MikefromCrete
Engineer
You should probably learn how to spell principal correctly before asking for any exceptions to the rules.
Exceptions to the 13-15 YO rule?
- Thread starter norfolkwesternhenry
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
'Not liking a rule' is neither a valid nor a reasonable basis for seeking to change it, or for trying to get an exception. Rules exist for a reason; You and I - and the other members of this forum - are not special, where the rules only apply to everyone else but shouldn't for us. It is true that many times a specific regulation or law may be written like it is because a few people have ruined an opportunity for the rest of us, but we still have to live within the same guidelines.
Exceptions to rules should only exist when there is a specific and documented need, often a hardship case. While I admire your perseverance and enthusiasm, you really don't have a valid cause for seeking an exception. But you do have options to live within the rules - which apply to all of us - and still travel by rail. You can find an adult to go with you, stick to staffed stations, or just wait a matter of months until your next birthday and take a bigger trip then. I know having to wait seems like an eternity when you're young, but it really isn't (you'll realize this in 30 years or so). I realize this isn't the answer you want - but it is a solution, which is what you should be seeking.
As suggested by someone above, if a rule truly is unreasonable you should be seeking to change it for everyone, not just solve your own problem and leave everyone else out in the cold. But if the rule is not unreasonable, but rather just something you find inconvenient or don't like, then you have to find a way to live within the restriction just like the rest of us.
BCL
Engineer
Well, the one thing you don’t seem to understand very well is the predicament that such a request is going put someone in. You’re not asking for an exception or rule change back to the way things were. You’re asking for something that never was (an unaccompanied minor departing at an unstaffed station) under the previous policy. You’re suggesting that either the policy be changed (almost assuredly won’t happen), or that you be granted a one-off exception (absolutely won’t happen). And on top of that you seem to believe that someone at Amtrak might consider a detailed, time-sucking interview in order to make that exception - either for you personally or as part of a general policy update. Nobody has been trained as to how to conduct such an interview. So who is going to conduct it, where/when does it happens, and who fills in for someone tied up for an hour talking to you? You’re talking about a rail system where over 100,000 passengers ride every weekday and where station staffing levels already aren’t adequate.
Amtrak’s unaccompanied minor policy being restricted to travel between two staffed stations is a totally reasonable rule. Save the limitation for 13-15, it’s pretty similar to that of most airlines. Airports are by definition staffed, so there isn’t quite the equivalent of an unstaffed train station. It’s pretty easy to understand how this rule works and that liability concerns drive the policy. If you write your letter to Amtrak asking for either an exception or a policy change, I’d be surprised if the first person to read it wouldn’t be thinking “Well isn’t that cute?” before changing to "Is this kid for real?" Maybe you might even get a response that’s more than just a form letter. Maybe.
You started this topic by saying that you thought that you might deserve an exception because you don’t consider yourself part of the general public. Maybe they won’t respond as such, but it would be good for one heck of a laugh. Maybe even shared around the office for the sheer chutzpah. I can’t necessarily speak for others responding to you in this topic who are obviously mocking you, but just don’t embarrass yourself. Just don’t.
norfolkwesternhenry
Lead Service Attendant
Ok, I won't. I have been relying on the EB to get to my grandma's, as my parents don't always have the time. We don't have money problems, but times problems are much bigger for them. As you can imagine I'm disapointed, and the fact that I can't get to my grandma's house means I can't help keep her house and property in good shape, as she is getting too old for upkeep on 7 acres. It's especially important now, because she's had surgery on both shoulders and is only cleared to lift an apple with her right arm. Also, it's another train ride, and who can't turn that down?
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like Greyhound and Jefferson Lines have a policy that would allow you to travel on their networks. I'm not sure how close they get to Columbus, but I know they get to Madison and there's a northerly route that may also allow you to get there. That may allow you to get to your grandma's.
https://www.greyhound.com/en/help-and-info/travel-info/children-traveling
https://www.jeffersonlines.com/travel-information/traveling-with-kids/
https://www.greyhound.com/en/help-and-info/travel-info/children-traveling
https://www.jeffersonlines.com/travel-information/traveling-with-kids/
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
We need to be measured in our view of rules. The OP is tempted (as we all are) to see himself as above the rules. However, just because a rule exists is nothing special in and of itself. It doesn't mean it was created for better reasons than those for removing it. Taking a uncritical position toward rules and rulers can be needlessly subservient and invites manipulation to support bureaucratic abuse and authoritarianism.
