"First off, why in the world would you think this guy is trespassing? Danny Macaskill is a professional, and even has the blessing of RedBull as you can see from his helmet. Just because what he is doing may be unsafe for you to do, doesn't mean it is nearly as unsafe for him. He is one of, if not the best in the world at what he does."

Why, because I'm an adult, beyond being starstruck and I can't believe anybody in their right mind would let somebody jump delapidated equipment for show if they have the slightest thought of the potential liability.

Assuming they said sure, proving stupid is stupid does, imitators won't stop to ask for permission or sign waivers. Never saw the videos of the idiots with skateboards going down steps, huh? There's plenty of people thinking hoping to get a viral video.

Redbull's blessing would mean what-their market is immature individuals who want to be wide awake drunk-even if wearing a helmet with an emblem is a "blessing".

Unsafe is Unsafe no matter what the skill of the individual. There's no way to prevent or stop a fall. You watch precisely because of the danger. Crabbers face danger, but deliver food-not entertainment-and they are on the high seas-where Neptune can't be sued.

Evel Kneivel was a "professional" and had an intimate relationship with an army of orthopedists, surgeons and pharmacists to prove it.

Secondly, as Mr. Mitchell pointed out, there's no preservation there. Its irrelevant here.

And we wonder why the Class 1's take such a dim view of "foamers".

No, it's not irrelevant here. His skills as a BMX rider are, impressive though they may be are irreleant, but the broader question of whether or not an activity like this is appropriate when done with permissiom is something that merits consideration.

What happens when "America's Dumbest Stuntmen" comes calling to film "Hold my beer and watch this Volume 17, Bubba vs Trains"?

You may have heard of a small shortline called the Fillmore and Western? It probably should be re-named the FILM-MORE and Western for all ofthe movie and TV work that's done there. Do you think that every single stunt and activity shown in those movies is safe and sane?

I recall a couple scenes on the Mt Hood as well. In one they jumped over the train with a Quad or something like that at a grade crossing. I suspect that Operation Lifesaver wouldn't approve of that technique. In the other, rather ludicrous show, they installed a giant airbag on the engine to be deployed during a crossing accident.

Presumably the entitiies involved generated revenue from this stuff.

So... What do you say when a skateboarder or BMXer shows up and says "I want to film a scene where I ride my bike down the cable on that crane!" Of course you say "Go away kid, you bother me!" To which he replies "My sponsor, Red Bull, is prepared to pay you $xxxxxx for the use of the facilities. Wouldn't that help fix up some those rusty choo-choos of yours?"

Suddenly the topic is relevant to you.

Let's remember when talking about "potential liability" that there is a deference between how things are done in the US vs. the UK.

While my initial concern was based upon the possibility that a rogue would attempt to mimic or escalate the stunts done, without permission, you bring up another question-the issue of a sponsored request.

A testament to the speed of economic change (degradation) is the fact that a decade or so ago, this board used to be the venue for heated conversations about whether or not the mere operation a locomotive was unethical, some even used the term “violence”.

Now we have the polar opposite-with people staking out “anything goes” rather than “nothing goes” positions. I’d categorize it as advocacy to engage in pandering-it ok if the price is right-and I mean that as it is (was) defined in criminal codes. Hmm.. Heidi Fleiss as your curator.

So let’s examine this. Last I checked my book of rules, there was no exemption from the requirements of safety based upon the offering of a sufficient bounty. And I don’t think you get anywhere near the lottery-sized payoff implied by ”My sponsor, Red Bull, is prepared to pay you $xxxxxx for the use of the facilities.”

But you say, hey look, I need the money, even if it’s a few thousand and I’ll take some legal risk. Great, invite the FRA and your liability underwriter to be present.

As for the F&W, I’m not associated with them, but how much of what you see on the screen is real? CGI goes a long, long way these days and it’s going farther all the time. Studios aren’t stupid, they are in business-the business of imagery and if they can make an image on a computer without risking a wrongful death action, and all the logistics of physical location, they will. Nobody’s looking for a repeat of what happened on the “Twilight Zone” movie in the 1980’s.

How does this foster your organization’s economic sustainability? Unless you are in Tinseltown’s backyard, such an offer is likely to be a one- time deal. So how are you going to fix your rusty choo choos next time?

Now for the rest of you folks working “the back end”, think how much more unreasonable you’d seem when you are telling your passengers “remain seated” and if you are in a museum setting how much more lip you’ll get about your “please do not touch” signs to kids who’ve seen this video.

And oh yes, our friends across the pond do have a little something called “loser pays” that keeps the powdered-wig set in check.

There's a story from the Civil War era about a sea captain who was being solicited by a Confederate agent to run the Union blockade of Southern ports. The CSA rep started with a "You've got to be kidding" offer and started raising the amount. Finally the captain said "Off my ship, you varmint! You're getting too close to my price."

[quote="superheater
...I can't believe anybody in their right mind would let somebody jump delapidated equipment for show if they have the slightest thought of the potential liability.

[/quote]

Is there not a way for the owners of this site to shield themselves from liability as part of an agreement to allow this stunt performing on their property?

OK, I'll leave the F&W out of this, since I know very little of their operation.

Let's talk about a couple situations I have first hand knowledge of.

One movie featured various scenes in a yard, with people jumping on and off of moving equipment. All done in a manner that was definitely not the correct procedure. The highlight of the scene was evading pursuit by jumping under the train, while it was moving, letting a car pass over the fugitive, and then rolling out the other side, between the wheels. All done, for real, no CGI involved. That was just one example.

The movie? Runaway Train? The only serious accident during the filming? A helicopter pilot flying in a tight canyon had a fatal encounter with power lines.

A second movie required a stunt vehicle pass just in front of the train as it crossed a grade crossing. How close? Close enough to go out of site behind the nose of the F unit as it went in front of us. Close enough that I was quite afraid we'd hit it as it passed in front of us. Add in a telephoto lens and it's so close it probably looks faked.

The movie was Born to Be Wild. There were no injuries and the stunt vehicle in question was heavily equipped with a roll cash and the driver was wearing full protective gear. The final scene was acheived after hours of practice runs, testing, timing and sequencing.

Both resulted in nice income for the operations involved. Both were done with full cooperation of the railroads involved, and with liabity insurance and waivers etc. In fact I seem to recall that not only did the insurance company sign release/waivers, they also provided insurance for the railroad in case of any damage.

It can be done correctly.