"Amtrak to add screenings, bomb-sniffing dogs"

[Joel N. Weber II]

Your straw man argument ignores all the evidence that commercial air travel security screening procedures have been very successful. With the terrible exception of September 11, 2001, the airliner hijackings and shoot-outs that happened frequently in the USA in the 1970s are almost unheard of in the last 25 years.

So if we have a great security record for the last _25_ years, why is there any need for tighter security post 9/11? Why can't we go back to whatever airline screening practices were in place in 1983?

 

[John Bredin]

It would also scare people who are simply afraid of dogs, and be a major hassle for them, too.

You won't find a person more afraid of dogs than myself, and I've never been nervous about the sniffer dogs Metra has had at Ogilvie Transportation Center (nee North Western Station) for years now, dogs I pass by probably six days a week, 50 weeks a year. I'm not afraid of them because I'm reasonably confident that they're well-trained, unlike an unknown dog I might encounter on the street, in the park, etc.. And the dogs haven't been a "hassle" to Metra commuters, who just keep walking past them in the thousands without slowing down or even batting an eye.

You keep pointing out that no security measure can be perfect. No duh, but you know what, there have been laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. for thousands of years, and the fact that they still keep happening doesn't mean to any reasonable person that we should disband the police and courts because they haven't been and cannot be 100% effective.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with some additional security measures, so long as they don't cost too much and don't significantly inconvenience passengers. While I don't know about the cost, Amtrak's new program sounds like it's not too inconvenient. They aren't going to be creating jam-ups of passengers by checking everyone, like they do at the airports, and I seriously doubt anyone's going to miss their train for the sake of a minute or two while someone rubs a wand on their bags and checks the wand in the explosive-sniffing machine. And there's no right to privacy on the outside of one's bags.

 

[meatpuff]

Your straw man argument ignores all the evidence that commercial air travel security screening procedures have been very successful. With the terrible exception of September 11, 2001, the airliner hijackings and shoot-outs that happened frequently in the USA in the 1970s are almost unheard of in the last 25 years.

So if we have a great security record for the last _25_ years, why is there any need for tighter security post 9/11? Why can't we go back to whatever airline screening practices were in place in 1983?

In fact, airline safety, which is to say the probability of dying as an airline passenger, has improved since 25 years ago (e.g. Table 5 at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm ). Presumably effective security screening has contributed to this improvement. So why would we blindly use the 1983 standards? In fact, I don't believe security screening and other security practices in air travel today are drastically different from 1983. The main focus then was to keep guns, knives and bombs off of airplanes. That is still the main focus today. And it has been largely successful.

Your implicit point that post-9/11 security measures might not help much is well-taken. The kind of measures we have seen banning bottles of shampoo, penknives and knitting needles. It seems that we are seeing diminishing returns for further security measures, i.e. not as much improvement in safety for all of the inconvenience. But I would say this is in contrast to how much difference screening for guns, knives and bombs has made.

On 9/11 the hijackers attacked with box cutters. What a pathetic weapon. How much more of a weapon is that than just using fists? Obviously there is a limit to what security screening can do for you.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I can't even recall the number of standard knives, box cutters, SAKs, 6"+ knives, and firecrackers I've smuggled onto aircraft for the thrill of it, pre-911, but I do recall the one time, the last time I ever flew, that I carried a modified plastic knife onto the plane after 911. It might strike you that a plastic knife might not qualify as a weapon, but this one could cut through just about anything, at least briefly- dulls fast. And I'm not a terrorist with a multi-billion dollar machine backing me- I was just a kid who took pleasure in beating systems, whatever those systems might be.

The number of passenger deaths per mile, in a paranoid society, will always follow a downward trend. Every time a fatal accident happens, people investigate the cause and figure out a way to reduce the chance of its re-occurrence. With the ways to kill passengers decreasing, naturally the number killed also decreases. But there is a point of diminishing return. We could cut the number of people dying each year in this country by imposing a speed limit like they once had in the UK- 4 mph, with a man walking out front with a light warning of the cars proceding. I mean, it would cut it to next to nothing. Why don't we do it, then?

 

[Irv]

I really don't get the 'bomb-sniffing dogs on trains' bit, unless the train in question is

going to pass under the Hudson river. If some terrorist wants to just blow up a train,

there are thousands of grade crossings totally unguarded.

Seems like there would be much more productive work for these teams - like, perhaps

guarding our borders?

 

[John Bredin]

The number of passenger deaths per mile, in a paranoid society, will always follow a downward trend. Every time a fatal accident happens, people investigate the cause and figure out a way to reduce the chance of its re-occurrence. With the ways to kill passengers decreasing, naturally the number killed also decreases. But there is a point of diminishing return. We could cut the number of people dying each year in this country by imposing a speed limit like they once had in the UK- 4 mph, with a man walking out front with a light warning of the cars proceding. I mean, it would cut it to next to nothing. Why don't we do it, then?

Because there's such a thing as a happy medium.* To follow my previous example, just because the cops can't prevent crime from occuring doesn't mean that:

1) on one extreme the police are useless and should all be cashiered, or

2) on the other extreme, the police should be given plenary powers to punish perpetrators** without judge or jury.

Reasonable people can dispute what are reasonable precautions, but most people would disagree that our only two choices are perfect countermeasures or none at all.

