Empire Builder 7 strikes, seriously injures man in Emerado, N.D.

[The Chief]

A 51-year-old man was hit by an Amtrak train in Emerado Thursday morning, Sept. 29, leaving him seriously injured.

http://www.westfargopioneer.com/news/north-dakota/4125629-1-person-seriously-injured-after-being-struck-amtrak-train-emerado-nd

Just west of Grand Forks N.D.

 

[KmH]

Man, standing to close to train tracks, struck by train.

 

[Ziv]

Nah, KmH, I have ridden the Empire Builder many a time. I grew up with it running through the center of my home town. I know the Empire Builder fairly well, and it is an ornery son of a gun. I have seen it back up and take 2 miles of gravel road to hit someone it takes a dislike to.

Sorry. I too kind of dislike news services that say trains "hit" pedestrians when the pedestrians are in the trains right of way. I hope the pedestrian recovers and never gets that careless again.

 

[FormerOBS]

The wording is a bit curious. He may have been standing next to the tracks, but the train is wider than the track. It overhangs a bit on both sides, about a foot or so beyond the ends of the ties. Standing on the right of way is just plain foolhardy. A pretty good rule of thumb is to be at least 10 feet from any moving train.

Tom

 

[dlagrua]

Either the man near the tracks was a drunk hobo, high on drugs, stupid, careless, a daredevil, ill or wanted to commit suicide by train. I hope that he recovers and has a chance to tell the authorities his side of the story but really now, did he have any business being that near to the tracks? This individual caused his own injury and it was in no way Amtrak's fault.

 

[SarahZ]

I too kind of dislike news services that say trains "hit" pedestrians when the pedestrians are in the trains right of way.

Why? The train DID hit the pedestrian. That doesn't mean the train is at fault.

If someone runs into the road and a car hits them, you say that person "got hit by a car". It's no different with a train.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I am very familiar with Emerado which is the closest town to Grand Forks AFB where I was stationed from 1972 to 1975. I worked in Public Health at the Air Base Hospital, We had a civilian brought into the Emergency Room whose truck was struck by a BN Freight Train in Emerado where the highway crosses the Rail line that the Empire Builder travels on. We were the closest hospital. A buddy of mine who was Medical Admin guy was recruited by ER crew to help pick the civilian up. It was not a pretty sight as I happened to see the civilian when he was brought in. My buddy had night mares about it for weeks after. The civilian expired shortly after he was brought in.

 

[Ziv]

I too kind of dislike news services that say trains "hit" pedestrians when the pedestrians are in the trains right of way.

Why? The train DID hit the pedestrian. That doesn't mean the train is at fault.

If someone runs into the road and a car hits them, you say that person "got hit by a car". It's no different with a train.

Because the connotation is that the train is at fault. If I hit someone, I am the person to blame. If a person walks in front of a fast train and is struck, it is obviously their error. Cars can climb a curb and hit a person walking in a safe way, but a train can not "back up and take a dirt road" to hit a person from sheer cussedness. A car can. This isn't something I sit up nights thinking about, but I think the headlines when people walk in front of a train usually make it sound like the train is at fault. Just my two cents.

 

[SarahZ]

I too kind of dislike news services that say trains "hit" pedestrians when the pedestrians are in the trains right of way.

Why? The train DID hit the pedestrian. That doesn't mean the train is at fault.

If someone runs into the road and a car hits them, you say that person "got hit by a car". It's no different with a train.

Because the connotation is that the train is at fault. If I hit someone, I am the person to blame. If a person walks in front of a fast train and is struck, it is obviously their error. Cars can climb a curb and hit a person walking in a safe way, but a train can not "back up and take a dirt road" to hit a person from sheer cussedness. A car can. This isn't something I sit up nights thinking about, but I think the headlines when people walk in front of a train usually make it sound like the train is at fault. Just my two cents.

Not necessarily. You're talking about cars jumping curbs. I'm talking about someone running into the road, when the driver doesn't have time to stop.

