds are not as, as a rule equipped to deal with them. But then of course, if one were to fall into the hands of such a person while riding on Amtrak, unaccompanied, it would be Amtrak's fault, wouldn't it?


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 6, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Railroad Bill said:
> 
> 
> > Although many would also agree that letting them ride to Portland may also have been a better choice than putting them off the train.??
> ...


For the record, these same three girls could have flown anywhere on American, Delta, Southwest, United or US Airways without restriction. Why would any parent assume these same girls would not be permitted to ride a train from Olympia to Portland? Is it remotely possible that Amtrak is the outlier in restricting travel by minors?

Amtrak should have a protocol to deal with what happens if an underage person (by Amtrak's definition) boards a train and is not detected until travel has commenced. Putting the child off at the next station unsupervised is not the answer.


----------



## Michael061282 (Apr 6, 2012)

supposing the worst happen, thank God it didn't but just supposed it had of, can you see the Conductor and the station agent try to explain themselves on the witness stand? "Well your honor, the parents didn't read the fine print rules, so I kicked the minors off the train at a station in the middle of the run, where they didn't know anyone and it would take their parents at least an hour to get to their aid, Clearly it's the parents fault" and "I'm going home to watch the big lumberjack contest on ESPN35. It's not my responsibility in the least! I can't watch or help someone in need.. I'm off the clock!"

Anyway you look at it, by the book or not, this is REALLY bad PR for Amtrak, no two ways about it.


----------



## Michael061282 (Apr 6, 2012)

if 14 is "too damn young to ride the train alone. Too many hustlers, perverts and molesters around" then its sure as hell too damn young to be dropped unattended at a station. as you said.

Is leaving them unattended in an unfamiliar station with no quick way to get out safer then riding the train where at least other passengers, if not the train crew, could stop any funny business that may happen??



DocJohnB said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> > I even suggested calling the police but what do you think their reaction would have been? Why are you bothering us?
> ...


----------



## sechs (Apr 6, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> To be frank, if I am a parent booking ticket for a 15-16 year old teenager for a short intercity train ride, it wouldn't even hit me to check the Unaccompanied *Minors* policy. I mean, come on, is traveling on Amtrak such a big deal that teenagers can't do it on their own? I wouldn't have thought they actually forbid anyone under 16 from traveling alone. I have traveled by trains alone (not on Amtrak though) from when I was as young as 12.


"I'm sending my minor unaccompanied on the train; I won't check for a policy on this." Doesn't seem smart.
I was under the impression that the policy was more about liability than protecting teenage hooligans.


----------



## GG-1 (Apr 6, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Amtrak should have a protocol to deal with what happens if an underage person (by Amtrak's definition) boards a train and is not detected until travel has commenced. Putting the child off at the next station unsupervised is not the answer.


Aloha

This is the best comment I have seen in this thread.


----------



## benjibear (Apr 6, 2012)

By time a person is 14 and in some cases even younger, they are quite capable of taking care of themselves and are quite responsible. There are others that well above this age that are not responsible and have difficulty coping in life. For example my 42 year old sister and her 44 year old husband that call my parents whenever something goes wrong to get told what to do. "Our car has a flat tire and don't know what to do." "I have the diarrhea." On and on and on. Just for the record they are college educated abd my sister is quite smart.

Yes there are hustlers, perverts, and molesters but at some point you need to cut the cord and start giving kids freedoms. You just have to hope and pray that you have taught them how to handle themselves and make informed correct decisions. "How can are children become trustrworthy, if we don't trust them?"


----------



## SubwayNut (Apr 6, 2012)

> For the record, these same three girls could have flown anywhere on American, Delta, Southwest, United or US Airways without restriction. Why would any parent assume these same girls would not be permitted to ride a train from Olympia to Portland? Is it remotely possible that Amtrak is the outlier in restricting travel by minors?


Thank you, Amtrak is the ridiculous outlier here especially with there quite new policy. I for instance took my first cross-country trip on Amtrak at age 16 (and did Europe on a Eurail pass alone, staying in hostels at 17) all with my parents permission of course but I didn't carry any proof of permission. I did plenty of travel at 13, 14, and 15 more regionally (some on Amtrak without any of the paperwork, I can't remember if I was carrying my passport, my one id at the time or not, it definately came on my solo flights). At that time I was also commuting (free of charge with my Student MetroCard) on the NYC subway for 45 minutes alone to and from school. 

I don't understand why crossing state lines makes it such a big deal in everyones opinion: there are plenty of local transit agencies that allow youngsters aboard that cross state lines. Metro-North for instance goes to Connecticut, Metra to Wisconsin. At 15 for instance me and friend took a day trip to Philly (to railfan) via NJ Transit to Trenton and then SEPTA Regional rail. It never occurred to either of us that there would be any policy of any transportation provider preventing us from traveling on a trip like that. I also rode every inch of Metro-North by the time I was 15. 

In terms of flying I remember flying when I was 12 on JetBlue just post 9/11, after aging out of their UM program, I have noticed they have raised it to 14, (and nor did I or my parents feel the need to pay the $50-$100 to be escorted). I remember my Mother taking me to the airport, assuming that the agent wouldn't let her through security (but they offered and issued her a gate pass anyway so she did wait with me) but when I got to Syracuse I do remember walking until the post security area (where my grandparents met me) alone. I do remember my first UM flight was LGA-SYR on USAir(ways) (with all of the paperwork) when I was six and flew alone many more times on that route to see my grandparents. I still remember when the UM fees started towards the end of those days (I think around 2000 on US Airways, I guess you could say they were some of the first airline fees implemented) and my grandfather being furious that it was going to cost him an extra $50-$100 to have me and my brother escorted on and off the plane just one-way back to New York City (a 45 minute flight).


----------



## AlanB (Apr 7, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Railroad Bill said:
> ...


Well I wasn't commenting on whether or not Amtrak's policy made sense. I was simply saying that rewarding the parents by carrying the kids to Portland in violation of the policy did not make sense.



PRR 60 said:


> Amtrak should have a protocol to deal with what happens if an underage person (by Amtrak's definition) boards a train and is not detected until travel has commenced. Putting the child off at the next station unsupervised is not the answer.


I wouldn't argue this at all, and I suspect that Amtrak does have a policy for this. One that I suspect the conductor didn't follow.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 7, 2012)

I find that I must stand with the conductor on this. I woulds even go further to guard him in the lawsuit. The conductor did what he had to do. Anybody could have missed the 15 year old, and if someone discovered her on his train, the conductor would have been fired. As someone said, our conductor was stuck between a roch\k and a hard place. Except that one side had the backing of company policy, the other did not. So he asked the girl to leve the train. The news is trying to get more viewers through legal exaggeration or trying to passively slander Amtrak.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 7, 2012)

I read quite a few comparisons to minors traveling alone on airlines in the thread. It really isn't a comparable environment in my opinion.

