![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The choice of the word "stipulated" seems inappropriate to me. The usual meaning is: to specify, often as a condition of an agreement; to insist on, as a term of an agreement; to guarantee or promise. None of those meanings are appropriate here. I'm unsure whether there is a legal meaning consistent with what the editor means, but in any case that meaning will not be apparent to the normal reader who has no comprehension of such legal jargon. Furthermore, the term is not found in the reference cited, whereas the term "admitted" is found several times. I suggest that "admitted" is preferable, and am reverting once more, not in order to have my own way but to draw attention to the disputed word and this Talk page. Akld guy ( talk) 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone read Amtrak's filing? I don't have PACER access and I haven't seen it posted. I'm not a lawyer, but the Times article suggests that Amtrak has admitted liability, which may preclude a trial altogether. While Centpacrr is correct about the definition of a stipulation, I think it only applies for facts agreed to when a case goes to trial. I'm unsure about using a technical term with specific meaning when it's unclear whether this is in fact what has happened. Regarding the court name, I've seen far too many Wikipedia articles where the court name is omitted and then either the source goes away or gets edited into oblivion. I think it makes sense to mention the court (we do have an article on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, incidentally), for two reasons: protect against the erosion already mentioned, and to give the reader a quick sense of which level of the US court system is involved. My two cents, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackensen ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Amtrak's answer, according to the stories, stipulates acceptance of liability for compensatory damages only but does not speak to potential punitive damages or those limited by statute. The entry now reads:
I trust this now satisfies everybody's concerns. Centpacrr ( talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That passage uses several terms that might be called legalese, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that they are all commonly used in news stories. In contrast, I challenge anyone to find many uses of "stipulate" in a legal context in mainstream news stories. And the word does not appear in either of the two news stories cited for the current language in this article. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)In October 2014 Garner's family announced their intention to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of New York, the police department, and several police officers, seeking $75 million in damages. The parties announced a $5.9-million out-of-court settlement on July 13, 2015.
What originally concerned me was the incorrect phrasing "stipulating that" and Centpacrr's inability to grasp my point that he was inappropriately using it. However, I'm glad to see that the result of all this is that "admitted fault" now appears while allowing him to retain a phrasing of "stipulating" that suits him. I can live with the current wording. Akld guy ( talk) 00:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the unexplained acceleration? There is only one simple explanation, the driver for obvious reasons, manually increased the speed, as there are no other explanations. Driver was experienced to know he was supposed to slow down, applying emergency brake after acceleration is hard to explain. In light of operator-induced crashes in aircraft, why no mention of considerable news coverage of the possibility here? Bachcell ( talk) 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The end of the fourth paragraph of the "Derailment" section cites an article which is biased and self-serving as to Amtrak. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/amtrak-says-it-was-just-months-away-from-installing-safety-system.html?_r=0 . Quoting that article, "If the system [PTC; Positive Train Control] had been operational, “there wouldn’t have been this accident,” said Representative Robert A. Brady, Democrat of Pennsylvania.". PTC, by design, required a very complex net of data that needed not merely equipment on-board, but also on the tracks. Much is made of the requirement for allocated radio frequencies, for instance. But the Philadelphia derailment could have been averted by a far simpler system that operated as a limiter to the train speed: It is possible to imagine a GPS-driven system, akin to a car's GPS navigation, that keeps a database of the speed limit of every piece of track in America, and will automatically identify where the train is, and limit the train's speed to that authorized value, for each location. Such a system would not, of course, avoid all the events a full PTC system would; However, the Philadelphia derailment was almost certainly of a type (simple overspeed) that even a relatively simple device could have avoided. And, such a device would not require any sort of (complex) interconnect with any other hardware off the trains. The article claims that a PTC system was authorized in 2008, but was not activated by mid-2015. I think that there have probably been media references to such a possibility of a much-simpler control: Lest this article become a mere apologist for Amtrak, it should identify simpler methods mentioned by the news media that would, if followed, have prevented the accident here. This is probably yet another case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Sluefoot ( talk) 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Searching the MSM news articles on the Philadelphia train crash, I find that usually they focus on the PTC (Positive Train Control) system, and how expensive and difficult it was to install, and how they were delayed in installing it due to the need to license certain radio frequencies. Presented in that way, that sounds plausible, and it is certainly the most positive spin that Amtrak officials might like to promote, in order to divert as much blame as possible from them or their equipment and lower staff. But I have found an eye-opening article, apparently from the reliable source Philadelphia Inquirer (Philly.com) http://articles.philly.com/2015-05-16/news/62192679_1_amtrak-train-train-188-train-control-system that states "If Amtrak Train 188 had been heading to Philadelphia from New York City, it would not have derailed at the sharp Frankford Junction curve, because an automatic braking mechanism has been in place for years on the southbound side of the tracks to stop a speeding train. But Amtrak never installed the same electronics on the northbound side, so Train 188 was able to enter the curve where the speed limit is 50 m.p.h. at more than 100 m.p.h.". The article goes on to say:
The existing WP article mentions the PTC system and how it might have avoided the derailment, but it does not even give a hint that there was any other sort of deficiency known (or unknown) to management which, if it had been rectified, would also have avoided the accident. This WP article is, therefore, unbalanced as to POV. These facts should be brought to the attention of the reader to more accurately understand what Amtrak's staff had done wrong to precipitate the derailment. Sluefoot ( talk) 06:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I should add that I just discovered another article, http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news&id=305749951 which said, "Under orders from the Federal Rail Administration, Amtrak installed Automatic Train Control on the northbound side of the tracks shortly after the wreck and was examining other potentially dangerous curves where it could be used along the Northeast Corridor. Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150602_Lawmakers_to_grill_Amtrak_for_first_time_since_derailment.html#MUaOEWzlGSRWYWCv.99 ". In other words, don't bother claiming that there was some sort of unknown and unavoidable impediment to this installation. It could have been done years ago. Sluefoot ( talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey folks, can we dial this back a little bit? This discussion is contributing more heat than light and isn't improving the article. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced speculation doesn't belong here; Wikipedia talk pages are not a general discussion forum. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The section labelled "Investigation" ends with a statement, "Earlier, Sumwalt had said, "for somebody who's been through a traumatic event, this is not at all unusual for human behavior to have the mind blank out things like that, at least for the short term."[1][24][46]" I have to question that statement. I am not questioning that Sumwalt said it; rather, I'm questioning whether he is sufficiently a competent, credible source to have a valid opinion on the issue of trauma-induced amnesia. For example, I found the following source http://www.webmd.com/brain/memory-loss , which said, "It's the stuff movies are made of: After a blow to the head, a person wanders aimlessly, unable to remember who he is or where he came from. While such sudden, profound loss of memory is rare, memory loss is a problem that affects most people, to a degree." "Rare" versus "not at all unusual". I'd say there's a major contradiction here. Sumwalt may be an expert on accidents involving transportation, but that does not mean that he is an expert on trauma-induced amnesia. Further, even Sumwalt himself limits his statement by including the comment, "at least for the short term". Well, it's no longer "the short term", is it?. His may very well have been reasonable speculation at the time he said what he did, days after the incident, but the passage of time (so far, nearly 4 months) has made his opinion stale, to say the least. And no, I'm not saying we should replace his comment with the WebMD quote. Rather, we should decide that Sumwalt's statement was at least questionable when it was made, and it has become apparent over time that it is merely speculative and misleading, particularly since Bostian's claimed loss of memory has not been reported as ending even today. Perhaps there is a more recent, more-applicable news report out there, which makes a more realistic claim about the likelihood of a 3-4-month memory loss. For instance, do any of the passengers who had been on that train report memory loss? Probably not. Sluefoot ( talk) 00:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you even admit the possibility that the engineer may have had a medical episode which is ongoing, as a result of which he is entitled to non-disclosure on privacy grounds unless he consents to that disclosure? Is he well enough to fully comprehend any such disclosure entitlement yet, if one is applicable? You're accusing the authorities of stalling for time, but if this is a medical episode incident, they may be mindful that his early consent, either voluntarily or by coercion, may bring about a lawsuit at some point in the future. I'm merely pointing out that there are possible factors that you don't seem able to appreciate. Other than that, I'm in entire agreement with the post of NorthBySouthBaranoff directly above yours. Akld guy ( talk) 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) @ Sluefoot: do you have an actual source to bring forward? If not, then this discussion can serve no further purpose. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The choice of the word "stipulated" seems inappropriate to me. The usual meaning is: to specify, often as a condition of an agreement; to insist on, as a term of an agreement; to guarantee or promise. None of those meanings are appropriate here. I'm unsure whether there is a legal meaning consistent with what the editor means, but in any case that meaning will not be apparent to the normal reader who has no comprehension of such legal jargon. Furthermore, the term is not found in the reference cited, whereas the term "admitted" is found several times. I suggest that "admitted" is preferable, and am reverting once more, not in order to have my own way but to draw attention to the disputed word and this Talk page. Akld guy ( talk) 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone read Amtrak's filing? I don't have PACER access and I haven't seen it posted. I'm not a lawyer, but the Times article suggests that Amtrak has admitted liability, which may preclude a trial altogether. While Centpacrr is correct about the definition of a stipulation, I think it only applies for facts agreed to when a case goes to trial. I'm unsure about using a technical term with specific meaning when it's unclear whether this is in fact what has happened. Regarding the court name, I've seen far too many Wikipedia articles where the court name is omitted and then either the source goes away or gets edited into oblivion. I think it makes sense to mention the court (we do have an article on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, incidentally), for two reasons: protect against the erosion already mentioned, and to give the reader a quick sense of which level of the US court system is involved. My two cents, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackensen ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Amtrak's answer, according to the stories, stipulates acceptance of liability for compensatory damages only but does not speak to potential punitive damages or those limited by statute. The entry now reads:
I trust this now satisfies everybody's concerns. Centpacrr ( talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That passage uses several terms that might be called legalese, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that they are all commonly used in news stories. In contrast, I challenge anyone to find many uses of "stipulate" in a legal context in mainstream news stories. And the word does not appear in either of the two news stories cited for the current language in this article. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)In October 2014 Garner's family announced their intention to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of New York, the police department, and several police officers, seeking $75 million in damages. The parties announced a $5.9-million out-of-court settlement on July 13, 2015.
What originally concerned me was the incorrect phrasing "stipulating that" and Centpacrr's inability to grasp my point that he was inappropriately using it. However, I'm glad to see that the result of all this is that "admitted fault" now appears while allowing him to retain a phrasing of "stipulating" that suits him. I can live with the current wording. Akld guy ( talk) 00:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the unexplained acceleration? There is only one simple explanation, the driver for obvious reasons, manually increased the speed, as there are no other explanations. Driver was experienced to know he was supposed to slow down, applying emergency brake after acceleration is hard to explain. In light of operator-induced crashes in aircraft, why no mention of considerable news coverage of the possibility here? Bachcell ( talk) 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The end of the fourth paragraph of the "Derailment" section cites an article which is biased and self-serving as to Amtrak. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/amtrak-says-it-was-just-months-away-from-installing-safety-system.html?_r=0 . Quoting that article, "If the system [PTC; Positive Train Control] had been operational, “there wouldn’t have been this accident,” said Representative Robert A. Brady, Democrat of Pennsylvania.". PTC, by design, required a very complex net of data that needed not merely equipment on-board, but also on the tracks. Much is made of the requirement for allocated radio frequencies, for instance. But the Philadelphia derailment could have been averted by a far simpler system that operated as a limiter to the train speed: It is possible to imagine a GPS-driven system, akin to a car's GPS navigation, that keeps a database of the speed limit of every piece of track in America, and will automatically identify where the train is, and limit the train's speed to that authorized value, for each location. Such a system would not, of course, avoid all the events a full PTC system would; However, the Philadelphia derailment was almost certainly of a type (simple overspeed) that even a relatively simple device could have avoided. And, such a device would not require any sort of (complex) interconnect with any other hardware off the trains. The article claims that a PTC system was authorized in 2008, but was not activated by mid-2015. I think that there have probably been media references to such a possibility of a much-simpler control: Lest this article become a mere apologist for Amtrak, it should identify simpler methods mentioned by the news media that would, if followed, have prevented the accident here. This is probably yet another case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Sluefoot ( talk) 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Searching the MSM news articles on the Philadelphia train crash, I find that usually they