A better example: a car runs a red light and is struck by a car that has the green light. The car that ran the red is at fault, even though the car with the green light hit them.

It comes down to basic rules of grammar, direct objects, etc. That is why you say the train hit the car/person (unless a car did, indeed, blow through the intersection and strike the side of the train).

 

[Ziv]

I too kind of dislike news services that say trains "hit" pedestrians when the pedestrians are in the trains right of way.

Why? The train DID hit the pedestrian. That doesn't mean the train is at fault.

If someone runs into the road and a car hits them, you say that person "got hit by a car". It's no different with a train.

Because the connotation is that the train is at fault. If I hit someone, I am the person to blame. If a person walks in front of a fast train and is struck, it is obviously their error. Cars can climb a curb and hit a person walking in a safe way, but a train can not "back up and take a dirt road" to hit a person from sheer cussedness. A car can. This isn't something I sit up nights thinking about, but I think the headlines when people walk in front of a train usually make it sound like the train is at fault. Just my two cents.

Not necessarily. You're talking about cars jumping curbs. I'm talking about someone running into the road, when the driver doesn't have time to stop.

A better example: a car runs a red light and is struck by a car that has the green light. The car that ran the red is at fault, even though the car with the green light hit them.

It comes down to basic rules of grammar, direct objects, etc. That is why you say the train hit the car/person (unless a car did, indeed, blow through the intersection and strike the side of the train).

I hear you. Logically, you are right. Illogically, emotionally, the train looks like the bad guy. If I was the "campaign manager" for Amtrak, I would be telling Moorman, "Ask our people at the Post and the Times to clarify that the person injured was walking in front of the train or in its right of way! Have them mention in para 6 that train travel is safer than driving!"

It is all about the "optics".

;-)

 

[Asher]

What part of man getting hit by train sounds like the train was at fault?

 

[Ziv]

anumberone, my original comment was mostly a joke, hence the "back up and take 2 miles of gravel road to hit someone" image for the Empire Builder. But the second part of my post deals with the connotation vs. denotation issue. The part that makes it sound like the train was at fault is the fact that the train was the one that struck the person, not that the person walked in front of the train. The denotation of the headline is correct but it implies indirectly that the train is at fault.

Some people look at the denotation of the word and say, "It is accurate." And they are right. A lot of people focus primarily on denotation and less on connotation.

I look at the connotation of the word, though, and say, "I wish they would state it in a way that isn't making it sound like the train is at fault. The person walked into the trains right of way and got a result that was logically going to happen." The use of language is an art, and how that art is used shapes how people think.

Look at what Sarah and I said to each other. I said that I knew she was right, that her interpretation of the denotation of the headline was correct. My beef with the headline is simply that the optics aren't as favorable to Amtrak as I would like. A simple "Man walks into railroad right of way and is struck by passing train" would get part of the way to making the connotation closer to what I would like. Obviously brevity is the raison d'etre of a headline so my headline is a non-starter anyway...

Not an important issue, but one that happens frequently enough that it is noticeable.

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” —Mark Twain

What part of man getting hit by train sounds like the train was at fault?

 

[ScouseAndy]

The words striking and hitting both imply that the train has gone out of its way to collide with the person. As the train hasnt done any action out side of the norm in the moments leading up to the incident it could be misleading to the casual reader who is unaware of how trains operate.

A headline "Train Collides with Illegal Trespasser" leaves the casual reader under far less likely to think that the train was at fault for the incident the "Train hits Man", its all about words and their connotation as described by Ziv

 

[KmH]

The wording is a bit curious.

Note the photo of the writer accompanying the article.

One might suspect a lack of experience and/or contamination from the poor state of today's journalism for the wording.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Because the connotation is that the train is at fault.

Source?

 

[SarahZ]

I'm going to take my English degree and 20+ years of professional writing, editing, and proofreading experience and leave this thread before my head explodes.

