Pop Quiz: A train is about to hit someone and you have your camera. What do you do?

Bill Burk · Dec 9, 2012

cliveh said:
This phenomena is also recorded by quite famous photographers and I may be wrong about this, but I understand that after Weegee took this picture the drunk walked into the road and was killed, which Weegee recorded as a series of pictures. Why did he not try to help the poor guy?

I wouldn't expect Weegee to do anything but shoot pictures.

Me? I take no pictures in life and death situations, I drop everything to help - even if there is little I can do. Last time someone got hurt, there were three capable adults present to help. I could have reached in my backpack for the camera and let the others help. Instead I pulled out the first aid kit and provided gauze.

I do not fault the photographer in this case. I believe he could have interceded (like a moderator) before it escalated. He could have yelled "hey, come here" and it could have changed the whole story. But he didn't and that opportunity was lost. How could he have known what was to unfold?

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 9, 2012

*double post*

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 9, 2012

^^^ He had time to take a photo. He could have rushed over in an attempt to pull the man out of the way. He could have done this without any serious risk to his own life. He decided to take a photograph instead. Would he make the same decision next time? Who here would? If the man has any conscience at all he'll be deeply ashamed for the rest of his life.

MartinCrabtree · Dec 10, 2012

I cannot/will not judge the photographer. Only he knows whether he could have. However the decision to publish was one that was made with ample time. For that I condemn the editor.

Craig Swensson · Dec 11, 2012

lotsa folks end up being pulled off death row in a certain country don`t they?
I mean it is really easy and, I will add,a base human reaction to `think you know'
It takes real intelligence to `know you know'
If you where not there to witness, you have NO place making judgement.
Oh, and BTW, saying you would `do' something is plain BS.
Only an action can speak to that - words mean nothing.
This smacks of old world tittle tattle,where fact is produced by innuendo and rumour.

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 11, 2012

I refuse to defend this photographer. He did "do something". He took a photo. A gallant and brave soul he is. What I "do know" is that my first reaction would NOT be take take a picture. I would much rather be a coward and flee in unthinking panic than remain and "make the decision" to take a photo instead of at least attempting to help.

Diapositivo · Dec 11, 2012

I'm with the photographer with both hands and feet.

First, I don't understand how people don't understand that lifting a man in that circumstance is a very risky exercise. You can be a "hero" if you do it, therefore you cannot be a "coward" if you don't do it. Nobody has the "must" to risk his life to help others. It's noble and generous if you do it. It's human and fine if you don't.

The fingerpointing case would be founded only if helping the person in danger would entail no personal risk for the helper.

That important point made, taking pictures is always fine in my book. If I had the readiness of spirit, and if I were there, I would take pictures of bank robberies, firearm exchange, and anything else. "Intervening" is something devoted to the police. People without cameras call the police. People with a camera take pictures which can be very important. I know with modern phones that's a bit blurry. Documenting any event can be precious one day.

(Hypothesis: the person doesn't die because the train manages to stop in time. The person sues the NY underground and wins thanks, in part, also to the images taken by the photographer. Or the person dies and the shock created by the pictures makes people think about remedies so that it doesn't happen again. No pictures, no story).

That particular photographer is a news photographer and he did exactly what he is supposed to do. Your tire fitter is supposed to fit tires, your dentist is supposed to cure teeth, and your news photographer is supposed to take pictures of anything newsworthy in front of him. Had he done it for the vile money, so be it. The tire fitter and the dentist do it for the vile money as well.

It's too easy to point fingers. Don't judge, and you won't be judged.

And in any case tube trains are normally bound to enter the station at a certain slow speed so that they can break in such circumstances. Nobody seems to blame the real culprit, NY underground, for the sloppy security measures.

Ten seconds at each station could be "wasted" in a slow approach and it would be much more sensible. I think if I bet the train was approaching the station at an excessive speed I would likely win.

Darkroom317 · Dec 11, 2012

There would likely not be as much conversation about the man that died and subway safety if this man had not taken photos that he did.

StoneNYC · Dec 11, 2012

Diapositivo said:
I'm with the photographer with both hands and feet.

First, I don't understand how people don't understand that lifting a man in that circumstance is a very risky exercise. You can be a "hero" if you do it, therefore you cannot be a "coward" if you don't do it. Nobody has the "must" to risk his life to help others. It's noble and generous if you do it. It's human and fine if you don't.

The fingerpointing case would be founded only if helping the person in danger would entail no personal risk for the helper.

That important point made, taking pictures is always fine in my book. If I had the readiness of spirit, and if I were there, I would take pictures of bank robberies, firearm exchange, and anything else. "Intervening" is something devoted to the police. People without cameras call the police. People with a camera take pictures which can be very important. I know with modern phones that's a bit blurry. Documenting any event can be precious one day.

(Hypothesis: the person doesn't die because the train manages to stop in time. The person sues the NY underground and wins thanks, in part, also to the images taken by the photographer. Or the person dies and the shock created by the pictures makes people think about remedies so that it doesn't happen again. No pictures, no story).

That particular photographer is a news photographer and he did exactly what he is supposed to do. Your tire fitter is supposed to fit tires, your dentist is supposed to cure teeth, and your news photographer is supposed to take pictures of anything newsworthy in front of him. Had he done it for the vile money, so be it. The tire fitter and the dentist do it for the vile money as well.

It's too easy to point fingers. Don't judge, and you won't be judged.

And in any case tube trains are normally bound to enter the station at a certain slow speed so that they can break in such circumstances. Nobody seems to blame the real culprit, NY underground, for the sloppy security measures.

Ten seconds at each station could be "wasted" in a slow approach and it would be much more sensible. I think if I bet the train was approaching the station at an excessive speed I would likely win.

I agree with all of the above, well said.

Also, being that I ride NYC trains often, they do come in at excessively high speed a lot of the time, I actually usually close my eyes because the wind brings up dust from the tracks which sometimes gets in your eye.

Also, anyone in NY usually looks at the tracks and has a plan if they fall in, it's just habit, ok where is the safe spot, just incase, it's almost subconscious.

And as I keep saying, that track isn't even locked in, the guy could have easily walked to the other side or off the track with plenty of clearance room for the train.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 11, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
There would likely not be as much conversation about the man that died and subway safety if this man had not taken photos that he did.

I don't agree with the implication that the photos are a good thing because... those first images were taken during the time that help could have been "attempted" WITHOUT risk to the photographer. Things like this make me want to vomit.

StoneNYC · Dec 11, 2012

Old-N-Feeble said:
I don't agree with the implication that the photos are a good thing because... those first images were taken during the time that help could have been "attempted" WITHOUT risk to the photographer. Things like this make me want to vomit.

You do realize how fast those trains come in right? I honestly think 20 seconds is a stretch, more like 8 would be my guess... Just saying, I don't think there was time that would be "safe" unless it would be over a mute, to reason with a drunk belligerent who is also panicked, it takes time, and "reaching out" to pull him up would certainly make 2 deaths in that short time frame...

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 11, 2012

All I'm trying to convey is that he could have, and should have, at least tried to help rather than take a photo. That precious time, even if only a couple of seconds, could have been used rushing to the edge of the track where maybe, just maybe, he would have had time to pull the man out of the way. It's incorrect to assume the drunk would have fought the help. The article clearly stated that he was trying to climb out of the way. AND, BTW, I wonder how long the photographer watched him trying to climb out before he took the photo. What makes anyone assume I'm suggesting the photographer risk his own life? What is the risk in at least running in that direction? I'm not suggesting that he put himself in harm's way... that's just false argument to make excuses.

StoneNYC · Dec 11, 2012

Old-N-Feeble said:
All I'm trying to convey is that he could have, and should have, at least tried to help rather than take a photo. That precious time, even if only a couple of seconds, could have been used rushing to the edge of the track where maybe, just maybe, he would have had time to pull the man out of the way. It's incorrect to assume the drunk would have fought the help. The article clearly stated that he was trying to climb out of the way. AND, BTW, I wonder how long the photographer watched him trying to climb out before he took the photo. What makes anyone assume I'm suggesting the photographer risk his own life? What is the risk in at least running in that direction? I'm not suggesting that he put himself in harm's way... that's just false argument to make excuses.

Running over and trying to help a panicked drunk person IS putting yourself in harms way, even if not fighting back he would scramble to cling to you inevitably pulling you in if you lost your footing in the struggle, ESPECIALLY if you are old and feeble..

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 11, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Running over and trying to help a panicked drunk person IS putting yourself in harms way, even if not fighting back he would scramble to cling to you inevitably pulling you in if you lost your footing in the struggle, ESPECIALLY if you are old and feeble..

Well, I'm not that old but I'm plenty feeble. From my perspective I suppose it wouldn't be much loss to the world anyway.

StoneNYC · Dec 12, 2012

Old-N-Feeble said:
Well, I'm not that old but I'm plenty feeble. From my perspective I suppose it wouldn't be much loss to the world anyway.

Now now, don't be all self deprecating ...

Diapositivo · Dec 12, 2012

In these situations one cannot just make an attempt and cease doing it if it doesn't work.
If you have no "handle" where to keep yourself your attempt to lean over the embankment to lift the other person can easily make you fall inside the trap. The man is grasping your hand and pulling you toward him with all his weight (as he's lifting himself) and you will not manage to lean backward. Gravity will work against you "big time".

A different case would be if, say, the man already had a knee above the embankment and you only have to help him for the last push.

For me it would be basically impossible to lift a man who is inside a hole up to his chest just by the sheer force of my arms/legs.

Curt · Dec 12, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Running over and trying to help a panicked drunk person IS putting yourself in harms way, even if not fighting back he would scramble to cling to you inevitably pulling you in if you lost your footing in the struggle, ESPECIALLY if you are old and feeble..

Chances are the helper would be pulled over as the drunk climbed out. Dealing with intoxicated individuals is not for the faint of heart.

Where were the guard rails, the security, track and train avoidance equipment, and on and on. Statistics, that's what it comes down to. It was predetermined that xxx number of people would be injured and or killed in the subway. There are no absolutes in this world. Statistically next time or two maybe some citizen will save someone. And out of the saves stistically a few will be given the hero award as outstanding citizens which makes everything look really civilized.

If the people in this thread had their vote on whether to help or not help it would graph out as a nice bell curve.

Steve Smith · Dec 12, 2012

Curt said:
Where were the guard rails, the security, track and train avoidance equipment.

There are some stations on the London Underground now which are totally sealed off between the platform and the track with sliding doors which only open when a train is present. I expect to see a lot more of these in the future.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/news46/3404145349/

Obviously the train driver now has to stop in exactly the right place!

Steve.

Sirius Glass · Dec 12, 2012

This is one of those obnoxious questions like: If both your parents fell in the river and you could only save one, which one would you save?
One day in high school, I got tired of those stupid obnoxious questions, to I answered the teacher by saying, "I would walk away saving neither and thus relieving myself of the possible future guilt of not saving the other one." The teacher stopped asking questions like that any more.

batwister · Dec 12, 2012

Sirius Glass said:
This is one of those obnoxious questions like: If both your parents fell in the river and you could only save one, which one would you save?
One day in high school, I got tired of those stupid obnoxious questions, to I answered the teacher by saying, "I would walk away saving neither and thus relieving myself of the possible future guilt of not saving the other one." The teacher stopped asking questions like that any more.

That's a pretty twisted thing for a teacher to be asking. There would be inquiries, strikes, riots and media hysteria if that happened today.

JBrunner · Dec 12, 2012

Everything in this thread is pure speculation. What could have been done, what should have been done, what you or I could do, or would do, will always be speculation. We do not know.

I have on occasion saved people from greater or lesser peril at some risk to myself. On a few occasions I have chosen courses of action or inaction that were short of "heroic". I can't tell you the exact reasons for either, it just happens. The outcome of any of it, as anyone who has been in these kinds of situation will tell you, is pure fate. There is no conscious decision, you just do or do not, and you don't know which it was, or what you could or should have done, but didn't, until it is over.

What we do know is that a man pushed another man off the platform in front of an oncoming train. We know who was killed and by whom. Everything else is lost to the fog of war, even, most likely, to those present. Perhaps for someone who was present there is some miserable hindsight available. It may or may not be 20/20, and i feel for that person. But there is no hindsight whatsoever for armchair speculators. We like to talk big, but we weren't there. We don't know. I find it fascinating that so many think they do.

Diapositivo · Dec 12, 2012

Steve Smith said:
There are some stations on the London Underground now which are totally sealed off between the platform and the track with sliding doors which only open when a train is present. I expect to see a lot more of these in the future.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/news46/3404145349/

Obviously the train driver now has to stop in exactly the right place!

Steve.

In Paris Line 1 has automatic doors. I also suppose these will be the norm in the future, as they can be "retrofitted" to old platform. I wonder what happens when the crowd is "pushing" to enter thus slowing the closing of the doors.

With the double doors the persons trying to catch the train no matter what will slow the closing of the doors much more I suppose. Some people might remain with bags, umbrellas etc. "in between".

Now that I think about it, one of the things that slow underground train operations is that people must first get off, then people can get on. People trying to get on, in crowded stations and situations, are an obstacle to people getting off.

With modern trains which have carriages communicating with each other (a long "snake" where you can walk freely) tube trains could be optimized so that let's say the first carriages are for getting on only, and last carriages are for getting off only. That would make the pavement traffic "one way". All the internal paths of the tube stations could be optimized so as to avoid double senses of circulation.

http://www.alamy.com/thumbs/6/{0C7BB5B1-BADA-4A95-9F93-D698B2C01FB0}/CTC3F9.jpg

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 12, 2012

I know some cities (Toronto? Boston?) have subways where there are platforms on both sides of the train, so the doors can be opened on one side for passengers to exit before the doors on the other side of the train open to let passengers enter. The (relatively) new AirTrain to JFK airport in Manhattan has glassed-in platforms with sliding doors. New York's subways are old, and I could imagine any kind of retrofitting would be a challenge and a huge expense that most people would argue would be better applied to building more lines to reduce crowding.

TheFlyingCamera · Dec 12, 2012

Yes- trying to retrofit the NYC system would probably run into the billion dollar range, because you'd not only have to modify every station, but you'd have to replace all the trains so that they fit the station gates. And the stations are not standard sizes - some have higher ceilings, some lower, and the platforms are different sizes as well. Parts of the system date back to 1885, and the main underground network opened in 1904. So you're dealing with well over a century's worth of construction styles and evolving design standards.

StoneNYC · Dec 12, 2012

What David and FlyingCamera said...

There are some stations where the standing area is less wide than the inside of the train, and you are basically pressed against the wall when the train pulls in... not many, but there's at least one or two like that. They ARE making new trains and new stations that are updated that will open soon (like the next few years) but not all of them certainly, just a few. NY is just too old of a system to retrofit. People just need to stop being stupid... I blame the people not the the train system.

Pop Quiz: A train is about to hit someone and you have your camera. What do you do?

Bill Burk

Old-N-Feeble

Old-N-Feeble

MartinCrabtree

Craig Swensson

Old-N-Feeble

Diapositivo

Darkroom317

StoneNYC

Old-N-Feeble

StoneNYC

Old-N-Feeble

StoneNYC

Old-N-Feeble

StoneNYC

Diapositivo

Curt

Steve Smith

Sirius Glass

batwister

JBrunner

Moderator

Diapositivo

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

StoneNYC

Pop Quiz: A train is about to hit someone and you have your camera. What do you do?

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency