dont photograph on train tracks....

[pixmedic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I am probably wrong!

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

 

[Trever1t]

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]

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]

 

[pixmedic]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.