# dont photograph on train tracks....



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

I know I know...
"that would neeeeever happen to meeeeee..., im a careful photographer when I take my overly cliche and way overdone snapshots  illegally on traintracks..."

you know..except for this poor guy. 

Man struck, killed by train while posing for picture | www.kirotv.com


----------



## runnah (Jan 21, 2014)

Watch this video. See how quickly they sneak up on you. The dopplar effects makes it so you don't hear them until they are almost on top of you.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

my wife has always refused to photograph on train tracks anyway so...never been an issue for us. 
im just glad noone on the train was hurt in that accident. 

that video is surprising though, its pretty much the opposite of what i would have expected.


----------



## runnah (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> that video is surprising though, its pretty much the opposite of what i would have expected.



I've worked near the line down in DC and its unnerving how quiet the catenary/overheard line trains are. 

Sadly this is what most people think trains are still.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 21, 2014)

runnah said:


> Watch this video. See how quickly they sneak up on you. The dopplar effects makes it so you don't hear them until they are almost on top of you.



I don't think it's the Doppler Effect (which affects the frequency of the perceived tone).  When a train is far away the distance traveled relative to the distance from the listener is small and thus it is difficult to judge the speed ( eg jet planes)  When that the train is moving towards the listener, the distance traveled compared to distance from you is quite a bit greater and the amount of time between hearing it and experiencing it is decreased, thus giving the impression of greater speed when it is closer to you.


----------



## runnah (Jan 21, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Watch this video. See how quickly they sneak up on you. The dopplar effects makes it so you don't hear them until they are almost on top of you.
> ...



I am probably wrong!

I do know it is very hard to judge the speed of an object head on.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 21, 2014)

Not only is it dangerous, illegal (federal) but it's also so cliche'd and overdone that I compare it to selective coloring ...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 21, 2014)

Well part of it is the difficulty in judging the relative motion in the train, the other part of it is a fundamental disrespect of the physics involved.    More than once I've been in a public venue and heard people discussing a train accident, and almost every time some learned man of science pipes up with, "Well why didn't they just stop the train".  Sadly it seems there are far to many people are under the mistaken belief that you can stop a train the same way you can a car, you just slam on the brakes and it will come to a stop.

I guess most folks just don't realize that your dealing with a lot of mass, and that steel wheels on steel rails makes for a very low co-efficient of friction.  This of course makes trains pretty energy efficient, but it also means they don't really have the ability to stop on a dime.  Your average freight train moving at 55 mph will usually travel a mile or more after they hit the brakes.  

Or as my grandpappy used to say, "Inertia son.  It's a *****".


----------



## runnah (Jan 21, 2014)




----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

safety aside, its also trespassing. 
I have always found it interesting that people can be so moralistic about copyright laws, and fight vehemently against anyone stealing their photographs or using them in a manner prohibited by their contract, yet have no issues at all violating someones private (or government) property to get a shot they want or to do a "shoot" for a client.  Trespassing to make money.  I call them hypocrites.


----------



## lambertpix (Jan 21, 2014)

If I'm not mistaken, the UP has done one or more videos to educate on this topic.  As you might imagine, this is no fun at all for the railroads, let alone the poor engineers on these trains.


----------



## skieur (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> safety aside, its also trespassing.
> I have always found it interesting that people can be so moralistic about copyright laws, and fight vehemently against anyone stealing their photographs or using them in a manner prohibited by their contract, yet have no issues at all violating someones private (or government) property to get a shot they want or to do a "shoot" for a client. Trespassing to make money. I call them hypocrites.



I remember a judge ruling in an American case, that a photographer was NOT "Trespassing to make money."  He was shooting photos to make money and shooting photos in this situation is of course, not a crime.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > safety aside, its also trespassing.
> ...



if the photographer is trespassing, then its a crime. whether someone is making money at it or just walking, trespassing is still a crime.

laws aside, I find it morally wrong and a complete lack of respect for other peoples property. 
My personal opinion doesn't seem to stop many people though.


----------



## skieur (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave.  If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

Okay, just add fuel to the debate here.

If it is federal land or federally owned, then if you are a citizen of that country, then technically you can't be trespassing because you technically own the land as a taxpayer.

Not sure it would hold up in court, but I think if I was confronted, then I'd have to use the argument.