On and airliner you have a much smaller space with passengers all seated, in their assigned seats, for most of the flight. You have only a couple of restrooms on the plane and nowhere else to wander to. You can view virtually the entire passenger cabin, and thus every passenger, from anywhere in the aisle. A typical flight is what, three to five hours?

A train consist is a vastly different environment. You have multiple cars with, in some cases, many restrooms. There are plenty of places to wander off, especially on a long distance train. On Superliners you have both upper and lower levels and insecure lower-level baggage areas. You have coach attendants working two cars, manning doors and cleaning restrooms, while upwards of 150 passengers are traveling in their two cars. Unaccompanied minors are allowed to travel from 6am to 9pm. That's 15 hours. You cannot keep an eye on a minor the same as a flight attendant could on an airplane. It's just not the same thing.

I don't know what the airline's policy is. I've never put a child on an airplane or worked for an airline. At what age do you no longer have to inform the carrier that a person is a minor of whatever age?

As to comparing the realities of today to times gone by, i.e. twenty to forty years ago. Well, unfortunately the world is a much scarier place today. Not only the dangers of psychos and perverts but just the sheer speed at which things can happen now. Everything is faster.

I used to ride my bike to the store two miles across town when I was 10 years old. I crossed Route 66 to do so. I certainly would not allow my 10 year old daughter to do the same today. My son either for that matter. It's just not worth the risk to me. They'll grow up fast enough and I'll have to cut the cord, so to speak, eventually, but not today.


----------



## tp49 (Apr 7, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> Let's back up and look at the facts. No laws were broken here. It was Amtraks own policy that dictates that 15 year olds cannot travel unescorted. All the conductor had to do was to conduct a citizens arrest of the 15 year old so that she was held in violation of Amtrak's regulations and in protective custody.


Congratulations, you've now subjected Amtrak to a lawsuit for false arrest...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 7, 2012)

GG-1 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak should have a protocol to deal with what happens if an underage person (by Amtrak's definition) boards a train and is not detected until travel has commenced. Putting the child off at the next station unsupervised is not the answer.
> ...


Agreed.

Either the kids are old enough to take care of themselves, and can thus ride the train without issue, or they're not old enough to take care of themselves and thus cannot be left alone at a station they're not ticketed for. There is no combination of variables I can come up with where putting them off the train is the preferred outcome with the information we currently have available to us. Even the sue-happy legal fear angle doesn't explain how putting them off the train makes anything better for Amtrak.



EB_OBS said:


> Well, unfortunately the world is a much scarier place today.


How do you figure?



EB_OBS said:


> Not only the dangers of psychos and perverts but just the sheer speed at which things can happen now. Everything is faster.


I don't know about everything, but blind hysteria sure seems to be moving at a much faster rate than before.


----------



## caravanman (Apr 7, 2012)

Hi,

I always enjoy a good discussion, and this one seems to have a lot of interesting views in it...

Maybe the child was travelling without the parents knowledge, maybe the full info is not available to us to judge the rights and wrongs...

It seems to me that the Conductor acted to the letter of the (Amtrak) rules, but not with the humanity or spirit of care towards a child that some might expect from a person in authority.

My feeling is that the Amtrak age restriction could be lowered to 14, in the UK a youngster can travel alone by train at age 12.

It could be a good thing to happen, if it publicises Amtrak rules, given that no lasting damage was done?

Ed


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 7, 2012)

caravanman said:


> My feeling is that the Amtrak age restriction could be lowered to 14, in the UK a youngster can travel alone by train at age 12. It could be a good thing to happen, if it publicises Amtrak rules, given that no lasting damage was done?


Are we sure Amtrak actually wants unaccompanied minors to ride their trains? At this point Amtrak's rules already exclude a majority of their published city pairs from UM service because you can't use unstaffed stations or leave too early or arrive too late or ride a bus or connect between two or more trains. I've certainly never seen any sort of advertisement suggesting any parent take Amtrak up on their extremely limited UM service. And then you have yahoos like this conductor who are apparently free to kick your kids off whenever (and wherever) something doesn't add up. Does it sound to you like Amtrak is trying to make their UM setup a practical option for today's parents? Or does it sound like maybe they'd just as soon scrap the program altogether and call it a day?


----------



## jis (Apr 7, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> For the record, these same three girls could have flown anywhere on American, Delta, Southwest, United or US Airways without restriction. Why would any parent assume these same girls would not be permitted to ride a train from Olympia to Portland? Is it remotely possible that Amtrak is the outlier in restricting travel by minors?
> 
> Amtrak should have a protocol to deal with what happens if an underage person (by Amtrak's definition) boards a train and is not detected until travel has commenced. Putting the child off at the next station unsupervised is not the answer.


I agree with your position. All this certainly makes Amtrak harder to use by one of its most natural groups. I think the policy is worth a rethink.


----------



## RampWidget (Apr 7, 2012)

jis said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, these same three girls could have flown anywhere on American, Delta, Southwest, United or US Airways without restriction. Why would any parent assume these same girls would not be permitted to ride a train from Olympia to Portland? Is it remotely possible that Amtrak is the outlier in restricting travel by minors?
> ...


Same here. Unaccompanied Minor policy at various airlines differs, but IIRC all of them are less restrictive than Amtrak's. I think American Airlines' is among the least restrictive, allowing 12-17 year olds to travel without restrictions, although the airline allows them to travel as UM if desired. I find it interesting that some people have criticized Southwest for NOT allowing children 12-17 to be booked as UM, even as an option. As a parent, I want my (now-adult) children to think and act independently (which they mostly have) hboy: but I never stop thinking about their safety.

Personally, if I knew where my daughter was going and who she was with, then fine. But it's also important to remember that the Conductor in this case is likely not given much, if any, latitude in applying Amtrak policies and rules. Whether or not that's desirable is a subject for another discussion. Putting myself in that position, I can understand why a Conductor would be reluctant to do anything except follow Amtrak's UM policy to the letter, knowing that if s/he does not, and something goes wrong, then any blame is going to fall squarely upon them.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 7, 2012)

Looks like lots of blame all around:

*Amtrak *if they have no policy to handle UM who improperly get on the train. If not, they need one, both if the minor is present or if they are disruptive. In neither case should they ever be just removed from the train. They should be turned over to local police or local agent if there is no alternative to taking them to their destination.

*Parents *who either failed to read Amtrak's UM policy or deliberately ignored it. Seems like that could be considered negligence or child endangerment.

*Conductor *who picked the absolute worst thing to do (either on his own or possibly after calling management for advice. He could have called parents, allowed her to continue on the train or turned her over to local police but simply leaving her at a station without turning her over to someone who would accept responsibility can only be described as ignorant and probably negligent. He needs to be retrained on his responsibilities and use of common sense. He could not have done anything worse both for Amtrak's embarrassment as well as for the child's safety. Can you imagine what would have happened if something had happened to her before she called her parents? He might have faced criminal charges.

