Texas Official Admits Missteps That Helped Railroads in Suits

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by djjoe

I read an article that I thought to be about one officials civic failure to testify truthfully as a witness. I read that his conduct kept some victims from a more advantaged hearing of their complaint.
That's not what you read, or wanted to read, of course. You're all too ready to slap leather and spray the forum with the "victim stupidity' cards you play so well. It's like the NYT is your "daddy".
Don't hurt yourselves backslappin' each other and enjoy your choir practice.

I REPEAT:

Read the article again and take it at face value: what's really at issue here is not crossing safety, it's a legal question as to whether or not plaintiffs' lawyers in the State of Texas can bring a lawsuit against a railroad on a crossing case by getting around the statutory protection provided by the Texas Legislature (see above).That has to do with legal tactics and not safety, and proper venue for such issues is in the Texas Civil Court system and Texas Legislature.

In simpler terms:

1. The beef here dealt with in the article has to do with legal maneuvering to get a case in front of a District Court in the State of Texas, NOT SAFETY!!

2. The Laws of the State of Texas severely limit liability and refuse to grant venue in crossing accidents when Federal Funds are involved. That's a right that Texas and every other state has, and until it is shown to be unconstitutional, it will continue to be a right.

3. At least some plaintiffs' attorneys in Texas don't like this law because it keeps them from suing the deep pocket--the RR company, in a crossing accident, REGARDLESS OF FAULT, if Federal funds are involved--read the law, I posted it. Fault here can thus be a matter of law, in which case it may never get before a jury because a judge will rule on it, and that's what these attorneys don't like and the NYT is going along with as a de facto mouthpiece.

4. The TxDOT official is NOT necessarily wrong or untruthful, or abrogating his civic duty. That's a matter for a Texas court to decide--not the NYT. He relied on records PLUS his knowledge and experience from a career at the agency--THAT'S WHAT EVERY EXPERT WITNESS IN THE WORLD DOES. The agency simply does not keep paperwork from as far back as 1977 that can be used as paper evidence. Do you keep paperwork from that far back?? If you had to go to trial over that paperwork (i.e., you or a party related to the paperwork that you no longer have on-hand got sued), would you be willing to testify under oath, based on your knowledge and experience, as to the subject matter and contents of that specific paperwork in queston, WHICH YOU NO LONGER HAVE?? It's your paperwork, after all, and who knows more about it than you do??

5. When you're the director of a program at a state agency, you have an absolutely unique set of information that you can testify about, regardless of how long you have been there or whether the paperwork is still there, because the corporate history is there, and the staff is there, and the law is there. That individual is more qualified to testify about what the agency policy has been and what the agency did than anyone else except another insider with equivalent knowledge.

6. Don't assume that attorneys with a big stake in the outcome aren't going to spin and slant any statement made by any witness (pro or con) in order to get the result that they want--and if a newspaper goes along with that, well, that's what they do sometimes--just look at the Michael Jackson case and objectively look at how both sides are playing the media, and how the media is lapping it up like a thirsty dog. In point of fact, with regard to crossings, TxDOT IS a friend of the railroads just like he said, precisely because they dole out the Federal funds to get the warning devices installed and the surfaces replanked. So is every other equivalent state agency in every other state. They give them money to install the devices--that makes them a friend in that regard for obvious reasons.

7. The NYT has decided to interject itself in this legal issue and attempt to generate a scandal where there may not be one.

Leave this one to the courts and legislators in Texas, guys. That's where it belongs.

[jeaton]

Sometime back in the 1930's, a little before I was born, two of my Grandfather's brothers were killed when they drove in front of an Alton & Southern train in Atlanta, IL. I have no idea of what, if any, crossing protection might have been in place. I like to think that they died because a momentary distraction caused them to take a careless action. Sometimes accidents involving motor vehicles are the result of behavior that is really stupid. Other times just because a driver, at least for a moment, is not paying attention to a situation.

If you expect to survive a long life of driving, you need to pay attention all the time. In Wisconsin, every railroad crossing without mechanical protection is posted with a stop sign. We have several such crossings in our town. I don't know about the rest of the drivers, but I stop and look just as I would at any stop sign. For those crossings in town that have flashing lights, I don't stop, but I do pay attention to what might be happening, either by looking or listening.

If the Almighty had wanted quiet at railroad grade crossings, He wouldn't have put horns on locomotives.

We have already established the Bodanovich is putting an anti-railroad slant on his series and is nowhere near writing with balance. Some of the members may have missed it, but we had comments from good authority on this writer's rampant bias. Of course, if it sells papers...

Jay

[edblysard]

Maybe, but take the example you stated, your friend drove on when the last railcar passed his position, and yet, there was another train on the other track...
which he drove his car in front of...
Now, if the people who design the devices set it to stop the instant the last car passes, and someone drives in in front of the train on the next track, where does the liability rest?
By turning off the device at that instance, the designers invite you to proceed...and become liable for whatever happens.

By leaving the circut closed for a distance, both approach and departing distance, they at least attempt to modify the behaviour of the drivers, you have to drive around the gates or ignore the lights...

Now, I dont want this to become a "hot" topic, we (this forum) had this hashed over quite well before...
That said, I can tell you that even before I went railroading, I was not conditioned to take off the instant the last railcar cleared, and I was very aware of the hazzard of double tracks...

and djjoe...
You go right on believing what the NY Times publishes...I guess it escapes you that newspapers do not print the truth, but print what they think and hope their readers will want to read, slanted or biased to fit that market...
Just because it is written and printed dosnt mean its true or factual...what the reporter wrote was his opinion, laced with inferences and suppositions, light on fact....

Remember, this is the same newspaper that ran a article on crop circles, and gave some credence to aliens having created them...

Ed

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stupid Zones:

(1) At-grade crossings
(2) The New York Times
(3) Housing tracts around airports
(4) Certain lawyers offices
(5) Florida around hurricane season
(6) New homes in flood prone areas
(7) anywhere where "it can't happen to me"
(8) Freeway on-ramps/ merge areas (especially Denver)
(9) roadway construction zones

[}:)][}:)][}:)]

Just to add if I may

10/ Mainlines and railyards where schools are near

ps...The term is not mine, it comes from Denver Post Op-Ed columnist Ed Quillen, who actually has his head on straight and takes on others like Bodanovich when common sense gets corrupted by an agenda or political slant.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stupid Zones:

(1) At-grade crossings
(2) The New York Times
(3) Housing tracts around airports
(4) Certain lawyers offices
(5) Florida around hurricane season
(6) New homes in flood prone areas
(7) anywhere where "it can't happen to me"
(8) Freeway on-ramps/ merge areas (especially Denver)
(9) roadway construction zones

[}:)][}:)][}:)]

Just to add if I may

10/ Mainlines and railyards where schools are near

[Anonymous]

Not wanting to get to particular, I think some of you have missed the point. Take a single track crossing. The train passes, but the lights keep flashing for a few more seconds. This may seem like an inconsequential point, but all of us (railroaders, state troopers, et al) will proceed to cross immediately after the last railcar has cleared the street, regardless of if the lights are still flashing. We can see that the train has passed, so we logically go forward with our business. That is the conditioning to which I refer.

Now, take that conditioning and apply it to the multiple track crossing situations, and the potential for accidents is easy to envision.

It would make more sense for the lights to stop flashing exactly when the last car clears the street, but the way the relays are set up, it takes a few more seconds after the train has cleared before the lights stop flashing. If the train happes to stop just off the street, the lights will continue to flash until a crew member disables them or he/she waves the traffic over. In other words, there are inconsistencies with the way crossing signals are activated and deactivated that do not segue with normal traffic signals. I'm suprised that this seemingly minor issue has not been addressed.

[djjoe]

I read an article that I thought to be about one officials civic failure to testify truthfully as a witness. I read that his conduct kept some victims from a more advantaged hearing of their complaint.
That's not what you read, or wanted to read, of course. You're all too ready to slap leather and spray the forum with the "victim stupidity' cards you play so well. It's like the NYT is your "daddy".
Don't hurt yourselves backslappin' each other and enjoy your choir practice.

[mudchicken]

Stupid Zones:

(1) At-grade crossings
(2) The New York Times
(3) Housing tracts around airports
(4) Certain lawyers offices
(5) Florida around hurricane season
(6) New homes in flood prone areas
(7) anywhere where "it can't happen to me"
(8) Freeway on-ramps/ merge areas (especially Denver)
(9) roadway construction zones

[}:)][}:)][}:)]

[edblysard]

Dave,
I am sorry about the death of your friend, short of drowning, I cant think of a more horrible way to die, the last second of your life filled with terror...

But the excuse that most people are conditioned to break the law isnt valid.

If you routinly run a stop sign at a cross street, and one day get t boned...would you use the defense that "I always run that stop sign"?
Or, "I ran that sign so many times I was conditioned to ignore it, so it must be the other drivers fault because he should have seen me run the stop sign"?

I am pretty sure if your friend had been on foot, instead of in his car, he would have walked to the edge of the stopped train, and carefully leaned over and peeked around the end of the train, instead of blindly walking past it and on to the next set of track.

But sadly, for some reason, humans assume that their automobile offers some type of protection and power against things like this.
It dosnt, but they still feel pretty safe inside one.

As for signals being wired differently, well, they work pretty good right now, and most have a failsafe system, if they lose power, the gates drop, and most have a battery back up good for 48 hours...still, machines, even the best designed ones, fail.
Ask the Challenger crew's widows, a few pounds of styrofoam destroyed a billion dollar STS, and killed the entire crew....
I know, the sonic boom from its destruction work me up that morning...