----------



## runnah (Jan 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave.  If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.



The entire right of way is owned by the rail company. That includes, the track, the rail bed and anything leading up to a tree line or fence. Usually this is 50-100ft wide. This is all private property. Technically the ONLY legal place to cross the track is at road or pedestrian crossings. Traveling anywhere inside the right of way is considered trespassing regardless of intent.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



i guess it depends on the area. this problem goes well beyond train tracks though, and easily spills over into people going onto private property. even despite no trespassing signs. abandoned/vacant buildings being one of the most popular. That really wasn't the main point of _*this*_ particular thread though, but since its my thread, i wont lock it if i derail it myself. 

_*My *_issue, really, is this... just because it is not technically illegal, does not make it right. 
I have noticed that photographers are one of the absolute _*worst*_ groups for having a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. 
Don't steal my copyrighted photos, but Ill jump your fence to get into your empty building to take pictures because i _*want*_ to. 
they can gussy it up however they want, justify it however they want,  but I just can not see it as anything but a blatant disrespect of
someones property... those _*same*_ people would go ape**** over someone else taking _*their*_ photos (IErivate property) and using them, even in a non commercial sense. 

maybe some of them wouldn't care. there's always the exception to the rule, but i am willing to bet that if I took their photos, removed their watermark (you know, jumped the fence and ignored the signs) and posted them on my website giving them away for free, they would be pretty upset....even though i am not making any money with them. 

I dunno...like i said. this is just how i personally feel about that. its irrelevant really.
I am always being told i should focus my attention more on things that actually matter....Thing is though, I feel that honor, integrity and respect really _*do*_  matter...I guess they went out of style somewhere along the way, replaced by rationalization and gratification.  Maybe im just a moralist. maybe i have just spent too long having rules and protocols drilled into my head. I just cant shake the feeling though.


----------



## lambertpix (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> _*My *_issue, really, is this... just because it is not technically illegal, does not make it right.
> I have noticed that photographers are one of the absolute _*worst*_ groups for having a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
> Don't steal my copyrighted photos, but Ill jump your fence to get into your empty building to take pictures because i _*want*_ to.
> they can gussy it up however they want, justify it however they want,  but I just can not see it as anything but a blatant disrespect of
> someones property... those _*same*_ people would go ape**** over someone else taking _*their*_ photos (IErivate property) and using them, even in a non commercial sense.



Fair point.  I'm curious, though, whether this phenomenon is really worse among photographers, or is it just that we've got a little more visibility over both ends of the spectrum for this group?

There's always a "one bad apple" problem with any group that tries to promote an ethic or standard of behavior -- as soon as a member of the group does something outside the bounds of good behavior (according to that group), that bad apple can be held up as an example of how broken the group is.  I'm not going to name any examples, because I think we can all think of a few of these, but I'm not convinced that photographers have a corner on this market.


----------



## BrandonSCMedia (Jan 21, 2014)

Ouch! I might be reconsidering my track shoot on the 1st. lol


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave.  If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.



That sounds a lot like a "If I don't get caught, I didn't REALLY do anything wrong" approach.      

I don't think that's how the law works.      

And if you're in a truly public place then you're not trespassing even if you're asked to leave. 

This is what has caused so many conflicts with photographers taking photos of police in public areas.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 22, 2014)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > that video is surprising though, its pretty much the opposite of what i would have expected.
> ...



The crazy people in this movie are not on the tracks; they're on the train!  Check to see how they're hanging out the windows.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 22, 2014)

New trains here in GB are much faster than the one in the top gear video - That train is a bit 80s.
A BR class 390 does roughly 100-150mph now.

You can buy a "platform ticket" for enthusiasts to sit around and spot the trains in the station - the police dont like you taking photos though. Tresspassing is (very) illegal and usually there is high traffic, and high fences.


----------



## skieur (Jan 26, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave. If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.
> ...



In both US and Canadian law, in a public place you are not trespassing UNTIL you are asked to leave AND do not do so.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 26, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Okay, just add fuel to the debate here.
> 
> If it is federal land or federally owned, then if you are a citizen of that country, then technically you can't be trespassing because you technically own the land as a taxpayer.