Lots of blame to go around.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 7, 2012)

Don't forget:

*Kids* failure to check in with station agent.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 7, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Don't forget:
> 
> *Kids* failure to check in with station agent.


That's a Parent/Guardian responsibility. If it were your 15 year old or a 15 year old visiting you, wouldn't it be your responsibility to see that the child checks in and boards? Even the TSA allows an adult escort to enter the security zone after receiving a pass from an airline ticket agent in order to assure that UMs are turned over to an agent. I've done that a number of times when our nieces visited.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 7, 2012)

me_little_me said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget:
> ...


VF meant when they got off the train. They got on at an unstaffed station. They got off at a staffed station, but there's no indication they made any attempt to talk to the agent at the station.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 7, 2012)

I think the conductor should be charged with child endangerment since he put her off in a strange location without adult supervision. the teens she was with are not adults.Also why didn't the teens call there parents when the UM parents were at a meeting. You mean tell me that there are teenage girls out there without cell phones?


----------



## EMDF9A (Apr 7, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...



What people who viewed the story on the KING5 link posted at the start of the thread didnt see was the Consumer Reporter (Jesse) talking with the anchors after the piece aired. During that time it was stated that the girls did approach the agent, who was busy handling baggage & told them that he was going off duty in less than 30 minutes & didnt have the time to deal with them.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 7, 2012)

The k*ids *should have at least tried to ask their parents or Amtrak personnel about the UM policy. If they are not old enough to do that, they are not old enough to ride unaccompanied.

Also, I think the UM policy should be increased to 18 years old.


----------



## caravanman (Apr 7, 2012)

Hi,

I find it hard to understand why a youngster is allowed to drive a car yet is considered too young to sit alone on a train ??? What would it mean for students if the age limit for solo train use was raised to 18, what would THAT achieve?

Ed


----------



## DocJohnB (Apr 7, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> I think the conductor should be charged with child endangerment since he put her off in a strange location without adult supervision. the teens she was with are not adults.Also why didn't the teens call there parents when the UM parents were at a meeting. You mean tell me that there are teenage girls out there without cell phones?


Ahhhh to put that bluntly . . . . . . BS.

According to all the bleeding hearts as proscribed here, here friends were indeed adults. They bought adult tickets,and traveled as adults. And some may say they acted as adults when they detrained with her.

But, WTH, let's charge everybody with something . . . . . . INCLUDING MR. & MRS. PARENT with the same broad brush . . . . child endangerment.

As to the other gals calling their parents . . . . see my previous posts (I agree). But, WTH, in the meantime, let's charge them with child endangerment too for knowingly traveling with a minor and not having the wherewithal to inform the AMTRAK personal of her status.


----------



## DocJohnB (Apr 7, 2012)

caravanman said:


> Hi,
> 
> I find it hard to understand why a youngster is allowed to drive a car yet is considered too young to sit alone on a train ??? What would it mean for students if the age limit for solo train use was raised to 18, what would THAT achieve?
> 
> Ed


That argument is specious at best. MOST states (and I have no clue about this child's state) do not permit a 15 year old to drive without an adult (18 or older) accompanying.

Look folks, I cannot and will not condone the actions of AMTRAK (in the being of the conductor) in this case (even if acting within the policy guidelines of AMTRAK). I also cannot and refuse to lay the blame entirely at the feet of AMTRAK or its representative. The parents should be held JUST AS responsible and they sure would not want me sitting in judgement in this case..


----------



## henryj (Apr 7, 2012)

I used to ride the train from Houston to Dallas unaccompanied when I was only 10yo. My parents just put me on and told the conductor to watch after me. I had a good time even ate lunch in the diner by myself.


----------



## DocJohnB (Apr 7, 2012)

henryj said:


> I used to ride the train from Houston to Dallas unaccompanied when I was only 10yo. *My parents just put me on and **told the conductor to watch after me*. I had a good time even ate lunch in the diner by myself.


Therein lies the difference. Her parents did not.

As an aside question . . . . . . how long ago were these solo trips of yours?


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 7, 2012)

caravanman said:


> What would it mean for students if the age limit for solo train use was raised to 18, what would THAT achieve?


It would achieve nothing.

On the other hand, nobody anywhere (that I'm aware of) has proposed raising the age limit to 18, so what was the point of your question?


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 7, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > What would it mean for students if the age limit for solo train use was raised to 18, what would THAT achieve?
> ...


I believe he was referring to this prior post:



Swadian Hardcore said:


> ...
> 
> Also, I think the UM policy should be increased to 18 years old.


----------



## EMDF9A (Apr 7, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > What would it mean for students if the age limit for solo train use was raised to 18, what would THAT achieve?
> ...


I dont know how long AMTRAK has had the UM policy but when I was in boarding school in Wisconsin I would take the EB home from LaCrosse to Seattle in 1980-1982. I was 15-18 at the time, it is of course a two day/night trip, my parents were nowhere near the station when I boarded.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 7, 2012)

EMDF9A said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > caravanman said:
> ...


Within the last year, Amtrak raised the minimum age for unrestricted travel from 14 to 16, and the minimum age for someone accompanying an underage traveler from age 15 to 18.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 7, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Within the last year, Amtrak raised the minimum age for unrestricted travel from 14 to 16, and the minimum age for someone accompanying an underage traveler from age 15 to 18.


So you see, it is quite possible that Amtrak raise the UM age limit to 18.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 8, 2012)

DocJohnB said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > I used to ride the train from Houston to Dallas unaccompanied when I was only 10yo. My parents just put me on and told the conductor to watch after me.
> ...


Well there's that.

And then there's the fact that Henry was all of *10 years old* and traveling *alone* while these passengers were *15 & 16 years old* and traveling in a *group of three*.



Trogdor said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > What would it mean for students if the age limit for solo train use was raised to 18, what would THAT achieve?
> ...


Do you feel the same way about raising it to 16? If not, why not?


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 8, 2012)

fairviewroad said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > As for being banned from the train until age 15;
> ...


I believe that this was said in the context of this incident, in which we can certainly say the girl was banished, if not banned. You are correct, gramatically: Amtrak did not successfully ban her. They let her on, and then threw her off. Some us are arguing that that was not the best thing to do.

However one wants to put it, one of the points being made is this: Amtrak does not authorize 15 year olds to travel alone (without a bureaucratic and time-consuming process involved, use of specific stations, and / or an adult 18 or older along with). Some of us feel this is an inappropriately restrictive policy, destined to be ignored in the way stupid bureaucracy is ignored around the world and in every domain.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 8, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > PRR 60 said:
> ...