Consider the dilemma created by automated traffic ticketing. In large low density cities police units can only be located in so many places at once. As a result of this practical limitation most of the time when you commit a moving violation nothing happens. To counteract this limitation the penalties are often severe and in those situations when you are caught you really feel it. If you're poor you can end up losing your car and even your ability to drive at all. Right or wrong we are taught that this is how things work and we need to respect it.
Later on a new company comes along with cameras that can catch 99% of infractions for a given intersection or area. Now 99% of drivers who commit a moving violation in that area are caught and given a fine intended for 1% of offenders. Some may have racked up several fines before they were even notified of the first infraction. Half or more of the total fine and penalties goes to the company who installed the cameras.
They use this income to lobby for more severe fines, aggressive light changes, and a larger number of billable infractions creating a self-exacerbating imbalance. The drivers and rules never changed, but the conditions the drivers and rules operate under have changed dramatically. That's why it's important to question the purpose and impact of rules even if the rules themselves have not changed and seem perfectly reasonable on the surface.
The OP may be misguided and unsuccessful in his plea for special consideration, but his post was still valuable for pointing out that the continuing loss of staffed stations has an even greater impact than many of us considered in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
BCL
Engineer
Your best option is probably to have a designated adult meet you in Milwaukee and then drive you to your grandma's place. Perhaps there's something like a car service that would be willing to serve in that capacity. It would be a lot more practical than trying to get a rule exception. It would also be expensive. Having a family member drive you there would be far more practical. And by the time you're of legal age to ride alone, you'll also be of legal driving age.
I guess you can tell that there's a lot of snark in this topic. I'm as guilty as anyone. I guess most of us were there at one time, thinking we knew more than most adults would give us credit for. And at least you're not asking how to break the rules, but rather how to function within the rules. I don't doubt that you can handle it, but there's a lot more to the rules than simply whether or not one 14 year old can handle traveling alone.
I guess you can tell that there's a lot of snark in this topic. I'm as guilty as anyone. I guess most of us were there at one time, thinking we knew more than most adults would give us credit for. And at least you're not asking how to break the rules, but rather how to function within the rules. I don't doubt that you can handle it, but there's a lot more to the rules than simply whether or not one 14 year old can handle traveling alone.
norfolkwesternhenry
Lead Service Attendant
There's a direct Jefferson Lines bus from St. Paul Union Depot to Wausau, WI, which looks significantly closer than Columbus. It's not a train, but it'd appear to work just as well if not better than Columbus for getting to your grandma, and Jefferson Lines appears to have a unaccompanied minor policy that would allow you to make the trip (although it's unstaffed on Sundays, but the next station down, Abbotsford, is staffed 24/7 so that might be another option.)
Last edited by a moderator:
fairviewroad
Engineer
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,387
Well said. For every person who shrugs at the de-staffing of a station because "I have a smart phone," there's another person who can no longer check a bag, and another person who can no longer travel on Amtrak at all.
neroden
Engineer
Amtrak's current rule for unaccompanied teenagers is straight-up stupid and should never have been implemented, as is true of many "cover your ass" bureaucratic rules made up by the lazy, irresponsible, and authoritarian. The most moral move is to fight to get it changed. I understand trying to get an exception.
And although it's not very ethical, sometimes the correct thing to do is actually to break it with plausible deniability; anyone living under the USSR learned this very quickly. I wouldn't have done it myself, but I wouldn't blame any kid who got a fake ID so they could *take the train*.
And although it's not very ethical, sometimes the correct thing to do is actually to break it with plausible deniability; anyone living under the USSR learned this very quickly. I wouldn't have done it myself, but I wouldn't blame any kid who got a fake ID so they could *take the train*.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2,807
I do not see the rule as stupid. There is a very good reason for the rule. Many at this age think that nothing can happen, but in their very limited years, most have not had enough life experiences to understand the potential for something bad to happen. I haven taken my children and now my grandchildren on trains so they know how much fun they are. Even though they have experienced several trips, I would never send them alone to arrive where no station personnel is meeting them in case family got delayed. Rules and policies are created for a good reason.
neroden
Engineer
Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. You spouted a lot of cliches, but didn't actually say anything. No, rules are often not created for a good reason; I and my family have experience with this dating back probably longer than you've been alive.
