U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 1,602,766 times
Reputation: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I don't work for BART so I can't give you an exact number or calculation
Well then, I think the issue is settled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 1,602,766 times
Reputation: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post

People that have died per year on average since service began
BART: 0
Metrolink: 1.8
By your own admission, you said BART runs 10x+ more trains (which hasn't been confirmed). Doing a per year calculation is too simple. What is the per train incident risk?

Do you not know this info?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:12 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,134 posts, read 13,056,856 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGoldstein View Post
By your own admission, you said BART runs 10x+ more trains (which hasn't been confirmed). Doing a per year calculation is too simple. What is the per train incident risk?

Do you not know this info?
What does that matter? BART will still be ZERO!! I can't believe you still can't see that. You know what happens when you divide something by zero? YOU STILL GET ZERO!

Also I NEVER said BART ran 10X more trains, please stop making stuff up. It's probably a lot more than that anyways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:13 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,134 posts, read 13,056,856 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGoldstein View Post
Well then, I think the issue is settled.
What? You ignoring basic transit planning principles and common sense? Yes that has been settled
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 1,602,766 times
Reputation: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
What does that matter?
Because the risk for Metrolink could be fractionally close to zero, which would make the risk a non-factor.

So do you know the per train incident risk or not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:19 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,134 posts, read 13,056,856 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGoldstein View Post
Because the risk for Metrolink could be fractionally close to zero, which would make the risk a non-factor.
Either way it's more than BART and that was the point all along, just accept it already and move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 1,602,766 times
Reputation: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Either way it's more than BART and that was the point all along
So that was your only point all along? That doesn't seem like much of a point if you don't know the per train incident risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:21 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,134 posts, read 13,056,856 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGoldstein View Post
So that was your only point all along? That doesn't seem like much of a point if you don't know the per train incident risk.
Well tell that to the 36+ families of those that have died on Metrolink in the last 10 years. Pretty sick how anyone can trivialize the loss of human life like that.

I had several other points too but you just can't accept them and continue to provide excuse after excuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 1,602,766 times
Reputation: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Well tell that to the 36+ families of those that have died on Metrolink in the last 10 years.
I'll do that if you find the per train incident risk for Metrolink. Deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 11:25 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,134 posts, read 13,056,856 times
Reputation: 5336
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGoldstein View Post
I'll do that if you find the per train incident risk for Metrolink. Deal?
Maybe you should contact Metrolink if you care so much. But I'm guessing you don't and just want to argue since you just can't accept the fact that so many people have died on Metrolink trains while nobody has died on BART trains from accidents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top