A run-of-the-mill grade crossing incident should not rise to the level of an "Amtrak collision" in my opinion. That should be reserved for train on train incidents. Nice work grabbing my attention.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
Warning to those that click the link: be aware of extremely poor website design, "in your face" pop-up advertising, and too many audio/video ads running on the page slowing your browsing machine to a tortoise. No idea if the reportage is as bad as the NYT numpties when it comes to rail.
No offence Richard: I tried to find an alternative but couldn't.
Gist of the story: idiot went around lowered crossing barriers and got himself hit by an Amtrak doing 80mph - and survived.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
Yes, I guess it would have been better to say a car crashed into the Amtrak.
No offense taken, Geoff. I wanted to post something with a video, not just text. I agree that the video has its faults. I hate the pop-up ads and the preliminary video ad (saying "you can skip this ad in 20 sec") and have to sit watching until the video, you want, breaks in. Then the local news regurgitater attempting to describe what happened.
Richard
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
I didn't even get as far as watching any videos! The website was so badly presented that I lost the will to continue.
Now, I understand the need for advertising, but there are good ways and bad ways to do advertising.
Sorry for taking it off-topic. Some people just never learn do they?