Only a completely insane moron would assume the train purposely left the tracks to strike some innocent pedestrian. There is absolutely no need to change the wording. None. The train hit the pedestrian because the pedestrian was in the train's right-of-way, and the train could not stop in time.

No matter how many synonyms you use in place of the word "hit", that doesn't change the MEANING of the statement. Do you even know what synonyms are? Collide, hit, strike, smash, plow into, crash into - those all mean the same thing. The verb choice is not the issue; the placement of nouns is, and the author did it properly.

You are arguing semantics like the foamiest of foamers, all because you cannot bear the thought of someone thinking the poor, little train might possibly be at fault for hitting a pedestrian. The trick is that the fault for believing this scenario lies with someone who cannot comprehend basic English, and no amount of coddling via writing is going to change that.

Journalists already pander to the lowest common denominator. While the AP has not set a specific reading level to aim for, journalists tend to keep jargon to a minimum and gear their vocabulary toward an 8th-10th grade reading level. If journalists continue to dumb it down for those who still do not get it, we may as well scrap newspapers and resort to crayon drawings and puppet shows.

 

[Steve4031]

Enough with the English lessons and semantics. Let's stick to the topic.

 

[NW cannonball]

Enough with the English lessons and semantics. Let's stick to the topic.

And the topic is?

 

[Steve4031]

Enough with the English lessons and semantics. Let's stick to the topic.

And the topic is?

Can you read?

 

[JoeBas]

Either the man near the tracks was a drunk hobo, high on drugs, stupid, careless, a daredevil, ill or wanted to commit suicide by train. I hope that he recovers and has a chance to tell the authorities his side of the story but really now, did he have any business being that near to the tracks? This individual caused his own injury and it was in no way Amtrak's fault.

You left out "Foamer trying to get an EXCITING video." Though I guess "Stupid" or "Careless" might cover those.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Even as a young child who was completely ignorant of Newtonian physics it was pretty clear to me that a train was a large, fast, and dangerous thing to be around. I would posit that many (if not most) people who are hit by trains are likely to suffer from chronic depression, suicidal tendencies, drug dependence, dopamine deficiency, or other self-destructive personality disorders. I somewhat doubt that ignorance alone would lead to this many incidents and fatalities.

 

[JoeBas]

Oh, I don't know. I just about saw a real-life Operation Lifesaver commercial yesterday.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6777571,-95.3216976,3a,90y,90.06h,79.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s72pg2kAebDocoH70K2h3SQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D72pg2kAebDocoH70K2h3SQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D309.79529%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

Train coming left to right, mook drives in on the road from the right, sees the gates are down, drives PAST his lane past the median to the opposite side, and up the opposing traffic lane intending to cut back ON the tracks through the median to avoid the down gates on the other side. Unfortnately for him, cop was right behind him and lights him up...

... so he stops ON THE TRACKS, and gets out of his car to talk to the cop. Horn is blowing, cop yells at the guy to get back in and moves his truck. Guy gets back in the truck, continues arguing with the cop, NOT moving his vehicle, cop yells at him to bail. Guy finally hits reverse and gets off the track less than a second before the engines would have hit him.

Here's. Your. Sign.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

So far as I am aware the US has never conducted a formal inquiry into the likely causes and remedies of trespasser fatalities. I would personally support funding for such a study to see if we can get a better understanding of the situation. In the UK it would appear the vast majority of trespasser fatalities are likely to be suicide related. Perhaps the same is true here as well.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/19185/rail-safety-statistics-2014-15.pdf

 

[JoeBas]

In my experience, it seems that trains in the UK are much more grade separated than here in the states. I'd imagine that it's still more suicides than not, but somewhat closer in the ratio. 1

 

[PRR 60]

So far as I am aware the US has never conducted a formal inquiry into the likely causes and remedies of trespasser fatalities. I would personally support funding for such a study to see if we can get a better understanding of the situation. In the UK it would appear the vast majority of trespasser fatalities are likely to be suicide related. Perhaps the same is true here as well.

UK_Rail_Study.png

There is this one:

US DOT 2015