Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Bucyrus"] <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> selector:</div> <div></div> 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 <div style="clear:both;"></div> <blockquote> <div></div> </blockquote> </blockquote> You have got to be kidding. <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] 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.<o:p></o:p> Crandell”<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 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?   <o:p></o:p> 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.  <o:p></o:p> 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?
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