AMTRAK throws 15 year old from the train

[Blue Marble Travel]

Somebody at Amtrak had a bug up their butt about this, they gathered a bunch of suits around some conference table, banged their little heads together for a couple of hours, and came up with this nonsense. Why? Because they are in charge. Airlines say a 15 year old is perfectly able and welcome to travel anywhere by themselves, including making connections if needed at ORD, ATL, DFW or other large, confusing airports. Amtrak says, "Go home kid, your not welcome here", after over 40 years of permitting travel by kids that same age with no incidents.

It may be a good idea to ask a pointed question about this matter to Amtrak bosses when a chance presents itself next, and see what they have to say. Specifically it might be worth asking them why they believe Amtrak is less safe than Greyhound and the airlines, and what are their plans to improve safety to make it as safe as Greyhound and the airlines, so as to allow 15 year olds to travel again, and see what they have to say.

I wonder how many of the suits who butted their heads together to come up with this are now not suits at Amtrak anymore too.

BTW I found this blog that aligns quite a bit with my opinion on this matter. The Animal House style double speak from Amtrak is quite interesting too.

OK, I guess now it is time for me to duck, since of all the sites discussing this matter this one is the most pro-Amtrak management on this matter that I have come across.

I'm there in the trenches with you, jls.

At the time that the policy was hardened, I read several interviews with Amtrak bosses. The common thread was, "no particular incident lead to this, it just seemed the right thing to do." Read: "we have a monopoly, we'll get paid even if we alienate clients, we exist essentially for the convenience and well-being of our employees."

 

[AlanB]

What is it that would make Amtrak less safe than Greyhound for 15 year olds?

While he was talking about a plane, I think that it easily compares to a bus.

I read quite a few comparisons to minors traveling alone on airlines in the thread. It really isn't a comparable environment in my opinion.

On and airliner you have a much smaller space with passengers all seated, in their assigned seats, for most of the flight. You have only a couple of restrooms on the plane and nowhere else to wander to. You can view virtually the entire passenger cabin, and thus every passenger, from anywhere in the aisle. A typical flight is what, three to five hours?

A train consist is a vastly different environment. You have multiple cars with, in some cases, many restrooms. There are plenty of places to wander off, especially on a long distance train. On Superliners you have both upper and lower levels and insecure lower-level baggage areas. You have coach attendants working two cars, manning doors and cleaning restrooms, while upwards of 150 passengers are traveling in their two cars. Unaccompanied minors are allowed to travel from 6am to 9pm. That's 15 hours. You cannot keep an eye on a minor the same as a flight attendant could on an airplane. It's just not the same thing.

 

[Trogdor]

The world isn't as safe as secure as when I was a kid. It's much more safe and secure. Violent crime has declined remarkably since 1973.

Sadly, sensationalization of crime by television news has only increased.

This.

20-30 years ago, stuff happened. You just didn't read about it on the internet 15 minutes later.

 

[anir dendroica]

I'm not convinced, as some seem to think, that the world is a more dangerous place today than in years past. The statistics I have seen regarding crime rates, etc., just don't support it.

What has changed is the speed at which information, and particularly scary, gruesome news, spreads around the country and the world.

In 1940 if a child was molested on a train in Georgia, it might make local headlines and affect one small town. These days it makes national and Internet news overnight, and parents in Seattle are concerned about their kid traveling alone, and suits in Washington decide to raise the UM age so it doesn't happen again, or if it does it isn't their fault.

At some level our collective risk aversion is taking a fair bit of fun and development of responsibility out of childhood, and I for one plan on bucking the trend should I become a parent.

(Note: I started writing this 12 hours ago and was distracted. I see that someone else has made the same point in the meantime.)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm not convinced, as some seem to think, that the world is a more dangerous place today than in years past. The statistics I have seen regarding crime rates, etc., just don't support it.

Same here.

I've never seen anything to backup people who claim just living an average life here in the US is more dangerous now than before. Apparently neither have they. But that doesn't seem to stop them from believing it and disseminating it as though it were accepted fact.

That's not to say that life is safer everywhere, however. There is a country that is suffering from increasing danger just south of the boarder with the US. Mexican gangs routinely murder and maim each other along with the police, military, journalists, activists, bystanders, and cherished pets with American made firearms over drugs destined for American consumption.

That's a very real threat of very real violence that is growing in level of harm and frequency. If you have any sort of wealth, either real or perceived, you or your family are likely to be at risk of armed kidnapping for ransom. There is nothing vague or imaginary about any of that whatsoever. I suppose since it's just over the river on the other side of the "Great Fence of America" it's not our problem.

In 1940 if a child was molested on a train in Georgia, it might make local headlines and affect one small town.

It's doubtful there would even be much of a local story since there probably would not have been a specific crime to be charged with back then. In many cases child abuse laws as we know them today only date back to the 1970's.

Back in the 1940's men of means could abuse away, almost with impunity, and even beat their own kids (and their wife) half to death before being charged with anything serious. Children that had attained the age of 15 years or older were legally treated more like adults anyway. Child abuse as we think of today was mostly swept under the rug with little in the way of discussion or resolution, let alone punishment.

At some level our collective risk aversion is taking a fair bit of fun and development of responsibility out of childhood, and I for one plan on bucking the trend should I become a parent.

I think the main problem is that instead of teaching kids how to analyze the situation and determine the threat level themselves we spend most of our effort on shielding them from it entirely. Thus we end up in the ironic and unenviable position of having left them less prepared to deal with real danger if and when it actually occurs.

 

[jis]

What is it that would make Amtrak less safe than Greyhound for 15 year olds?

While he was talking about a plane, I think that it easily compares to a bus.

Assuming that you are suggesting by the above that buses and planes are inherently safer than trains for teenagers....

So what you all are saying is that trains are a less safe environment than buses because they have more cars and toilets? OK. Absolutely Astounding! But OK. We'll have to keep that in mind when the virtues of train travel are touted.

But Greyhound allows unsupervised travel by 15 year olds, so no one is tracking where they are going when they step off the buses at the food stops etc. That would seem to be a much larger space to go walkabout than in a 9 car train, no? Furthermore 15 year olds are allowed to supervise 8 to 14 year olds.

 

[George Harris]

It's doubtful there would even be much of a local story since there probably would not have been a specific crime to be charged with back then. In many cases child abuse laws as we know them today only date back to the 1970's.
Back in the 1940's men of means could abuse away, almost with impunity, and even beat their own kids (and their wife) half to death before being charged with anything serious. Children that had attained the age of 15 years or older were legally treated more like adults anyway. Child abuse as we think of today was mostly swept under the rug with little in the way of discussion or resolution, let alone punishment.

At some level our collective risk aversion is taking a fair bit of fun and development of responsibility out of childhood, and I for one plan on bucking the trend should I become a parent.

I think the main problem is that instead of teaching kids how to analyze the situation and determine the threat level themselves we spend most of our effort on shielding them from it entirely. Thus we end up in the ironic and unenviable position of having left them less prepared to deal with real danger if and when it actually occurs.

Probably to his shock as much as mine, I am fairly well in agreement with Texas Sunset here. I do disagree with his "men of means." Economics usually had nothing to do with it. In fact, social pressures were probably stronger against physical abuse of your family than lower down the scale. There was also the real possibility that a wife/child beater would get a visit from some of the relatives of the wife and there would be a discussion either verbal or physical leaving the guy with an understanding that if the event was repeated, legal consequences would be the least of his worries. My mother said that for her and the women in her family the saying was, "Beat me once, shame on you. Beat me twice, shame on me." (That is, for still being around to receive the second beating.) We were told to be wary of strangers, and also of certain specific people that we were to stay away from, and to be sure and tell if anything happens. While not specific to child abuse, there have been laws on the books for a long time that could be and were applied to the situation.

AS to anir's statement, I would recommend waiting until you have the parent experience and then talk about it. There is the long standing joke about the graduate in cchild psychology that wrote a book titled "Rules for parenting". Not long after his first child was born a second edition was published, but it was titled "Suggestions for parenting." A few years later he was asked to provide and updated edition, and said, "No way. It is impossible to do so."

 

[Bob Dylan]

Interesting thread! Of course we all have our opinions and perceptions based on what were taught, hear and read on the internet, but most of these are just that, opinions and perceptions based not on facts, but our own beliefs! I think there is probably truth to most of what is mentioned here and as an older man tend to agree with what George posted! The "Old Days" were different times, think it was the French that said "Things are not what they were and never were!"

I see no problem with having rules and policies to protect the young, for years we were too Tolerant and Trusted Pedophile Priests, Coaches, Teachers, Scout Leaders etc. :angry: , the only difference as far as I can see is that instant Communication make such things as Domestic Abuse and Child Molestation SEEM more prevelant! Id suggest that anyone 14 or older would probably be OK to ride on Trains that werent Overnight runs, especially when with other people! That Conductor might have been following the book but if itd been my Daughter I might have had to go for a personal "visit" with him, not looked up an Ambulance Chaser, er Lawyer! Of course I'd also contact Amtrak Management to try and ensure this doesnt happen again to others!

 

[A.J.]

it's been fascinating reading this thread! a lot of interesting ideas/thoughts out there. to me, the bottom line is that regardless of people's opinions of the policy, it is the policy and this girl (and her family) ignored it. you can't break the rules and expect to be rewarded or have amtrak make an exception for you. because then, what's to stop you from doing it again?

 

[CHamilton]

The executive director of All Aboard Washington, the WA-state rail advocacy group, has posted this to Facebook.

The following statement concerning the teenage girls put off an Amtrak train on March 5 is from AAWA Executive Director Lloyd H Flem:

"Since most Americans now over age 40 were youngsters, perceptions, if not the realities, of dangers in our world have changed. Most of us recall riding trains unaccompanied at the age of ten or twelve with no problem or particular concern. No more. In part railroads, like many other public and private institutions must be evermore careful about legal suits, whether justified or not. Rules and restrictions have multiplied.

"In the now infamous case in March of this year of the teenage girls being ejected from an Amtrak train in Centralia, I applaud Amtrak for conceding errors in dealing with the situation and the need to alter policies in such situations. What I would hope, as one who has committed my professional life to rail advocacy for over a quarter century, while acknowledging the need for rules and restrictions stricter than in past decades, reason and flexibility in front-line decisions should occur more in the world of rail.

“In the above-mentioned case, the girls, two Amtrak "adults" at age 16 and their friend age 15, should have been allowed to continue to their Portland destination, with Amtrak then firmly informing the parents of the rules.

“While daytime Centralia is a safe place, and the girls' Centralia destination was the family-friendly Olympic Club restaurant, riding our Amtrak Cascades is doubtless an even more secure and comfortable location than any location where young people might be ejected for such a rule violation.

"Similar reason and flexibility should prevail in other rail rules as well. The arbitrary 48-hour annulment rule BNSF imposes upon ONLY passenger trains following mudslides of even miniscule scope, needs to be modified based upon the situation, just as WSDOT is flexible in length of closure when slides or avalanches impact highways. And some FRA regulations are so onerous as to inhibit rail investment, in effect forcing people into far more dangerous private motor vehicles than the increased train alternatives that would have existed."

Below is Amtrak's statement to KING TV and it's "Get Jesse" segment that dealt with the girls being ejected from the Amtrak train in Centralia, sent Aril 5:

The following Amtrak statement is regarding your report of the unaccompanied onboard Amtrak...

"Amtrak has reviewed its policies and the performance of its employees surrounding this incident. Our employees could have done a better job in handling this particular situation regarding the unaccompanied minor policy. The issue has been addressed. As this was explained to the reporter before the story aired, but was left out of the story, we are providing a full refund. Amtrak Customer Relations contacted the parent on March 5 and asked her to send in ticket receipts and a full refund for all 3 passengers of $87.75. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused the family."

