(02-21-2020, 09:29 PM)MidTowner Wrote:(02-21-2020, 05:14 PM)jeffster Wrote: Not really. So here is a question: If you had a special needs child, or any child really, would you be letting her walk your child across railway tracks? Or anywhere, really? I know I wouldn't be OK with her. But perhaps you'd need to be a parent first to understand. The little child injured in this was not at fault.
I couldn't help but laugh when I read this. What, he's disqualified from making any comments if he doesn't happen to be a parent? And when did anyone say anything about the little child being at fault?
I didn't say that Dan (or anyone) said the little child was at fault (though some initial reports suggesting she saved the child who had ran away). I was making a statement myself that the child was not at fault. She was charged, so far only under laws related to Railway Safety Act, because of what she did "did fail to give way to railway equipment at a road crossing, Railway Safety Act sec 26.2". Had she been chasing the kid to get the child to safety it is doubtful any charges would have been laid.
And no one is disqualified from commenting on anything. That said, having experience in something, whatever it is, does give those with qualifications and those without, a much different perspective. For example, we can complain about building design (Drewlo!) but unless we're a designer and know all that there is to know about Drewlo, we can't come up with a qualified enough answer, just armchair opinions.
The same applies here; the details we have now is that she ignored the rail signals because their were locomotives shunting cars back and forth. This goes on for some time. Maybe the boy had to take a piss, and was getting irritated, so as the trains were reversing again, they made a beeline for it and crossed into the path of a faster moving GO train.
For sure her actions were dangerous though, as what happened shows that.