This is my favorite comment from the thread.






Amtrak isn't really THAT good at running a railroad. This new foray into the surrogate parenting business is not destined for success.

Through these posts, we have seen many different attitudes to parenting, from "kids should be allowed to run nuclear power plants from age 5" to "I'll cut the cord with my cold, dead hands, and not before." And that is precisely the point. None of us should be parenting for other people in domains where there is legitimate debate about what the right thing to do is. We are all WAY to much into telling each other what to do these days. Let's all stop pretending we care about other people's children: our voting patterns abundantly prove that we do not. We care about this incident because we care about our children, and project.

By having Amtrak make up rules about how we should parent, we are turning the issue over to the party that may be one of the least competent of all. Amtrak's role should be strictly limited to protecting riders from each other. Do you want to be seated next to an unaccompanied 6-year-old? No? Understandably not. (Though, let it be noted in passing, families are split this way on planes all the time: on my last Seattle - Burbank trip on Alaska Airlines, my 5- and 7-year old daughters and myself were placed in 3 middle seats, several rows from each other, and this struck no one as strange — except for the little girls, who were in tears).

In this case, is this 15 year old any more or less likely to get in the way of your travel experience than someone of another age? Hold the jokes: the answer is no.

Make the rules make sense, and we'll be happy to follow them. These rules should be set by the families involved, not by an organization whose job it is to grease axles.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 8, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> EMDF9A said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...


... and many of us have said, at the time and in this post, that that is the essential problem. Another stupid rule. Just because you have the power to make rules about other peoples' behavior doesn't mean you should. My liberty stops where yours begins, fair enough. But this girl was bothering no one.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 8, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> By having Amtrak make up rules about how we should parent, we are turning the issue over to the party that may be one of the least competent of all.


How exactly do you surmise that Amtrak is telling you how to parent by having a Unaccompanied Minor policy and age restrictions on unaccompanied travel?

I feel I'm not alone in thinking that 12 and under is too young to travel unaccompanied and alone on the train. It's still perfectly fine for 13, 14 and 15 year old children to travel within the guidelines set by the UM policy. At 16 years old one may travel unrestricted as an adult. The policy seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

What seems to have fallen by the wayside here in all this discussion is that both the parents and Amtrak are asking the employee, the conductor, in the course of their job and livelihood to take sole responsibility for someone else's child during their travel on the train. I don't think it's too unreasonable to set a minimum age at which most kids are mature enough to listen and sit where asked to sit and remain there without wandering off when the conductor is busy doing their job.

Some of you act like "oh it's no big deal, I traveled all over the country when I was a 14", or "Amtrak just doesn't want to carry unaccompanied minors", which isn't true by the way. Others can pretend the world is just as safe and secure and all _Pleasantville_ as it was when we were kids, whatever, it most certainly is not. Regardless, yeah sure the chances that something bad happens to a kid when traveling alone may be remote but what about when something does happen? What if it was your kid? Who are you gonna blame? Are you gonna blame your kid, or yourself? No! You're gonna blame Amtrak and more specifically the conductor or employee who had custody of your kid.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 8, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > EMDF9A said:
> ...


You can think it's a stupid rule all you want. There's plenty of people who don't think the new rules are stupid.

The Unaccompanied Minor policy is not too difficult to live by. Children 13, 14 and 15 years of age can travel from manned stations between the hours of 6am and 9pm. You simply have to arrive at the station one hour before scheduled departure time for some paperwork and so the ticket agent can interview the child. On overnight long distance trains at night, all other employees are in bed except the conductors. Unaccompanied minors shouldn't be on the train overnight. That still leaves and awful lot of possibilities for daytime travel on the Amtrak system. At 16 years of age there are no restrictions whatsoever on travel anywhere an Amtrak. The policy seems pretty reasonable and accommodating.



> But this girl was bothering no one.


How does that matter? I don't believe the conductor handled the situation properly but nevertheless the girl shouldn't have been on the train in the first place in the manner and from the station which she boarded. Whether she was bothering anyone or not is irrelevant.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 8, 2012)

The one thought I keep having, in defense of the UM policy, is what if the train is envolved in an highly unlikely bad accident, like the on in Nevada last year. The conductor and the OBS are busy making sure ALL passengers are ok and safe until emergency personnel arrive. Knowing our some adults wouldn't handle an emergency well, I wouldn't want to have to be responsible for kids who might wander off in their fear or confusion of the situation.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 8, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> By having Amtrak make up rules about how we should parent, we are turning the issue over to the party that may be one of the least competent of all. Amtrak's role should be strictly limited to protecting riders from each other. Do you want to be seated next to an unaccompanied 6-year-old? No? Understandably not. (Though, let it be noted in passing, families are split this way on planes all the time: on my last Seattle - Burbank trip on Alaska Airlines, my 5- and 7-year old daughters and myself were placed in 3 middle seats, several rows from each other, and this struck no one as strange — except for the little girls, who were in tears).
> 
> In this case, is this 15 year old any more or less likely to get in the way of your travel experience than someone of another age? Hold the jokes: the answer is no.
> 
> Make the rules make sense, and we'll be happy to follow them. These rules should be set by the families involved, not by an organization whose job it is to grease axles.


Amtrak isn't making up rules about how you should parent. They are making rules about how they're going to parent your kids. You are NOT on the train and therefore you cannot possibly be parenting your child the entire time. If your child chooses to misbehave while on that train and during your absence as a parent, it is the conductor who must do the parenting for the safety of your child & everyone else.

Now if you happen to be a very good parent, then your influence as a parent will help guide your child to do the right things. Unfortunately like with everything in life, there are good parents and there are bad parents. Additionally, there are good kids and there are bad kids, sometimes despite the best efforts of their parents.


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2012)

I am just curious as to why Amtrak upped the age recently? While they were at it should they have upped it to 21 or higher? Afterall might as well cover a bigger chunk of ones derrier while one is at it.

Greyhound's UM Policy is:



> Unaccompanied Children
> 
> Any passenger under the age of 8 must be accompanied by a passenger at least 15 years of age or older at all times. Passengers between the ages of 8 and 14 years of age inclusive, may travel unaccompanied at full adult fare if the following conditions are met in their entirety:
> 
> ...


What is it that would make Amtrak less safe than Greyhound for 15 year olds? Was there any significant incident that caused the change? I am not aware of one.

As you can see, I come from the school of belief that this is an example of random rule making gone amok. Of course one can disagree with that position as a matter of opinion, but I cannot find any logical reason for the tightening of the age requirement other than gratuitous rule making that government agencies are well known for. "We make rules just because we can".


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 8, 2012)

jis said:


> I am just curious as to why Amtrak upped the age recently? While they were at it should they have upped it to 21 or higher? Afterall might as well cover a bigger chunk of ones derrier while one is at it.
> 
> Greyhound's UM Policy is:
> 
> ...


