Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="tdmidget"] In seriousness though, Bucyrus, if you are shilling for some law firm or otherwise have an interest in this board agreeing with you, give it up. This is a group of people who know that there is no excuse, anywhere, anytime, to hit or get hit by a train. If you trouble yourself to see the location on Google earth you will see that there is a huge RRX on the pavement 700 feet before the crossing. So you can't say he did  not have advance warning. You will also see that he could have seen an approaching train for a half mile in either direction. So you can't say he could not see the train. Since this was a regular loadout for him you can't say that he was not familiar with the crossing. Additionally as a holder of a CCL he is expected to exercise more caution than the average driver. So, signals were there and working, he had warning, he could see,he was familiar with the route. Did he exercise even the caution expected of a grandmaw who drives once a week? <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote]   I have no interest in the forum agreeing with me.  But I don’t think the forum is of one mind on this, as your comment suggests.  And plenty of people who are not registered members also read the forum.  There is no way to know what they think.       <o:p></o:p> Obviously the driver did not yield to the train, so in that regard, the driver has to be at fault.  But extenuating circumstances can exist in any collision, including grade crossing crashes.  It is simply not true that, as you say, “there is no excuse anywhere, anytime, to get hit by a train.”  Sometimes the signals fail to activate or provide a too short of a warning.   <o:p></o:p> I see no harm in asking questions and considering all the plausible explanations for what happened in this Nevada crash.  I do not expect that the driver bears no blame, or that Nevada bears all the blame.  And I have not reached any conclusions about the blame or cause.  But it seems like a number forum members have.  There seems to be some consensus that we must wait for the final investigation; unless we believe the driver was 100% at fault.  Then we don’t have to wait for the investigation.   <o:p></o:p> Everybody says a driver must not be distracted.  Yet, every driver is distracted to some extent every foot of the way they travel.  So distraction is not a black and white issue of either being distracted or not being distracted.  <o:p></o:p> So the traffic authorities try to mitigate the abrupt life or death situations with warning.  They construct the warning to give more than what is needed in order to allow for some degree of distraction.  You mention the RXR painted on the road ahead of the crossing.  No doubt, there are also advance-warning signs.  I am only asking if more warning would have been prudent, or would have prevented the crash.  <o:p></o:p> Yet some are incredulous that I am suggesting an extended warning.  They insist that no extra warning was necessary and that the driver had all the warning he needed.  But consider this:  The warning begins with the primary warning of the crossing signals and gates.  Why should there be any more warning than that?  If that were all the warning there was, for example, and I suggested painting RXR on the road, would forum members insist that that was not necessary?  I think they would.
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