The electric rail

[kbd]

And it's been removed by YouTube. Quite rightly too; it's not exactly pleasant...

*Quite rightly too*.

I respect that you personally don't find this video to your particular taste.

Personally I think it's a very useful educational tool and I don't find it particularly graphic. It's nothing you wouldn't see watching the A-Team or Mission Impossible.

Over 500,000 watched this video without any kind of problem. One person out of half-a-million decides that he has right to tell thousands of others what they can watch and what they cannot watch.

Fortunately - like wikileaks - you cannot kill off free speech and that video is still hosted and can be found if you throw the right string into the search.

I just really find it really sad that there is a guy on a rail forum that would flag a video to deny others their right to see what can happen when acting in a dangerous way on the railways.

 

[Metadyneman]

To be fair. Youtube is open for everyone to watch and sometimes even if you think it might be one man's view over another denying access to a video, There are some subjects which should at least carry a warning that it may not be suitable viewing for everyone.

Personally I found the video of someone touching the Overhead wire then burning to death with flames coming out of his head slightly more graphic than you would see on a normal film, It's not pleasant and it isn't really something (unless you are sick in the head) that I would want to watch over and over again. It would certainly not be suitable for say a child to watch. As youtube doesn't have any restrictions on who can watch what and the video did not carry any warning of it's graphic content then it is probably right that it doesn't appear on Youtube. If someone did report the film and Youtube saw fit to withdraw it then it clearly infringed the terms and conditions of Youtube and was rightly withdrawn. It was not on the whim & fancy of just one person.

 

[kbd]

To be fair. Youtube is open for everyone to watch and sometimes even if you think it might be one man's view over another denying access to a video, There are some subjects which should at least carry a warning that it may not be suitable viewing for everyone.

Personally I found the video of someone touching the Overhead wire then burning to death with flames coming out of his head slightly more graphic than you would see on a normal film, It's not pleasant and it isn't really something (unless you are sick in the head) that I would want to watch over and over again. It would certainly not be suitable for say a child to watch. As youtube doesn't have any restrictions on who can watch what and the video did not carry any warning of it's graphic content then it is probably right that it doesn't appear on Youtube. If someone did report the film and Youtube saw fit to withdraw it then it clearly infringed the terms and conditions of Youtube and was rightly withdrawn. It was not on the whim & fancy of just one person.

Thanks for your reply Metadyneman.

You report flames coming out of the mans head which is simply incorrect. The only "flame" is the explosion upon contact. Certainly no fire and certainly no fire coming from the mans body.

Your report is inaccurate, I don't know if this was an honest mistake or whether you did so in order to make your argument more compelling. As I can't be certain I will take it on trust that it is the former, as the latter would be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I saw it and I agree it would be educational - it's not really any more graphic than the one they were showing in schools in the 1970s with some boy getting his foot stuck in the points and then along came a train. From memory they actually cut to a scene of the severed foot ( well, a shoe stuffed with rags and fake blood anyway ) on the track.

The clip should probably be shown in secondary schools as part of the ongoing anti-trespass campaign.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I saw it and I agree it would be educational - it's not really any more graphic than the one they were showing in schools in the 1970s with some boy getting his foot stuck in the points and then along came a train. From memory they actually cut to a scene of the severed foot ( well, a shoe stuffed with rags and fake blood anyway ) on the track.

The clip should probably be shown in secondary schools as part of the ongoing anti-trespass campaign.

That was acting. This is a real person dying. And not in a pretty way. Utterly unsuitable for education.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

True, so maybe it could be reconstructed with a waxwork or something but looking more or less visually identical?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

True, so maybe it could be reconstructed with a waxwork or something but looking more or less visually identical?

Yes,I think that could be done. But showing it as it is unethical.

 

[kbd]

Yes,I think that could be done. But showing it as it is unethical.

Wow, that statement is just astonishing.

In Afghanistan, a woman reports that she has been raped. The police become involved and a counter-accusation is made that she has committed adultery. She is stoned to death. That is unethical.

A 15 year-old boy in Iran is hung from a crane for his part in a gay relationship. That is unethical.

Tibetans persecuted in their own country whilst millions of ethnic Han Chinese emmigrate there and the tibetans are submitted to what is in effect a slow genocide. That is unethical.

Female genital mutilation, the death penalty, waterboarding, discrimination on the grounds of gender/disability/sexual orientation, corruption, spot fixing, ponzi schemes. They are all unethical.


That someone could claim that creating a video substituting a wax manequin for an electrocuted person is - of all things - unethical, is imho to have been asleep during the ethics class at college.

I am sorry, but it seems to me that the comfortable life of Iphones, Disney DVDs and cultural relitavism has blinded people to what is unethical and what is not.

We will soon be talking about the right to not be offended.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That someone could claim that creating a video substituting a wax manequin for an electrocuted person is - of all things - unethical, is imho to have been asleep during the ethics class at college.
.

You misunderstand.

I said showing it as it is (I.e. A man dying in a gruesome way) in schools is unethical. I agreed with recreating it. Perhaps read the post this time?

 

[Nonsense]

I remember seeing the clip some years ago and it remains with me still. I do somehow wish I could unsee it and even now feel an unease whenever I stand beneath the OHLE.

Would I like my child seeing this clip as a deterrent to playing on the railway? Not sure I would.

 

[At_traction]

I can fully understand someone giving such a clip amiss, not to mention their children. I haven't seen it and don't want to either ; judging by the descriptions, had I seen it as a child I'd have had nightmares for a while...

On the other hand, I (or anyone at our school) didn't need the graphic reminder, knowledge of the dangers of lethal voltage - or, more importantly, the nearby railway itself - was in itself deterrent enough. Largely. Years later, a childhood friend of mine was hit by the OHL arc while doing some shady business atop a carriage :roll:, but amazingly he survived, even fully functioning. I hope that having a kid finally made him stop the stupidities and courtroom gigs...

The danger, and problem therein, is in the apparent tranquility of OHL equipment, being just some silent wires, whereas a busy road (and even railway track at certain, timetable-dictated times) shows its lethality continuously. It can be so difficult to perceive the invisible power that can create thousands of kilowatts of power in a loco's transformer and move thousands of tons along a track. I always get a slight shrugging feeling when I see a loco lift its pantograph with a crackle of electricity. And not only in a t-spottingly sexual sense.

 

[Metadyneman]

Thanks for your reply Metadyneman.

You report flames coming out of the mans head which is simply incorrect. The only "flame" is the explosion upon contact. Certainly no fire and certainly no fire coming from the mans body.

Your report is inaccurate, I don't know if this was an honest mistake or whether you did so in order to make your argument more compelling. As I can't be certain I will take it on trust that it is the former, as the latter would be intellectually dishonest.

Well I'm not sure which version of it you have watched but the one I saw moved on from when he touched the wire and was slumped on top of the coach. Smoke is seen initially from the unfortunate gentleman and after a while flames too. It could be that the one you saw has been cut before that happened and if it is then there is no mistake. I am not aware that I have made any mistake nor am I intellectually dishonest (whatever that means??) or any other dishonest and i find your inference to me being so somewhat distasteful. So If you can't be certain either then I suggest we leave it at that.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Another problem with OHLE is that many people don't realise just how much is live. In most cases other than the support poles themselves, the entire structure is live, not just the wires. Many don't even realise that the catenary wire is live, just the contact wire. Then their is the ability to jump quite large distances. Another problem with high AC voltages is that they can induce a voltage into nearby conductors. That's why conducting structures near the wires must be earthed.

Electricity is general is a dangerous but invisible killer. I think anything over about 50v which can deliver sufficient current can be fatal, and with wet skin even lower voltages can be unpleasent.

When it comes to AC vs DC, the difference is that lower AC current is required to cause Ventricular fibrillation (heart stops pumping properly) than with DC.

The actual effects of electic shock vary depending on voltage, current and frequency (or if DC). At sufficient voltages and currents the blast itself can do the damage, breaking bones or damaging organs, even if the current does not pass through the body. Oviously the path of the current is also a big factor, through the heart is more likely to be fatal, through the head can be nasty too.

 

[90019]

As youtube doesn't have any restrictions on who can watch what and the video did not carry any warning of it's graphic content then it is probably right that it doesn't appear on Youtube.

They do. Certain videos come with a disclaimer about age before them, and only accounts which have the age over 18 can then watch them after agreeing (Obviously this is easy to get round, but at least it's there), people without accounts can't watch them.
The few examples I can think of can't be posted here