Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz (A)Regarding the 3-man crew that includes a student: I believe you are correct. My point is that the training time is way too short. Which addresses the other point you made: I agree that having a third person on every crew regardless of training needs is overkill. And on freight trains that already have a two-person crew, the third is completely a waste, unless they are in training. (B)How much value do you put on the lives that the second person might/will save? If one person's life is saved by having a second crewman on every train at a cost of, say, two million per year, is not that life worth 2 million? (C)Why do you think the military requires TWO persons with special keys to launch missiles? Safety. [/quote] (A) . SO really we agree on this area, we just have differing perspectives on how needed extra training should be performed/scheduled. Really not related to the "one man crew" debate. We could (theoretically) do away with the conductor, yet have student engineers spend longer time being field trained, and the point you raise over training would be resolved. (B) .Might/ will, shoulda, coulda ..... those emotional appeals are real tear jerkers, especially if the deceased's survivors have an attorney who thinks he can prey upon the emotions of a jury and argue the value of that life up to $50 million. Which, THAT is exactly where the concept of the over valuation of the value of a single human life comes from in our society. It's a fairy tale. Just because some scaley skinned viper can smooth talk 12 gullible people into boo-hoo hooing in their hanky and awarding the plaintiffs survivors $2 mil, that doesn't mean the value of human life is that much. But no, to be more direct to your point, no I do not think that railroads should be expected to carry unneccessary burden day in and day out based on no more than what could happen in a worse case scenario. When you are out driving, you COULD run a redlight , and push a gasoline tank truck into a school bus killing 35 kids. Do you carry a liability limit on your car insurance that would cover up to $350 million? (attorneys always get more sympathy out of a weepy jury when kids are involved) $10 million per kid you might cause death to? Of course you don't because the day in and day out impact of carrying that expense is not justified by the realistic level of exposure. That doesn't mean you are 'insensitive" to the plight of the 35 children you may, or may never hit,..does it? So why hang that load around the neck of the railroads? (C) I always thought it was security, to prevent one lone nut from instigating armageddon?
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