Amtrak train slams into tow truck in Kent, WA

[CHamilton]

Witnesses say the driver, who was towing a vehicle at the time, tried to beat a train across the tracks on North First Avenue just after 5:30 p.m. when the collision happened.

Link

The train involved was apparently Cascades 509.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What exactly is misleading about the headline? Seems accurate enough to me. I honestly don't get all the needless hand wringing we go through over things like this.

 

[CHamilton]

What exactly is misleading about the headline? Seems accurate enough to me. I honestly don't get all the needless hand wringing we go through over things like this.

Headlines like this imply that the train was at fault, although the article makes it clear that the driver was to blame.

 

[Tumbleweed]

What exactly is misleading about the headline? Seems accurate enough to me. I honestly don't get all the needless hand wringing we go through over things like this.

Headlines like this imply that the train was at fault, although the article makes it clear that the driver was to blame.

I agree...headline should read "IDIOT DRIVER TRIES, BUT FAILS TO BEAT TRAIN AT CROSSING."

 

[afigg]

What exactly is misleading about the headline? Seems accurate enough to me. I honestly don't get all the needless hand wringing we go through over things like this.

Headlines like this imply that the train was at fault, although the article makes it clear that the driver was to blame.

I don't see fault implied in a "Amtrak train slams into tow truck in Kent" headline at all. Headline summarizes what happened in a factual manner. In general, when a higher speed object hits a much slower speed or stationary object, in this case the tow truck, we say that the higher speed object - hit, struck, ran into, slams - the slower speed object.

As for fault, that the article states "Those same witnesses say the flashing emergency lights were activated and the crossing arms were coming down when the man attempted to cross." is not looking good for the tow truck driver. Who may be a former tow truck driver today. The owner of the car or vehicle being towed is probably very unhappy as well. Just fortunate that no one was seriously injured or killed.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What exactly is misleading about the headline? Seems accurate enough to me. I honestly don't get all the needless hand wringing we go through over things like this.

Headlines like this imply that the train was at fault, although the article makes it clear that the driver was to blame.

There is nothing in that headline that implies fault on either side. I repeat, nothing. I'm sorry I have to be this blunt, but seriously, stop trying to read between the lines when there is only one line. I honestly have no idea why anyone would fret about imaginary slights like this when there are so many actual attacks already in progress.

 

[the_traveler]

If a car (a higher speed object) driven by someone drunk runs off a road and hits a house (slower speed - non-moving - object), how would you feel about the following headline:

House hits drunk driver and totals his car!

​

​

That seems to be what you're saying!

 

[MattW]

Then I'd be wondering if the same driver wrote the headline!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If a car (a higher speed object) driven by someone drunk runs off a road and hits a house (slower speed - non-moving - object), how would you feel about the following headline: House hits drunk driver and totals his car! That seems to be what you're saying!

Nobody is saying or implying that. You're just intentionally confusing yourself again.

 

[manderson]

I read the headline the same way Charley did. After reading the story and looking at the headline a second time, it doesn't imply Amtrak's fault after all. But my first reaction when I saw it in the news this morning was definitely that they were pointing the finger. TS, you can lay down the law as much as you like about what that headline does or not imply. Each person's reaction is subjective.

 

[jmbgeg]

I read the headline the same way Charley did. After reading the story and looking at the headline a second time, it doesn't imply Amtrak's fault after all. But my first reaction when I saw it in the news this morning was definitely that they were pointing the finger. TS, you can lay down the law as much as you like about what that headline does or not imply. Each person's reaction is subjective.

The problems is most people read headlines and fewer read all the stories.

"Last Minute Crossing by Tow Truck Causes Collision with Train" better tells the story.

 

[cyborg]

The driver was not trying to beat the train. The traffic in front of him stopped suddenly leaving him stopped on the tracks. Then the arm came down and the train hit him. Truck was not moving. I talked to the driver myself in the hospital. The news needs to get their facts straight.

 

[RRrich]

We know the driver would not lie :lol: It is true that the news (and we) need to get our facts straight - but what are the facts? From a zillion miles away it can be hard to tell :hi:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

TS, you can lay down the law as much as you like about what that headline does or not imply. Each person's reaction is subjective.

I just think these sorts of hyper-sensitive reactions to relatively minor news articles only serve to distract us from the true threats. It seems exceeding unlikely to me that anyone is making some longterm decision to be pro- or anti-rail based on some random headline about a grade crossing accident. The media gets a lot of stories wrong, that much we can agree on, but this sort of basic event article is not likely to have any material impact on Amtrak specifically or American passenger rail generally.

The problems is most people read headlines and fewer read all the stories. "Last Minute Crossing by Tow Truck Causes Collision with Train" better tells the story.

That would be an even greater leap of faith than the original (still unexplained) accusation. What if an internal video from the locomotive (or any number of other possible sources) showed that conclusion to be false? Oh well, I guess bogus headlines about made-up accusations are okay so long as they cannot possibly be misinterpreted as critical of passenger rail. In my view, rather than shedding any light on unwarranted media bias this thread has done a much better job of exposing a bias and/or paranoia against the media by passenger rail proponents.

 

[the_traveler]

TS, you can lay down the law as much as you like about what that headline does or not imply. Each person's reaction is subjective.

I just think these sorts of hyper-sensitive reactions to relatively minor news articles only serve to distract us from the true threats. It seems exceeding unlikely to me that anyone is making some longterm decision to be pro- or anti-rail based on some random headline about a grade crossing accident.

I have to disagree with you TS!

How many times have we seen here in AU that because of grade crossing accidents, we should eliminate Amtrak! I also remember a thread about a week or so after the grade crossing accident in Nevada asking "... is this going to effect my trip on the CZ?" Not everyone in the country thinks like you do!

Some people only read the headlines or hear the blurb about "What's coming up on the 9 or 10 or 11 PM news", but don't watch it and only know that "There was a(nother) train that hit a car! Why do we still have trains for the rich?" !

Call me delusional, but many people in towns (and cities) served by Amtrak do not even know there is a station in their own town or city!

Some of these are a waitress in JAX, after hearing a poster say (s)he has to catch said "Do we still have passenger trains?"

Or a cab driver in MIA, being ask to take the rider (IIRC AlanB) from the hotel to the Amtrak station (in MIA) say "Is MIA served by AmtraK"?

Both of these were actual posts on AU!

 

[NY Penn]

The driver was not trying to beat the train. The traffic in front of him stopped suddenly leaving him stopped on the tracks. Then the arm came down and the train hit him. Truck was not moving. I talked to the driver myself in the hospital. The news needs to get their facts straight.

Even if this is true, drivers are not supposed to drive onto a crossing unless they are sure the entire vehicle can fit on the other side.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I just think these sorts of hyper-sensitive reactions to relatively minor news articles only serve to distract us from the true threats. It seems exceeding unlikely to me that anyone is making some longterm decision to be pro- or anti-rail based on some random headline about a grade crossing accident.

I have to disagree with you TS! How many times have we seen here in AU that because of grade crossing accidents, we should eliminate Amtrak!

I didn't say that grade crossing accidents were unimportant, I said that generic headlines about grade crossing accidents are not important. Let's say we could wave a magic wand and give every grade crossing accident report an intentionally skewed pro-rail headline. How would that change anything? The people who are up in arms over grade crossing deaths and injuries probably aren't going to be swayed by blatantly biased reporting and whimsical writing. Reducing grade crossing accidents is by all means a critical part of any modern passenger rail system. I myself have stated as much time and again. The seriousness of grade crossing collisions is the reason why many industrialized countries have been working hard to reduce their numbers over time. Here in the world's largest economy Amtrak still can't do much about grade crossings because it's on life support funding levels and most of Amtrak's network remains forever tied to an infrastructure system it has little if any control over. All the flowery and imaginative feelgood headlines in the world won't do much to fix this (or any other) problem.

 

[manderson]

I just think these sorts of hyper-sensitive reactions to relatively minor news articles only serve to distract us from the true threats. It seems exceeding unlikely to me that anyone is making some longterm decision to be pro- or anti-rail based on some random headline about a grade crossing accident. The media gets a lot of stories wrong, that much we can agree on, but this sort of basic event article is not likely to have any material impact on Amtrak specifically or American passenger rail generally.

While you are no doubt right about true threats to Amtrak, I didn't see anything in the original post that attempts to link the headline or story to those threats. Or do you feel that everything we discuss here should be viewed through that prism?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

While you are no doubt right about true threats to Amtrak, I didn't see anything in the original post that attempts to link the headline or story to those threats. Or do you feel that everything we discuss here should be viewed through that prism?

The thread title is "Amtrak train slams into tow truck in Kent WA" followed by a topic description of "Another misleading headline." I didn't get what was so misleading about it so I asked. Apparently there was nothing misleading about it after all.

 

[GG-1]

The driver was not trying to beat the train. The traffic in front of him stopped suddenly leaving him stopped on the tracks. Then the arm came down and the train hit him. Truck was not moving. I talked to the driver myself in the hospital. The news needs to get their facts straight.

Even if this is true, drivers are not supposed to drive onto a crossing unless they are sure the entire vehicle can fit on the other side.

Aloha

No only not entering a RR Crossing unless the exit is clear but this same rule applies to every intersection in (I beleive) in every state, and possibly every country where there are Autos..

 

[Lakeshore]

The driver was not trying to beat the train. The traffic in front of him stopped suddenly leaving him stopped on the tracks. Then the arm came down and the train hit him. Truck was not moving. I talked to the driver myself in the hospital. The news needs to get their facts straight.

Even if this is true, drivers are not supposed to drive onto a crossing unless they are sure the entire vehicle can fit on the other side.

I have to drive over a set of tracks on the way to/from work everyday. I always see people stopped on the tracks. I am actually surprised when I don't see someone on the tracks. It's hard to believe that people are this oblivious. One of those life lessons, you don't mess around with trains, period.