Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="selector"] <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> Bucyrus:</div> <div></div>   ... If so, I don’t understand your conclusion because drivers have been running into the sides of trains for 150 years.  ... ...  How can you say they were not irresponsible?  <div style="clear:both;"></div>   </blockquote> Was there ever a time when it was acceptable for drivers to drive into the side of rail cars?  What was our understanding of the nature of this phenomenon?  When did we decide that the roadkill numbers were indicative of a growing problem?   Every leader of a rail company ought to have considered those questions at some time.  My point is that they were only irresponsible once they realized their process was instrumental in the deaths of motorists who were expected to cross their paths and effected to do nothing about it.  It seems unconscionable to me if this were ever the case.  I suspect the leaders at all levels felt sufficiently uncomfortable that they eventually placed cross-bucks and wig-wags at level crossings.  It was at the very least a sign of good will toward the public.  Reflectors are merely signs of continued good will. Crandell [/quote] Crandell, I’m sure it was not intentional, but the way you have quoted me out of context switches the meaning of what I said.  <o:p></o:p> So just to be clear, when I asked you if “they” were being irresponsible, by “they”, I was referring to the railroads for not adding reflectors earlier, not to the drivers who run into trains.  Of course, the drivers who run into to trains are irresponsible.  That has been my point all along here.   <o:p></o:p> But earlier, you said that once the problem of drivers running into trains was discovered, it would have been irresponsible for railroads to do nothing about it.  You were referring to the new reflector mandate as the railroads “doing something about it.”  I then asked if the railroads were irresponsible for not having done something about it sooner, since they must have known about the problem for at least 150 years.  Surely the answer has to be yes if, as you say, the railroads would have been irresponsible for not adding reflectors as soon as they realized that drivers run into the sides of trains.  It took them 150 years to do something about it.  Would that not be irresponsible?   <o:p></o:p> But my position all along here has been that the railroads were not irresponsible for not adding reflectors, because the law has always been that the driver bears all of the responsibility for running into trains.  It did not take the railroads years and years to figure out that their trains were killing people at crossings, as you suggest.  They knew there was a blood bath by second half of the 1800s.  But their responsibility was only to mark the crossings with a warning, and the rest was up to the crossers to yield to the trains.   I do agree with you that regardless of the fact that the trains have the right of way, it is in their interest to have as few crashes as possible.  So adding reflectors for goodwill, as you say, is fine.  But earlier in this thread you said:  <o:p></o:p> “The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab.  They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility.”  <o:p></o:p> The railroad industry, Operation Lifesaver, and the law would disagree with your position.
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