Point is, unless you find a way to erect a solid barricade, the public will find a way to defeat any grade crossing device.

The former head of the FRA had a great quote, she said "The safest grade crossing, is the one that isnt there"

Underpasses work, as do over passes.

We would perfer you not cross our tracks at grade, ever.

Oh, and trust me, if a DPS trooper catches you running a crossing, you will be fined, they do not issue warning, by policy.
The Texas DPS has a program where Troopers ride trains in high risk areas, and they take running crossing very seriously.

Ed

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Well darn,
I guess I will have to take a definitve stand somewhere on something....any ideas?

Ed

Wouldn't have a clue, Ed.

But then, you might consider crossing safety.
[banghead][censored][oops]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The Texas statute makes reference to a train actually blocking a crossing for more than ten minutes, but it does not address the issue of driver visibility when a stopped train blocks the drivers views of multiple tracks. Technically, drivers are supposed to wait until the signals stop blinking, but as most of us know it is common practice for drivers to proceed once a train has cleared the street even if the signals are still blinking.

Not so. See 545.251(a)(1), 545.251(a)(5)(C), and 545.251(b). It may be common practice to ignore the signal and some drivers may claim to be "conditioned" to such an unsafe practice, but it's not legal in Texas, and any prosecutor or TX DPS trooper (highway patrol) will likely tell you that's an easy conviction.

How does the driver running the signal know whether or not that stopped train might back up?

[dehusman]

If the lights wre flashing red the law requires drivers to stop.

Period.

I am sorry that your friend was killed. But then again he "ran a red light". The warning device told him to stop. He chose to disregard it and violate the law. Regardless of where the other train was, he was required to stop and remain stopped.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Well darn,
I guess I will have to take a definitve stand somewhere on something....any ideas?

Ed

How bout gumbeaux????[:D][C=:-)][(-D]

[Anonymous]

I had a friend who was killed crossing a double track main. The situation occurred like this: He stopped for the signal as a train on the near track passed over. The train slowed down and then stopped just past the side of the street. Although the warning lights continued to blink, a car opposite him went ahead and proceeded to cross the tracks and drove on past him. He apparently thought that the lines were clear and it was only the stopped train that was making the signals blink, so he proceeded to cross the tracks. As you have probably figured out by now, there was a train coming on the far track at that very moment, and because my friends view was blocked by the stopped train he did not see the other train coming, and he was killed instantly. The family proceeded to file suit against the railroad, and the case was settled out of court.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, was not the railroad at fault for having a train stop just off the street in such a manner that it blocked the view of the drivers? The attorneys in the case apparently thought so, and it was supposed that if the case had gone to trial, a jury would have sided with the family.

The Texas statute makes reference to a train actually blocking a crossing for more than ten minutes, but it does not address the issue of driver visibility when a stopped train blocks the drivers views of multiple tracks. Technically, drivers are supposed to wait until the signals stop blinking, but as most of us know it is common practice for drivers to proceed once a train has cleared the street even if the signals are still blinking. This is a problem with the way signals are triggered, and though it may seem a minor point, it may be a safety issue that the signals should be configured to stop blinking the very second a train clears the street even if the train stops. To often, signals keep blinking if a train happens to stop just off the side of the street, until a crew member comes along and disables it. Because of that, drivers (including railroad workers) are conditioned to assume that the crossing is clear and that it is just a technical idiosyncraticity that signals keep blinking after a train has just passed.

Someone mentioned a while back that it may be prudent to replace standard crossing signals with the more familiar red/yellow/green signalling system used on street intersections, at least for those crossings without crossing baricades. Perhaps that system combined with a yellow strobe flasher to indicate an approaching train would do the trick. The strobe would function only on an approaching train, and once it made the crossing would go out, leaving the primary signalling functioning to take care of the standard duties.

[edblysard]

Well darn,
I guess I will have to take a definitve stand somewhere on something....any ideas?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Junctionfan--

I have absolutely no problem with you printing it. The statute is a public document that you can get from the state, but this will save you some time. The Transportation Code is a lot bigger, so hopefully I got all the relevant parts to provide on an informational basis to interested readers.

All the Texas statutes, codes and regulations are directly or indirectly available through:

www.state.tx.us

This will also allow you to get to the individual state agencies.

Based on my experience (but I also don't have specific records dating back to 1977 to use as evidence), accessibility of state laws, codes and regulations via the internet is true with every other state I've ever had to research in some form or fashion.

[Junctionfan]

Thanks drephpe for having the patience and typing that out. You don't mind if I print that do you so I can read it later?

