This seems like a money grab. First off, her son was 19, and therefore an adult. Secondly, we cannot just keep creating costs and guardrails to keep people safe. That’s just safetyism. Life has risks, and in some ways, it’s good that we can take risks and make choices freely.<p>I’ll also say some of the train surfing videos online are entertaining. Sometimes it’s a dangerous stunt, sometimes it’s just someone getting a ride for free, and sometimes it’s just a way to experience the open air and feel alive. But I am OK with people making that choice.<p>We can also consider what the implication of this lawsuit is. So every train must be outfitted with devices to prevent people from climbing aboard the train? What does that cost the city or state, and ultimately, riders? What happens when someone does get on top and these suggested sensors go off - the entire train stops, the police are called, and the train is halted for an hour or more, along with every other train on that line? No sorry, society does not need to do anything about this.
> The mother of Daniel Baran, a 19-year-old who died last year while attempting to ride atop a BART train, is suing the transit agency.<p>> The suit, filed Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court, claims the trains lacked safety mechanisms that would have prevented his death.<p>> Marina Baran further alleges that the agency was aware that others had been climbing its trains to record “surfing” stunts and post the footage on social media.<p>At what point would the cost of making all existing and future infrastructure "proof against" danger-seeking young males far exceed the cost of identifying such males, then locking them in padded cells until their brains mature enough to stop playing Russian Roulette?<p>Or, should "freedom" include the freedom to do dangerously foolish things?