Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Some not real valid points in these posts: 1) "Engineers do not give their driver's license to the officer account the engineer's have seen points given them by the judicial system, had their auto insurance cancelled or rates increased and no, you do not NEED to be a licensed driver to operate a locomotive." This was already addressed, and it's partially correct: You don't need to provide a driver's license to an officer if you aren't operating a motor vehicle at the time of an accident. You DO have to provide enough information to identify yourself, especially if a fatality is involved. A rail company ID is probably sufficient. 2) "I have never had the local police officer ask for a breathalayzer. I guess I would have to decline to participate until he could provide a very good reason why he suspected I might be under the influence." In this particular case, I would explain that it is routine for participants in accidents to be tested for alcohol use. The victim in this case was probably tested for alcohol use at the hospital. An accident investigation, from a cop's point of view, is to find a cause for the accident and try to fix blame. Chances are excellent in this particular case that the engineer would have blown an alcohol free Drager. That would have ruled out impairment on his part and cleared him of wrongdoing. 3) I saw an engineer taken from a locomotive in hand cuffs and at gun point for blocking a crossing while doing an air test at the south end of Rice Yard in Denver once. Now that was an education. What if the engineer had slipped while trying to dismount the engine with his hands cuffed behind his back, fell on the officer and the gun went off? That would have been pretty ugly. It also would have been pretty ugly if the train blocked an ambulance trying to reach a call. (It's happened to me personally twice.) Or a fire truck trying to get to a fire. Or a police car trying to reach the scene of an accident. That's why a lot of states have laws setting time limits on how long a train can block a crossing. And yes, a cop CAN make an arrest on a violation of law that he observes. 4) "Bottom line is the train crew probably knows more about grade crossing accidents than the local officer does. Perhaps law enforcement should listen to them." We do. We also listen to truck drivers who know more about driving trucks than we do, and still manage to crash. We listen to boat operators who know a lot about handling boats, but not neccesarily much about avoiding railroad bridges. We listen to pilots who, if still living, know a lot about flying but not much about reading a fuel gauge before they go down into a neighborhood. And we also listen to victims. Lots of them. It's part of trying to figure out what caused an accident and who is to blame. A couple of extra points here. First, a license or certification to operate a motor vehicle (or a locomotive, or a plane, or a ship) is a privelege, not a right. There's a difference. A privelege can be withdrawn much more easily than a right. We have all heard about airline pilots climbing up into perfectly good airplanes perfectly impaired. They seem surprised and disappointed when their driver's licenses get suspended. Why? Because their behavior on the job is just as likely to spill over into their behavior off the job. Second, on rare occasions, the locomotive engineer actually IS at fault because he IS impaired. Anyone remember Ricky Gates? If not, dig back into these threads- he's been brave enough, and honest enough, to talk at length about the role drugs played in his accident. Locomotive engineers are human. They make human mistakes. They have human failings. When they do their jobs, they are expected to do them well and safely. It's up to law enforcement- local, county, state, and the Feds- to pick up the pieces after an accident, and either clear or cite individuals at fault. The railroad will probably be sued in this case....they always are. Tell me, do you really think the engineer's conduct in this particular case is going to aid or hinder the defense the railroad has to put up? Think about it for a second- the jury is going to be made up of locals who probably don't know squat about trains. How do you think THEY will respond to an engineer who arrogantly tells them that HE doesn't have to answer questions "because he's protected by the railroad, and he's been advised he doesn't have to answer a police officer's questions." Folks, ya gotta think through cause and effect. I do every day. I get paid to pick up stupidly criminal people and put them in jail. (The smart or wealthy criminals, unfortunately, spend less time in jail than it takes for me to fini***he paperwork.) I also get paid to protect innocent people... like railroad engineers. If that means I have to have the engineer blow into a Drager machine to bolster his defense, I'm going to do it. And if he is indeed drunk or otherwise impaired, I'm going to arrest him for it. The people in my county expect and pay me for that kind of protection... as does industry (like the railroad). Erik
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