[Anonymous]

Sometimes I really wish Ed wouldn't be so mealymouthed wishy-washy--come on Ed, can't you PLEEEEEEEEEASE have an opinion on SOMETHING????????[(-D][(-D]

For the benefit of the NYT and those of you who are non-Texans, here's what our law says (Texas Transportation Code):

§ 545.251. OBEDIENCE TO SIGNAL INDICATING APPROACH OF
TRAIN. (a) An operator approaching a railroad grade crossing
shall stop not closer than 15 feet or farther than 50 feet from the
nearest rail if:
(1) a clearly visible railroad signal warns of the
approach of a railroad train;
(2) a crossing gate is lowered, or a flagger warns of
the approach or passage of a train;
(3) a railroad engine approaching within
approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal
audible from that distance and the engine is an immediate hazard
because of its speed or proximity to the crossing;
(4) an approaching railroad train is plainly visible
to the operator and is in hazardous proximity to the crossing; or
(5) the operator is required to stop by:
(A) other law;
(B) a rule adopted under a statute;
(C) an official traffic-control device; or
(D) a traffic-control signal.
(b) An operator of a vehicle required by Subsection (a) to
stop shall remain stopped until permitted to proceed and it is safe
to proceed.
(c) An operator of a vehicle who approaches a railroad grade
crossing equipped with railroad crossbuck signs without automatic,
electric, or mechanical signal devices, crossing gates, or a
flagger warning of the approach or passage of a train shall yield
the right-of-way to a train in hazardous proximity to the crossing,
and proceed at a speed that is reasonable for the existing
conditions. If required for safety, the operator shall stop at a
clearly marked stop line before the grade crossing or, if no stop
line exists, not closer than 15 feet or farther than 50 feet from
the nearest rail.
(d) An operator commits an offense if the operator drives
around, under, or through a crossing gate or a barrier at a railroad
crossing while the gate or barrier is closed, being closed, or being
opened.
(e) In a prosecution under this section, proof that at the
time of the offense a train was in hazardous proximity to the
crossing and that the train was plainly visible to the operator is
prima facie evidence that it was not safe for the operator to
proceed.
(f) An offense under this section is punishable by a fine of
not less than $50 or more than $200.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.107(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1097, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

§ 545.252. ALL VEHICLES TO STOP AT CERTAIN RAILROAD
GRADE CROSSINGS. (a) The Texas Department of Transportation or a
local authority, with respect to a highway in its jurisdiction,
may:
(1) designate a railroad grade crossing as
particularly dangerous; and
(2) erect a stop sign or other official
traffic-control device at the grade crossing.
(b) An operator approaching a stop sign or other official
traffic-control device that requires a stop and that is erected
under Subsection (a) shall stop not closer than 15 feet or farther
than 50 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and may proceed
only with due care.
(c) The costs of installing and maintaining a mechanically
operated grade crossing safety device, gate, sign, or signal
erected under this section shall be apportioned and paid on the same
percentage ratio and in the same proportionate amounts by this
state and all participating political subdivisions of this state as
costs are apportioned and paid between the state and the United
States.
(d) An offense under this section is punishable by a fine of
not less than $50 or more than $200.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.107(b), eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

§ 545.253. BUSES TO STOP AT ALL RAILROAD GRADE
CROSSINGS. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), the
operator of a motor bus carrying passengers for hire, before
crossing a railroad grade crossing:
(1) shall stop the vehicle not closer than 15 feet or
farther than 50 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad;
(2) while stopped, shall listen and look in both
directions along the track for an approaching train and signals
indicating the approach of a train; and
(3) may not proceed until it is safe to do so.
(b) After stopping as required by Subsection (a), an
operator described by Subsection (a) shall proceed without manually
shifting gears while crossing the track.
(c) A vehicle is not required to stop at the crossing if a
police officer or a traffic-control signal directs traffic to
proceed.
(d) This section does not apply at a railway grade crossing
in a business or residence district.
(e) An offense under this section is punishable by a fine of
not less than $50 or more than $200.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.107(c), eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1061, § 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1997;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1438, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

§ 545.2535. SCHOOL BUSES TO STOP AT ALL RAILROAD GRADE
CROSSINGS. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), the
operator of a school bus, before crossing a track at a railroad
grade crossing:
(1) shall stop the vehicle not closer than 15 feet or
farther than 50 feet from the track;
(2) while stopped, shall listen and look in both
directions along the track for an approaching train and signals
indicating the approach of a train; and
(3) may not proceed until it is safe to do so.
(b) After stopping as required by Subsection (a), the
operator may proceed in a gear that permits the vehicle to complete
the crossing without a change of gears. The operator may not shift
gears while crossing the track.
(c) An operator is not required to stop at:
(1) an abandoned railroad grade crossing that is
marked with a sign reading "tracks out of service"; or
(2) an industrial or spur line railroad grade crossing
that is marked with a sign reading "exempt."
(d) A sign under Subsection (c) may be erected only by or
with the consent of the appropriate state or local governmental
official.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1061, § 16, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1438, § 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