I think you nailed it. It is Amtrak's government agency mindset. Yes, I know that Amtrak is not technically a gevernment agency, but if walks like a duck...

Here is a statement from Amtrak to MSNBC at the time the change was made:



> “This is not in response to any incidents,” Jeff Snowden, Amtrak senior director of service delivery, said in a statement, but “... out of an abundance of concern for the comfort and safety of all our travelers.”


Somebody at Amtrak had a bug up their butt about this, they gathered a bunch of suits around some conference table, banged their little heads together for a couple of hours, and came up with this nonsense. Why? Because they are in charge. Airlines say a 15 year old is perfectly able and welcome to travel anywhere by themselves, including making connections if needed at ORD, ATL, DFW or other large, confusing airports. Amtrak says, "Go home kid, your not welcome here", after over 40 years of permitting travel by kids that same age with no incidents.


----------



## Big Iron (Apr 8, 2012)

Something to fan the flames of Amtrak inconsistency. When I rode 164 in February there were two young girls who boarded at ALX and were sitting in business class. I estimate their age at under 12. When the train left WUS the new condutor knew the girls. Overhearing the conversation (they were seated across from me) the girls were the daughters of a good friend of the Condutor. He spent most of the time talking with them but did leave a few times to do his job. The two girls got off the train in Baltimore.

Clearly the girls were underage, boarded at a manned station, and were unaccompanied......unless you consider the conductor their guardian.


----------



## TimePeace (Apr 8, 2012)

I love the verb in the title of the thread, which has been used in some of the comments as well: "Amtrak throws..." etc.

It conjures up this great mental image of a scowling conductor holding the girl by the seat of the pants and the scruff of the neck, and tossing her off into the weeds by the tracks out in the middle of nowhere. A perfect image to continue the theme of how utterly lame Amtrak is; a nice contrast with the theme of how utterly stupid the girl and her parents are.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 8, 2012)

EB_OBS said:


> Others can pretend the world is just as safe and secure and all _Pleasantville_ as it was when we were kids, whatever, it most certainly is not.


This is absolutely spot-on true. The world isn't as safe as secure as when I was a kid. It's* much more* safe and secure. Violent crime has declined remarkably since 1973.

Sadly, sensationalization of crime by television news has only increased.


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Somebody at Amtrak had a bug up their butt about this, they gathered a bunch of suits around some conference table, banged their little heads together for a couple of hours, and came up with this nonsense. Why? Because they are in charge. Airlines say a 15 year old is perfectly able and welcome to travel anywhere by themselves, including making connections if needed at ORD, ATL, DFW or other large, confusing airports. Amtrak says, "Go home kid, your not welcome here", after over 40 years of permitting travel by kids that same age with no incidents.


It may be a good idea to ask a pointed question about this matter to Amtrak bosses when a chance presents itself next, and see what they have to say. Specifically it might be worth asking them why they believe Amtrak is less safe than Greyhound and the airlines, and what are their plans to improve safety to make it as safe as Greyhound and the airlines, so as to allow 15 year olds to travel again, and see what they have to say. 

I wonder how many of the suits who butted their heads together to come up with this are now not suits at Amtrak anymore too.

BTW I found this blog that aligns quite a bit with my opinion on this matter. The _Animal House_ style double speak from _Amtrak _is quite interesting too.

OK, I guess now it is time for me to duck, since of all the sites discussing this matter this one is the most pro-Amtrak management on this matter that I have come across.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 8, 2012)

jis said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody at Amtrak had a bug up their butt about this, they gathered a bunch of suits around some conference table, banged their little heads together for a couple of hours, and came up with this nonsense. Why? Because they are in charge. Airlines say a 15 year old is perfectly able and welcome to travel anywhere by themselves, including making connections if needed at ORD, ATL, DFW or other large, confusing airports. Amtrak says, "Go home kid, your not welcome here", after over 40 years of permitting travel by kids that same age with no incidents.
> ...


I'm there in the trenches with you, jls.

At the time that the policy was hardened, I read several interviews with Amtrak bosses. The common thread was, "no particular incident lead to this, it just seemed the right thing to do." Read: "we have a monopoly, we'll get paid even if we alienate clients, we exist essentially for the convenience and well-being of our employees."


----------



## AlanB (Apr 8, 2012)

jis said:


> What is it that would make Amtrak less safe than Greyhound for 15 year olds?


While he was talking about a plane, I think that it easily compares to a bus.



EB_OBS said:


> I read quite a few comparisons to minors traveling alone on airlines in the thread. It really isn't a comparable environment in my opinion.
> 
> On and airliner you have a much smaller space with passengers all seated, in their assigned seats, for most of the flight. You have only a couple of restrooms on the plane and nowhere else to wander to. You can view virtually the entire passenger cabin, and thus every passenger, from anywhere in the aisle. A typical flight is what, three to five hours?
> 
> A train consist is a vastly different environment. You have multiple cars with, in some cases, many restrooms. There are plenty of places to wander off, especially on a long distance train. On Superliners you have both upper and lower levels and insecure lower-level baggage areas. You have coach attendants working two cars, manning doors and cleaning restrooms, while upwards of 150 passengers are traveling in their two cars. Unaccompanied minors are allowed to travel from 6am to 9pm. That's 15 hours. You cannot keep an eye on a minor the same as a flight attendant could on an airplane. It's just not the same thing.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 8, 2012)

Ispolkom said:


> The world isn't as safe as secure as when I was a kid. It's* much more* safe and secure. Violent crime has declined remarkably since 1973.
> 
> *Sadly, sensationalization of crime by television news has only increased.*


This.

20-30 years ago, stuff happened. You just didn't read about it on the internet 15 minutes later.


----------



## anir dendroica (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm not convinced, as some seem to think, that the world is a more dangerous place today than in years past. The statistics I have seen regarding crime rates, etc., just don't support it.

What has changed is the speed at which information, and particularly scary, gruesome news, spreads around the country and the world.

In 1940 if a child was molested on a train in Georgia, it might make local headlines and affect one small town. These days it makes national and Internet news overnight, and parents in Seattle are concerned about their kid traveling alone, and suits in Washington decide to raise the UM age so it doesn't happen again, or if it does it isn't their fault.

At some level our collective risk aversion is taking a fair bit of fun and development of responsibility out of childhood, and I for one plan on bucking the trend should I become a parent.

(Note: I started writing this 12 hours ago and was distracted. I see that someone else has made the same point in the meantime.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 9, 2012)

anir dendroica said:


> I'm not convinced, as some seem to think, that the world is a more dangerous place today than in years past. The statistics I have seen regarding crime rates, etc., just don't support it.


Same here.

I've never seen anything to backup people who claim just living an average life here in the US is more dangerous now than before. Apparently neither have they. But that doesn't seem to stop them from believing it and disseminating it as though it were accepted fact.

That's not to say that life is safer everywhere, however. There is a country that is suffering from increasing danger just south of the boarder with the US. Mexican gangs routinely murder and maim each other along with the police, military, journalists, activists, bystanders, and cherished pets with American made firearms over drugs destined for American consumption.

That's a very real threat of very real violence that is growing in level of harm and frequency. If you have any sort of wealth, either real or perceived, you or your family are likely to be at risk of armed kidnapping for ransom. There is nothing vague or imaginary about any of that whatsoever. I suppose since it's just over the river on the other side of the "Great Fence of America" it's not our problem.



anir dendroica said:


> In 1940 if a child was molested on a train in Georgia, it might make local headlines and affect one small town.


It's doubtful there would even be much of a local story since there probably would not have been a specific crime to be charged with back then. In many cases child abuse laws as we know them today only date back to the 1970's.

Back in the 1940's men of means could abuse away, almost with impunity, and even beat their own kids (and their wife) half to death before being charged with anything serious. Children that had attained the age of 15 years or older were legally treated more like adults anyway. Child abuse as we think of today was mostly swept under the rug with little in the way of discussion or resolution, let alone punishment.



anir dendroica said:


> At some level our collective risk aversion is taking a fair bit of fun and development of responsibility out of childhood, and I for one plan on bucking the trend should I become a parent.


I think the main problem is that instead of teaching kids how to analyze the situation and determine the threat level themselves we spend most of our effort on shielding them from it entirely. Thus we end up in the ironic and unenviable position of having left them less prepared to deal with real danger if and when it actually occurs.


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2012)

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > What is it that would make Amtrak less safe than Greyhound for 15 year olds?
> ...


Assuming that you are suggesting by the above that buses and planes are inherently safer than trains for teenagers....

So what you all are saying is that trains are a less safe environment than buses because they have more cars and toilets? OK. Absolutely Astounding! But OK. We'll have to keep that in mind when the virtues of train travel are touted. 

But Greyhound allows unsupervised travel by 15 year olds, so no one is tracking where they are going when they step off the buses at the food stops etc. That would seem to be a much larger space to go walkabout than in a 9 car train, no? Furthermore 15 year olds are allowed to supervise 8 to 14 year olds.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 9, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> It's doubtful there would even be much of a local story since there probably would not have been a specific crime to be charged with back then. In many cases child abuse laws as we know them today only date back to the 1970's.
> Back in the 1940's men of means could abuse away, almost with impunity, and even beat their own kids (and their wife) half to death before being charged with anything serious. Children that had attained the age of 15 years or older were legally treated more like adults anyway. Child abuse as we think of today was mostly swept under the rug with little in the way of discussion or resolution, let alone punishment.
> 
> 
> ...


Probably to his shock as much as mine, I am fairly well in agreement with Texas Sunset here. I do disagree with his "men of means." Economics usually had nothing to do with it. In fact, social pressures were probably stronger against physical abuse of your family than lower down the scale. There was also the real possibility that a wife/child beater would get a visit from some of the relatives of the wife and there would be a discussion either verbal or physical leaving the guy with an understanding that if the event was repeated, legal consequences would be the least of his worries. My mother said that for her and the women in her family the saying was, "Beat me once, shame on you. Beat me twice, shame on me." (That is, for still being around to receive the second beating.) We were told to be wary of strangers, and also of certain specific people that we were to stay away from, and to be sure and tell if anything happens. While not specific to child abuse, there have been laws on the books for a long time that could be and were applied to the situation.

AS to anir's statement, I would recommend waiting until you have the parent experience and then talk about it. There is the long standing joke about the graduate in cchild psychology that wrote a book titled "Rules for parenting". Not long after his first child was born a second edition was published, but it was titled "Suggestions for parenting." A few years later he was asked to provide and updated edition, and said, "No way. It is impossible to do so."


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 9, 2012)

Interesting thread! Of course we all have our opinions and perceptions based on what were taught, hear and read on the internet, but most of these are just that, opinions and perceptions based not on facts, but our own beliefs! I think there is probably truth to most of what is mentioned here and as an older man tend to agree with what George posted! The "Old Days" were different times, think it was the French that said "Things are not what they were and never were!"

I see no problem with having rules and policies to protect the young, for years we were too Tolerant and Trusted Pedophile Priests, Coaches, Teachers, Scout Leaders etc. :angry: , the only difference as far as I can see is that instant Communication make such things as Domestic Abuse and Child Molestation SEEM more prevelant! Id suggest that anyone 14 or older would probably be OK to ride on Trains that werent Overnight runs, especially when with other people! That Conductor might have been following the book but if itd been my Daughter I might have had to go for a personal "visit" with him, not looked up an Ambulance Chaser, er Lawyer! Of course I'd also contact Amtrak Management to try and ensure this doesnt happen again to others!


----------



## A.J. (Apr 9, 2012)

it's been fascinating reading this thread! a lot of interesting ideas/thoughts out there. to me, the bottom line is that regardless of people's opinions of the policy, it is the policy and this girl (and her family) ignored it. you can't break the rules and expect to be rewarded or have amtrak make an exception for you. because then, what's to stop you from doing it again?


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 10, 2012)

The executive director of All Aboard Washington, the WA-state rail advocacy group, has posted this to Facebook.



> The following statement concerning the teenage girls put off an Amtrak train on March 5 is from AAWA Executive Director Lloyd H Flem:
> 
> "Since most Americans now over age 40 were youngsters, perceptions, if not the realities, of dangers in our world have changed. Most of us recall riding trains unaccompanied at the age of ten or twelve with no problem or particular concern. No more. In part railroads, like many other public and private institutions must be evermore careful about legal suits, whether justified or not. Rules and restrictions have multiplied.
> 
> ...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 10, 2012)

To this day I'm still waiting for someone to explain the conductor's position. How was kicking these girls off the train going to make them safer? And if it wasn't going to make them safer then why did he do it? Maybe he did it to punish them. Or to punish their parents. Or maybe he did it simply to prove that he could. I honestly can't come up with any other explanation.



All Aboard Washington Executive Director Lloyd H Flem]Since most Americans now over age 40 were youngsters' date=' [b said:


> perceptions[/b], if not the realities, of dangers in our world have changed. Most of us recall riding trains unaccompanied at the age of ten or twelve with no problem or particular concern. No more. In part railroads, like many other public and private institutions must be evermore careful about legal suits, whether justified *or not*. Rules and restrictions have multiplied.
> ...
> 
> While daytime Centralia is a safe place, and the girls' Centralia destination was the family-friendly Olympic Club restaurant, riding our Amtrak Cascades is doubtless an even more secure and comfortable location than any location where young people might be ejected for such a rule violation.
> ...