Not all federally owned land is for public access.  Try using this argument on a military base.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 26, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Okay, just add fuel to the debate here.  If it is federal land or federally owned, then if you are a citizen of that country, then technically you can't be trespassing because you technically own the land as a taxpayer.  Not sure it would hold up in court, but I think if I was confronted, then I'd have to use the argument.



That might be the worst argument ever :mrgreen:


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 26, 2014)

This looks like a good place to post some train photos


----------



## pab (Jan 27, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> safety aside, its also trespassing.
> I have always found it interesting that people can be so moralistic about copyright laws, and fight vehemently against anyone stealing their photographs or using them in a manner prohibited by their contract, yet have no issues at all violating someones private (or government) property to get a shot they want or to do a "shoot" for a client.  Trespassing to make money.  I call them hypocrites.



I dont really care either way in this argument but riddle me this.   If your driving over a train crossing you stick your phone/camera out of the window and take a photo down the tracks..   are you violating someones property? Are you  disobeying copyright laws?   In plain view anything can be shot.  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## skieur (Jan 28, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave. If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.
> ...



A public place or by legal definition in the US: "a place that is accessible to, by the general public" can still be private property as in a shopping mall, arena, museum etc. This means that trespassing laws can still apply.
Even on private property walking up to the door of a house is not trespassing, but if the owner at the door tells you to leave, then you are trespassing if you do not do so immediately.

By the way, you can be charged with trespassing in a public school in some areas, by the principal if you are told to leave and do not do so.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 28, 2014)




----------



## Ron Evers (Jan 28, 2014)




----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 28, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> View attachment 65506
> 
> View attachment 65508



Ooh, Ah, Impressive :thumbup:


I can't top a steam locomotive but how about a Big Boy Engine...this keeps up, I'm going to have to process my track track photos...oops.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 29, 2014)




----------



## ratssass (Feb 22, 2014)

'Midnight Rider' Movie Crew Member Hit and Killed by Train - NBC News


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 22, 2014)

You don't even have to be on the tracks,just standing to close one can be pulled under the train from back draft.My brother in law retired from Metro north and my dad from Amtrak. The things they seen or stories told of accidents from trains are far greater then being hit by one at high speeds. How about a human body being coupled between two cars and split in half but live long enough to suffer.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 22, 2014)

Did anyone else catch that it was the guy posing for the photo that was killed and NOT the photographer?


----------



## ratssass (Feb 22, 2014)

"....a little more to the right......look out into the distance.....aaaaaaaaand,that's a wrap!"


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2014)

some nice pics in this thread!!!!
on topic though. Spent a lot of time walking the tracks, cousin and me hung out at rail yard a little as kids. Grew up putting change on the tracks for the train to flatten them. Old man showed me how when I was like 7.  Feeling the rails for vibration (which don't always work). walking backwards to listen for a train. jumped a couple slow moving boxes more than once to cross the city. im still here. And walk the tracks still in summer carrying on what my old man did with me putting change on them for my kids. (don't let them on the tracks though).
My recommendation. Stay off the tracks unless your in a slow m.p.h stretch where you have time to mlove  or IT WILL HIT YOU.  I have never even contemplated walking a Amtrak in a 60+  zone that's like standing on a highway. But roads are FAR more dangerous than rail. You can usually hear a train ahead of time. occurred to me the other night while I was standing partially on a road to get a pic.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2014)

runnah said:


> Watch this video. See how quickly they sneak up on you. The dopplar effects makes it so you don't hear them until they are almost on top of you.


yep. seen that baby trucking threw right before old orchard and taken it to boston.. I've been on that track but sure wouldn't walk it for any long distance. In your favor though is knowing the time schedules if one really felt the need to be on that track. Have to be a real good reason for me to think about hanging out on it though. You can hear it coming but it only gives you about a 6 to 8 second reaction time id say.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> I know I know...
> "that would neeeeever happen to meeeeee..., im a careful photographer when I take my overly cliche and way overdone snapshots illegally on traintracks..."
> 
> you know..except for this poor guy.
> ...


you know why? The woman wouldn't be quiet long enough for them to hear the train comin!!!!!!!!!  LMAO!!!!  My wife follows me up on the tracks I have to keep telling her to hush so I can hear because she talks non stop. shhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  "blah blah blah"    hunny!   shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  "blah blah blah "  shhhhhhhhhhh hear that? "hear what?"  Exactly . so  shhhhhhhhhhh!


----------