§ 545.254. VEHICLES CARRYING EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES OR
FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS. (a) Before crossing a railroad grade
crossing, an operator of a vehicle that has an explosive substance
or flammable liquid as the vehicle's principal cargo and that is
moving at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour:
(1) shall reduce the speed of the vehicle to 20 miles
per hour or less before coming within 200 feet of the nearest rail
of the railroad;
(2) shall listen and look in both directions along the
track for an approaching train and for signals indicating the
approach of a train; and
(3) may not proceed until the operator determines that
the course is clear.
(b) The operator of a vehicle that has an explosive
substance or flammable liquid as the vehicle's principal cargo,
before crossing a railroad grade crossing on a highway in a
municipality:
(1) shall stop the vehicle not closer than 15 feet or
farther than 50 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad;
(2) while stopped, shall listen and look in both
directions along the track for an approaching train and for signals
indicating the approach of a train; and
(3) may not proceed until the operator determines that
the course is clear.
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply:
(1) if a police officer, crossing flagger, or
traffic-control signal directs traffic to proceed;
(2) where a railroad flashing signal is installed and
does not indicate an approaching train;
(3) to an abandoned or exempted grade crossing that is
clearly marked by or with the consent of the state, if the markings
can be read from the operator's location;
(4) at a streetcar crossing in a business or
residential district of a municipality; or
(5) to a railroad track used exclusively for
industrial switching purposes in a business district.
(d) This section does not exempt the operator from
compliance with Section 545.251 or 545.252.
(e) An offense under this section is punishable by a fine of
not less than $50 or more than $200.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.107(d), eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

§ 545.255. MOVING HEAVY EQUIPMENT AT RAILROAD GRADE
CROSSINGS. (a) This section applies only to:
(1) a crawler-type tractor, steam shovel, derrick, or
roller; and
(2) any other equipment or structure with:
(A) a normal operating speed of 10 miles per hour
or less; or
(B) a vertical body or load clearance of less
than one-half inch per foot of the distance between two adjacent
axles or less than nine inches measured above the level surface of a
roadway.
(b) An operator of a vehicle or equipment may not move on or
across a track at a railroad grade crossing unless the operator has
given notice to a station agent of the railroad and given the
railroad reasonable time to provide proper protection at the
crossing.
(c) To move a vehicle or equipment on or across a track at a
railroad grade crossing, the operator:
(1) shall stop the vehicle or equipment not closer
than 15 feet or farther than 50 feet from the nearest rail of the
railroad;
(2) while stopped, shall listen and look in both
directions along the track for an approaching train and for signals
indicating the approach of a train; and
(3) may not proceed until it is safe to cross the
track.
(d) An operator of a vehicle or equipment may not cross a
railroad grade crossing when warning of the immediate approach of a
railroad car or train is given by automatic signal, crossing gates,
a flagger, or otherwise. If a flagger is provided by the railroad,
the operator shall move the vehicle or equipment over the crossing
at the flagger's direction.
(e) An offense under this section is punishable by a fine of
not less than $50 or more than $200.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.107(e), eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

§ 545.2555. REPORT AND INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN RAILROAD
CROSSING VIOLATIONS. (a) A person who on site observes a
violation of Section 545.251, 545.252, 545.253, 545.254, or 545.255
may file a report of the violation if the person:
(1) is an on-engine employee of a railroad; and
(2) observes the violation while on a moving engine.
(b) A report under this section must:
(1) be made:
(A) on a form approved by the department; and
(B) not later than 72 hours after the violation;
(2) be filed with:
(A) an office of the department located in the
county in which the violation occurred;
(B) the sheriff of the county in which the
violation occurred, if the violation occurred in the unincorporated
area of the county; or
(C) the police department of a municipality, if
the violation occurred in the municipality; and
(3) contain, in addition, to any other required
information:
(A) the date, time, and location of the
violation;
(B) the license plate number and a description of
the vehicle involved in the violation;
(C) a description of the operator of the vehicle
involved in the violation; and
(D) the name, address, and telephone number of
the person filing the report.
(c) A peace officer may:
(1) before the seventh day after the date a report
under this section is filed, initiate an investigation of the
alleged violation; and
(2) request the owner of the reported vehicle, as
shown by the vehicle registration records of the Texas Department
of Transportation, to disclose the name and address of the
individual operating that vehicle at the time of the violation
alleged in the report.
(d) Unless the owner of the reported vehicle believes that
to provide the peace officer with the name and address of the
individual operating the vehicle at the time of the violation
alleged would incriminate the owner, the owner shall, to the best of
the owner's ability, disclose that individual's name and address.
(e) An investigating peace officer who has probable cause to
believe that a charge against an individual for a violation of
Section 545.251, 545.252, 545.253, 545.254, or 545.255 is justified
may:
(1) prepare a written notice to appear in court that
complies with Sections 543.003, 543.006, and 543.007; and
(2) deliver the notice to the individual named in the
notice in person or by certified mail.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.108(a), eff. Sept.
1, 1997.

