AMTRAK throws 15 year old from the train

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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:
In my opinion, it should be 18, because once one is 18, he becomes a full adult and has the full rights and responssabilities of a US citizen. If he can vote, he can ride a train unaccompanied.
 
*sighs*

Alright, every time I see this thread, all I can think is "At least they didn't throw momma from the train as well"...
 
In my opinion, it should be 18, because once one is 18, he becomes a full adult and has the full rights and responssabilities of a US citizen. If he can vote, he can ride a train unaccompanied.
The only problem is that your post doesn't explain why the age of eighteen is unique in your view. You're simply walking your logic backwards from an age somebody else picked that was itself entirely arbitrary. By the time you reach 18 you're expected to be more or less self sufficient. The only major exception I'm aware of at that point is alcohol. Everything else is up to you. Where you live, what job you have, what college you attend, who you have sex with, and on and on. We're talking about decision making abilities that are far beyond anything you're likely to need just to board, transfer between, and disembark a passenger train. I'm not aware of any other democracy that has an 18 year minimum age for leaving their passengers alone. The countries that would continue to restrict movement at that age are places like Burma and Saudi Arabia. No thanks. We once had a reputation as the Land of the Free and I suggest we start acting like it again. All this increasing nanny-state nonsense doesn't really make us all that safer. It just makes us look like we can't handle reality.
 
In my opinion, it should be 18, because once one is 18, he becomes a full adult and has the full rights and responssabilities of a US citizen. If he can vote, he can ride a train unaccompanied.
The only problem is that your post doesn't explain why the age of eighteen is unique in your view. You're simply walking your logic backwards from an age somebody else picked that was itself entirely arbitrary. By the time you reach 18 you're expected to be more or less self sufficient. The only major exception I'm aware of at that point is alcohol. Everything else is up to you. Where you live, what job you have, what college you attend, who you have sex with, and on and on. We're talking about decision making abilities that are far beyond anything you're likely to need just to board, transfer between, and disembark a passenger train. I'm not aware of any other democracy that has an 18 year minimum age for leaving their passengers alone. The countries that would continue to restrict movement at that age are places like Burma and Saudi Arabia. No thanks. We once had a reputation as the Land of the Free and I suggest we start acting like it again. All this increasing nanny-state nonsense doesn't really make us all that safer. It just makes us look like we can't handle reality.

Hear Hear!

Earlier in the thread, I commented that Amtrak's role here should be in protecting other passengers from the bad or irresponsible behavior of UM's. If a child is not old enough, or mature enough, to reliably sit in a seat, then s/he should not be allowed on. Not because the railroad is a better parent than other parents, but because it has an obligation to its other fare-paying passengers to make their trips comfortable. The same logic leads to removal of drunk or obstreperous passengers.

In this light, we all understand an age restriction. 6? Sure. 8? Though some children could travel at 8, there would be a significant number who could not. So, OK, 8. 10? Starts to get shaky, in my view, but we clearly need to compromise with each other, so, 10. Beyond that, this gets silly. A 12-year old can understand a simple instruction. The railroad, a common carrier, is not responsible for him: his parents are. If they put him on the train, and it doesn't work out, the railroad is only responsible if it acts badly. For instance, if it throws the UM off the train en route in a place the UM does not know. Like, um, Centralia.

In a crowded society, we often "have to" tell each other how to behave. No, you can't play your boom box in a movie theatre, or start a mouse colony in your apartment, or park your car in the middle of King Street. But this is because your behavior bothers others. Your liberty is constrained where it bumps up against those of the people around you.

But it is sanctimonious for people (or Amtrak) to tell others how to behave "for their own good." Until further notice, American society accepts that parents are responsible for their children, and better able to judge what is good for them than is government (represented here by Amtrak), even in some very extreme cases. If we were concerned for other people's children, as a society, would we not ensure they were given meaningful, fact-based educations, health care, and fed properly? Well, we don't do any of those things. So, we are probably not much concerned with other people's children. Even if you, personally, are, dear reader.

Moreover, our society routinely punishes children for their parents' behavior. Think of the states attempting to restrict education for 7-year-olds because their parents are illegal immigrants, or the termination of one or another benefit to single mothers, rendering them (and their children) homeless, because "she should have known better." Perhaps. But her child?

Well, we don't care about her child. We treat the parent-child couple as an indivisible unit.

So, to all of you trying to "help me" by insuring that I drive my kids to where they are going, instead of putting them in the far safer environment of the train, please explain: how, exactly, is this your concern, or the government's? As a parent, should this not be left to my daughter and me? Or, am I missing a point? Am I somehow bothering you (other than offending your sense of order in an abstract way — you can get help for that)? If I am, I perfectly respect your right to tell me what to do. Otherwise, not so much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll say that, at least as far as age lines go, when an operation reaches a certain size you end up having to make a call on a limit. If this were a passenger operation on the scale of either Southern or DRG&W in the mid-70s, it might be possible to vary the policy a bit more on a case-by-case basis. You sometimes get this with restaurants: Windows on the World was an "adults only" fine dining establishment, but I had lunch there with my parents after they explained that I was comfortable in a suit and...well, wasn't your average kid. This can happen with other establishments as well, but once you reach a certain size, the ability to pass that authority to vary policy down the line starts getting harder to come by because of the risk that someone (or multiple someones) will screw up.

My opinion is that Amtrak has set their bar too high, but that is my opinion, nothing more. I wouldn't mind it being a policy that could be varied on occasion, but at the same time I understand the reason for the policy's existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top