There are good ways to write "unaccompanied minor" rules. This is not one of them. It was done casually, sloppily, and without thought. This is evident from the fact that every subway, commuter rail, and so forth in the country has *much much more generous* rules, despite having *far less staff* and being a much less supportive environment. They bothered to think through the rules and make rules which make sense. Amtrak didn't bother because some clerk figured "eh, who cares about unaccompanied minors, we don't need their business".
A notarized authorization letter from the minor's legal guardians and a special ID card should be sufficient to allow a 13-15 yo. to ride on a designated route (for instance, to attend college classes or such). I've seen this done at other agencies for *much younger* children.
A 13 year old can catch a taxicab by themselves. And that is right, proper, and extremely useful. Particularly in emergencies. Amtrak's policy actually can prevent minors from using Amtrak to *get home* in an emergency. It was simply written by someone who had not bothered to think things through at all.
But then, this is the country where idiots won't let their kids walk down the street to the neighborhood park, so I should expect this sort of lunatic imprison-the-kids attitude. It's not actually making kids safer.
Unstaffed stations are a problem in and of themselves, of course, but nobody cares on the commuter rails.
....actually, this rule is a lot like Amtrak's former blanket prohibition of pets. It was stupid, customer-hostile, revenue-hostile, ridership-hostile, and above all *lazy*. Could they do better? Sure they could. But Congress had to pass a law to force them to. Likewise, it may require Congressional action to get Amtrak to bother to create a *sensible* unaccompanied minor policy which doesn't leave furious parents swearing at Amtrak.
There are good ways to write "unaccompanied minor" rules. This is not one of them. It was done casually, sloppily, and without thought. This is evident from the fact that every subway, commuter rail, and so forth in the country has *much much more generous* rules, despite having *far less staff* and being a much less supportive environment. They bothered to think through the rules and make rules which make sense. Amtrak didn't bother because some clerk figured "eh, who cares about unaccompanied minors, we don't need their business".
A notarized authorization letter from the minor's legal guardians and a special ID card should be sufficient to allow a 13-15 yo. to ride on a designated route (for instance, to attend college classes or such). I've seen this done at other agencies for *much younger* children.
A 13 year old can catch a taxicab by themselves. And that is right, proper, and extremely useful. Particularly in emergencies. Amtrak's policy actually can prevent minors from using Amtrak to *get home* in an emergency. It was simply written by someone who had not bothered to think things through at all.
But then, this is the country where idiots won't let their kids walk down the street to the neighborhood park, so I should expect this sort of lunatic imprison-the-kids attitude. It's not actually making kids safer.
Unstaffed stations are a problem in and of themselves, of course, but nobody cares on the commuter rails.
....actually, this rule is a lot like Amtrak's former blanket prohibition of pets. It was stupid, customer-hostile, revenue-hostile, ridership-hostile, and above all *lazy*. Could they do better? Sure they could. But Congress had to pass a law to force them to. Likewise, it may require Congressional action to get Amtrak to bother to create a *sensible* unaccompanied minor policy which doesn't leave furious parents swearing at Amtrak.
Last edited by a moderator:
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
I'm not aware of another passenger rail network that is as restrictive and limited in their handling of UM's as Amtrak. So far as I can tell the rest of the world seems to be okay with hauling kids back and forth so why is Amtrak uniquely incapable?
Rules and policies are created for all sorts of reasons, both reasonable and irrational. If you don't believe me try reading up the convoluted history of drug and alcohol legislation.
Last edited by a moderator:
BCL
Engineer
Several rail systems around the world have their own unaccompanied minor policy. Eurostar does. SCNF in France apparently will allow for unaccompanied minors to travel with an escort, but that's only on weekends and school holidays.
http://help.en.voyages-sncf.com/en/travel-formalities-unaccompanied-minors
SNCF works hard to ensure its customers have a peaceful journey and reminds travellers that children are the responsibility of their parents.
For greater comfort, children aged between 4 to 14 years can travel safely by themselves with the Junior & Cie service during school holidays and weekends. Your children will be looked after throughout their journey by a trained, experienced accompanying adult.
I'm not sure how common is the "unstaffed station" elsewhere in the world.
I found Via's policy, which is pretty similar to Amtrak's except for the age definitions. They consider 12 old enough to ride without restrictions though.
http://www.viarail.ca/en/travel-info/special-needs/unaccompanied-minors
The child can travel only in Economy or Business class.
Travel only on direct trains (no connections or transfers), except if an adult can meet the child at the transfer point.
The child must not leave before 5:25 a.m. AND trains must arrive before midnight on the same day.
