Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Semper Vaporo"] <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> Bucyrus:</div> <div></div> <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> Semper Vaporo:</div> <div></div> <blockquote> <div style="clear:both;"></div>   </blockquote> 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).   </blockquote> 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? <div style="clear:both;"></div>   </blockquote> 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! <img src="/TRCCS/emoticons/icon_smile_dunce.gif" alt="Dunce" /> <img src="/TRCCS/emoticons/emotion-2.gif" alt="Big Smile" /> [/quote] 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.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag