Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Railroad concern for crossing safety
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Hello Mike--May I respectfully point out that your expeience as a juror involves but ONE crossing incident. Imo, to say that one experience reflects all "truth" is stretching things too far. Also, you did not state the facts of the case--you only presented your OPINION. Without you giving us more facts, I think you came down much too hard on the RR industry. <br /> <br />Could a railroad/locomotive engineer be at fault when a motor vehicle is struck at a crossing? Of course such a thing is POSSIBLE. BUT after reading a few posts on this topic, plus having viewed various news broadcasts as well as one of Railroad Videos' cab rides (Amtrak trip from Philly to Pgh on the old Pnnsy main), my opinion is that for the engineer or RR to be at fault is EXTREMELY RARE! <br /> <br />When I was a little boy I learned to "Stop, Look & Listen" at all RR X-ings. (Maybe the schools don't teach that anymore.) I also figured out that if there is more than one track at a x-ing, after a train passes you do not move across until the train is far enough down the track to let you see if a train is coming towards the x-ing on one of the other tracks. <br /> <br />My "hardened position" is that 99-plus% of the time, a grade crossing accident is the fault of the auto driver or pedestrian, or perhaps the municipality for not improving the roadway or paying to improve signalling or install an overpass or underpass, NOT the RR engineer or the RR Company. <br /> <br />If crossings need to be improved, and the RR was there first, most if not all of the cost should be paid for by the taxpayers. And that's not intended as "socialism" btw--it is simple fairness. After all, gasoline taxes and auto registration fees are supposed to pay for roads. If not, the problem is that the taxpayers are not paying enough attention to how governments spend our money! <br /> <br />One final point: I read a suggestion some years ago that instead of using flashing red lights at grade x-ings, the traffic signal should show a solid red light, like a regular traffic signal. <br /> <br />To motorists, a flashing red light means STOP, THEN GO if there is no cross traffic. The idea of a solid red light makes sense to me, and I'm curious why we still have the traditional flashing red lights. <br /> <br />If you want to make a positive contribution to grade x-ing safety, why not push Operation Lifesaver and state governments & the Congress to adopt laws requiring solid red lights? I think that would really help a lot more than bashing the RR industry.
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy