Hey, there! Log in / Register

If a man is hit and killed by the T, does it make the news?

According to a recent anon post in another story here on Universal Hub, a man was struck and killed by the Red Line in Kendall Station yesterday night. I looked into it online and found only the following three lines as the fourth story in the "New England In Brief" section of the Boston Globe:

A man was struck and killed by an MBTA train at e Kendall Station at 8:30 last night, Transit police said. The fatality disrupted service for several hours, said Joe Pesaturo, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

That's it? Am I missing why this isn't a more important and relevant story worth a bit more attention? Driver error? Pedestrian error? Is there an investigation? Yet another train-vs-person incident for the MBTA and not a word from any news sources on any of it?

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The story could be waiting for additional information. Perhaps the family has yet to be notified of his death. If I lost a family member to an accident like this, I would not want to read about it on a web page, or in the paper.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd sure like to know more about what happened, because it totally disrupted most of the Red Line for some or all of last night.

up
Voting closed 0

WCVB posted the wire story at 6:27 this morning: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18365573/deta...

up
Voting closed 0

if the T suspects suicide, they tend to keep it hush-hush. They don't want to encourage others and all that...

up
Voting closed 0

because by keeping it hush-hush, it makes the prevention or at least the minimization of something like that happening again in the future virtually if not downright impossible. When are people going to understand that not letting the media do its job by exposing this kind of a thing will have disastrous results, on the long run?

up
Voting closed 0

Some reasons not to publicly suggest that a possible suicide is a possible suicide:

* Upsets shocked/grieving family.

* Harms reputation/memory of the departed, perhaps undeservedly.

* Can suggest the idea and result in copycat/inspired suicides.

* (This one I wouldn't have guessed, until an undergrad confided in me after a suicide at MIT years ago...) Hearing about the suicide of someone else apparently can trigger suicidal thoughts in someone who wasn't previously upset or contemplating. It sounded like it was combination of identification and some kind of predisposition.

I'm speaking in general. I have no idea whether this applies at all to the particular situation in question, and I wouldn't speculate publicly.

up
Voting closed 0

can you explain yourself a little here? How does the media doing its job prevent "disastrous results"? I'm having trouble putting together the pieces. I didn't realize that putting photos of the guy on tv, knocking on his family's door, shoving a microphone in his parents' face, and collecting ad revenue was saving us all from some larger ill.

up
Voting closed 0

Isn't it J101 not to report suicides except for celebs and highly unusual circumstances? I know the Globe can be the Evil Empire, but I trust they know the basics, and have a reason for not reporting this further. Maybe the coverage of these situations will change -- for better or for worse -- as the future of journalism drifts more toward citizen journalism & blogging and further away from large institutions like the Globe.

up
Voting closed 0

OK, I didn't actually take J101, but I played a reporter for awhile, and the basic rule was: Suicides in private weren't covered. However, suicides in public places (suicide by cop or by train, for example), might be, because they were, well, public occurrences.

up
Voting closed 0

Suicides in public places are covered if the circumstances were unusual or if a lot of people were directly affected. It's not just the "in public" aspect that gets media attention.

When I've taken courses for clinicians on responding to community trauma, they'll go over how and why media coverage occurs in response to various events. The clinical recommendation is that suicides aren't publicized, unless what happened was so public and sensational that media coverage is actually going to help the community deal with the tragedy (for instance, by dispelling rumors and hysteria). The recommendation is generally that you do a community debriefing with the people who are affected. This is usually someone's school or workplace. Accurate information about the event is provided, along with information about the normal grief process, as well as what to look for if someone is reacting beyond normal grief, and where you would get them help. The media is usually respectful in not reporting in these instances, because the event isn't super newsworthy unless it was done in a really public and/or sensational manner (suicide by cop, etc.), and they don't want to get involved in a huge mess by reporting on something that isn't huge news and that's likely to upset people, possibly lead to copycats, etc.

A T employee who I know quite well was telling me that suicides are really frequent, and that most of the signal problems and whatnot are suicides or attempts. Most are not reported anywhere. This person also said that most people don't do it in a crowded station during rush hour, but are more likely to sneak off into the tunnel or jump, say, in Dorchester between stations (where the tracks aren't underground).

(FWIW, the general recommendation from clinicians is also not to create a public/lasting memorial when someone commits suicide, especially if it's a young person, because then you end up having kids several years later who only know that such-and-so has stuff named after him/her, but wasn't around to hear everyone being angry and frustrated with what happened, so it tends to make suicide seem appealing. It's usually more appropriate to do something like hold a memorial event, make a communal work of art or something to present to the surviving family, but not create anything public.)

up
Voting closed 0

This:

A T employee who I know quite well was telling me that suicides are really frequent, and that most of the signal problems and whatnot are suicides or attempts. Most are not reported anywhere. This person also said that most people don't do it in a crowded station during rush hour, but are more likely to sneak off into the tunnel or jump, say, in Dorchester between stations (where the tracks aren't underground).

is something that I've never heard before.

up
Voting closed 0

A T employee who I know quite well was telling me that suicides are really frequent, and that most of the signal problems and whatnot are suicides or attempts. Most are not reported anywhere. This person also said that most people don't do it in a crowded station during rush hour, but are more likely to sneak off into the tunnel or jump, say, in Dorchester between stations (where the tracks aren't underground).

Let me understand this: the T has a lot of suicides from people getting into the tunnels. The bridges to the Cape had a lot of suicides, but they put up fences. The T is a homeland security situation on any given day.

Perhaps they don't publicize them because that would demonstrate how easy it is to get into certain areas of the system ... but MOONINITES are a clear and present danger?

I feel more secure.

up
Voting closed 0

If someone is determined to walk off a platform onto railroad or subway tracks in order to kill himself, no amount of 'security measures' will prevent it.

up
Voting closed 0

She isn't talking about PLATFORMS she is talking about "sneaking into tunnels".

Big difference. While it is not possible to prevent platform jumping, it also sounds as though most of these people are not interested in public suicide. If people can sneak into tunnels and are known to do so for private third rail life events, they can also do so for other reasons. In other words, there should be some measures to discourage this, regardless of the motivation.

up
Voting closed 0

There's a lot of debate about suicide fences and so forth, as I'm sure you're aware. There's research showing that 94% of people who were stopped from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge did not commit suicide during the next 25 years afterward (suicide.org). With other methods, a much higher percent will try again, or try another method. I don't know where jumping onto T tracks falls on this continuum. I do know though that clients of mine who've tried going into tunnels or over the fences for reasons other than immediately jumping in front of a train have been quickly discovered by MBTA employees. I don't think the system is any more unsecured than anywhere else; it's just unsecured enough that someone who wants to quickly jump over a fence into the path of a train is able to.

Also, this infographic about the Golden Gate Bridge is just astounding (work safe, not disturbing in its graphic content, pretty disturbing overall):
http://radio.javaranch.com/map/images/suicide.gif

up
Voting closed 0