Yes, that is a test:
http://www.hpwhite.com/ballistic-testing/railway-glass-testi...
Yes, that is a test:
http://www.hpwhite.com/ballistic-testing/railway-glass-testi...
Are cars and buses tested against that standard? (Certainly bikes, ferries, streetcars, and pedestrians are not required to pass this test.)
I'm reminded of a Usenet post I read in the '90s from an Army helicopter technician who expressed his frustration at ranchers shooting at the "black helicopters"; the technician spent too much of his time (i.e. > 0) patching the holes.
If so, does this happen as often for highways? If not, why not?
You need to come up with a system for reliably detecting hits on any part of any train (or they will aim for areas hard to detect), anywhere on a journey and immediately notifying nearby law enforcers to converge on the location before the miscreants can get away from the area. Oh, and the system has to be simple (a criterion you set for yourself), and has to be able to distinguish hits from gravel kicked up by other passing trans or the train itself.
I’m sure you worked all that out before posting and you think it’s obvious, but please enlighten those of us not as bright.
Does everyone else feel like the quoted statement is a perfectly normal thing to say? I am asking because I sure do not. The world is full of complex problems with no simple answers, but this one, in my opinion, is not one of them.
Yet we don't require car windows to be able to withstand a .22.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3411766 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3411770
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/projectile-problem-goe...