Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="cx500"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] If I had to guess what happened, I would guess that the gates were down and the driver tried to beat the train.  That was what was reported after the crash in 2003.  That is what the police concluded.  But still, the signals could have failed.  It is a possibility, no matter how remote.  I would even tend to dismiss the possibility of signal failure because it is so remote, and at least one witness said the signals were working.    But here is the biggest problem that I have in dismissing signal failure:   If BNSF had data that would establish that the signals were working, how could they have possibly failed to produce it?  I can’t get around that point. [/quote]    If you read the original story, BNSF apparently did produce the recording that the signals were working during the trial.  It appears they did not, however, provide it to the police at the scene.  I have no way of knowing if it was in the form of a trace graph, or digital storage.  Presumably a smooth lawyer convinced a gullible jury that since an opportunity may have existed, the big bad railroad had taken advantage of the gap to tamper with the recording.  Digital raw data is often not user friendly, a great advantage when it comes to confusing the ignorant.  It also tends to highlight the reality that the police can be unwilling to admit their own limitations when it comes to investigating accidents.  I am not another cop-basher, merely observing that they sometimes don't have all the specialized knowledge required, and certain arrogant ones refuse to acknowledge this.  Obviously they should have immediately asked the railroad personnel on the scene for the recording, but like many in the general public, didn't realize such a thing existed.  Meanwhile the local signal tech followed normal procedure and forwarded it through internal railroad channels to the Claims department.  No doubt the scene was gruesome enough that not many people were thinking in dry legal terms at the time. John [/quote] John, What you are suggesting does seem like the most plausible explanation of what happened in the trial.  I assume that BNSF presented the data that proved that the signals were working.  The families’ lawyers pretended that they doubted the accuracy of the evidence.  Then they charged that the inaccuracy was motivated by BNSF trying to cover up the truth about the signals not working.  This charge fell on very fertile ground with general societal perception these days that large corporations are evil and greedy.  They simply buried BNSF with the stigma of dishonesty, and then the premise that the signals did not work was the only explanation for the crash that fit the picture.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag