Woman hit by train in Kanagawa

Police said the crossing bar was down at the scene of the accident and believe the woman may have been trying to commit suicide.

Once again the cops look for an easy out. While it may be true, at least give the poor woman a chance to recover before guessing the reasons for the accident/incident.

I saw a 20-something guy duck the gates just a few days ago. He was in a hurry, not wanting to be late. The train conductor blew the horn as the guy ducked the second gate. This girl may have been trying to scurry across likewise, or offing herself. Either way it's tragic.

I wouldn't recommend suicide by train. The (surviving) family will be sued for millions of yen by the railway company for actual damages.

I would like to request that the title "Person hit by train" be banned from all new stories unless there is proof that the train jumped the tracks or experienced some other extraordinary problem. The vast, vast majority of people who are hit by trains are either attempting suicide (as is likely the case of the woman mentioned above) or are trying to cross the tracks while a train is coming. "Person hit by train" suggests that the train is at fault. In this case, "Woman attemtps suicide at train station" would be more accurate. Or in the case of JeanValJean "Scurrying citizen survives close call." Just as provocative without the implication that the train or its operator is at fault. Just a suggestion.

comments more interesting than the news.

This woman died, sadly.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20130616-00000023-kana-l14

While the reasons for why it's sad may differ, whether she indeed attempted suicide or was just trying to cross the tracks, it is still sad. I don't know what the conditions are at this particular crossing, but I know that in some parts of the country at rush hour in particular the bars can be down for 40 minutes or so out of the hour, and it's during those times that people duck the bar and make a run for it. Not saying that's the case, but we don't really know now, do we?

samwattersJun. 17, 2013 - 10:07AM JST

How would you communicate the fact she was hit by a train without using the word? Although there's a pretty good chance she walked into it on purpose, it'd be absurd to write headlines assuming such.

Suicide or not its a terrible situation for all involved including the passengers, the witnesses and the driver of the train.

Whatever drove this girl to run across in front of the train whether intentional or accidental may not be known at this stage.

"Although there's a pretty good chance she walked into it on purpose, it'd be absurd to write headlines assuming such." @Magnus Roe. Why would it be absurd? Here is my suggestion (in addition to the one in my original post): "Possible suicide attempt at Odakyu Enoshima line." It's one more word than the original title but gives a more accurate picture. If the word "train" must be used then let's use something like "Woman hit by train in possible suicide attempt." Again, a bit clunky but puts responsibility where it belongs, the person in the tracks and not the person driving the train.

@ samwatters I'm not sure what the point of your suggestion is. Nobody is assuming that the train is at fault. The only time a train could possibly be at fault is if it was speeding and derailed. I'm sure the headline would be very different if that were the case. Considering the lack of information, I think the headline is fine as is. It's simply stating a fact. Your suggestion on the other hand is making an assumption, which is arguably more irresponsible.

"Your suggestion on the other hand is making an assumption, which is arguably more irresponsible." @MrBum. I see your point. Like I wrote earlier, it's just a suggestion.