This Lloyd H. Flem gentleman sounds like he has a head on his shoulders and isn't afraid to use it. What Amtrak rules in particular (and passenger rail rules in general) seem to be missing more than anything else is a return to the big picture view. I'm generally in favor of regulations that help protect people from the ineptitude or outright maliciousness of others, but if you create an environment that manages to work against the spirit of the intent then maybe it's time to review the repercussions and do some fine tuning. Thanks for including this CHamilton.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> To this day I'm still waiting for someone to explain the conductor's position. How was kicking these girls off the train going to make them safer? And if it wasn't going to make them safer then why did he do it? Maybe he did it to punish them. Or to punish their parents. Or maybe he did it simply to prove that he could. I honestly can't come up with any other explanation.


Suffice it to say "two wrongs don't make a right." The conductor made a bad decision by not contacting the parents before/when removing her from the train and made another bad decision by not handing custody of her over to the ticket agent and instructing/ensuring he would remain on duty and continue to attempt to contact her parents until they were reached. Under normal circumstances, when the designated person is not at the final, scheduled destination of a UM, the local authorities are contacted and the UM is turned over to them. It would have been a good idea to involve them in this situation too in my opinion.

Amtrak has acknowledged, apologized and issues full refunds and stated the internal issue had been addressed. The policy still stands as it is and parents must abide by the Unaccompanied Minor policy.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 10, 2012)

EB_OBS said:


> Amtrak has acknowledged, apologized and issues full refunds and stated the internal issue had been addressed. The policy still stands as it is and parents must abide by the Unaccompanied Minor policy.


So:

The parents were charged with terminal stupidity and fixed so they could no longer procreate.

The brat had her cell phone taken away from her permanently.

The Conductor, in a formal ceremony witnessed by his train crew, had the epaulets ripped off his shirt and his conductor's cap replaced by a beanie with a propeller on top.

Amtrak management congratulated themselves on how well they fired the low level employee who was never asked to write a policy addressing this situation but was nevertheless blamed for it not existing

The parent's attorney was paid the $5000 compensation Amtrak paid to the parents so he did really well for writing one letter and negotiating with Amtrak for the $5000 and convincing the parents that they were lucky to have only been fixed.

Am I close?


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 10, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> EB_OBS said:
> 
> 
> > As opposed to "PARENTS put minor child on Amtrak train, without following the rules and/or Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor policy."
> ...



In my opinion, the unaccompanied m inor policy is ridiculous. like everythink else these days that infantalizes kids far beyond their childhood. My first trip as an unaccomanied minor was at the age of 10 on the Pennsylvania RR between Baltimore and Philadelphia suburb that involved a trip on a NEC train and the Paoli local, and also making a change of trains at 30th street. Nobody linked an eye. By the time I was 15, I was a geeky trainspotter who rode up and down the NEC for kicks. (Heck, PHL to NYP was $4.25 one way, and if you went at the right times you could get a return ticket at a discount.) When I was 14, my parents put me on a plane by myself to visit my grandmother in Florida. Just a few years ago, I put MY 14 year old daughter on a plane by herself to visit a friend on the west coast. There was no special "unaccompanied minors" hoo-haw, what's going on here? By the time somebody's 15, they should be able to get themselves around on their own without having to have Mommy and Daddy hold their hands every step of the way.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 10, 2012)

> the girls' Centralia destination was the family-friendly Olympic Club restaurant


I'm glad that the girls had the sense to visit a McMenamin's brewpub while they were in Centralia. That's certainly where I would wait if I were thrown off a train.

EDIT: Wait a minute. A train is too dangerous for a fifteen-year-old girl, but a bar isn't? Or, rather, a family-friendly restaurant with seven pool tables, a brewery, and bands on the weekend? Mind you, I've always found McMenamin's establishments to be the most salubrious of places, but it just seems odd to me.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 10, 2012)

Reading over the first two pages of the thread, my feeling is that the parents probably at most knew the old policy. It's _also_ possible that the other kids' parents made the purchase and were just a bit blinkered on it. And of course, it's possible that they made a phone purchase and the agent screwed up. That happens.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 10, 2012)

MARC Rider said:


> In my opinion, the unaccompanied m inor policy is ridiculous. like everythink else these days that infantalizes kids far beyond their childhood.


Amtrak doesn't stop there. They keep up some of the same infantilizing with adults as well. Trying to board your train on your own? Not in coach you wont! The kindergarten line is for you, pal. Want to take a photo of some trains? Not at the station you wont! It's far too dangerous for an adult to take photographs of a parked train from a deserted platform. Several platforms over there is a train dangerously zipping by at a full _five miles per hour_. Oh, the humanity! I'll be happy to absolve Amtrak of all responsibility for me. Where do I sign?


----------



## Ana (Apr 11, 2012)

Interesting thread. The adult of today who is used to kids being super protected thinks wow, a minor, she shouldn't be on her own. But then I step back and remember when I was 15 (twenty years ago) I took the train in Germany from a village near Hannover all the way to Trier, near the French border (I was to be collected from the station there), The trip involved changing trains about three times, and I spoke only a very little German at the time. No cell phones in those days either. You're on your own on trains in Europe - no one directs you to the platform or tells you when your stop is up. But I could read place names on signs, it's not hard to ask for directions even if your language skills aren't great and I got there just fine. Return trip was fine too and I never thought anything of it. A few months later I traveled by train and boat from north of London to Paris - again, totally fine (except the bit where I didn't have a visa for France but that's another story). I think I must've flown to London that time (and not as an unaccompanied minor either).

I was 15 - I wasn't a moron. It was just a larger scale version of my train trip to school each day. I dealt with ticket agents and immigration officials and no one though it was odd for a teenager to be travelling alone. I knew what to do if anything went wrong (ask someone official or a respectable looking lady for help, always stay in a well-lit area, I had phone numbers of family to call if I needed to) By the time of my 16th birthday I'd been all over the place visiting relatives. It's kind of startling to think now that it would be considered so dangerous and that I should be treated as a fragile parcel, signed for at every step. Those were fabulous experiences and my parents and guardians all knew I had enough common sense to do those trips (I probably had enough common sense as a 9 year old but would've had more trouble reaching the ticket counters). I don't know what I'd think now if I were a parent.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 11, 2012)

The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 11, 2012)

Michigan Mom said:


> The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?


15 year olds are not underage minors on any US airline. In fact, three airlines - American, Southwest and United - permit kids 12 year old to travel as adults. They travel without escort and make connections on their own at hub airports like ORD, ATL and DFW.


----------



## jebr (Apr 11, 2012)

Michigan Mom said:


> The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple.


Maybe there's a way to make this liability issue go away. Maybe, for example, a person between 13 and 16/18 can travel as an adult so long as the parent's credit card was used (or they signed a waiver).

...wait a second. I just looked at the airline policy, and I don't see a mention of a waiver needed if they're 12 or older. Maybe they don't need one, then. In which case, I don't get why it should be more restrictive than an airline. Heck, a kid running away from home could get a lot farther on an airplane than a train.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 11, 2012)

Michigan Mom said:


> The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?


Why stop at 18? Why not 21? Heck, if liability is our primary directive then maybe we shouldn't stop until we hit thirty something. Except that might be flagged by our acceptable babysitting age criteria. Then there are the parents looking to intentionally defraud the UM system. So maybe we only allow orphans? Wow, this is really starting to get complicated. I suppose we'll need a new position that oversees the program and ensures nobody is able to take advantage of it. Maybe we could call this new position "Amtrak Mom?" :lol:


----------



## benjibear (Apr 11, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Michigan Mom said:
> 
> 
> > The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?
> ...


See that is what happens when we try to make the word black or white? In reality there is alot of gray areas. What would work for some 12 year old children may not even work for a 17 year old. Parents need to know the limitations of their kids and they need to be the one to make the decision. But parents don't want to parent today and everybody wants to blame somebody else when things go wrong.


----------



## Ana (Apr 11, 2012)

> See that is what happens when we try to make the word black or white? In reality there is alot of gray areas. What would work for some 12 year old children may not even work for a 17 year old. Parents need to know the limitations of their kids and they need to be the one to make the decision. But parents don't want to parent today and everybody wants to blame somebody else when things go wrong.



Yes, I agree. It really depends on the child, and parents are best placed to know how they'd cope. While I travelled internationally as a 15 year old and was completely fine, on an upcoming trip we've made arrangements for my 15 year old sister to travel in the company of another sibling who is 23. She's the baby of the family and we just didnt' feel that she was mature enough to handle it alone.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 13, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Michigan Mom said:
> 
> 
> > The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?
> ...


I suggest just "AmMom." And we can rename the Conductors "AmDad's" so that everyone understands when they protect children by throwing them off the train.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 13, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Michigan Mom said:
> 
> 
> > The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?
> ...


In my opinion, it should be 18, because once one is 18, he becomes a full adult and has the full rights and responssabilities of a US citizen. If he can vote, he can ride a train unaccompanied.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 13, 2012)

*sighs*

Alright, every time I see this thread, all I can think is "At least they didn't throw momma from the train as well"...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 13, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> In my opinion, it should be 18, because once one is 18, he becomes a full adult and has the full rights and responssabilities of a US citizen. If he can vote, he can ride a train unaccompanied.


The only problem is that your post doesn't explain why the age of eighteen is unique in your view. You're simply walking your logic backwards from an age somebody else picked that was itself entirely arbitrary. By the time you reach 18 you're expected to be more or less self sufficient. The only major exception I'm aware of at that point is alcohol. Everything else is up to you. Where you live, what job you have, what college you attend, who you have sex with, and on and on. We're talking about decision making abilities that are far beyond anything you're likely to need just to board, transfer between, and disembark a passenger train. I'm not aware of any other democracy that has an 18 year minimum age for leaving their passengers alone. The countries that would continue to restrict movement at that age are places like Burma and Saudi Arabia. No thanks. We once had a reputation as the Land of the Free and I suggest we start acting like it again. All this increasing nanny-state nonsense doesn't really make us all that safer. It just makes us look like we can't handle reality.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 13, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, it should be 18, because once one is 18, he becomes a full adult and has the full rights and responssabilities of a US citizen. If he can vote, he can ride a train unaccompanied.
> ...



Hear Hear!

Earlier in the thread, I commented that Amtrak's role here should be in protecting other passengers from the bad or irresponsible behavior of UM's. If a child is not old enough, or mature enough, to reliably sit in a seat, then s/he should not be allowed on. Not because the railroad is a better parent than other parents, but because it has an obligation to its other fare-paying passengers to make their trips comfortable. The same logic leads to removal of drunk or obstreperous passengers.

In this light, we all understand an age restriction. 6? Sure. 8? Though some children could travel at 8, there would be a significant number who could not. So, OK, 8. 10? Starts to get shaky, in my view, but we clearly need to compromise with each other, so, 10. Beyond that, this gets silly. A 12-year old can understand a simple instruction. The railroad, a common carrier, is not responsible for him: his parents are. If they put him on the train, and it doesn't work out, the railroad is only responsible if it acts badly. For instance, if it throws the UM off the train _en route_ in a place the UM does not know. Like, um, Centralia.

In a crowded society, we often "have to" tell each other how to behave. No, you can't play your boom box in a movie theatre, or start a mouse colony in your apartment, or park your car in the middle of King Street. But this is because your behavior bothers others. Your liberty is constrained where it bumps up against those of the people around you.

But it is sanctimonious for people (or Amtrak) to tell others how to behave "for their own good." Until further notice, American society accepts that parents are responsible for their children, and better able to judge what is good for them than is government (represented here by Amtrak), even in some very extreme cases. If we were concerned for other people's children, as a society, would we not ensure they were given meaningful, fact-based educations, health care, and fed properly? Well, we don't do any of those things. So, we are probably not much concerned with other people's children. Even if you, personally, are, dear reader.

Moreover, our society routinely punishes children for their parents' behavior. Think of the states attempting to restrict education for 7-year-olds because their parents are illegal immigrants, or the termination of one or another benefit to single mothers, rendering them (and their children) homeless, because "she should have known better." Perhaps. But her child?

Well, we don't care about her child. We treat the parent-child couple as an indivisible unit.

So, to all of you trying to "help me" by insuring that I drive my kids to where they are going, instead of putting them in the far safer environment of the train, please explain: how, exactly, is this your concern, or the government's? As a parent, should this not be left to my daughter and me? Or, am I missing a point? Am I somehow bothering you (other than offending your sense of order in an abstract way — you can get help for that)? If I am, I perfectly respect your right to tell me what to do. Otherwise, not so much.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 13, 2012)

I'll say that, at least as far as age lines go, when an operation reaches a certain size you end up having to make a call on a limit. If this were a passenger operation on the scale of either Southern or DRG&W in the mid-70s, it might be possible to vary the policy a bit more on a case-by-case basis. You sometimes get this with restaurants: Windows on the World was an "adults only" fine dining establishment, but I had lunch there with my parents after they explained that I was comfortable in a suit and...well, wasn't your average kid. This can happen with other establishments as well, but once you reach a certain size, the ability to pass that authority to vary policy down the line starts getting harder to come by because of the risk that someone (or multiple someones) will screw up.

My opinion is that Amtrak has set their bar too high, but that is my opinion, nothing more. I wouldn't mind it being a policy that could be varied on occasion, but at the same time I understand the reason for the policy's existence.


----------