§ 544.004. COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC-CONTROL
DEVICE. (a) The operator of a vehicle or streetcar shall comply
with an applicable official traffic-control device placed as
provided by this subtitle unless the person is:
(1) otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer;
or
(2) operating an authorized emergency vehicle and is
subject to exceptions under this subtitle.
(b) A provision of this subtitle requiring an official
traffic-control device may not be enforced against an alleged
violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation the
device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to an
ordinarily observant person. A provision of this subtitle that
does not require an official traffic-control device is effective
regardless of whether a device is in place.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 544.005. INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICE OR
RAILROAD SIGN OR SIGNAL. A person may not, without lawful
authority, alter, injure, knock down, or remove or attempt to
alter, injure, knock down, or remove:
(1) an official traffic-control device or railroad
sign or signal;
(2) an inscription, shield, or insignia on an official
traffic-control device or railroad sign or signal; or
(3) another part of an official traffic-control device
or railroad sign or signal.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 471.001. DUTY TO MAINTAIN CROSSINGS. (a) A railway
company shall maintain the part of its roadbed and right-of-way
that is crossed by a public street of a Type B general-law
municipality in proper condition for use by travelers.
(b) A railway company that does not make needed repairs
before the 31st day after the date the municipal marshal gives
written notice to the section boss of the section where repairs are
needed is liable to the municipality for a penalty of $25 for each
week the railway company does not make needed repairs. The
municipality may sue to recover the penalty.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 471.002. SIGNS AT CROSSINGS. (a) A railway company
shall place at each place where its railroad crosses a first or
second class public road a sign with large and distinct letters
giving notice that the railroad is near and warning persons to watch
for railroad cars. The sign must be high enough above the road to
permit the free passage of vehicles.
(b) A railway company that does not erect a sign required by
Subsection (a) is liable for a resulting injury to a person or
resulting damage to property.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 471.003. TELEPHONE SERVICE TO REPORT MALFUNCTIONS OF
MECHANICAL SAFETY DEVICES AT CROSSINGS. (a) The Department of
Public Safety shall maintain a statewide toll-free telephone
service to receive a report of a malfunction of a device, including
a signal or crossbar, placed at an intersection of a railroad track
and a public road to promote safety.
(b) At each intersection of a railroad track and a public
road that is maintained by the state or a municipality and at which
a mechanical safety device is placed, the Texas Department of
Transportation shall affix on the crossbars of the device the
telephone number, an explanation of its purpose, and the crossing
number. At each intersection of a railroad track and a public road
that is maintained by a political subdivision other than a
municipality and at which a mechanical safety device is placed, the
political subdivision shall affix on the crossbars of the device
the telephone number, an explanation of its purpose, and the
crossing number. The Texas Department of Transportation shall
provide to the political subdivision the sign or label displaying
the telephone number. A railway company shall permit personnel to
affix the telephone number on the company's property as required by
this subsection.
(c) The Department of Public Safety shall notify the
identified railway company of each report of a malfunction received
under Subsection (a).
(d) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain a
computerized list of each intersection of a railroad track and a
public road and of the railroad crossing safety equipment located
at each intersection, using crossing numbers compiled by the Texas
Department of Transportation.
(e) Not later than the fifth day after the date it places
railroad crossing safety equipment in operation at an intersection
subject to this section, a state agency or a political subdivision
of the state other than a municipality shall notify the Department
of Public Safety of:
(1) the location and type of the equipment installed;
and
(2) the date it was placed in operation.
(f) The state, an agency or political subdivision of the
state, or a railway company is not liable for damages caused by an
action taken under this section or failure to perform a duty imposed
by this section. Evidence may not be introduced in a judicial
proceeding that the telephone service required by this section
exists or that the state or railway company relies on the service.
(g) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a state agency is
not required to make or retain a permanent record of information
obtained in implementing this section.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 471.004. WARNING SIGN VISIBILITY AT RAILROAD GRADE
CROSSINGS. (a) The department shall develop guidelines and
specifications for the installation and maintenance of reflecting
material at each unsignaled crossing. The material shall be
affixed to the back and support post of each crossbuck in a manner
that reflects light from vehicle headlights to focus attention on
the presence of the unsignaled crossing.
(b) The department shall pay the cost of initial
installation of reflecting material from money appropriated to the
department to maintain grade crossing warning devices. The
department or the local jurisdiction responsible for maintaining
the roadway at each grade crossing shall pay the maintenance costs
of the material.
(c) The state, an agency or political subdivision of the
state, or a railway company is not liable for damages caused by an
action taken under this section or failure to perform a duty imposed
by this section. Evidence may not be introduced in a judicial
proceeding that reflecting material exists or that the state or
railway company relies on the material.
(d) The department shall adopt rules governing the
installation and maintenance of reflecting material at grade
crossings.
(e) A railway company shall permit department personnel to
affix the reflecting material on the company's property.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Active warning device" means an automatically
activated warning device, including a bell, flashing light, gate,
or wigwag.
(2) "Crossbuck" means a standard grade crossing
warning sign designated as Number R 15-1 and described in the Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices issued by the United States
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
(3) "Department" means the Texas Department of
Transportation.
(4) "Grade crossing" means the intersection at grade
of a railroad and a roadway constructed and maintained with public
money.
(5) "Reflecting material" means material that
reflects light so that the paths of the reflected light rays are
parallel to those of the incident rays.
(6) "Unsignaled crossing" means a grade crossing not
protected by active warning devices.
(7) "Warning device" means a traffic control sign,
including an active warning device or crossbuck, the purpose of
which is to alert motorists of a grade crossing.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 471.005. DISMANTLING OF WARNING SIGNALS AT RAILROAD
GRADE CROSSINGS; OFFENSE. (a) A person may not dismantle a
warning signal at a grade crossing on an active rail line, as
defined by rule of the Texas Department of Transportation, if the

