I understood you, Bucyrus, and have responded accordingly. Both parties, in my view, and despite what lawmakers may think, even today, are meant to share a common intersection, and therefore the responsibility for what happens there is de facto mutually and evenly distributed. That is my position. In time, the Law may see it my way, perhaps not.
Yes, a driver is in control of a moving vehicle and is responsible for what takes place up to the point of accident, or happenstance. Then it is merely unfortunate. Had the railroads maintained all along that the misfortune was solely due to drivers in such accidents, then I could understand their being steadfast (and obtuse) to this day. But they clearly have not. The very nature of railroad crossings with controlling devices suggests that the responsibility is to be shared.
The part you quoted of mine is true; drivers must adhere to a defined path, and that path intersects with a potential hazard. They can't deviate to a point 20 meters beside a controlled crossing and attempt to cross the tracks, not practically, and not legally. So, while the train is confined to a defined route, no less so is the driver of the automobile with considerably more control and variance in a lane...or out of it. At a rural, uncontrolled, and seldom traveled crossing, and in the gloom of night, and if the numbers of deaths at such crossings outstripped all other crossing deaths, would we not presume that such crossings need more attention? And if the attention is methodical and illuminates the problem, and if the problem turns out to be ultra-low visibility of the sides of rail cars, we would have two options: control the traffic another way, something more positive, or alter the appearance of rail cars.
I don't know what the actual stats are, but it seems to me that there is a real problem as reported by some respondents here. If it turns out that only two 20 square-inch reflectors per car side solves the problem, or reduces the incidence of catastrophe for drivers at uncontrolled crossings, it seems to be a small thing to do. And if it is a small thing to do, should it be the motorists who bear that responsibility?
Crandell
selector Bucyrus: ... 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? 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
Bucyrus: ... 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?
...
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?
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,
I’m sure it was not intentional, but the way you have quoted me out of context switches the meaning of what I said.
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.
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?
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:
“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.”
The railroad industry, Operation Lifesaver, and the law would disagree with your position.
It isn't just railroad rolling stock. Take a good look at the sides of most modern highway trailers, esp. the flat or lowboy types - they too have reflectorized strips or stripes, for much the same reason I think. For one example, see: http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_37973_37973
-Paul North.
Bucyrus ... 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?
Firelock76 My opinion on graffiti is it's a pretty poor comment on railyard security if the perpetrators have enough time to paint the elaborite "artwork" I've seen on some rolling stock.
My opinion on graffiti is it's a pretty poor comment on railyard security if the perpetrators have enough time to paint the elaborite "artwork" I've seen on some rolling stock.
Years ago I contracted with Southern Pacific to spot several empty box cars on alittle used siding behind a warehouse we owned in Santa Clara Ca, using them for overflow storage while we did seismic retrofit inside the tenant's adjoining area.
Called the RR at the end of the project and "ordered" the removal of the cars, and they sat there a good 4 months before the RR thought to come retrieve them.
It's opportunities such as that which the taggers capitalize on
selector Bucyrus: ... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars? Not at all. Once the problem was identified, call it a defect in human engineering, it would have been irresponsible for nobody to do anything. Highway safety types would have suggested remediation of some kind, and presumably one of the recommendations would have been to place a few reflectors on the sides of rolling stock so that they could be more visible at dark, uncontrolled, level crossings where only crossbucks indicate a potential hazard...an oncoming or a transiting train. Heavens knows the warnings to motorists seem to have become more obvious, more attention-getting. Crandell
Bucyrus: ... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
Not at all. Once the problem was identified, call it a defect in human engineering, it would have been irresponsible for nobody to do anything. Highway safety types would have suggested remediation of some kind, and presumably one of the recommendations would have been to place a few reflectors on the sides of rolling stock so that they could be more visible at dark, uncontrolled, level crossings where only crossbucks indicate a potential hazard...an oncoming or a transiting train. Heavens knows the warnings to motorists seem to have become more obvious, more attention-getting.
When you say that once the problem was discovered, it would have been irresponsible to do nothing, are you suggesting that the problem of drivers having trouble seeing trains fouling grade crossings has just been discovered and has thus resulted in the reflector mandate?
If so, I don’t understand your conclusion because drivers have been running into the sides of trains for 150 years. Some railroads began reflectorizing the sides of their rolling stock and locomotives 60 years ago. So clearly the problem must have been understood long before this reflector mandate, and yet the industry, as a whole, did nothing. How can you say they were not irresponsible?
Jeez, look at how far this discussion has drifted froim graffiti on trains! My opinion on graffiti is it's a pretty poor comment on railyard security if the perpetrators have enough time to paint the elaborite "artwork" I've seen on some rolling stock. Then again, some of the cars I've seen here in Richmond on CSX trackage is so decrepit the taggers may be doing CSX a favor by painting the cars for them! Maybe CSX doesn't care what kind of paint is on the cars as long as it keeps them from rusting. One thing is for sure, if I was "Mr. Tropicana" (the juice train runs through here) and I saw what was happening to my rolling billboards I'd be throwing a fit! Taggers apparantly can't resist a big white "canvas."
Bucyrus ... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
Bucyrus If reflectors on freight cars make the difference between the railroad meeting its obligation to make the crossings safe, then it has to follow that if a driver hits a car without reflectors, and the driver says he did not see the freight car, then it is the railroad’s fault. And if reflectors make it easier for drivers to see freight cars, why stop there? Wouldn’t flashing strobe lights on the sides of freight cars make it still safer? Of course it would. So why would adding reflectors be just enough of a response to satisfy the railroad’s obligation in this shared responsibility you speak of?
I take your point, although it seems perilously close to a reductio ad absurdum to both of us..? We tend to deal with problems incrementally. We could also bar trains from all level crossings, but it would be a draconian solution that begets all sorts of other problems. Somewhere, where the fender meets the stirrup, is a simple, perhaps single, step (such as the addition of a reflector) that neutralizes the problem effectively. For the time being. If a cross-buck has become nothing more than yet another roadside indicator calling out for attention, and is all that exists at that crossing, and if trains are few and far between, local drivers are wont to become careless. It is called habituation in my field. Things that are no longer novel lose their attention-grabbing capacity. Most mothers eventually learn to let their babies squall for a bit...doesn't hurt them. Blinking lights and sirens soon lose their impact. The more strident something is, the more likely we'll attend to it, but always more-so if it is simply....new. It causes us caution, even mistrust, and lies at the root of much of what we term racist behaviour.
I wouldn't discount the eventuality of strobes, by the way...as absurd as it may appear to be, something is going to replace the reflectors in time...probably...maybe.
Bucyrus selector: if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. 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. Crandell You have got to be kidding.
selector: if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. 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. Crandell
if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. 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.
You have got to be kidding.
Crandell's reply:
“Nope. Ethically, each party that shares common ground bears a mutual regard for the other. At least, in civilized society they do. A crossing is common ground. Therefore both share the responsibility for the use of that crossing. The driver must exercise diligence and prudence, and so should the railroad. If an uncontrolled crossing is routinely crossed at night, and there is nothing except crossbucks, the prudent driver slows and prepares to stop. But if we have examples where even experienced drivers, those who know the terrain well, have nearly driven into the side of a flatcar, common dog says the flatcar can be subject to alteration in a way that renders it less of a danger. In this case, reflective panels can be added to make it more visible. An irresponsible driver who overdrives his ability to react to the reflective panel entering his headlight beam is on his own tab AFAIAC.
Crandell”
I hear your words, but I don’t see how you can put them into practice. You say that both the driver and the railroad share the responsibility at a grade crossing. I assume that you mean that the motorist must yield to the train, but the railroad has the responsibility to make the cars easier to see by putting reflectors on them. Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
If reflectors on freight cars make the difference between the railroad meeting its obligation to make the crossings safe, then it has to follow that if a driver hits a car without reflectors, and the driver says he did not see the freight car, then it is the railroad’s fault.
And if reflectors make it easier for drivers to see freight cars, why stop there? Wouldn’t flashing strobe lights on the sides of freight cars make it still safer? Of course it would. So why would adding reflectors be just enough of a response to satisfy the railroad’s obligation in this shared responsibility you speak of?
selector Nope. Ethically, each party that shares common ground bears a mutual regard for the other. At least, in civilized society they do. A crossing is common ground. Therefore both share the responsibility for the use of that crossing. The driver must exercise diligence and prudence, and so should the railroad. If an uncontrolled crossing is routinely crossed at night, and there is nothing except crossbucks, the prudent driver slows and prepares to stop. But if we have examples where even experienced drivers, those who know the terrain well, have nearly driven into the side of a flatcar, common dog says the flatcar can be subject to alteration in a way that renders it less of a danger. In this case, reflective panels can be added to make it more visible. An irresponsible driver who overdrives his ability to react to the reflective panel entering his headlight beam is on his own tab AFAIAC. Crandell
Nope. Ethically, each party that shares common ground bears a mutual regard for the other. At least, in civilized society they do. A crossing is common ground. Therefore both share the responsibility for the use of that crossing. The driver must exercise diligence and prudence, and so should the railroad. If an uncontrolled crossing is routinely crossed at night, and there is nothing except crossbucks, the prudent driver slows and prepares to stop. But if we have examples where even experienced drivers, those who know the terrain well, have nearly driven into the side of a flatcar, common dog says the flatcar can be subject to alteration in a way that renders it less of a danger. In this case, reflective panels can be added to make it more visible. An irresponsible driver who overdrives his ability to react to the reflective panel entering his headlight beam is on his own tab AFAIAC.
Where would you place the 'responsibility' of an incident where a person on an ATV or snowmobile runs into some parked freight cars sitting on a siding at night out in the boonies?
selector if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. 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. Crandell
Bucyrus,
I can see this scenario happening in a rural unlighted area with crossings marked only with cross-bucks.
For discussion purposes let's say you are using low beam headlights and a string of black tank cars without the newly required reflective striping is going over the crossing. The cross-buck may show in your headlights but the cars don't. The automobile is perhaps moving faster than it should be, and can't see the cars because of their color.
That brings up the question of whether it is wise to paint any rail car black. Almost any other color is more visible at night.
Just my thoughts for what they're worth.
Norm
I think that, in a perfect world, both parties sharing an intersection where both have legitimate access and purposes, ought to look out for one another. The railroad provides the circuitry and the cross-bucks and whatnot, and the drivers should offer themselves due care and attention. The driver of a motor vehicle is always responsible for his own safety and for ensuring that others whose paths might intersect are safe.
Yet, the contest between rail traffic and automobile traffic is stacked heavily in favour of the rails when it comes to potential for catasrophic injury or death. if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. 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. The hogger is merely an agent with limited powers and autonomy, so the default, in my view, is that it falls to the railroads to make their cars less of a hazard. Drivers, in turn, must exercise proper restraint and caution when operating their motor vehicles in unfamiliar territory. Anyone who exceeds his night vision while driving, and who exceeds his ability to stop in a reasonable distance, is being reckless. His contribution to his own demise cannot be discounted by referring instead to the darkness of the rail traffic.
Semper Vaporo Bucyrus: Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist). Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law. If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see? Easy. Because "I" (your's truely) felt like an idiot for not seeing a TRAIN right in front of me. Have you ever, personally, or seen someone else, walk into a glass door? There are pretty decals that you can purchase to put on a patio door at about eye level to help warn you when the door is closed. Why else would those be made, except to help warn people that the door is closed? Whose fault is it if the decals are not there (or not seen) and someone flattens their face on the glass? The archetech that designed the door to be there? The carpenter that installed it? The last person that went through and closed it behind them? No, it is the fault of the person that we all laugh at for walking into it. Maybe my term 'idiot' is a bit strong, but that is how I felt at that grade crossing. So... much as I really do respect you, I refute your contention by experience and I get to call "idiot" because I have been one!
Bucyrus: Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist). Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law. If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see?
Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist).
From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist).
Easy. Because "I" (your's truely) felt like an idiot for not seeing a TRAIN right in front of me. Have you ever, personally, or seen someone else, walk into a glass door?
There are pretty decals that you can purchase to put on a patio door at about eye level to help warn you when the door is closed. Why else would those be made, except to help warn people that the door is closed? Whose fault is it if the decals are not there (or not seen) and someone flattens their face on the glass? The archetech that designed the door to be there? The carpenter that installed it? The last person that went through and closed it behind them?
No, it is the fault of the person that we all laugh at for walking into it.
Maybe my term 'idiot' is a bit strong, but that is how I felt at that grade crossing.
So... much as I really do respect you, I refute your contention by experience and I get to call "idiot" because I have been one!
I am not sure what you are refuting. Failing to see and an obstruction cannot be an excuse for driving into it. Failing to see a stop sign is no excuse for running it. Failing to see a red signal is no excuse for a locomotive engineer running by it. There is no gray area. Looking and seeing is the entire basis of the requirement to yield at un-signaled grade crossings.
I understand what you are saying about nearly running into that flatcar, and your comparison to running into glass doors. I have nearly run into glass doors. But I would not consider a glass door to be analogous to a freight train blocking a road. A glass door is probably the one perfect example of an obstacle in a path of travel that you cannot see. If there is no reflection and the glass is clean, the only way a person would know it is there is if he had prior knowledge of its existence.
I asked about who is responsible when a driver runs into a train that they claim they did not see. You asked who is responsible when a person walks into a glass door they claim they did not see. For the former, I would say the driver. For the latter, I would say the person who put the door there might be responsible. But that would need to be qualified. If a person put a sheet of glass across a corridor, and the glass had no frame to offer a clue of its existence, and if it presented no reflection, and if people who walked the corridor often did so for the first time--- then I would say that the person who put the glass there was criminally negligent. And the person who runs into the glass is certainly no idiot.
Bucyrus Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist). Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law. If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see?
If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see?
Easy. Because "I" (your's truely) felt like an idiot for not seeing a TRAIN right in front of me. And even after I was stopped, bumper just a few feet from a moving train, I could barely see the dark color cars. I could not see it when I approached the crossing. Still, it would have been my fault if I had hit it.
Have you ever, personally, or seen someone else, walk into a glass door? Ya don't see it and flatten your nose! I have (both counts!).
I came around the corner at a store in a mall and about jumped out of my skin when this big ugly cuss came right at me! I had been in that store hundreds of times and I knew there was a mirror there, but I still provided a bit of mirth for the people watching me leap out of the way of my own image!
We all make mistakes, sometimes because we are easily or momentarily distracted, sometimes because our eyes are fooled, sometimes because circumstances build up to a point where we cannot do otherwise, even when we are trying very hard not to make a mistake, But it happens.
As for me and my almost intimate encounter. I was obeying the law. I was going slow, I was actively looking for a train (like I said, I always look! ), I was even listening!, but I do believe I would have stuck my right front fender under a flat car if it were not for the hopper a hundred feet down the line. The train and I were going about the same speed and that had to be less than 5 MPH each (10MPH closing speed, max). I have often wondered what would have happened if that white hopper had not been there.
Maybe my term 'idiot' is a bit strong, but that is how I felt at that grade crossing. What could I have done different? Dunno. Never use that particular crossing? Always stop at all crossings? Maybe just at certain crossings? Maybe just under certain circumstances? I thought the crossing was clear until I saw the hopper moving and it concerned me to see a rail car moving toward me with no light on it (or engine ahead of it!). I did not see the flats until after I had stopped out of concern for that hopper moving, and even then they were hard to see.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist).
Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law.
In a perfect world, signs wouldn't be reflective, trash trucks wouldn't need amber lights, higway workemen woudln't neen reflective vests, cars wouldn't need tailights, we wouldn't need any type of crossing protection, what else..
I think the general consensus is that even though we shouldn't need the above items, we recognize their importance.
I like the stripes. I think they do more good than harm. Someone could receive a personal singing telegram that there will be a train at a certain grade crossing, and they will still hit it and try to sue everyone and their brother.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Bucyrus Not even in rain or fog. The law requires you to slow down to the point where you can stop within the distance you can see.
Not even in rain or fog. The law requires you to slow down to the point where you can stop within the distance you can see.
Conditions can change rapidly. You've never been driving and suddenly found yourself engulfed in a fog? I have. Low spots, river valleys, etc.
Which brings me to a new addition, driving in unfamilair territory, the added visibility of reflectors might assist in rapid recognition when in new surroundings
Bucyrus Deggesty: About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit. If it did not have reflector strips, and you ran into it, who's fault would it have been? If you could not have seen it, a collision with it could not have been your fault. So who's fault would it have been?
Deggesty: About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit.
About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit.
If it did not have reflector strips, and you ran into it, who's fault would it have been? If you could not have seen it, a collision with it could not have been your fault. So who's fault would it have been?
The way the laws are written (as I understand them) it is almost always the fault of the motorist. There might be circumstances where it could be construed to be the RR at fault, but that is for the courts to decide.
In my case (related a few posts back) I'd say it would have been my fault if I had actually hit the train. Whether I would have felt that way from a hospital bed or if my heirs and assigns would agree or not is another matter, but again the courts would have to decide if it got to that point.
Deggesty About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit.
Johnny
There is no question that reflectors can help attract someone’s attention if they are breaking the law by not paying attention. My only point is my dismay over the FRA shifting the blame from driver not paying attention to the railroad for placing a train over a crossing.
Convicted One Bucyrus: I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me. Rain? Fog?
Bucyrus: I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me.
I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me.
Rain? Fog?
Or simply a black car silouetted against a black sky.
At a particular place near where I used to live the grade crossing was elevated quite a bit from the approaching road and the road took a 60-deg (or so) turn just prior to the crossing. Trains at the time were few and far between, one or two per week (yes, that is no excuse, but not being used to them made for not expecting them like one would if they were very common at that place).
The only warning markers were the round RR sign a half block before the crossing and simple crossbucks at the crossing.
Due to the hill and sharpness of the curve one HAD to drive slow.
BUT, I came very close to hitting an empty flat car there one very dark night. If it had not been for a stark white hopper car moving toward me farther down the track I would not have stopped at all... well... at least not until the front of my car was wedged under the flat car! And I am probably like many railfans in that when I cross a RR track my head is swiveling back and forth madly, hoping to see a train.
Even after I had stopped, it was very difficult to see the flat cars ahead of the hopper. My headlights just did not illuminate the area enough to see them at the angles involved.
I appreciate the reflectors! I'd prefer the cars were painted something other than the dark browns and black used on so many of them.
Bucyrus I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me.
Some things can be hard to see at a distance.
Take a black tank car at night at a country crossing. That can be hard to see until your headlights hit it directly. Then it can be pretty easy to see. But until you get to that point, you can't see it from afar. Now if it has reflective stripes, they might pick up from the car's headlights long before you light up the actual car. Makes it easier to see sooner, in a sense.
Like road signs.Many are reflective. Of course they shouldn't need to be if you are driving within therange of your headlights. But having them reflective just lets you see them sooner... same deal with train cars.
And again, I am not disputing that reflectors can help prevent crashes caused by people driving outside of the law.
Well, trains CAN be hard to see at night. So can trees, deer, rocks, and anything else. My personal opinion is that it doesn't relieve the motorists of the responsibility to operate their motorcar in a safe manner.
Now be careful - many railroads have been using reflective material LONG before any FRA regulation. So that line in the sand isn't as permanent as you made it to be.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.