 

[Devil's Advocate]

To this day I'm still waiting for someone to explain the conductor's position. How was kicking these girls off the train going to make them safer? And if it wasn't going to make them safer then why did he do it? Maybe he did it to punish them. Or to punish their parents. Or maybe he did it simply to prove that he could. I honestly can't come up with any other explanation.

perceptions[/b], if not the realities, of dangers in our world have changed. Most of us recall riding trains unaccompanied at the age of ten or twelve with no problem or particular concern. No more. In part railroads, like many other public and private institutions must be evermore careful about legal suits, whether justified or not. Rules and restrictions have multiplied.
...

While daytime Centralia is a safe place, and the girls' Centralia destination was the family-friendly Olympic Club restaurant, riding our Amtrak Cascades is doubtless an even more secure and comfortable location than any location where young people might be ejected for such a rule violation.

...

Similar reason and flexibility should prevail in other rail rules as well. The arbitrary 48-hour annulment rule BNSF imposes upon ONLY passenger trains following mudslides of even miniscule scope, needs to be modified based upon the situation, just as WSDOT is flexible in length of closure when slides or avalanches impact highways. And some FRA regulations are so onerous as to inhibit rail investment, in effect forcing people into far more dangerous private motor vehicles than the increased train alternatives that would have existed.

This Lloyd H. Flem gentleman sounds like he has a head on his shoulders and isn't afraid to use it. What Amtrak rules in particular (and passenger rail rules in general) seem to be missing more than anything else is a return to the big picture view. I'm generally in favor of regulations that help protect people from the ineptitude or outright maliciousness of others, but if you create an environment that manages to work against the spirit of the intent then maybe it's time to review the repercussions and do some fine tuning. Thanks for including this CHamilton.

 

[EB_OBS]

To this day I'm still waiting for someone to explain the conductor's position. How was kicking these girls off the train going to make them safer? And if it wasn't going to make them safer then why did he do it? Maybe he did it to punish them. Or to punish their parents. Or maybe he did it simply to prove that he could. I honestly can't come up with any other explanation.

Suffice it to say "two wrongs don't make a right." The conductor made a bad decision by not contacting the parents before/when removing her from the train and made another bad decision by not handing custody of her over to the ticket agent and instructing/ensuring he would remain on duty and continue to attempt to contact her parents until they were reached. Under normal circumstances, when the designated person is not at the final, scheduled destination of a UM, the local authorities are contacted and the UM is turned over to them. It would have been a good idea to involve them in this situation too in my opinion.

Amtrak has acknowledged, apologized and issues full refunds and stated the internal issue had been addressed. The policy still stands as it is and parents must abide by the Unaccompanied Minor policy.

 

[me_little_me]

Amtrak has acknowledged, apologized and issues full refunds and stated the internal issue had been addressed. The policy still stands as it is and parents must abide by the Unaccompanied Minor policy.

So:

The parents were charged with terminal stupidity and fixed so they could no longer procreate.

The brat had her cell phone taken away from her permanently.

The Conductor, in a formal ceremony witnessed by his train crew, had the epaulets ripped off his shirt and his conductor's cap replaced by a beanie with a propeller on top.

Amtrak management congratulated themselves on how well they fired the low level employee who was never asked to write a policy addressing this situation but was nevertheless blamed for it not existing

The parent's attorney was paid the $5000 compensation Amtrak paid to the parents so he did really well for writing one letter and negotiating with Amtrak for the $5000 and convincing the parents that they were lucky to have only been fixed.

Am I close?

 

[MARC Rider]

As opposed to "PARENTS put minor child on Amtrak train, without following the rules and/or Amtrak Unaccompanied Minor policy."

To be frank, if I am a parent booking ticket for a 15-16 year old teenager for a short intercity train ride, it wouldn't even hit me to check the Unaccompanied Minors policy. I mean, come on, is traveling on Amtrak such a big deal that teenagers can't do it on their own? I wouldn't have thought they actually forbid anyone under 16 from traveling alone. I have traveled by trains alone (not on Amtrak though) from when I was as young as 12.