cost of the warning signal was originally paid entirely or partly
from public money unless the person:
(1) obtains a permit from the governmental entity that
maintains the road or highway that intersects the rail line at the
grade crossing; and
(2) pays that governmental entity an amount equal to
the present salvage value of the warning signal, as determined by
the governmental entity.
(b) The governmental entity shall grant the permit if:
(1) payment is received; and
(2) the entity finds that removal of the warning
signal will not adversely affect public safety.
(c) Money received under Subsection (a)(2) shall be
deposited in the state treasury.
(d) This section does not apply to a Class I or Class II
railroad, as defined by Interstate Commerce Commission
regulations.
(e) A person commits an offense if the person violates this
section. An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(f) The Texas Department of Transportation may adopt rules
necessary to administer this section.
(g) In this section:
(1) "Grade crossing" has the meaning assigned by
Section 472.004(f).
(2) "Warning signal" means a traffic control device
that is activated by the approach or presence of a train, including
a flashing light signal, an automatic gate, or a similar device that
displays to motorists a warning of the approach or presence of a
train.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 471.006. USE OF BELL AND WHISTLE OR SIREN AT CROSSINGS;
OFFENSE. (a) A railway company shall place on each locomotive:
(1) a bell weighing at least 30 pounds; and
(2) a steam whistle, air whistle, or air siren.
(b) The engineer in charge of the locomotive shall ring the
bell and blow the whistle or siren at least one-quarter mile from
the place where the railroad crosses a public road or street. The
engineer shall continue to ring the bell until the locomotive has
crossed the road or stopped.
(c) The railway company is liable for any damages sustained
by a person because of a violation of Subsection (a) or (b).
(d) The engineer in charge of the locomotive commits an
offense if the engineer violates Subsection (b). An offense under
this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less
than $5 or more than $100.
(e) Notwithstanding Subsections (a) and (b), the governing
body of a municipality having a population of at least 5,000 may
regulate by ordinance the ringing of bells and blowing of whistles
and sirens within its limits. Compliance with the ordinance is
compliance with those subsections and a sufficient warning to the
public at a crossing the ordinance affects.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 471.007. OBSTRUCTING RAILROAD CROSSINGS;
OFFENSE. (a) A railway company commits an offense if a train of
the railway company obstructs for more than 10 minutes a street,
railroad crossing, or public highway.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $300.
(c) An officer charging a railway company for an offense
under this section shall prepare in duplicate a citation to appear
in court and attach one copy of the citation to the train or deliver
the copy to an employee or other agent of the railway company. The
citation must show:
(1) the name of the railway company;
(2) the offense charged; and
(3) the time and place that a representative of the
railway company is to appear in court.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the train obstructs the street, railroad crossing, or public
highway because of an act of God or breakdown of the train.
(e) The hearing must be before a magistrate who has
jurisdiction of the offense in the municipality or county in which
the offense is alleged to have been committed.
(f) An appearance by counsel complies with the written
promise to appear in court.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1023, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

§ 471.008. FRANCHISE TO OBSTRUCT STREET
CROSSING. (a) The governing body of a municipality by ordinance
may grant a franchise to a railway company to obstruct a street
crossing, other than a crossing of a designated state highway, by a
passenger train for the purpose of receiving or discharging
passengers, mail, express, or freight for a longer period than
specified by Section 472.007.
(b) Section 471.007 does not apply to a street crossing
named in an ordinance granting a franchise under this section.
(c) This section does not apply to a municipality having a
special charter unless it amends its charter to adopt this section.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

And, from TxDOT:

"Traffic Operations Division - Railroad/Highway Grade Crossings Section
"Darin K. Kosmak, Section Director

"The Railroad Section is responsible for programs to improve railroad/highway crossings. The Railroad Section manages programs to:

* Install highway/railroad crossing signals and gates
* Improve crossing surfaces on state highways
* Secure agreements with railroad companies where access is needed on railroad property

"The Railroad Section provides services related to the safety of crossings in Texas and acts as the department liaison to railroad companies, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration and local governments. The Railroad Section is also involved with various national and state committees and research panels that review and adopt research findings into the state railroad program."