focus on the PTC (Positive Train Control) system, and how expensive and difficult it was to install, and how they were delayed in installing it due to the need to license certain radio frequencies. Presented in that way, that sounds plausible, and it is certainly the most positive spin that Amtrak officials might like to promote, in order to divert as much blame as possible from them or their equipment and lower staff. But I have found an eye-opening article, apparently from the reliable source Philadelphia Inquirer (Philly.com) http://articles.philly.com/2015-05-16/news/62192679_1_amtrak-train-train-188-train-control-system that states "If Amtrak Train 188 had been heading to Philadelphia from New York City, it would not have derailed at the sharp Frankford Junction curve, because an automatic braking mechanism has been in place for years on the southbound side of the tracks to stop a speeding train. But Amtrak never installed the same electronics on the northbound side, so Train 188 was able to enter the curve where the speed limit is 50 m.p.h. at more than 100 m.p.h.". The article goes on to say:
The existing WP article mentions the PTC system and how it might have avoided the derailment, but it does not even give a hint that there was any other sort of deficiency known (or unknown) to management which, if it had been rectified, would also have avoided the accident. This WP article is, therefore, unbalanced as to POV. These facts should be brought to the attention of the reader to more accurately understand what Amtrak's staff had done wrong to precipitate the derailment. Sluefoot ( talk) 06:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I should add that I just discovered another article, http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news&id=305749951 which said, "Under orders from the Federal Rail Administration, Amtrak installed Automatic Train Control on the northbound side of the tracks shortly after the wreck and was examining other potentially dangerous curves where it could be used along the Northeast Corridor. Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150602_Lawmakers_to_grill_Amtrak_for_first_time_since_derailment.html#MUaOEWzlGSRWYWCv.99 ". In other words, don't bother claiming that there was some sort of unknown and unavoidable impediment to this installation. It could have been done years ago. Sluefoot ( talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey folks, can we dial this back a little bit? This discussion is contributing more heat than light and isn't improving the article. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced speculation doesn't belong here; Wikipedia talk pages are not a general discussion forum. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The section labelled "Investigation" ends with a statement, "Earlier, Sumwalt had said, "for somebody who's been through a traumatic event, this is not at all unusual for human behavior to have the mind blank out things like that, at least for the short term."[1][24][46]" I have to question that statement. I am not questioning that Sumwalt said it; rather, I'm questioning whether he is sufficiently a competent, credible source to have a valid opinion on the issue of trauma-induced amnesia. For example, I found the following source http://www.webmd.com/brain/memory-loss , which said, "It's the stuff movies are made of: After a blow to the head, a person wanders aimlessly, unable to remember who he is or where he came from. While such sudden, profound loss of memory is rare, memory loss is a problem that affects most people, to a degree." "Rare" versus "not at all unusual". I'd say there's a major contradiction here. Sumwalt may be an expert on accidents involving transportation, but that does not mean that he is an expert on trauma-induced amnesia. Further, even Sumwalt himself limits his statement by including the comment, "at least for the short term". Well, it's no longer "the short term", is it?. His may very well have been reasonable speculation at the time he said what he did, days after the incident, but the passage of time (so far, nearly 4 months) has made his opinion stale, to say the least. And no, I'm not saying we should replace his comment with the WebMD quote. Rather, we should decide that Sumwalt's statement was at least questionable when it was made, and it has become apparent over time that it is merely speculative and misleading, particularly since Bostian's claimed loss of memory has not been reported as ending even today. Perhaps there is a more recent, more-applicable news report out there, which makes a more realistic claim about the likelihood of a 3-4-month memory loss. For instance, do any of the passengers who had been on that train report memory loss? Probably not. Sluefoot ( talk) 00:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you even admit the possibility that the engineer may have had a medical episode which is ongoing, as a result of which he is entitled to non-disclosure on privacy grounds unless he consents to that disclosure? Is he well enough to fully comprehend any such disclosure entitlement yet, if one is applicable? You're accusing the authorities of stalling for time, but if this is a medical episode incident, they may be mindful that his early consent, either voluntarily or by coercion, may bring about a lawsuit at some point in the future. I'm merely pointing out that there are possible factors that you don't seem able to appreciate. Other than that, I'm in entire agreement with the post of NorthBySouthBaranoff directly above yours. Akld guy ( talk) 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) @ Sluefoot: do you have an actual source to bring forward? If not, then this discussion can serve no further purpose. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
|