*not just defined as a palmist who just got some sucker's money. :lol:

**sorry, had to do it.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I never said that. I didn't even imply that. I have absolutely no idea how you drew such an inference, if you in fact did. I am stating that the increase in security from what it was pre-911 and what it is now on airlines was not needed, not useful, and not productive. I am saying it inconvenienced people at the cost of billions of tax payer dollars to strengthen a system that already did as good a job as any reasonable system could have done. The banning of liquids and gels was pointless, for example. Anybody who went to that trouble to try this sort of thing would be a fool- the security could be beaten in much easier ways.

I further state that the increase in Amtrak's Security was even more un-needed, un-useful, and unproductive. Trains are very easy terrorist targets because they are ON THE GROUND and thus are very easily accessible through the entire route of travel. IEDs, RPGs, or even a hand gun, from any point near the thousands of miles of unguarded tracks we have in this country. The money and other crap could have been MUCH better spent guarding that then this tommyrot.

 

[PRR 60]

I can't even recall the number of standard knives, box cutters, SAKs, 6"+ knives, and firecrackers I've smuggled onto aircraft for the thrill of it, pre-911, but I do recall the one time, the last time I ever flew, that I carried a modified plastic knife onto the plane after 911. It might strike you that a plastic knife might not qualify as a weapon, but this one could cut through just about anything, at least briefly- dulls fast. And I'm not a terrorist with a multi-billion dollar machine backing me- I was just a kid who took pleasure in beating systems, whatever those systems might be.

I'm not sure I would brag about behavior like that.

 

[mercedeslove]

I have little problem with the use of bomb detection dogs in public faciilities. I've seen that kind of presence, and I do not feel it is nearly as intrusive as metal detectors or the usual airport screening. Also, I suspect the presence of ANY dog who appeared to be working would scare a would-be terriorist to the point his conduct would make him stand out from the crowd.

LOL I am the type of girl who is all like 'awwwwww puppy' then the thing mauls me.

 

[meatpuff]

I further state that the increase in Amtrak's Security was even more un-needed, un-useful, and unproductive. Trains are very easy terrorist targets because they are ON THE GROUND and thus are very easily accessible through the entire route of travel. IEDs, RPGs, or even a hand gun, from any point near the thousands of miles of unguarded tracks we have in this country. The money and other crap could have been MUCH better spent guarding that then this tommyrot.

Your assertion that the best way to kill people on a train is by attacking the train en route is not supported by the facts.

Wikipedia keeps a pretty comprehensive list of rail accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents

Perusing the list, one can count seven incidents between 2000 and 2007 of bombs detonated onboard passenger trains/rail transit with the deaths of passengers. Three of these seven incidents constituted multiple trains being blown up simultaneously. On the other hand, there was only one case of a train attacked along the route from outside with either a bomb, RPG, or gun: it was in 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/12...rain/index.html

It did cause a derailment, but no deaths, and a delay of only hours.

7-1. And that "one" didn't even kill anyone. If attacking the train en route from outside is the best way to kill people, wouldn't more terrorists/criminal have carried it out? And more successfully?

I don't think the terrorists' tactics will change, as it takes several orders of magnitude more explosive force to derail a P-42 than to put a deadly amount of shrapnel into someone standing next to you. Amtrak should be doing something about the threat of explosives on board, especially on the NEC and iconic Acela.

 

[wayman]

Trains are very easy terrorist targets because they are ON THE GROUND and thus are very easily accessible through the entire route of travel. IEDs, RPGs, ...

I wanna cast Magic Missile on the California Zephyr!

OK, roll to hit...

[roll]

Seventeen!

[mumble mumble THAC0 of Superliner mumble mumble Saving Throw mumble]

Ooooh, sorry, the Zephyr made its saving throw--the Magic Missile is deflected off of all the Sightseer Lounge glass.

...

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Wikipedia keeps a pretty comprehensive list of rail accidents.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents

Perusing the list, one can count seven incidents between 2000 and 2007 of bombs detonated onboard passenger trains/rail transit with the deaths of passengers. Three of these seven incidents constituted multiple trains being blown up simultaneously. On the other hand, there was only one case of a train attacked along the route from outside with either a bomb, RPG, or gun: it was in 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/12...rain/index.html

It did cause a derailment, but no deaths, and a delay of only hours.

It doesn't look to me like any of those bombings happened in the US. When I'm deciding whether it's safe to walk in some part of Boston, I don't pay much attention at all to data about the safety of walking in India (or New Orleans, for that matter). I'm not sure I understand why the safety of riding on trains would be different in this regard.

It seems to me that, in the US, more people die in automobiles at grade crossings than die from bombs in trains, and if Amtrak's focus is on reducing deaths, the safety of grade crossings would be a more appropriate place for Amtrak to spend money. (Then again, Amtrak just doesn't own very many grade crossings at all in the grand scheme of things; there are a handful on the northeast corridor, and Amtrak doesn't own a whole lot of track other than the northeast corridor.)

While it's not a terrorist attack, the worst ever Amtrak accident, with 47 deaths, occured as a result of a damaged bridge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bayou_Canot_train_disaster has the details.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The only terrorist train incident I remember in the US was this, the Palo Verde Derailment. This was caused by outside forces, no?

 

[George Harris]

Sunset Limited Derailment in Arizona:

The FBI's "likely a disgruntled rail worker because he knew to keep the track circuit continuity" in reality reduced the possible list of suspects almost as much as their determination after the Oaklahoma City bombing that the person "had access to ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel in quantity and was probably unhappy with the way the situation in Waco 9and a couple other places) was handled" which basically eliminated urban apartment dwellers but included for sure almost the entire population of the rural US. There are probably only a few million people that understand the concept of electrical continuity.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Of electrical continuity, yes. Of its usage in tripping railroad track signals less so.7