Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2009 · Railroad Tracks and Photography
  
 
Jacob D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


Wow, lots of fun discussion lately

Railroads are dangerous places, just like a freeway. You shouldn't pull over on a busy freeway to take photos, you shouldn't do it at a railroad either. People who spend time up close and personal with potentially dangerous places and things are specially trained to do so. Anyone lacking a working knowledge of the dangerous place or thing has no business being there.

I hope this lady gets thrown out of court.



Nov 19, 2009 at 04:39 AM
patrick_morris
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


I prefer how trains worked in India, where you can just open the door to the moving train and hang out. Or go from one platform to the next across the tracks. Or take a dump on the tracks if nature called.


Nov 19, 2009 at 04:50 AM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


Ad hominem abusive

"Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."

If you have something to say about my arguments, do so under that guise, but I do not appreciate people on this forum insulting me, personally, for my opinions on this matter.



Nov 19, 2009 at 06:36 AM
Pandacat
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


kakomu wrote:
Ad hominem abusive

"Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."

If you have something to say about my arguments, do so under that guise, but I do not appreciate people on this forum insulting me, personally, for my opinions on this matter.



You seem to be the only one on this thread to think it's OK to trespass on private property, put yourself in harm's way, and then blame the property owner for your stupidity.

And I do not agree with your assumption above that your ".. arguments or assertions..... have logical merit.." I see no merit at all in your assertions. Just as some many people did not agree with your assertions in CRFTony's thread about someone stealing his name list. You were the only one that seemed to be comfortable with theft. And you blamed Tony for allowing it to be stolen.

And I do not agree that I, or anyone else, must frame our comments within some guideline you provide.

A lot of folks on this forum have already hit the Hide Me button for your name. I don't want to do that. There is a red-neck axiom that seem's to apply to you... Hangout with the mentally retarded, they're fun to talk to.

Oh, and if you have some time this weekend, please go play on the tracks. After all, you don't need permission. It's only private property.











Nov 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM
finster1018
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


I'm just surprised the photog wasn't named in the suit. Maybe the only thing he was smart enough to have her sign a waiver before doing the shoot.

+1 to what PandaCat said...damn, pandacat got some balls!!



Nov 19, 2009 at 01:14 PM
bigbee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


It's great that everyone has fully-formed opinions despite not having all the facts in the case, but we have judges and juries to determine fault in these types of cases. It is not inconceivable that the railroad was negligent in some respect; it is also possible that the woman was foolish and reckless and deserves no compensation whatsoever.

Implying that she is inherently stupid, however, denies the fact that one can go all over the Internet (including this forum) and see images of people on and around railroad tracks. I'm sure that this creates a sense in people that it is both safe and common to venture onto tracks to take pictures. While it is common, it certainly is not safe.



Nov 19, 2009 at 01:33 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


kakomu wrote:
Blaming the lion would be tantamount to blaming the train for hurting the woman. She isn't doing that. Rather, blaming the railroad company (BNSF) would be like blaming the travel guide on your jungle safari.

Again, I'm still firm in my belief that she isn't stupid because she tried to get away. If there was a hidden danger (the train wasn't the hidden danger) that prevented her escape and ensnared her leg (if Steady's article is true), then she wasn't stupid. She operated under the assumption that she could walk or run away from the train (which is a rational and
...Show more


SHE WAS TRESSPASSING!!!!! If people are tresspassing or in the process of some other criminal activity, then they should loose any rights to sue for liability provided no malicious intent on the part of the owners (pits pith sharp spikes, landmines, etc.). Malicious intent is FAR harder to prove than mear negligence.

I hope this woman looses and is reamed a new butthole by the judge. If I were the train company I'd press charges for criminal tresspass.



Nov 19, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


bigbee wrote:
It's great that everyone has fully-formed opinions despite not having all the facts in the case, but we have judges and juries to determine fault in these types of cases. It is not inconceivable that the railroad was negligent in some respect; it is also possible that the woman was foolish and reckless and deserves no compensation whatsoever.

Implying that she is inherently stupid, however, denies the fact that one can go all over the Internet (including this forum) and see images of people on and around railroad tracks. I'm sure that this creates a sense in people that it is
...Show more


She was TRESSPASSING and should therefore loose any right to sue liability.