So yeah, in Amtrak;s books they defied a rule, but it isn't a rule that would be obvious to a customer. Easy to miss.

In my opinion, the unaccompanied m inor policy is ridiculous. like everythink else these days that infantalizes kids far beyond their childhood. My first trip as an unaccomanied minor was at the age of 10 on the Pennsylvania RR between Baltimore and Philadelphia suburb that involved a trip on a NEC train and the Paoli local, and also making a change of trains at 30th street. Nobody linked an eye. By the time I was 15, I was a geeky trainspotter who rode up and down the NEC for kicks. (Heck, PHL to NYP was $4.25 one way, and if you went at the right times you could get a return ticket at a discount.) When I was 14, my parents put me on a plane by myself to visit my grandmother in Florida. Just a few years ago, I put MY 14 year old daughter on a plane by herself to visit a friend on the west coast. There was no special "unaccompanied minors" hoo-haw, what's going on here? By the time somebody's 15, they should be able to get themselves around on their own without having to have Mommy and Daddy hold their hands every step of the way.

 

[Ispolkom]

the girls' Centralia destination was the family-friendly Olympic Club restaurant

I'm glad that the girls had the sense to visit a McMenamin's brewpub while they were in Centralia. That's certainly where I would wait if I were thrown off a train.

EDIT: Wait a minute. A train is too dangerous for a fifteen-year-old girl, but a bar isn't? Or, rather, a family-friendly restaurant with seven pool tables, a brewery, and bands on the weekend? Mind you, I've always found McMenamin's establishments to be the most salubrious of places, but it just seems odd to me.

 

[Anderson]

Reading over the first two pages of the thread, my feeling is that the parents probably at most knew the old policy. It's also possible that the other kids' parents made the purchase and were just a bit blinkered on it. And of course, it's possible that they made a phone purchase and the agent screwed up. That happens.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

In my opinion, the unaccompanied m inor policy is ridiculous. like everythink else these days that infantalizes kids far beyond their childhood.

Amtrak doesn't stop there. They keep up some of the same infantilizing with adults as well. Trying to board your train on your own? Not in coach you wont! The kindergarten line is for you, pal. Want to take a photo of some trains? Not at the station you wont! It's far too dangerous for an adult to take photographs of a parked train from a deserted platform. Several platforms over there is a train dangerously zipping by at a full five miles per hour. Oh, the humanity! I'll be happy to absolve Amtrak of all responsibility for me. Where do I sign?

 

[Ana]

Interesting thread. The adult of today who is used to kids being super protected thinks wow, a minor, she shouldn't be on her own. But then I step back and remember when I was 15 (twenty years ago) I took the train in Germany from a village near Hannover all the way to Trier, near the French border (I was to be collected from the station there), The trip involved changing trains about three times, and I spoke only a very little German at the time. No cell phones in those days either. You're on your own on trains in Europe - no one directs you to the platform or tells you when your stop is up. But I could read place names on signs, it's not hard to ask for directions even if your language skills aren't great and I got there just fine. Return trip was fine too and I never thought anything of it. A few months later I traveled by train and boat from north of London to Paris - again, totally fine (except the bit where I didn't have a visa for France but that's another story). I think I must've flown to London that time (and not as an unaccompanied minor either).

I was 15 - I wasn't a moron. It was just a larger scale version of my train trip to school each day. I dealt with ticket agents and immigration officials and no one though it was odd for a teenager to be travelling alone. I knew what to do if anything went wrong (ask someone official or a respectable looking lady for help, always stay in a well-lit area, I had phone numbers of family to call if I needed to) By the time of my 16th birthday I'd been all over the place visiting relatives. It's kind of startling to think now that it would be considered so dangerous and that I should be treated as a fragile parcel, signed for at every step. Those were fabulous experiences and my parents and guardians all knew I had enough common sense to do those trips (I probably had enough common sense as a 9 year old but would've had more trouble reaching the ticket counters). I don't know what I'd think now if I were a parent.

 

[Old MM]

The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?

 

[PRR 60]

The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?

15 year olds are not underage minors on any US airline. In fact, three airlines - American, Southwest and United - permit kids 12 year old to travel as adults. They travel without escort and make connections on their own at hub airports like ORD, ATL and DFW.

 

[jebr]

The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple.

Maybe there's a way to make this liability issue go away. Maybe, for example, a person between 13 and 16/18 can travel as an adult so long as the parent's credit card was used (or they signed a waiver).

...wait a second. I just looked at the airline policy, and I don't see a mention of a waiver needed if they're 12 or older. Maybe they don't need one, then. In which case, I don't get why it should be more restrictive than an airline. Heck, a kid running away from home could get a lot farther on an airplane than a train.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?

Why stop at 18? Why not 21? Heck, if liability is our primary directive then maybe we shouldn't stop until we hit thirty something. Except that might be flagged by our acceptable babysitting age criteria. Then there are the parents looking to intentionally defraud the UM system. So maybe we only allow orphans? Wow, this is really starting to get complicated. I suppose we'll need a new position that oversees the program and ensures nobody is able to take advantage of it. Maybe we could call this new position "Amtrak Mom?" :lol:

 

[benjibear]

The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?

Why stop at 18? Why not 21? Heck, if liability is our primary directive then maybe we shouldn't stop until we hit thirty something. Except that might be flagged by our acceptable babysitting age criteria. Then there are the parents looking to intentionally defraud the UM system. So maybe we only allow orphans? Wow, this is really starting to get complicated. I suppose we'll need a new position that oversees the program and ensures nobody is able to take advantage of it. Maybe we could call this new position "Amtrak Mom?" :lol:

See that is what happens when we try to make the word black or white? In reality there is alot of gray areas. What would work for some 12 year old children may not even work for a 17 year old. Parents need to know the limitations of their kids and they need to be the one to make the decision. But parents don't want to parent today and everybody wants to blame somebody else when things go wrong.

 

[Ana]

See that is what happens when we try to make the word black or white? In reality there is alot of gray areas. What would work for some 12 year old children may not even work for a 17 year old. Parents need to know the limitations of their kids and they need to be the one to make the decision. But parents don't want to parent today and everybody wants to blame somebody else when things go wrong.

Yes, I agree. It really depends on the child, and parents are best placed to know how they'd cope. While I travelled internationally as a 15 year old and was completely fine, on an upcoming trip we've made arrangements for my 15 year old sister to travel in the company of another sibling who is 23. She's the baby of the family and we just didnt' feel that she was mature enough to handle it alone.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

The carrier is responsible for the UM, so it's about liability, plain and simple. UMs on a plane can't run away from the flight attendants and then the parents scream bloody murder and/or sue. I recall an incident where the mom instructed the daughter (12) to try and run away from the employees who were escorting her to her connecting flight so she could complain to the airlne and get compensation. No way can a train conductor really be responsible the same way airline and/or airport employees can. It isn't fair to the staff or to the kids. Also, a 16 year old "adult" is not a high standard, I think it should be 18. My opinion, others may disagree. One way in which society has changed is that kids are given less responsibility overall so they are not used to it. Responsbility, that is. A generation ago, 12 and 13 yo girls made pocket money by babysitting. Who would hire a babysitter of that age now?

Why stop at 18? Why not 21? Heck, if liability is our primary directive then maybe we shouldn't stop until we hit thirty something. Except that might be flagged by our acceptable babysitting age criteria. Then there are the parents looking to intentionally defraud the UM system. So maybe we only allow orphans? Wow, this is really starting to get complicated. I suppose we'll need a new position that oversees the program and ensures nobody is able to take advantage of it. Maybe we could call this new position "Amtrak Mom?" :lol:

I suggest just "AmMom." And we can rename the Conductors "AmDad's" so that everyone understands when they protect children by throwing them off the train.