Note that TxDOT is responsible for managing the crossing protection program. The railroads don't get to choose what equipment or where if they want Federal help--TxDOT does that by formula, even though, as Ed says, they pay a piece of the capital cost and all the maintenance costs, and the warrant procedure that determines the location and type of protection does include acceptable accident rate, just as it does in every state.

The RR section also maintains the crossing database, which includes every public crossing in the state, and we have more than any state in the Union.

If you read the NYT article, what it says is that TxDOT no longer has all the records to use as evidence that the crossing devices were paid for at least in part with Federal funds, dating back to 1977. That's not surprising. Do you have your pay stubs for 1977?? Most people don't because IRS doesn't require financial records to be kept for that long. TxDOT also doesn't keep all its financial records forever, and neither does any other state DOT. He also said that the crossings that met Federal Standards were left alone. That's not surprising, either. He's relying on his knowledge and experience. So do all other expert witnesses.

Read the article again and take it at face value: what's really at issue here is not crossing safety, it's a legal question as to whether or not plaintiffs' lawyers in the State of Texas can bring a lawsuit against a railroad on a crossing case by getting around the statutory protection provided by the Legislature (see above). That has to do with legal tactics and not safety, and proper venue for such issues is in the Texas Civil Court system and Texas Legislature.

[edblysard]

Having read the entire series of articles,
in my opinion the reporter, and the editor who allowed such biased garbarge to be published, should both go to work for the National Enquirer...

Which part of the concept that trains use railroad tracks and have the right of way at crossings does the public fail to understand?

What part of the huge, loud locomotive, with its flashing ditch lights, ringing bell, and blaring air horn did any of you not see?

Railroads are working at a tremendous rate to close crossings, in fact, more crossings were done away with last year, (2004) than in the previous 20 years combined.

Oh, I guess the reporter forgot to mention that, or the fact that most grade crossings are not designed by the railroads, but instead by city/ county/state highway designers with absolutly no training in railroad MOW and train requirements, and with no though to train/auto collision, but instead, focus on auto traffic flowing more fluid...

How many of you realize that your state DOT has an acceptable death rate for grade crossing design?

How many of your know that thecity/county/state DOT gets to chose what kind of grade crossing protection is installed, (simple crossbuck, arms, lights, bells and such) not the railroad, but that the railroad has to pay upwards of 75% of the installation cost, and 100% of the maintainance?

Placing the blame for at grade crossings accidents on anyone other than the person who drives their car onto a crossing, without first stopping, looking and listening, is stupid.

What the heck did you expect to see using the tracks?
Thanksgiving day parade floats?

Yes, there are some unsafe crossings.... and if you live near one, you should stop and look first.

If you dont, shame on you...

Did your parents teach you to walk out into the street without looking?

Of course not, they taught you to stop at the curb, and look both ways before you crossed...now, how hard is that?

And why dont people seem to think its a good idea to do the same thing when a 440,000lb locomotive and its train are involved?

I have been involved in a grade crossing fatality...the FRA, and the HPD report conclude the same thing, the driver, after stopping behind two other autos, then decided to drive around them, zig zag through the crossing gates, and into the path of our train.

The knuckle hit directly in the rear driver side door of his Volvo wagon, crushing his daughter between the driver side rear door and the rear passenger door door.

He survived with only a few cuts....

His excuse was they were late for the movies,(they were going to see the Lion King)

Besides having to watch my engineer come unglued when he saw the dead little girl, I also got to watch the father when he realized that he had to call his wife, and tell her he just killed their daughter, because he was stupid, and in a hurry, and tried to beat a train.

I looked in the car too...

I have three daughters myself, and when I finally got home that night, I went into their rooms, and snuck a kiss on each one...and thanked God for how lucky I am.
It took a long, long time for me to be able to sleep through the night...

Trying to blame at grade crossing accidents on railroads and the train crews is like trying to blame your speeding on the highway on the State DOT, because no one was there to stop you from doing it!

You, and you alone, are responsible for your actions at a grade crossing....you can either chose to stop, and look, pay attention to the gates and lights, or you can chose not to.
If you decide on the latter, trust me, at some point, you will be hit, and mostly likely killed.

You cant tell me there is one single person on the face of this planet who dosnt reconize that if a train hits you, it will likely kill you...

The rest of it is just a idiot's willingness to take a tremendous risk, and then, when they do get hit, to try and place the blame of their stupid action on someone else...

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

Will he spend his remaining years in the brig? [:p]

Originally posted by LRSMITH

Not likely. He would have to be charged with perjury. Have the good old trial. And then get off with probation? A couple of years in jail?

• Reply
• Edit