Tom M wrote:And when I'm in the sleeper, snug in my bed, I should be restrained... how? Thanks for the concern, NTSB, but in the absence of turbulence, I prefer being "free to move about the cabin!"The airlines have figured that one out.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Tom M wrote:And when I'm in the sleeper, snug in my bed, I should be restrained... how? Thanks for the concern, NTSB, but in the absence of turbulence, I prefer being "free to move about the cabin!"The airlines have figured that one out.
WashingtonPark wrote:THIS!!!!!JoeG wrote:The best way to prevent railroad accidents is for trains not to move. I know that Amtrak and its host railroads are working diligently to achieve this goal but they are still failing. i have seen some trains moving faster than i can walk. Perhaps i should notify the NTSB.Reminds me of when I was working and management was always coming up with new safety rules to prove they were doing something. When one particularly ridiculous one came up the Supervising Dispatcher told me no sacrifice was too great for safety. I said if that was the case all trains should be operating restricted-not exceeding 15MPH-speed because that would prove to be much safer than 65. That was the end of that conversation.
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.
ryanov wrote: No one mentioned statistics but you.Exactly. Statistics are how we make intelligent decisions. Emotions aren't. I'm trying to cut to the core of an issue and explain why the proposed solution is a bad idea.
BandA wrote:Three-point seat belts should be available on trains. And luggage restraint should be studied. If you are travelling 59 or 89 or 120MPH and the train derails and flips over the kinetic forces are strong.That statement is absolutely true, but the frequency of that occurring is just so small and the cost so large. Whatever money you can imagine spending on train seatbelts should be spent on grade crossing intrusion measures, trespasser prevention, etc... where people are frequently killed and maimed and put others lives at risk. Recall how many people died at Metro North's Valhalla incident. Seatbelts wouldn't have saved them, and perhaps more would've been killed due to entrapment and fire.
lpetrich wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:51 pm There is, however, a simple safety feature: make the seats face backwards.I wouldn't necessarily call it a case of "not liking them" without expanding on it ---
<snip>
but many passengers don't like them.
#1585619 by lpetrich
Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:51 pm
The only thing I'd be worried about is the upper levels of bunk beds. It seems easy to fall out of them.Upper bunks have safety nets made of seatbelt type material. Quite safe.
ctclark1 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:05 pmEvery MN and LIRR train has 1/2 the seats facing backwards at all times. I can't say I recall ever actually hearing anyone complain about it. Maybe on a half-empty train the forward-facing seats will have more riders but so far as I can tell people are more concerned about not getting stuck next to the toilets.lpetrich wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:51 pm There is, however, a simple safety feature: make the seats face backwards.I wouldn't necessarily call it a case of "not liking them" without expanding on it ---
<snip>
but many passengers don't like them.
Many people have balance and/or motion issues with traveling backwards for long periods of time. This would be especially true with lots of acceleration/deceleration and turns - times when inertia takes an effect on the body. Sure, it's maybe something people might be able to get used to over a long term of "training" the body, but the fact of the matter is we're built for moving forward and many people's brains don't like signals from the inner ear that they're traveling backwards.
Ridgefielder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:41 pm Every MN and LIRR train has 1/2 the seats facing backwards at all times. I can't say I recall ever actually hearing anyone complain about it. Maybe on a half-empty train the forward-facing seats will have more riders but so far as I can tell people are more concerned about not getting stuck next to the toilets.I can't say it's a rare occurrence, but it happens enough times in Baltimore on MARC. MN/LIRR? Different environment, different situation.