An unaccompanied child cannot board or detrain at an unstaffed station.
Unaccompanied minors travelling with VIA Rail must not suffer from any serious illness or allergies that can cause severe intoxication or death. If this is the case, VIA reserves the right to refuse carriage of an unaccompanied minor unless a medical authorization can be obtained prior to departure stating that despite her/his severe medical condition, the child can and is able to travel alone.
To ensure their safety, we limit the number of children travelling alone to four per train. We therefore recommend that you make arrangements as early as possible in order to secure your child's seat aboard.
We cannot allow an unaccompanied minor with severe allergies to travel alone. Please consult our allergy policy.
BCL
Engineer
Depends on the driver. There's nothing that says that a driver can't turn down a minor as a passenger. Uber, Lyft, and other services don't allow a minor to be a passenger without an 18+ year old passenger present.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
I'm just speculating, but I wonder if the real reason behind the restrictive policy is Amtrak's fear of putting unaccompanied children in the care of an incompetent train crew that can't be trusted to ensure that they get off at the right stop. It's bad enough when adult passengers miss their stop (whether because the crew doesn't notify them or wake them up on time, or the PA system isn't working, or the passengers themselves are just being stupid) and have to travel far out of their way to get on a train going back the other way, which may not arrive until more than a day later (or worse, get put off the train in the middle of nowhere and told to walk back to the station). Imagine what the news stories would look like if that happened to a child.
It's not a problem on subways and commuter rail, because passengers on those systems are usually locals who can recognize where they are and where they're going, and the stops are closer together and the trains are more frequent, so retracing your path isn't a big deal.
And it's not a problem on other countries' intercity rail systems, because (at least in my experience) they seem to have no difficulty hiring competent, courteous staff that can help out when something goes wrong or a passenger is confused. It seems like it's only Amtrak that's incapable of making sure that all of its staff do their jobs consistently and correctly.
It's not a problem on subways and commuter rail, because passengers on those systems are usually locals who can recognize where they are and where they're going, and the stops are closer together and the trains are more frequent, so retracing your path isn't a big deal.
And it's not a problem on other countries' intercity rail systems, because (at least in my experience) they seem to have no difficulty hiring competent, courteous staff that can help out when something goes wrong or a passenger is confused. It seems like it's only Amtrak that's incapable of making sure that all of its staff do their jobs consistently and correctly.
Hotblack Desiato
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 186
Nice, unwarranted slam at Amtrak staff.
I can assure you that "trusting train crews" is not the reason for this policy. If it were, they wouldn't allow UMs at all.
This really isn't that difficult of an issue to figure out.
For better or worse, our society is very litigious and if anything happens to a kid, it gets all over the news and lawsuits can happen. Therefore, minors must be in the care of a responsible adult party at all times. When on the train, that would be the train crew. At the station, a station staff person is responsible for receiving the passenger and ensuring the proper parent/guardian is there to pick up the child. If they are not there, then the station staff can deal with things while the train is on its way.
If it's an unstaffed station and the parent isn't there when the train arrives, then what? Hold the train for an hour while you figure out where they are? Keep the kid on the train and take him hundreds of miles away? Do either of those sound like reasonable options? They don't to me. But unfortunately, those occurrences (rare as they might potentially be), and the associated headaches, far outweigh (to Amtrak) the extra revenue of hauling kids around unattended.
My memory is vague, but I seem to recall the UM age being adjusted upwards years ago to avoid Amtrak possibly carrying runaways.
So, it is what it is.
Nope, a totally warranted slam against some Amtrak staff.
Most Amtrak staff are good. Some are great. But a select few are completely uninterested in doing their jobs. All it takes is one person like that, when the care of a child is concerned, to cause a very bad situation.
According to this, it was around five years ago that the minimum age to travel unaccompanied (with restrictions) was raised from 8 to 13. The explanation Amtrak gave at the time was clearly BS: "This is not in response to any incidents... but out of an abundance of concern for the comfort and safety of all our travelers.” So either they changed the policy for no reason at all, or it was in fact "in response to incidents" that they don't want anyone to know about because they reflect badly on Amtrak. I'm speculating about the latter case, and what they might be trying to hide.
Most Amtrak staff are good. Some are great. But a select few are completely uninterested in doing their jobs. All it takes is one person like that, when the care of a child is concerned, to cause a very bad situation.
