1) Liability for a failure to activate.
2) Liability for the crossing somehow contributing to an accident even though the signals activated and the driver did not yield.
When I think of tort reform solving the liability for crossings, I think of item #2, but not item #1. Somebody certainly should be liable for item #1. But that leads me to wonder if item #2 ever actually happens, or if it is an urban myth. Giving trains the right of way, and then suing the railroad if a train hits a vehicle sounds like a great injustice. But does it really happen, or is it just something that people like to complain about?
The report reference to the Italian system describes item #2. I would think that there would still be liability for signal failure to activate. I don’t see how you get rid of liability for that unless you get rid of the signals, and put the onus entirely on the driver as zugmann had mentioned. But we have moved beyond that simplicity of responsibility, and placed a variety of warning devices at crossings.
schlimm Looks like it was pulled and all history of it erased. Why and what that means is unknown, but sounds like the heavy hand of censorship strikes again.
Looks like it was pulled and all history of it erased. Why and what that means is unknown, but sounds like the heavy hand of censorship strikes again.
It was a political post....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have no idea.
To anwswer my question about the disappeard thread, forum member Variogarmin posted comments that questioned the workability of taking grade crossings out of private operation by the railroads and placing them under the purview of the public sector, along with changing the liability so that railroads could not be sued for crossing accidents. This is the course of action advocated by the report linked to my original post in this thread.
D&HRetiree PLEASE stop refering to the warning devices at railroad /highway level crossings as "Protection."
PLEASE stop refering to the warning devices at railroad /highway level crossings as "Protection."
Guilty as charged. I'm so used to seeing the term on our bulletin orders that I had to go back into NORAC just to confirm it.
On the other hand, NORAC (and I'm sure the other RR rules books) refer to "flag protection." And I don't think a guy with a flag or a lantern is going to do much to "protect" his train from an oncoming train except wave them vigorously and hope the oncoming crew can get stopped.
So "crossing protection" as a generic term isn't all bad.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
PLEASE stop refering to the warning devices at railroad /highway level crossings as "Protection." They are NOT "protection"! They are "WARNING DEVICES." All the flashing lights in the world and all the breakaway gates cannot protect motorists. The activated warning devices alert the motorist to protect him(her) self.
Bucyrus What happened to the new thread started by Variogarmin today with questions apparently referencing this thread?
What happened to the new thread started by Variogarmin today with questions apparently referencing this thread?
A act of the GODS
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
vsmithThis is the silliest proposal I have heard of in a very long time
I do not believe that the proposal you describe is the proposal that is being made.
Sorry but you cannot remove liability in the public sector, you can only transfer it, someone is always accountable.
Given how challenged the economy has rendered most local governments, Why on Earth would any local authority, city or county want to assume liability for railroad grade crossings? They would have to be insane to willingly accept responsibility for such things, not to mention all maintenance and repairs would also by default fall on whoever was the now responsible party.
The analogy here is like a city saying stoplights or streetlights should be the responsibility of whose ever private property they happen to be in front of. Most local governments do not have to funding to fix potholes, let alone railroad warning gates. I can hardly imaging any of them willingly accepting this and I'm sure the railroads DO NOT want to be reliant on a city that doesnt have the funding or manpower to fix broken streetlights or parking meters to be responsible for keeping grade crossings in working order.
This is the silliest proposal I have heard of in a very long time
Have fun with your trains
PTC may be a suitable platform most of the time but the track circuit will also recognize an approaching runaway cut of cars. Admittedly rare, but it has happened in the past and I am sure will continue to occur. Loose cars will be invisible to the PTC system.
But then again, there won't be any whistle to warn motorists and pedestrians, so any active warning system will help in this case!
John
schlimm The general public believes correctly that we have crossing signals for public safety. If some here believe it is to prevent liability exposure, then perhaps that explains their defensiveness in regard to crossing accidents: Darwin awards, etc. And if some here assume automatically that a non-railroad signal system using advanced technologies is necessarily less safe and less likely to be repaired than one maintained by the railroad employees, then it is easy to see why there is such a knee-jerk reaction.
The general public believes correctly that we have crossing signals for public safety. If some here believe it is to prevent liability exposure, then perhaps that explains their defensiveness in regard to crossing accidents: Darwin awards, etc. And if some here assume automatically that a non-railroad signal system using advanced technologies is necessarily less safe and less likely to be repaired than one maintained by the railroad employees, then it is easy to see why there is such a knee-jerk reaction.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Maybe I missed any discussion of PTC in this thread ? Since it's coming to most railroad lines near you soon - like it or not - and will have the high reliability that everyone seeks (regardless of cost . . . ), PTC is a logical 'platform' on which to base a new grade crossing warning system.
PTC (GPS) was considered in the March 2005 research report that is the subject of this thread - see pages 32 - 36 inclusive (pages 46 - 50 inclusive of 136 in the 'PDF' version) at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/3-76B%20Report.pdf
However, PTC was not investigated further, apparently for the reasons set forth in this excerpt from pages 35 - 36 (49 - 50 of 136):
"The determination was made that the requirement for all locomotives to be equipped with GPS receivers and/or with communications capabilities was not wholly compatible with our mandate to assess the availability of low-cost active warning systems. It is our opinion that the need for a captive fleet of locomotives limits — in the short term — the viability of this approach to address the large number of passive crossings existing on systems where locomotives are frequently interchanged. Further, the direct and active involvement of railroad companies also decreases the chance that this approach to traffic control will become a widespread option within the near future."
Of course, this analysis and conculsion has been "overtaken by events" of collisions and derailments, and the consequent Congressional mandate for PTC implementation by the end of 2015 . . .
- Paul North.
schlimm And if some here assume automatically that a non-railroad signal system using advanced technologies is necessarily less safe and less likely to be repaired than one maintained by the railroad employees, then it is easy to see why there is such a knee-jerk reaction.
And if some here assume automatically that a non-railroad signal system using advanced technologies is necessarily less safe and less likely to be repaired than one maintained by the railroad employees, then it is easy to see why there is such a knee-jerk reaction.
Assume? I deal with those issues every day. Nothing knee jerk about it, Mr. Schlimm.
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 Murphy SidingThe "extra, un-needed reliability" (!?!) Is there because of a fear of lawsuits. Who in their right mind would come out and say that they are removing some of the perceived "extra" reliability in the name of cost cutting? The proposal is to REMOVE the liability, not to TRANSFER it to somebody else. If you remove the liability, there will be no lawsuits. If there are no lawsuits, there will be no fear of lawsuits. If there is no fear of lawsuits, there will be no reason to build in more quality than needed.
Murphy SidingThe "extra, un-needed reliability" (!?!) Is there because of a fear of lawsuits. Who in their right mind would come out and say that they are removing some of the perceived "extra" reliability in the name of cost cutting?
The proposal is to REMOVE the liability, not to TRANSFER it to somebody else. If you remove the liability, there will be no lawsuits. If there are no lawsuits, there will be no fear of lawsuits. If there is no fear of lawsuits, there will be no reason to build in more quality than needed.
From the conclusion of the report....
"The installation of a low-cost system off-right-of-way presumes that the public sector will
bear the risk associated with grade crossing incidents caused by the underperformance of the
system. This leads to a second question: which public entity will be liable for system failures?
Obviously, some balance between system cost and assumed agency risk will have to be made
with the implementation of a low-cost system. Furthermore, system cost can be expected to be
more easily predicted than risk to the agency, and with fewer adverse consequences."
The report stated the public sector, then asks the questions which public entity will be liable...as opposed to the Italian laws which holds the indivdule responsible...therefore preposing some agency, (the report uses this word) would bear the liability.
So the only conclusion is the liability is being transfered to either this agency, or the individual, not simply done away with altogether.
Italy did not do away with liability either, simply transferred it to the motorist.
23 17 46 11
We have shown from this investigation that the risk inherent in these systems lies with the fact that while a good deal of reliability can be achieved from low-cost technologies — supported by a correlation between off-right-of-way reliability rankings and overall rankings — less can be said about enhanced safety. Consequently, a discrepancy exists between system reliability and the provision of vehicular safety that must be reconciled before low-cost systems are implemented.
But less safety is precisely what the report states.
Point blanks states that, and I quote the report, " less can be said about
enhanced safety. Consequently, a discrepancy exists between system reliability and the
provision of vehicular safety that must be reconciled before low-cost systems are implemented."
blue streak 1 since I am not a signal engineer I will defer to others who cn tell us how much redunant equipment is installed in an signal bungalow. but an inexpensive signal system will be subject to destruction from -- vandalism, accidents, weather ,weather , weather. what is all the weather? Hot weather, very cold weather, and the most destructive of all lightning. know of a location that took one lightning strike and took out 2 signal bungalos, & 5 separate close by crossing signals.
since I am not a signal engineer I will defer to others who cn tell us how much redunant equipment is installed in an signal bungalow.
but an inexpensive signal system will be subject to destruction from -- vandalism, accidents, weather ,weather , weather. what is all the weather? Hot weather, very cold weather, and the most destructive of all lightning. know of a location that took one lightning strike and took out 2 signal bungalos, & 5 separate close by crossing signals.
If we were going to get rid of liability - why have crossing protection at all? Just throw up a sign and call it a day. Not like you can sue if you are careless and get hit.
tree68 Bucyrus Murphy Siding A pretty easy case to make? Call your congressman and run that by him. Let me know what he says. Are you saying that this idea for new crossings has no merit because it is difficult? I thought you said your glass was half full a while back. The concept has great merit, but it has a virtually insurmountable obstacle between concept and reality - and that is the tort system. I'm sure that a great many crossings could be protected by low-cost systems, like radar. I can buy a handheld radar, new in the box, right now, for $800. Hook that up to a computer to sort out the necessary information (figure $2000) with appropriate enclosures, and you could have probably have grade crossing protection for something under $10,000 for a single track installation. You could probably even power it with solar panels. But as long as you have to assign blame if the system fails, you have a problem. And as has been said numerous times in other threads, the public assumes a certain level of protection. If this budget crossing protection has worked flawlessly for X period of time, then fails and someone is killed or injured, do we simply say "too bad, so sad, you should have looked both ways before crossing?" Tort reform or no, somebody is going to take issue with that.
Bucyrus Murphy Siding A pretty easy case to make? Call your congressman and run that by him. Let me know what he says. Are you saying that this idea for new crossings has no merit because it is difficult? I thought you said your glass was half full a while back.
Murphy Siding A pretty easy case to make? Call your congressman and run that by him. Let me know what he says.
Are you saying that this idea for new crossings has no merit because it is difficult? I thought you said your glass was half full a while back.
The concept has great merit, but it has a virtually insurmountable obstacle between concept and reality - and that is the tort system.
I'm sure that a great many crossings could be protected by low-cost systems, like radar. I can buy a handheld radar, new in the box, right now, for $800. Hook that up to a computer to sort out the necessary information (figure $2000) with appropriate enclosures, and you could have probably have grade crossing protection for something under $10,000 for a single track installation. You could probably even power it with solar panels.
But as long as you have to assign blame if the system fails, you have a problem.
And as has been said numerous times in other threads, the public assumes a certain level of protection. If this budget crossing protection has worked flawlessly for X period of time, then fails and someone is killed or injured, do we simply say "too bad, so sad, you should have looked both ways before crossing?"
Tort reform or no, somebody is going to take issue with that.
I don't think they can list the probability of this ever happening - just take then numbers to the right of the decimal point in the mathematical term Pi - when they stop - and make it that much to 1 and then the lawyers would stop laughing. The legal system of the US has liability as it's Cash Cow and Golden Goose rolled into one - they will NEVER kill the goose that lays the golden eggs or carve up the cow that delivers the cash.
A pretty easy case to make? Call your congressman and run that by him. Let me know what he says.
I don't know about unrealistic. I'll grant you that it may be improbable. But I would hold out hope rather than to resign to it. It ought to be a pretty easy case to make. i.e. Trains have the right of way because they cannot stop fast. It works in Italy.
Bucyrus Murphy Siding I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying, is that the whole premise seems to be hinging on the idea of removing the liability. I'm saying, that's not realistic, and therefore the whole idea is unrealistic.. As schlimn points out, ANYTHING is possible. This proposal is possible. However, it is unrealistic, unlikely, and unbelievable. Why is it not realistic? They do it in other countries. Every railroad and railfan is bitter over the injustice of blaming the railroad for hitting vehicles at crossings. Everybody knows trains can’t stop in time. So we give them the right of way. Then we sue them when they can’t stop in time.
Murphy Siding I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying, is that the whole premise seems to be hinging on the idea of removing the liability. I'm saying, that's not realistic, and therefore the whole idea is unrealistic.. As schlimn points out, ANYTHING is possible. This proposal is possible. However, it is unrealistic, unlikely, and unbelievable.
Why is it not realistic? They do it in other countries. Every railroad and railfan is bitter over the injustice of blaming the railroad for hitting vehicles at crossings. Everybody knows trains can’t stop in time. So we give them the right of way. Then we sue them when they can’t stop in time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.