23 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

This is nuts. Totally nuts. But hey, whatever rocks your boat.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WmbFg8Toc

[dasmo]

Nice message though!

[57WestHills]

delete

Edited by 57WestHills, 07 January 2016 - 03:10 PM.

[Bingo]

That's the dumbest thing I've seen.. and it would have been really dumb if at 16 seconds in, that rope went around his neck.

[LJ]

"the video has been removed by user"

[Bingo]

"the video has been removed by user"

 

The moderators from VIA ?

[Coreyburger]

More likely somebody pointed out that they could get charged with trespass and that video is great evidence.

[North Shore]

How could they get charged with trespass? There are no signs, no fencing, nothing at all to give you any hint that you are not allowed onto the bridge.

As for the jumping - not really my thing, really, but if they are big kids, know what they are doing, and are ready to accept the (severe) consequences of an error in judgement or setup, then what's the problem?

[Bingo]

They were not bungee jumping.

The guy jumped off the trestle as he threw his coil of rope off, which could have gone around a limb or his neck.

In which case we wouldn't have seen the video in the first place.

[Coreyburger]

How could they get charged with trespass? There are no signs, no fencing, nothing at all to give you any hint that you are not allowed onto the bridge.

 

At some point on their walk there they would have run into a no trespassing sign. There are a fair number up around the level crossings.

[todd]

At some point on their walk there they would have run into a no trespassing sign. There are a fair number up around the level crossings.

Guess they had their heads turned at that point in their journey.

Edited by todd, 08 January 2016 - 10:52 PM.

[nagel]

At some point on their walk there they would have run into a no trespassing sign. There are a fair number up around the level crossings.

Sounds like first hand knowledge.  I'm sure you respected the signs and turned back.

[vandervalk]

How could they get charged with trespass? There are no signs, no fencing, nothing at all to give you any hint that you are not allowed onto the bridge.

As for the jumping - not really my thing, really, but if they are big kids, know what they are doing, and are ready to accept the (severe) consequences of an error in judgement or setup, then what's the problem?

 

How about the people that need to go up their to grab their mangled body split open like a water melon. Would you be saying "what's the problem" then?  Those types of visuals last a life time and it's ****ing selfish to do really stupid things when others have to clean up after you.

[todd]

How about the people that need to go up their to grab their mangled body split open like a water melon. Would you be saying "what's the problem" then?  Those types of visuals last a life time and it's ****ing selfish to do really stupid things when others have to clean up after you.

 

People shouldn't get into the coroner/emergency business if that's going to leave a lasting impact on them.... but if you want to argue the waste of tax dollars retrieving your less than intelligent corpse you may have a point.

 

Guy down the road before he moved used to love going out kayaking in rough seas the local RCMSAR unit kept on trying to rescue him and tell him he shouldn't be out there, he finally made a deal with them that they were not coming out for him and if he dies so be it...... I guess you could argue an emotionally sensitive person may find his body before emergency crews, *odds are nobody will find it.

 

*Statistics VHF

[vandervalk]

 

 

Guy down the road before he moved used to love going out kayaking in rough seas the local RCMSAR unit kept on trying to rescue him and tell him he shouldn't be out there, he finally made a deal with them that they were not coming out for him and if he dies so be it...... I guess you could argue an emotionally sensitive person may find his body before emergency crews, *odds are nobody will find it.

 

*Statistics VHF

 

 

I don't believe that.. RCM-SAR is tasked by JRCC. They don't get to pick and choose what calls they go out to and who they rescue. If a call comes through, they go and don't ask questions.
 

[todd]

I don't believe that.. RCM-SAR is tasked by JRCC. They don't get to pick and choose what calls they go out to and who they rescue. If a call comes through, they go and don't ask questions.
 

 

That's the deal they made, they can also tell JRCC whatever they want with little repercussions because they are volunteers, (this was a fairly long time ago before it was common to have a portable VHF and SAR boats equipped with AIS) 

[Coreyburger]

Sounds like first hand knowledge.  I'm sure you respected the signs and turned back.

 

I haven't walked out that way in years (and certainly not to the trestle)

[vandervalk]

That's the deal they made, they can also tell JRCC whatever they want with little repercussions because they are volunteers, (this was a fairly long time ago before it was common to have a portable VHF and SAR boats equipped with AIS) 

 

Perhaps many moons ago, but that wouldn't be the case now. There would be large repercussions if that were the case. Volunteers or not, they are accountable and required to be ready 24/7. Coast Guard partially funds RCM-SAR and we have mandates. 

I'm a Station Leader with RCM-SAR and have been involved for over 8 years. I also work at the RCM-SAR Regional Head Office overseeing all the stations in Operations as a full time job. 

[UrbanRail]

Ok first of all its not a trestle, its a bridge. Big difference between the two.

Second there is a common misconception that the line is abandoned, it is not and people I have talked to seem to think that. So what these nuts are doing is dangerous and is tresspassing. Yes I know many do walk along the corridor and on the bridge, but jumping off it with ropes guarantees these guys a spot in the grave yard.

 

I have been on the corridor with permission from the ICF, these people have not.

 

Unfortunately the ICF or SRY are not doing their job of preventing this kind of stupidity.

 

Below is the original crossing (a trestle) about 1886 before it was replaced by the current structure (a bridge) in about 1913

 

Edited by UrbanRail, 11 January 2016 - 02:53 PM.

[todd]

Okay fine, I guess we could track them down and make an example out of them. I suppose we could hire a private investigation team on Fiverr.