According to this, it was around five years ago that the minimum age to travel unaccompanied (with restrictions) was raised from 8 to 13. The explanation Amtrak gave at the time was clearly BS: "This is not in response to any incidents... but out of an abundance of concern for the comfort and safety of all our travelers.” So either they changed the policy for no reason at all, or it was in fact "in response to incidents" that they don't want anyone to know about because they reflect badly on Amtrak. I'm speculating about the latter case, and what they might be trying to hide.
Hotblack Desiato
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 186
Well, you've just described nearly 100% of every job category at nearly every company in this country.
Maybe they're talking about the safety and comfort of the other passengers, not the kids. I can see 8 - 12 year olds getting rambunctious, especially on a long train trip.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
Neorden,
I'm pretty sure you're aware that Amtrak is far different than a commuter service or subway. Even the words Johanna spat affirm this:
The trip this particular minor is taking is a scheduled 5 hour journey. Emphasis on the word "scheduled." It could take a lot longer. The previous policy would basically allows for an 8 year old to travel for 16 hours and passenger did utilize the option, particularly on trains like the Palmetto, where they'd board on the NEC and end up in the Carolina's.
That is a LONG time on train. You're not talking about jumping off after an hour or two. You're talking about 7 hours of what amounts to child care. If the child refuse to eat, nap, sleep, listen or in the one case where I had to temporarily look after a set of eight year twin girls while the crew tended to a seizure victim, starts physically fighting, there is only so much recourse. The one twin (the cuddler) wanted to nap on the other twin (the cuddlee). The cuddlee was less than enthused and stated "you fell asleep on me when I was six. It wasn't a good experience." Not to be deterred, the cuddlee cuddled up. The cuddler asked her to get off her. I suggested the cuddlee switch spots so she could be on the inside. They rebuffed my suggestion. Lo and behold, the cuddler puts her head against her sister' shoulder. Her sister sat there for a grand total of 4 minutes without comment and I was thinking the situation had resolved itself. Then, without a word, the cuddlee who had apparently reached her internal boiling point, grabbed a coke bottle and proceed to bop her sleeping sister right in the head. The kid HOWLED and every looked at me. I don't have any sort of maternal instinct. When I stated the to the cuddlee that she shouldn't hit her sister, she informed me that 'I told her not sleep on me and this is what she gets. I offered to separate them and the cuddlee informed me that she doesn't have to listen to me since I'm a stranger and not her parent."
Her point was taken. I couldn't wait for the crew to get back. Johanna may consider me incompetent for not having the foresight to realize that an attack was imminent but I wasn't a parent, they are not my kids and I had no idea of what they were capable of. Now, if this twin walked off the train with a knot on her blonde head and the babysitter (they were on a 4 hour trip to visit their former babysitter and I'm willing to bet the parents were happy to get rid of them for a week) complained, would the crew (who was busy dealing with an adult with issues) have taken the fall?
At the end of the day, these are your children and if you're ok shipping them through multiple states as if they were luggage and dropping them off at an unattended station when you can't even leave them unattended in a car at convenience store for 10 minutes, I say more power to you. I'm all for a policy change. My version would call for zero liability and tiered travel. In other words, at 8 years old, you can travel up to 4 hours. At 10 years old, you can travel up to 6 hours but if you travel multiple times throughout the year, you may travel up to 8 hours.
Something along those lines because as I indicated, some of the unattended minors are seasoned veterans, and often behave better than the adults.
I still think you should write the letter and flip the script. Tell them you'd happily comply with the policy (as you did in the past) except the station is now unstaffed.
Or, you can just sit here in a thread and rejoice in the whining of people that intend to do nothing.
BCL
Engineer
In the end, a lot of age restrictions are more or less arbitrary. We live in a litigious society, and a lot of the talk on this topic has been that the parents who think that their kid is ready might be the first to sue if something happens to their kid. Once a lost kid (14 actually) found me in an area with poor cell phone coverage, and asked me for help getting back to his high school group. I was a little freaked out about the possibility that someone sees a teenager with an solo unrelated adult male and takes it the wrong way. I actually helped him, but I did think about telling him to simply wait somewhere and I would call for help.
There's no particular reason why the typical age to smoke in the US is 18 and the drinking age is 21 other than it's going to be set somewhere.
For the OP this is more or less just an inconvenience. I believe it's likely going to be less than 4 hours drive to Grandma's place. If it's a family matter, then I don't see why a parent doesn't provide the transportation. The other thing I couldn't quite figure out what how he plans on getting back, unless it's a parent giving a ride.