Nov 19, 2009 at 01:46 PM
Chris Chris
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


It's already been argued, mentioned and implied here, but our litigious society makes me sick, sick, sick!!!!!!!! What ever happened to the concept that people hold the responsibility for their own safety and well being??


Nov 19, 2009 at 02:03 PM
donrisi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


Two23 wrote:
I mostly photo trains--it's my niche. I have a lot of experience with them and am around them every day. Trains now run on CWR--continuous welded rail. There are no joints; there is no clickety clack. Modern engines such as the Dash 9 are sound muffled pretty well, and the vaccuum that forms around a train when it's running at track speed reduces most sounds from going forward of the train. Trains can actually be very quiet. The rumble noise they make is hidden in the background noise we hear every day. If you think you're going to be safe
...Show more

+1



Nov 19, 2009 at 02:08 PM
 



kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


Pandacat wrote:
You seem to be the only one on this thread to think it's OK to trespass on private property, put yourself in harm's way, and then blame the property owner for your stupidity.


Regardless of my opinions, that is no reason to attack me personally. I haven't attacked anyone personally in this thread.

Pandacat wrote:
And I do not agree with your assumption above that your ".. arguments or assertions..... have logical merit.." I see no merit at all in your assertions. Just as some many people did not agree with your assertions in CRFTony's thread about someone stealing his name list. You were the only one that seemed to be comfortable with theft. And you blamed Tony for allowing it to be stolen.


His friends list wasn't "stolen". It was publicly available and someone else decided to try to add all those friends to his list too.

Pandacat wrote:
And I do not agree that I, or anyone else, must frame our comments within some guideline you provide.


The guideline I provided above was provided by the Greeks and Romans of long ago. It pertains to a logical fallacy which, essentially, invalidates your opinion based on the fact that all you can do is attack me.

Pandacat wrote:
A lot of folks on this forum have already hit the Hide Me button for your name.


Who? Or are you just trying to make me feel bad?


Edited on Nov 19, 2009 at 03:38 PM · View previous versions



Nov 19, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Patrick Elliott
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


Perhaps the plaintiffs are being represented by the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.


Nov 19, 2009 at 03:31 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


I hate being the first auto at a RR crossing. I can't help but think about what would happen if there was a derailment at any speed. It doesn't happen often, thank goodness, but it does happen.

Here's hoping the RR track photo will go the way of the fake farm fence or wagon wheel soon.



Nov 19, 2009 at 03:49 PM
fstop212
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


if she wins the lawsuit, they should tie up the jury and Mr. and Mrs. Gable and run them all over. Throw in the ambulance chasing attorney. Here in NY some jackass, drunk out of his mind, fell on the subway tracks lost part of his leg and sued. He was awarded 2.3 million. It make me sick to my stomach. Who do you think is paying for this? Not that ahole that fell into the tracks.
People here complain about the high fares and cuts in service. They fair to remember all the frivolous law suits because of peoples stupid actions. Really makes me sick. Sorry to ramble..........



Nov 19, 2009 at 05:40 PM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


fstop212 wrote:
He was awarded 2.3 million. It make me sick to my stomach. Who do you think is paying for this? Not that ahole that fell into the tracks.


Actually, the insurance companies pay for most, if not all of the awards or settlements in PI cases.

fstop212 wrote:
People here complain about the high fares and cuts in service. They fair to remember all the frivolous law suits because of peoples stupid actions. Really makes me sick. Sorry to ramble..........


High fares, cuts in service, etc have more to do with political posturing than with lawsuits. For instance, the CTA in Chicago let the infrastructure of their L train system crumble for decades before having to engage in repairs, necessitating two rate hikes in < 5 years.



Nov 19, 2009 at 08:10 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


kakomu wrote:
Actually, the insurance companies pay for most, if not all of the awards or settlements in PI cases.

Where does the money come from? The malpractice insurance for obstetricians in my area is near or over $100k. Then insurance companies want to pay doctors pennies on the dollar (based on published fair and reasonable charges) for procedures.

There's a common game being played. Lawyers file suit for outrageous amounts. They know what it will cost the defendants to bring the case to trial. They offer to accept slightly less and insurance companies settle for that ignoring the actual merits of the case. I've seen this happen to close friends.



