ryanov wrote:I'm guessing this must be what it was like when seatbelts were suggested in cars.
Not even close. Seat belts were a great solution to a clear and present problem. At that time, over 50,000 people per year were killed in auto accidents. At today's numbers, more like 30,000 per year, a train is still 17x safer according to Northwestern University. Today's trains see annual deaths on-train from accidents of ten or less per year, some years with none. To suggest that train passengers are in any way near the peril of auto passengers is statistically impossible. The auto was and is an inherently dangerous mode of transportation. The train is not. The numbers show that the seatbelt is not necessary and there is no clear and present problem.
ryanov wrote:You want to be killed in a preventable accident, enjoy.
Of the on-train deaths every year, probably half aren't preventable by wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt is designed to prevent a passenger from being ejected from their seat. It's useful on board an aircraft due to the very frequent occurence of turbulence. It's useful in a car because after a head-on, the passengers won't eject through the glass and onto the road. On a train, however, there is no windshield or road ahead, there is no turbulence. Of the perhaps 10 deaths per year on-train in the US, many aren't ejected by mowed down. See link to Chatsworth picture below.
https://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/up ... .jpg?w=620
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So long story short, we're basically at the PTC argument. Are we really going to spend millions and millions to prevent five deaths a year or less when grade crossings and trespassers present a far bigger problem? Are we really going to act like hundreds of deaths at grade crossings and trespassers are "cost of doing business" but freak out over something that might not even happen this year?