RAILCAR SAFETY REFLECTOR LIABILITY

[Anonymous]

Now that the FRA has required the use of railcar side reflectors to help prevent run-into-train grade crossing crashes, I am wondering how something so transitory, fragile, and subject to failure as a reflector will be maintained. I have seen estimates of the cost of equipping the entire national car fleet with reflectors, but it seems to me that the cost of using these reflectors goes far beyond the initial application.

Since the FRA admits that side reflectors are needed because railcars are hard to see at night, and therefore, requires the use of these reflectors as a grade crossing safety warning device, it would seem that any car with dirty or missing reflectors would constitute a failure of a safety warning device. Would it not follow that a missing or ineffective reflector could contribute to the cause of a run-into-train accident? Would it not also follow that, in the case of a missing or ineffective reflector, the railcar owner or the car-handing railroad company would bear a measure of liability for the inoperable reflector that they would not have borne before reflectors were mandated on railcars?

Now it may seem like splitting hairs to determine whether a deficiency in side reflectors contributed to a driver running into the side of a train, especially if the deficiency is minor such as one missing reflector in a group of several. But run-into-train crashes are bound to continue to occur, and there are bound to be missing and defective reflectors. Certainly the two incidents will occasionally coincide. And because railroads have deep pockets, accidents go to court, a place where hairs are split.

But beyond the obvious liability of a failed warning device, there is a deeper issue. These reflectors seem to be born of the belief that when it comes to safety warning, every little bit helps. But a little bit of warning can be worse than no warning if it fails on occasion. The failure of a warning device can contribute to the cause of an accident far more so than the circumstances where no warning device was provided in the first place.

This is because the warning device creates dependence. The person being warned lets his guard down to the extent that he relies on the warning device. So if the device fails, the person that should have been warned is more vulnerable than he would have been if he had not become dependent on the warning device. So whatever the warning, it must be 100% reliable and consistent. It must be durable and robust, and able to withstand adverse conditions without compromise. On the contrary, the warning provided by these reflectors strikes me as being capricious and irregular, the very characteristics of a warning system that can cause accidents as well as prevent them.

Considering this liability for reflector failure, I would think the railroads would assign a responsibility to make sure all cars in service are properly equipped with reflectors in perfect condition and not obscured by dirt, snow, or graffiti.

[amtrakjackson]

I've thought about this subject as well. Unfortunately, there is NO WAY the railroads can/will assign maintenance personnel for the purpose of cleaning the reflectors. It's not cost effective.

My father is an attorney- I was brought up in a litigious environment, where I wasn't able to have friends over as a youth for fear of potential lawsuits. Now, I'm as cynical as one can get, and issues such as this show our nation's "sissiness" as a whole.

[edblysard]

The ScotchBrite tape that is used has a certain distance it must be visible, dirty or clean.
Trust me, this stuff will show up, under almost no light....we have it on the noses, side sill and hand rails of our locomotives, and I can use my 6 volt switchman’s lantern, and get a reflection from well over 100 yards.
As for maintaining it on cars, the rain will pretty much take care of that, and the UV resistance is pretty good to boot.

If you miss one of the cars done up with the new tape at a crossing, it is because your blind or asleep.

Ed

[TH&B]

I've seen some of that reflector tape peeling off already.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

The ScotchBrite tape that is used has a certain distance it must be visible, dirty or clean.
Trust me, this stuff will show up, under almost no light....we have it on the noses, side sill and hand rails of our locomotives, and I can use my 6 volt switchman’s lantern, and get a reflection from well over 100 yards.
As for maintaining it on cars, the rain will pretty much take care of that, and the UV resistance is pretty good to boot.

If you miss one of the cars done up with the new tape at a crossing, it is because your blind or asleep.

Ed

What about vandals with paint? I have been seeing more and more cars that just about the entire bottom half of the car is covered with paint from vandals.

[mvlandsw]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

I've seen some of that reflector tape peeling off already.

I've seen some like that too. It seems that the car was not cleaned well enough for the adhesive to get a good grip.

[Anonymous]

I don't doubt that the reflector material is high performance, but overall, the warning is still bound to be hit and miss. And a hit and miss warning is worse than no warning when it misses.

Motorists grown accustomed to night trains looking like a string of illuminated pearls will ba caught off guard if a train does not display them. Certainly that would be the legal argument if they hit the train.

Isn't it possible that all of the reflectors on a train could be obscured by a coating of snow?

I would think that a freight car should be considered to be bad order if the reflectors are not functioning perfectly, since they are a federally mandated safety device. How can it be otherwise?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

What about vandals with paint? I have been seeing more and more cars that just about the entire bottom half of the car is covered with paint from vandals.

Perhaps, what is needed is reflective spray paint in a can?[}:)]