Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
I have recently been promoted to Conductor. I remember receiving a briefing that we are to co-operate with the First Responders.
If we had a HAZMAT issue, I am to show the First Responders the list of contents and location of the HAZMAT within my train. I am not to give up my train list to anyone but an official.
If we had a vehicle collision, I am to show my Company Issued badge, and any other pertinent information, but never to give my drivers liscense, insurance information, terminal location, trainmaster name and phone number.
If I was a member of this crew I would find me a lawyer and counter sue the City and the driver for mental pain and suffering.
What happened to the Conductor of this crew???????
Wow...talk about an old thread.
With regard to drug & alcohol testing...Section 205 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 prohibits states from adopting laws with respect to railroad safety if the FRA has adopted standards governing the subject matter.
Title 49 CFR, Part 219.201(b) states...In the absence of reasonable cause to believe a specific individual is impaired based on his appearance or behavior trains crews should not be tested in connection with collisions of a train and an automotive vehicle at a rail/highway grade crossing. The statue goes on to list other factors that can trigger testing, but they are all out the purvey of local LEOs
Company policy states...Employees involved in a grade crossing or other railroad accident have no obligation to submit to a breath or other toxicological test requested by a state or local law enforcement authority unless the authority has specific cause to believe the individual they wish to test has committed a criminal law violation, which may include being impaired by alcohol or drugs.
If an employee is requested to submit to testing after a grade crossing accident, he should show this instruction to the LEO, and may state that he is not volunteering to be tested. The employee may also request a specific statement of the legal requirement under which the officer asserts the authority to test, including a correct citation to it. Highway laws requiring testing are NOT applicable. If the officer insists that the employee be tested, the employee may cooperate, but be sure to obtain the name and identification number of all officers involved in requiring the test to be preformed.
With regard to providing information. Again from the Company policy manual...
Whenever a grade crossing accident is investigated by a law enforcement officer, when requested the engineer should give his name and position. In addition provide the office, the speed of the train whether crossing protection was functioning, the whistle sounded properly, the headlight displayed and the crew's on duty time. If requested, it is proper to provide the train's origin and destination, total number of cars, and any HAZMATs present.
Any other specific information about the incident should not be given. The engineer should advise the officer that he will have to consult with either his personal or Company counsel about such matters.
An engineer's authority to operate a locomotive is controlled by the FRA under 49 CFR Part 209. His motor vehicle driver's license number is not required on the accident report.
So, it boils down to this...
The only personal information you have to provide to a local LEO is your name, and job title. If they request to see your licence, you are to show them your FRA card and under no circumstances provide your driver's licence. Once this basic information is provided, all inquires are to directed to the Company officer on scene.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Here's what's wrong:
It's a classic case of "Cops Gone Wild". These guys storm in and think they have some sort of jurisdiction and they know (or should well know) they are on private property. It would be no different if they came into a factory or office building. And they should know the license, while convenient for identification purposes, is not a government issued ID card. We don't have that yet.
This am I passed a train that had just hit a trespassing vacant private auto left on the tracks. I heard the conductor relay the info to the engineer that the local Barney Fyfe wanted the engineer's driver's license, to which he is not, and should know he is not entitled. That's only his (the cop's) if there has been a highway driving infraction.
They tell us to comply with their lawful requests, but they just don't know where their power ends. (They don't know there is a legal limit to their police power and I think they don't like that.)
They can't believe someone would dare say no, you may not have such and such.
erikthered wrote:There is no requirement to provide a driver's license to a police officer or a sheriff's deputy if you aren't operating a motor vehicle at the time you are questioned. I don't know what information rail road company ID's provide, but I assume they have the basics- name, and date of birth. That's enough to verify identity. It's also enough, most of the time, to insure there are no warrants outstanding against the individual questioned. (Locomotive engineers are not any different from other human beings... sometimes even they have something to hide.)In the accident investigations I have participated in, I have seen people provide false identitites- usually because they are hiding something, like a suspended license or an outstanding warrant.Criminals do this on a routine basis.Frankly, in train vs. automobile accidents, I know enough to draw much the same conclusion this Sheriff did. Yet, to protect everyone in this case, it's important to have full and complete information on all participants. I would not be surprised if the engineer was not requested to take a Drager breathalyser test to determine if he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. (It's standard procedure.) He could refuse to take the test, of course; but his driving priveleges (as in automobile driving) would be suspended in this state (Alabama).I empathize with locomotive engineers in most cases. I also empathize with truck drivers involved in fatalities where the fault is clearly the other participant in the accident. As a cop, it's not going to stop me from asking questions about causes of the accident. It's not going to stop me from attempting to rule out all contributory factors to an accident. One of those contributory factors would be the state of mind (impaired or not?) of the participants.Investigators ask insensitive questions. Cops act insensitively at times. The reason is usually because the quicker information is obtained, the faster a case can be cleared. I believe the engineer had nothing to hide in this case. As Ed said, we weren't there. It IS unusual behavior to refuse to even give your name to a police officer when you have been in an accident.Erik
Erik,
Don't they teach you that as a cop your ability to investigate such an accident is superceded by agencies like the FRA and USDOT and NTSB? Outside of basic "who's dead and where can we find the relatives?" questions, it seems you are operating well beyond your authority, much as you would in investigating a mishap on a construction site...I'm sure OSHA would inform you of the investigative hierarchy.
You mention something about outstanding warrants....and that is why some railroaders...myself included...would be less than cooperative with you. Your immediate job, as you see it is to investigate this incident between automobile and train.
You are coming into my work place, albeit out of doors, and acting as though I have, or may have, done something wrong. There is a whole cadre of railroad officials, all much more polished and experienced in making railroad accusations than you ever will be, who will take care of that job, let me assure you. My problem with all law enforcement is that, no matter what the issue at hand may be, you are always looking for something else; the unpaid parking ticket, the contempt of a local (kangaroo) court (failure to appear)....whatever it may be, which may be your job, but is not the job at hand.
Add to that the innumerable times we hear of and see the case of two people with the same name, stolen identity, unscrupulous relatives....I can see a formula for having a very bad day because some cop decides to hold me because I have a deadbeat step-brother (with the same 1st and last name).
I just don't want to deal with you, sir, and the railroad is prepared to do so.
So if I hit a trespasser, you and I will be having a bit of a problem if you respond.
That's just the way it is, no hard feelings.
Yeah, this is an old thread, and I have since retired from the law enforcement business. This allows me to indulge in pastimes like watching trains. Since then, I have been adopted by a couple of locomotive engineers as their pet foamer. We have talked at great length about accidents at grade crossings, and it's through these conversations that I have come across the usual conflict of cops and what people expect of them.
First, local cops are the most likely to be the first responders to an accident. Their job is to figure out if anyone is injured, or killed, and render aid to them. That not only includes the car crushed like a beer can, but the crew of the train as well. So yes, you can reasonably expect a cop to climb up into your locomotive to see if you are OK.
It's also not unusual for agencies like the NTSB, railroad cops, state police, and other investigative agencies to take their sweet time getting to an accident scene. Police officers, be they Elliot Ness or Barney Fife, have a responsibility to protect a scene of an accident, or a crime. That could very well mean that as a cop, I could very well invite a crew out of their locomotive to sit in the back seat of my car. The reason for it is simple; first, it's a lot more comfortable to sit in an air conditioned or heated car than stand out in the middle of a corn field, and secondly, it's protecting evidence from tampering. I know there's a train recorder on board, just like I know that many aircraft have recorders on them. It's up to me to make sure no one messes with them. Including me.
If I happen to notice that a participant in an accident appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I will probably take note of it. And, there is a very good chance that a responding agency- to include an employer, like a railroad- will want their employees drug tested or alcohol tested as soon as possible. That often means a trip to the local police station. It's evidence, and 99 percent of the time it is directly responsible for clearing innocent people. Like engineers, and conductors.
Let's assume the local District Attorney is aggressive and decides to file charges. They aren't going to charge the entire railroad. They are going to go after the guy operating the vehicle. The engineer isn't going to a special Federal court; he's going to go to a District court. Think about it for a moment, folks. You have just run over a local. You are in a courtroom with a local judge. You might be as innocent of the angels, and you might be fully safe in exercising your rights. But the prevalent attitude of a local jury towards the large corporation who just ran over Suzy the Idiot Cheerleader is not going to be improved when the local cop advises them (and he will) that the operator of the locomotive in question was uncooperative with law enforcement. Your attorney (which you will probably have to hire yourself, because large corporations don't generally fund criminal attorneys for employees) will immediately jump up and question the officer about whether he had the right to demand identification or not. It won't matter; the damage is done. You are the bad guy.
You are better off when you aggressively participate in your own defense, and that starts off right at the accident scene. I would estimate that engineer neglect and malfeascance is rarer than hen's teeth, and I'd also suspect that most trainmen have absolutely nothing to hide. But providing evidence in your own defense is critical to that. It will make the job of the railroad, the cops, and the prosecutors a lot easier to do, and potentially save an innocent railroad employee from career ending results.
And give cops a break, too. Enough of us have been through Lifesaver courses so that we know you can't stop a train on a dime. We know people are stupid; that's why police and deputies have job security. But cops are human, and when someone acts like they have something to hide, chances are that they do. It's the nature of police work.
I'm still a foamer, and I understand the trauma of grade crossing accidents on both sides perhaps better than you think. It's the police officer's job to protect people and property- and that includes the engineer in shock because he just wiped out the minivan with churchgoers who couldn't wait five minutes for the train to go by.
Enough said.
Erik
I understand you point of view, regarding rendering aid and preserving the scene.
But Title 49 CFR, Part 219.201(b) clearly states outside of reasonable cause based on a specific individual's appearance or behavior, train crews may not be tested in connection with a grade crossing accident. That is Federal Law. Further more, any FRA drug testing but be collected using an FRA test kit, processed by an FRA sanctioned lab, and a clear chain of custody must be maintained.
If you have clear evidence of impairment, by all means test. Should you demand a test in the absence of clear evidence of impairment, you are in violation of Federal Law, and have just exposed your department to a lawsuit.
Regarding the train crew leaving the cab...The Engineer must not leave the engine or control compartment unless potential danger exists, he is relieved, or is threatened with arrest by local authorities. The engineer is responsible for controlling the movement of the train and can only be removed when relieved by another qualified Engineer.
Again, railroad operations are governed by 49 CFR. Should a local DA get zealous and file charges, the highly skilled and highly paid union and company attorneys will soon have the DA before a Federal judge explaining his actions.
richardy wrote:Are engineers not required to carry their license to operate a locomotive?Richard
Absolutly Not. All they are required to carry is there FRA Certified Enginers Certificate. DL has nothing to do with operating a train. That is almost like doing the exact opposite. You getting pulled over and the cop askes you for your DL, and you give him your engineers card due to not having a DL. If does not work in conjunction.
erikthered wrote: Yeah, this is an old thread, and I have since retired from the law enforcement business. This allows me to indulge in pastimes like watching trains. Since then, I have been adopted by a couple of locomotive engineers as their pet foamer. We have talked at great length about accidents at grade crossings, and it's through these conversations that I have come across the usual conflict of cops and what people expect of them.First, local cops are the most likely to be the first responders to an accident. Their job is to figure out if anyone is injured, or killed, and render aid to them. That not only includes the car crushed like a beer can, but the crew of the train as well. So yes, you can reasonably expect a cop to climb up into your locomotive to see if you are OK.It's also not unusual for agencies like the NTSB, railroad cops, state police, and other investigative agencies to take their sweet time getting to an accident scene. Police officers, be they Elliot Ness or Barney Fife, have a responsibility to protect a scene of an accident, or a crime. That could very well mean that as a cop, I could very well invite a crew out of their locomotive to sit in the back seat of my car. The reason for it is simple; first, it's a lot more comfortable to sit in an air conditioned or heated car than stand out in the middle of a corn field, and secondly, it's protecting evidence from tampering. I know there's a train recorder on board, just like I know that many aircraft have recorders on them. It's up to me to make sure no one messes with them. Including me.If I happen to notice that a participant in an accident appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I will probably take note of it. And, there is a very good chance that a responding agency- to include an employer, like a railroad- will want their employees drug tested or alcohol tested as soon as possible. That often means a trip to the local police station. It's evidence, and 99 percent of the time it is directly responsible for clearing innocent people. Like engineers, and conductors.Let's assume the local District Attorney is aggressive and decides to file charges. They aren't going to charge the entire railroad. They are going to go after the guy operating the vehicle. The engineer isn't going to a special Federal court; he's going to go to a District court. Think about it for a moment, folks. You have just run over a local. You are in a courtroom with a local judge. You might be as innocent of the angels, and you might be fully safe in exercising your rights. But the prevalent attitude of a local jury towards the large corporation who just ran over Suzy the Idiot Cheerleader is not going to be improved when the local cop advises them (and he will) that the operator of the locomotive in question was uncooperative with law enforcement. Your attorney (which you will probably have to hire yourself, because large corporations don't generally fund criminal attorneys for employees) will immediately jump up and question the officer about whether he had the right to demand identification or not. It won't matter; the damage is done. You are the bad guy. You are better off when you aggressively participate in your own defense, and that starts off right at the accident scene. I would estimate that engineer neglect and malfeascance is rarer than hen's teeth, and I'd also suspect that most trainmen have absolutely nothing to hide. But providing evidence in your own defense is critical to that. It will make the job of the railroad, the cops, and the prosecutors a lot easier to do, and potentially save an innocent railroad employee from career ending results. And give cops a break, too. Enough of us have been through Lifesaver courses so that we know you can't stop a train on a dime. We know people are stupid; that's why police and deputies have job security. But cops are human, and when someone acts like they have something to hide, chances are that they do. It's the nature of police work.I'm still a foamer, and I understand the trauma of grade crossing accidents on both sides perhaps better than you think. It's the police officer's job to protect people and property- and that includes the engineer in shock because he just wiped out the minivan with churchgoers who couldn't wait five minutes for the train to go by.Enough said. Erik
The only problem I have with this is where you are talking about us (railroaders) hiring our own lawyers to to the large corportion. Where in fact if the railroad is not at fault, the railroad will provide a lawyer. Probably one of the best around. Now if for some reason the person was killed on the crossing due to the fact that the engineer was asleep and did not whistle or something like that the railroad will not get a lawyer for you at all. But the little black box on the motor will tell all about the accident. So the railroad will know right after the accident. More than likely the Trainmaster will show up with his laptop, and download that black box.
Reading this thread, I thought the cartoon at http://www.geocities.com/ferroaficionadosar/comic2.htm highly appropriate!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.