Nov 19, 2009 at 08:32 PM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


dmacmillan wrote:
Where does the money come from? The malpractice insurance for obstetricians in my area is near or over $100k. Then insurance companies want to pay doctors pennies on the dollar (based on published fair and reasonable charges) for procedures.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement. Though, you must bear in mind that malpractice insurance is a lot different, because in such cases, the doctor really is completely at fault. If the doctor repeatedly is being sued for malpractice, at some point in time an insurance company will drop them. This is different from a large company, which has a mega policy in place.

dmacmillan wrote:
There's a common game being played. Lawyers file suit for outrageous amounts. They know what it will cost the defendants to bring the case to trial. They offer to accept slightly less and insurance companies settle for that ignoring the actual merits of the case. I've seen this happen to close friends.


The actual amount of money stated in a complaint is irrelevant. In fact, many jurisdictions simply require you to state that the amount of money you are seeking exceeds a certain amount to remove yourself from small claims. Plaintiffs' attorneys will rarely ask for a specific amount of money with the expectation of actually receiving that amount of money (or believing that the case is worth that amount of money). Settlements and actual monies received are typically dictated by the severity of the accident and past experiences as well as what amount of money an insurance company is willing to put on the table. If the amount asked for is excessive and mediation between plaintiff and co-defendants fail, a client or insurance company may ask someone to fight the claim.

A small company may have a very small liability amount or no insurance at all, in which case, a PI lawsuit is a terrible thing for them. However, a larger defendant (and BNSF is a VERY large defendant) is bound to have an insurance policy of one sort or another and considering how hazardous trains are, in and of themselves, BNSF is bound to have a gigantic insurance policy for accidents.

Moreover, settling, regardless of the merits of the case, makes business sense. If it costs $X to settle and $X+$20000 to litigate the case to trial, plus potentially more if the defendant loses the trial, what's the point of going through all of that? It just costs time and money. If it's cheaper in the long run to get the case out of the way with a settlement, an insurance company will go for it. At the end of the day, an insurance company isn't worried about wounded pride.

Then again, sometimes a company wants to fight every lawsuit possible (because the insurance will pick up the tab) simply to make sure that they aren't viewed as an easy target. This is especially true in heavy machinery and construction machinery where accidents happen all the time.

It should also be noted that many settlements occur just prior to trial either at court-mandated settlement conferences/mediation and sometimes the day of trial. Trials are expensive and either the insurance company or the defendant doesn't want to go through trial.



Nov 19, 2009 at 10:24 PM
toddf
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


This society is so messed up that people would easily blame others for their own wrong doing and easily get away with fat paycheck. Just like the kids parents who sued MJ for his wrong doing, which later tunned out to be a baloney.


Nov 19, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Grognard
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


In other words legalized extortion is fine with you since they can "afford it". The woman was breaking the law, she deserves prosecution, and while I have no hope that the Judge/Jury will toss out this silly@ss lawsuit, I can hope. Also, if I read your post correctly, if you sue a Dr. for malpractice=they are guilty, pay me the big bucks? Another reason I loathe, and despise PI lawyers, they seem to have no morals, ethics, scruples, or decency IMHO.

kakomu wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement. Though, you must bear in mind that malpractice insurance is a lot different, because in such cases, the doctor really is completely at fault. If the doctor repeatedly is being sued for malpractice, at some point in time an insurance company will drop them. This is different from a large company, which has a mega policy in place.

The actual amount of money stated in a complaint is irrelevant. In fact, many jurisdictions simply require you to state that the amount of money you are seeking exceeds a certain amount to
...Show more



Nov 20, 2009 at 01:52 AM
Patrick Elliott
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · Railroad Tracks and Photography


kakomu wrote:
Moreover, settling, regardless of the merits of the case, makes business sense.


This attitude right here is what is utterly disgusting. Regardless of the merits...this is why these scumbag attorneys go after these cases. They have NO morals and NO ethics. It's not about what's right, it's not about what's just...it's all about the $$$. They ignore and deflect from the facts, they sensationalize and pander to emotions, throw common sense and accountability out the window, and bury the truth. How they can sleep at night is beyond me.



Nov 20, 2009 at 01:53 AM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | People Photography | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password