spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote:There may have been all the reasons in the world why these kids were "at fault"? Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.Michael: What other facts might surface that would place blame on any thing other than the driver's actions that night?
MichaelSol wrote:There may have been all the reasons in the world why these kids were "at fault"? Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.
Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.
Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.
Michael: What other facts might surface that would place blame on any thing other than the driver's actions that night?
Not to speak for Michael, but I can think of one fact. That is that the Federal Railroad Administration, speaking for the industry, has declared that freight trains pose a crash hazard, especially at night, because they can be hard to see due to the dark colors and possible lack of roadway illumination. For this reason, the FRA has mandated that all U.S. railroad freight cars be equipped with side reflectors to help warn motorists when freight cars are blocking a grade crossing.
selector wrote: bnsfkline wrote:It will rest when Bergie wants it to restBut, it could rest if we just agree to let it be so. That is all I am asking, that we let it go voluntarily. Carrying on like this does not dignify the children's deaths, nor does it dignify us.
bnsfkline wrote:It will rest when Bergie wants it to rest
But, it could rest if we just agree to let it be so. That is all I am asking, that we let it go voluntarily. Carrying on like this does not dignify the children's deaths, nor does it dignify us.
What makes you dignified in starting conflicts with Ed?
Generally, the police will not go looking for a person until they have been missing for at least 24 hours. Very few police forces will be on the lookout for a stolen car - they might chase the car if they see it and the car fails to stop, but they aren't going to affirmatively go out and look for a stolen vehicle driving around. They generally have more pressing matters. Hence, even if the parents had called that their kids were out, the police would not have looked at them. They may have said be on the lookout for them because they were teenagers, but if they were not aware they were in a particular vehicle, they wouldn't have known where to look - similar to the stolen vehcile, if they saw the vehicle matching the description, they might run the license plate, but they wouldn't really be out looking for it other than as a bulletin. So there really wasn't much for the parents to do - plus, the kids could have sneaked out of the house while the parents were asleep.
It is impossible to have "attempted involuntary manslaughter" - because involuntary manslaughter is by definition an unintentional death caused by gross negligence, it is not an intentional death. You can only be convicted of an attempt for a crime which has an intent requirement - there is no intent required for involuntary manslaughter, in fact, one can say that the death was unintentional (if the death was intended, it would be considered murder or voluntary manslaughter if done under extreme emotional distress, not involuntary manslaughter) The difference between civil tort liability and involuntary manslaughter is one of degree of negligence. Certain types of negligence are considered to be so reckless that they can be punished by criminal liability in addition to civil liability. If negligence is extreme, it could result in what is called "depraved heart murder," which is when the behavior is so dangerous that it is likely to result in a death. However, one cannot be convicted of attempted murder through a merely negligent act, attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill or create serious injury (known as malice).
Its generally illegal to obstruct a public road - railroads are legally allowed to obstruct public roads at their crossings, but their rights are limited by numerous rules, and generally they must provide adequate notice that the road can be obstructed or is obstructed. Having an unlit crossing marked merely by crossbucks is probably not adequate notice for blocking a public road with an unlit rail car - and probably does not conform with the railroads legal requirements to provide adequate notice. However, this doesn't automatically result in railroad liability - the road may not have been a public highway, for example. We also do not have any information about whether the railroad had lights or flares in front of the railcar to warn the public that the crossing was blocked. We also have no information about what the sightlines were like at this particular crossing. Even if the railroad was negligent, the driver could be found to be so negligent as to preclude his recovery. However, the negligence of the driver generally cannot be inputed to the passengers such that the passengers (and their estates) can recover from both the driver and the railroad if they were both negligent.
MichaelSol is right, you can't say anything about a specific accident without specific facts. You can at least get the applicable law right when speaking in hypotheticals.
Penn c...
You might want to do a little research...
Baytown, Houston, Galveston County and Harris County have a curfew...10:30 pm to 5:30 am for anyone under 18.
So if a Baytown cop, or a Galveston County or Harris County Deputy saw a kid on the streets, or driving a car at say...3 or 4 in the morning...they will, and do pull them over and question them.
The cops do call the minors parents, and will issue a citation to the guardian, and will detain the minor till the parent/guardian picks them up.
Keep in mind Baytown is a small city.
Harris and Galveston County both share a Amber Alert system, and the local police forces use them frequently.
You do see the road side signs on with alerts all the time for missing kids, often within the hour after the call reaches the 911 operators.
Yes, sometimes it is a false alarm, but the Mayors of Houston and Galveston both agree that it is better to be safe than sorry, and all three of the local police departments agree.
This is because we have had a rash of child kidnappings and murders...the local cops here don't follow the 24 hour rule of thumb...you call in a missing kid, they start looking.
Public outcry and some very publicized deaths of young children prompted this.
Railroads in Texas do not get to choose what type of grade crossing protection is provided or installed at public crossings...TDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) does.
Railroad can not alter what Tdot decides...they can't just decide a grade crossing needs to be upgraded and go fix it up...that leaves them open to law suites when someone gets in an accident at a different location, then points to the crossing the railroad upgraded and says" You should have done this one also...you fixed up that one, so you should have fixed up this one also."
Arbitrarily deciding to up grade a crossing creates more liability and problems than it solves.
Railroads in Texas have to follow what Tdot says...and we have to pay 75% of the installation cost and 100% of the maintenance cost for them.
We don't get to design the crossings, or the approaches to them, which leads to some stupendously stupid crossing around here.
If was up to the railroads, Tdot would be forced to build overpasses or under passes.
The fact that the crossing in question is unlit has no arms or flashing lights is because Tdot said it was not required, based on Tdot's traffic study, not because the railroad was too cheap or uncaring to install them.
Tdot decided that cross bucks were all that was needed.
As for blocking the crossing, local ordinance say 10 minutes for a train standing still...no restrictions on one that is moving, even if it is just moving back and forth or moving slowly.
The Jeep driver is 15, so he will have to be certified to stand trial as an adult before any charges will be filed, and that will take a while and a few court dates, if the DA decides to try.
The passenger in the front seat who survived has been released from the hospital, and because he is also a minor, the press has been kept away from him too.
As for the 13 year old and her cousin, the 13 year olds father was on TV that morning, he stated" We knew they were gone, and we knew when they left....we decided to wait till they came home to talk about it, because we had just gone over the house rules for the summer, last night"...so the being asleep when they left theory is kinda shot here.
There is still a question as to how the kids got the Jeep in the first place...the possibility it might have belonged to one of the kids parents or relatives has not been excluded...the local police are keeping that info close to the vest for right now.
Last, the FRA ruling on reflectors on rail cars does not require 100% compliance to date, but has several exceptions.
It does require all railcars being rebuilt/ repainted from November 28th, 2005 onward to have the reflectors applied at the time of rebuild or repaint, and all new railcars built after that date must have the reflectors applied when built.
Type this link in your search engine...
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/mpe/chapter_14-224.pdf
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/907
This link will take you to the FRA ruling and standards about blocked crossings...there is no nation wide legal standard, it is up to each state to decide time limits, and local ordinances can alter that also.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1752
This link will take you to the FRA Safety page, and their guidelines about crossing protection and accident prevention.
If you can dig through all of it, you will realize that railroads, for the most part, have no control over what type of grade crossing protection is provided/ installed.
We will of course be the ones sued, because all states legally exempt themselves from liability when they design bad crossings, or fail to install appropriate crossing protection, which leaves the railroads pockets the deepest ones around.
Try suing your state for a badly designed overpass or a blind curve that has an inordinate amount of accidents...you won't get far.
23 17 46 11
Houston & Texas News
June 17, 2007, 1:47AMFederal rail authorities probe fatal crash
By RAD SALLEECopyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
Federal railroad authorities have begun their own inquiry into today's fatal crash near Baytown.
"We are well aware of this accident and have launched an investigation," said Federal Railroad Administration spokesman Warren Flatau.
Agency records show four vehicle-train accidents at the Baytown site from 1979 to 2002, none involving injuries. In three collisions, the motorist failed to stop and in the other, the driver's view of the train was obscured by vegetation, the report said. Two of the accidents happened at night and involved vehicles traveling at estimated speeds at or below 25 mph, records show.
Overall, Texas led the nation in motor vehicle-train accidents at railroad crossings last year, with 338 of the 2,910 accidents in the U.S., said Steven Kulm, also a spokesman for the administration, which oversees rail safety in the U.S.
The state also led the nation in fatal motor vehicle-train accidents at railroad crossings with 44 out of the 366 such deaths in the U.S., Kulm said.
State and local governments decide whether safety improvements, such as gates or flashing lights, are needed at railroad crossings, Kulm said.
The Federal Highway Administration manual on traffic control devices says that if an engineering study shows that "better nighttime visibility of the train and the highway-rail grade crossing is needed ... then illumination should be installed at and adjacent to the highway-rail grade."
For example, the manual says lighting is needed "where a substantial amount of railroad operation is conducted at night, when train speeds are low and (the) crossings are blocked for long periods, or crash history indicates that drivers experience difficulty in seeing trains or traffic control devices during hours of darkness."
The Federal Railroad Administration awarded $220 million in grants last year to the 50 states to make safety improvements at railroad crossings. Officials in each state decide how their state's portion is spent, Kulm said.
Factors they take into account may include the frequency of rail and vehicle traffic at the site, visibility and other features that might make it especially hazardous.
State and local governments pay for safety improvements at crossings, he said. The railroad company operating on the track maintains the equipment.
Texas Department of Public Transportation spokesman Norm Wigington said the crossing is not state-maintained. A spokesman for Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Sylvia Garcia said he was seeking information about it.
Flatau said it is common for crossings at such low-traffic sites to be equipped only with "passive" devices such as signs and pavement markings and not flashing lights. Flatau said he is unaware of any information to indicate the signage was inadequate in today's accident.
Federal Rail Administration records from August 2004, the most recent available, show there were six trains and four switching movements per day at the crossing, at train speeds of 5 to 20 mph.
The only traffic signals were stop signs and the familiar "crossbuck'' indicating a railroad crossing. There were no pavement markings, the records say.
He said the administration has a rule requiring reflectors on rail cars to prevent night collisions with vehicles. "The railroads are doing that, but there is a timetable and they have several years to complete it," he said.
Texas law requires motorists to stop no closer than 15 feet to a rail crossing when a train's approach is indicated by a traffic signal, train horn or by sight.
Please note the paragraphs, numbers 6 through 9, which highlight what I posted previously...for once the press did a little research also.
And note, six trains and four switching movements per day does not make this a busy crossing, with four accidents in 23 years, none fatal till this one.
I have given a lot of thought to the reflector mandate and grade crossing safety in general. I brought up the issue of reflectors in this thread, but my point was not that reflectors might have prevented the crash. My point was how the possible lack of reflectors might affect the finding of fault for this crash. I understand that the FRA mandate allows a period of time that allows the application of reflectors to become complete. So the car may or may not have had reflectors, and their presence or lack thereof may or may not have affected the outcome of this crash.
My point in bringing up reflectors is that, in order to justify their order to install reflectors on all freight cars, the FRA has admitted that freight trains pose a run-into-train crash hazard to motorists approaching un-signaled grade crossings. The official admission of this hazard by the FRA, on behalf of the railroad industry, would seem to add liability to the railroads that did not previously exist, at least in the case of cars now running without reflectors. Previously, drivers were expected to not overdrive their headlights at night, and be prepared to stop short of any obstruction; and most agreed that a freight train seems like a very obvious obstruction. Now, however, the FRA is saying that the obstruction posed at un-signaled crossings by drab or dark colored freight cars, in dark or low ambient light, is too difficult to see, so reflectors are needed to make the cars more visible.
Since the FRA has identified and proclaimed this new hazard, I would expect that if the tank car in this Houston crash happened to lack reflectors, that fact would be very pertinent in deciding fault, despite the fact that the FRA does not yet require reflectors on all cars.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
All of that illumination will just help the kids pass over to the other side and make it easier for others to clean up the mess.
If they stayed home when they were supposed to, they would have been alive today with a chance at a proper life. But no.
My solution is and continues to be elevate or bury ALL road/rail crossings so that it is physically impossible for a motor vehicle or CMV to interact with a railroad track or train.
If the inner city rail yard or rail facilities become so obselete as to block crossings all the time, then scrap the entire infrastructure and relocate it out and away from the built up areas. Last time I checked, there are lots of land out west.
Reclaim the land and use it to ignite new urban or town development.
It might take the new train, pipeline, ship or truck an extra 50-100 miles to get to the new facility but that is all part of the cost of doing business anyhow.
Bucyrus wrote: spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote:There may have been all the reasons in the world why these kids were "at fault"? Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.Michael: What other facts might surface that would place blame on any thing other than the driver's actions that night?Not to speak for Michael, but I can think of one fact. That is that the Federal Railroad Administration, speaking for the industry, has declared that freight trains pose a crash hazard, especially at night, because they can be hard to see due to the dark colors and possible lack of roadway illumination. For this reason, the FRA has mandated that all U.S. railroad freight cars be equipped with side reflectors to help warn motorists when freight cars are blocking a grade crossing.
OK so then what about the thousands of other raod hazards that are hard to see? Bottom line if you are out driveing your line of sight then it is the drivers fault for speeding, no mater what color the object you hit.
Bucyrus wrote: ....the Federal Railroad Administration, speaking for the industry, has declared that freight trains pose a crash hazard, especially at night, because they can be hard to see due to the dark colors and possible lack of roadway illumination. For this reason, the FRA has mandated that all U.S. railroad freight cars be equipped with side reflectors to help warn motorists when freight cars are blocking a grade crossing.
....the Federal Railroad Administration, speaking for the industry, has declared that freight trains pose a crash hazard, especially at night, because they can be hard to see due to the dark colors and possible lack of roadway illumination. For this reason, the FRA has mandated that all U.S. railroad freight cars be equipped with side reflectors to help warn motorists when freight cars are blocking a grade crossing.
Of course, there are already reflectors on the crossbucks, as well as a big, bright yellow railroad crossing advance warning sign. But that is besides the point.
Perhaps the government should mandate every freight car be painted exclusively with reflectorized paint. Perhaps every freight car should be equipped with a GPS transponder so every driver could be advised by their own navigation system that there is a train in front of them. Or maybe the government should mandate that every crossing be protected by a watchman with reflectorized flags.
Of course I'm being absurd with the above paragraph. And yet, to read some editorials (both here and elsewhere), one can almost see the similarities between my absurdities and the actual suggestions from those that refuse to accept the fact that people have to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences thereof.
How far should the government go to idiot-proof the world?
How much legislation is required to prevent stupidity?
Why are cars built able to exceed the maximum speed limit?
Why is driving while talking on a phone legal?
Why are car commercials allowed to glamorize driving at breakneck paces permitted (with the so-effective disclaimer: Professional driver, do not attempt)?
Why are cars allowed to have sound systems so loud as to make emergency vehicles sirens inaudable?
Why are cars allowed to be so dangerous in a crash (especially rollovers)?
How many laws do you want, in order to make yourself FEEL safer?
How much do want Big Brother to control your life?
The FRA 'declares' that freight trains pose a hazard? No. Wrong. It is stupidity that poses the greatest hazard.
And the more we legislate and protect stupidity, the dumber our species becomes.
chad thomas wrote: Bucyrus wrote: spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote:There may have been all the reasons in the world why these kids were "at fault"? Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.Michael: What other facts might surface that would place blame on any thing other than the driver's actions that night?Not to speak for Michael, but I can think of one fact. That is that the Federal Railroad Administration, speaking for the industry, has declared that freight trains pose a crash hazard, especially at night, because they can be hard to see due to the dark colors and possible lack of roadway illumination. For this reason, the FRA has mandated that all U.S. railroad freight cars be equipped with side reflectors to help warn motorists when freight cars are blocking a grade crossing. OK so then what about the thousands of other raod hazards that are hard to see? Bottom line if you are out driveing your line of sight then it is the drivers fault for speeding, no mater what color the object you hit.
True, a person paying attention may not see an obstacle in time to stop if they are overdriving their headlights. But they also may not see an obstacle in time to stop when they are not overdriving their headlights, if that obstacle is too hard to see. I can't think of too many examples of such a "hard to see" obstacle. But here is one example provided by the FRA in their own words:
FRA 07-03 Contact: Warren Flatau Tel.: (202) 493-6024Thursday, November 6, 2003
Proposed New Rail Car Reflector Rule Will Enhance Safety
The large size of rail freight cars can cover a motorist's entire field of view, making them difficult to detect. Limited visibility at night, dusk, dawn, and during adverse weather conditions also can make it difficult for motorist to see dark-colored rail cars. As a result, a motorist's ordinary expectation may be dangerously altered. FRA research indicates that safety may be improved by placing reflective material on the train itself, since it can aid drivers in better judging a train's distance and relative state of motion.
"About one quarter of all highway-rail crossing collisions involve a motor vehicle striking a train. We have learned that in many cases, motorists do not see trains moving or stopped, blocking highway-rail crossings," Administrator Rutter said. "In proposing this action, we have taken into account numerous considerations raised by the railroad industry and others, and believe real safety benefits can be achieved while minimizing the cost to railroads and the nation's private car owners."
Bucyrus wrote: chad thomas wrote: Bucyrus wrote: spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote:There may have been all the reasons in the world why these kids were "at fault"? Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.Michael: What other facts might surface that would place blame on any thing other than the driver's actions that night?Not to speak for Michael, but I can think of one fact. That is that the Federal Railroad Administration, speaking for the industry, has declared that freight trains pose a crash hazard, especially at night, because they can be hard to see due to the dark colors and possible lack of roadway illumination. For this reason, the FRA has mandated that all U.S. railroad freight cars be equipped with side reflectors to help warn motorists when freight cars are blocking a grade crossing. OK so then what about the thousands of other raod hazards that are hard to see? Bottom line if you are out driveing your line of sight then it is the drivers fault for speeding, no mater what color the object you hit. True, a person paying attention may not see an obstacle in time to stop if they are overdriving their headlights. But they also may not see an obstacle in time to stop when they are not overdriving their headlights, if that obstacle is too hard to see. I can't think of too many examples of such a "hard to see" obstacle. But here is one example provided by the FRA in their own words: FRA 07-03 Contact: Warren Flatau Tel.: (202) 493-6024Thursday, November 6, 2003 Proposed New Rail Car Reflector Rule Will Enhance Safety The large size of rail freight cars can cover a motorist's entire field of view, making them difficult to detect. Limited visibility at night, dusk, dawn, and during adverse weather conditions also can make it difficult for motorist to see dark-colored rail cars. As a result, a motorist's ordinary expectation may be dangerously altered. FRA research indicates that safety may be improved by placing reflective material on the train itself, since it can aid drivers in better judging a train's distance and relative state of motion. "About one quarter of all highway-rail crossing collisions involve a motor vehicle striking a train. We have learned that in many cases, motorists do not see trains moving or stopped, blocking highway-rail crossings," Administrator Rutter said. "In proposing this action, we have taken into account numerous considerations raised by the railroad industry and others, and believe real safety benefits can be achieved while minimizing the cost to railroads and the nation's private car owners."
I think there is a serious disconnect. Much cheaper to slap reflective tape on everything than it is to take actual construction at each crossing.
Just to be clear:
1) I am not advocating reflectors.
2) I think the FRA reflector mandate is a bad idea.
3) I am not saying the railroad was at fault in the Houston crash.
The point that I am trying to make about reflectors might best be understood by using, as an analogy, a point made by Ed B. about upgrading crossing protection. Ed said this in a prior post above:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Railroad can not alter what Tdot decides...they can't just decide a grade crossing needs to be upgraded and go fix it up...that leaves them open to law suites when someone gets in an accident at a different location, then points to the crossing the railroad upgraded and says" You should have done this one also...you fixed up that one, so you should have fixed up this one also."
Arbitrarily deciding to up grade a crossing creates more liability and problems than it solves."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point about reflectors is almost identical. That is, if someone runs into a freight car without reflectors, they can argue that the railroad should have had reflectors on that car because other cars have them, and the Federal Railroad Administration has stated that cars without reflectors are more dangerous than cars with them.
One of the stories mentioned that the railroad bed was elevated above the height of the road, making it hard to see the trains at night (she talks about how she thought a gray car was "fog" on the road). Two questions come to mind.
If the crossing is elevated to impart a ramp, would it be natural for an experienced driver to slow down to avoid damaging their vehicle?
Would this elevation somehow degrade the effectiveness of reflectors on the railcar, if they were present, shortening the site distance?
Also, when you are driving, isn't it the driver's responsibility to avoid hitting a stationary object, whether it be a parked car, a tree, a house, or a train?
I think we all agree it was a tragic event for a bunch of people, and we can all find a bunch of things which might have prevented the event. Just wondering what the first domino was that led to the end, just like everyone else here.
StillGrande wrote: I think we all agree it was a tragic event for a bunch of people, and we can all find a bunch of things which might have prevented the event. Just wondering what the first domino was that led to the end, just like everyone else here.
An inexperienced underage person behind the wheel.
An "expensive model collector"
Safety Valve wrote: All of that illumination will just help the kids pass over to the other side and make it easier for others to clean up the mess.If they stayed home when they were supposed to, they would have been alive today with a chance at a proper life. But no.My solution is and continues to be elevate or bury ALL road/rail crossings so that it is physically impossible for a motor vehicle or CMV to interact with a railroad track or train.If the inner city rail yard or rail facilities become so obselete as to block crossings all the time, then scrap the entire infrastructure and relocate it out and away from the built up areas. Last time I checked, there are lots of land out west.Reclaim the land and use it to ignite new urban or town development.It might take the new train, pipeline, ship or truck an extra 50-100 miles to get to the new facility but that is all part of the cost of doing business anyhow.
Again, in most cases, the railroad did locate out in the boonies 100 years ago to take advantage of lower-priced property. It is the "dumb" city planners who chose to build next to the tracks and create the "built-up" areas around the rail yard.
So why should the railroads be forced to pay to relocate and pay more in operational costs when they did not create the problem?
There may indeed, be plenty of land out west, but there are more tracks east of the Mississippi than west.
zardoz wrote: And the more we legislate and protect stupidity, the dumber our species becomes.
The reflective tape has a high degree of angularity. It is specifically engineered to reflect light at angles approaching and exceeding 80 degrees.
ed
StillGrande wrote: One of the stories mentioned that the railroad bed was elevated above the height of the road, making it hard to see the trains at night (she talks about how she thought a gray car was "fog" on the road). Two questions come to mind. If the crossing is elevated to impart a ramp, would it be natural for an experienced driver to slow down to avoid damaging their vehicle?Would this elevation somehow degrade the effectiveness of reflectors on the railcar, if they were present, shortening the site distance?Also, when you are driving, isn't it the driver's responsibility to avoid hitting a stationary object, whether it be a parked car, a tree, a house, or a train?I think we all agree it was a tragic event for a bunch of people, and we can all find a bunch of things which might have prevented the event. Just wondering what the first domino was that led to the end, just like everyone else here.
The first domino was the children's disregard for the parents rules and decision to go out and steal the car for a night ride.
I argue with respect that the operator of the vehicle that night was not trained or licensed to be on a road, operating a vehicle at all. Again we leave that up to the courts.
I see your point, and have no wish to argue...in fact, I enjoy reading your view on all of this,
but I liken the issue to the seat belt safety requirements in automobiles.
Before 1968?(not sure of the date)...seat belts were not a requirement in automobiles sold in the US...
But once the law was enacted to make cars "safer" the argument was that is you have to have them in this car, shouldn't the law make you have them in all cars, and retrofit those that do not have them?
In the end, the courts ruled that a manufacture can't see into the future and build something that complies with future laws that do not exist or have not yet been written, but can only follow existing rules and laws, and that retrofitting all automobiles with seat belts was so cost prohibitive and such a huge project that is was impossible to accomplish.
Railroads and the tank car owners are covered by the same ruling of law in regard to safety appliances.
Trust me, there are a lot of cars out there which will never see a single strip of reflector tape, they are too old and to close to being scrapped, or are still in good enough condition that rebuilding might not happen and they will be in service till they are scrapped.
The FRA doesn't make "laws"...that is the responsibility of our legislators and courts...but the FRA does and can make recommendations, and can enforce existing laws and rules up to and including the ability to fine carriers who fail to follow the law, or who fail to follow their own, (the carriers) safety rules.
If you note in the recommendation, which has become law, they require all new cars built from a specific date to have the reflectors...and make requirements for retrofitting older cars in the section about rebuilding and repainting.
That part of the recommendation covers the liability angle in regards to the retrofit argument...there is a program in place to remedy a recognized problem.
Keep in mind that there is a public misconception that railroads are responsible for the condition or maintenance of the cars...when in fact it is the car owner who legally bears responsibility for the condition of the car...railroad have and do refuse to accept or move cars that don't meet certain requirements, and will repair cars and bill the owner for the repairs as a matter or course and law...but in the end, the car owner has to decide when or if to retrofit a car with any safety appliance...if they chose not to, then they run the risk of that car or series of cars being rejected by the carrier or the carrier refusing to move the car until such repairs or retrofitting is done.
Now, if that car is owned by a particular railroad, then yes, that railroad bears full legal responsibility, but if the car is owned by a private shipper or part of a lease fleet....
From a railroaders point of view, I think the reflectors are a great idea...not only as a safety device for the public, but for us in the industry also...remember, sometimes we are required to ride these things over crossings at night, or work around them in dark yards and industries.
I personally have been "nicked" by a flat car hidden in the profile of a black tank car, in my yard at night...and have had several close calls at night shoving over crossings because the auto driver couldn't judge the speed we were moving or how big the cars really are.
If something as simple as slapping a few strips of Scotch Bright on them helps others to see the things, I am all for it.
As for the legal argument...it has been tried already, and failed for the reason I listed above.
It would be likened to trying to sue Honda because you owned a 73 Civic, had an accident and got hurt, and wanted to sue them because they didn't go back and install air bags in your car once air bags became mandatory in newly built cars sold in the US.
As for this particular instance, the young man who was driving has a history of taking his mothers car out for late night joy rides, the local police have "nabbed" him several times, and it had gotten to the point his mom now hides her car keys...and this was the second car he stole that night...the first one he stole from a local body shop, it stalled out and he couldn't restart it.
All the kids lived in the neighborhood near the tracks, and there is a well established "public knowledge" of trains blocking the tracks at night...in several of the newspaper stories, the parents of both the driver, and one of the children who died are quoted as saying "there are always trains blocking the crossing at night."
Personal injury lawyers are going to have a hard time placing much blame on the railroad, although I am sure they will try...and just as sure the railroad will pay settlements to the children's parents both as a way to make this go away, and because it will be cheaper than defending themselves in court.
Bucyrus wrote: Just to be clear:1) I am not advocating reflectors.2) I think the FRA reflector mandate is a bad idea.3) I am not saying the railroad was at fault in the Houston crash.The point that I am trying to make about reflectors might best be understood by using, as an analogy, a point made by Ed B. about upgrading crossing protection. Ed said this in a prior post above:--------------------------------------------------------------------------"Railroad can not alter what Tdot decides...they can't just decide a grade crossing needs to be upgraded and go fix it up...that leaves them open to law suites when someone gets in an accident at a different location, then points to the crossing the railroad upgraded and says" You should have done this one also...you fixed up that one, so you should have fixed up this one also."Arbitrarily deciding to up grade a crossing creates more liability and problems than it solves."------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point about reflectors is almost identical. That is, if someone runs into a freight car without reflectors, they can argue that the railroad should have had reflectors on that car because other cars have them, and the Federal Railroad Administration has stated that cars without reflectors are more dangerous than cars with them.This argument is bound to emerge, and it will take accidents like this one in Houston to bring it about.
MP173 wrote:The reflective tape has a high degree of angularity. It is specifically engineered to reflect light at angles approaching and exceeding 80 degrees.ed
Retroreflectivity. Obtained by floating a whole bunch of prism reflectors in plastic, such that light is reflected most strongly in the direction of the light source. As you move away sideways from the light source, the reflected light level falls off rapidly. In general, if you are driving an automobile, the retroreflectivity will taper off as you move within about 50 feet of the reflectorized surface on Category II and III materials (found in most reflectorized highway signs); it will be more pronounced the farther away you are from the surface.
Go to chad's recent Cajon pictures and scroll down to pictures 8 and 9 for good examples of retroreflectivity at work on UP motive power.
Upon further review, the bin-siff equipment in picture number 7 also is a good example.
You dont hear a word of arguement from me against reflectors. The DOT reflectors on the trucks has given me advance warning in very poor weather in time needed to either brake down and extend the time needed by the spotted vehicle to clear the freeway intersection and in another case make a full stop decision even before the rest of the blocking trailer revealed itself in the headlights of my own rig. Twice those stripes saved my own life and I have no idea how many more are saved.
But given the knowledge of the local kids about trains, certainly there might have been a moment's lapse of memory of the driver because of the thrill, adredenaine rush of the stolen joyride and all of that action going on from the others inside the vehicle. That is why I stated that the driver is not trained or licensed to operate a vehicle.
Im half tempted to conclude that sufficent damage is done from the destroyed lives, lost futures and smashed and damaged outlook on life for the survivors I say just prosecute them, pass the punishment and move on.
Until the next set of 4 kids steal a vehicle and get killed some time in the future.
We live in a land that is a free land. A set of keys is easy to get to, particularly if there are children who have mental plans to take the keys and go for a joyride.
We should be thinking about interlock technology and satellite GPS technology to enable parents to code in a lock out so that the vehicle cannot be started while at night and inside the driveway until one of the owners specifically does a positive action like a fingerprint scan. The GPS would come in as soon as the kids are discovered missing, track the vehicle from home down to 50 feet, kill switch the engine remotely and pass the information to Law enforcement similar to a LO-Jack to recover and serve against the offenders.
But all of that stuff is deemed too complicated and unnecessary for private vehicles. Yet we live with that all the time in trucking.
Thanks for your input Ed.
I made these three points in an earlier post:
I should add a fourth point to these three:
4) I am not opposed to the use of reflectors, and I believe they could save lives in certain circumstances.
My only objection arises from a hunch that the reflector mandate might have unforeseen, unintended consequences primarily by increasing liability. However, that is only my opinion, and I am not a lawyer. I suspect that there may even be disagreement among lawyers on this point. I do not know whether the fact that the FRA has given a timetable for the reflector application has an affect the issue of liability, or what that affect might be.
Basically, the nugget of my concern is the official admission by the industry that freight cars pose a crash hazard because they are hard to see. To me, this seems like a sea change in the assignment of responsibility. Previously, a driver was expected to control his vehicle, being able to stop short of any obstruction; just like a train operating within yard limits. I don't believe that a railroad investigation would ever accept the excuse that a conscious engineer collided with standing cars within yard limits, because the cars were hard to see. Yet everybody would agree that those standing cars would have been easier to see if they had been marked by a lighted fusee. So this new position proclaimed by the FRA seems like a profound shift in responsibility; something entirely new in the world of motoring.
It seems like feeding the crocodile of the politics of victimization. If reflectors are essential, why not electric lights? Part of the rationale of reflectors is that they create an animated display on a moving train, and that animation helps get a driver's attention. When drivers get used to being warned by the animated display of passing trains, will they be caught off guard by stopped trains with no animation? Electric lights could be made to flash, thus animating the signal no matter whether the train was moving or stopped. When you start down this road, where to you stop?
Before passing over grade crossings that are protected only by crossbucks, drivers are required to ascertain that crossing will not conflict with a train. Drivers cannot possibly comply with this law if they run into a train that is blocking the crossing. So there is a conflict between a law that requires visual certainty that a crossing is clear of trains, and a secondary warning device based on the premise that visual certainty may not be sufficient if the train is hard to see.
Aside from the issue of an installation timetable that allows some cars to remain unprotected while the hazard has been identified, there is the issue of maintaining reflectors now that they have become a universal, mandatory, safety-warning device.
From what I read prior to the mandate, there was widespread opposition to it by the railroads. Cost of installation was cited as the issue. Cost of maintenance was never mentioned, and neither was the issue of liability. If liability were an issue with the railroads, however, I doubt that they would go on record with any comment.
I expect the legal ramifications of reflectors to unfold in the inevitable lawsuits that will follow the future R.I.T. crashes that are bound to occur. In cases of crashes into moving trains, the condition or existence of reflectors on the car hit, as well as on cars preceding it is likely to be an issue. Moreover, brand new cars with perfect reflectors will be struck by distracted motorists, calling into question the adequacy of the reflector warning, and the need for improvement.
An update
Teen charged with murder in crash that killed 4Associated PressFri August 10, 2007 HOUSTON (AP) _ A 15-year-old boy who slammed a stolen car into a freight train parked at a railroad crossing has been charged with murder in the deaths of four of his passengers.Bobby Davis, of Baytown, was booked into a juvenile detention center Thursday and is scheduled to appear at a detention hearing Friday. He's charged with four counts of felony murder.His family's attorney, Richard ``Racehorse'' Haynes, couldn't be reached for comment Thursday. Previously, Haynes shifted attention to the idling train.``The stolen vehicle didn't contribute to the crash collision and the deaths. What contributed was the fact there was an unmarked, unlighted crossing with a train parked there for 34 minutes,'' Haynes said.Police said the teens were joyriding on June 14 in a Jeep Cherokee that Davis had stolen. The accident occurred at 4 a.m. The one boy to survive along with Davis reported that Davis was trying to ``catch some air'' by speeding over the crossing, investigators said.Joe Arbona, a spokesman for Union Pacific, said the train had been idling at the ungated, unlit crossing for about 30 minutes when the crash occurred.Killed were Davis' 14-year-old brother, Austin; Loral Moyers, 12; her cousin, Macy Moyers, 14; and Colette Windham, 14. Investigators said the teens had sneaked out of their families' homes.Harris County sheriff's Lt. Darryl Coleman said authorities don't believe Bobby Davis was intoxicated; the victims' autopsy results showed no signs of alcohol.Coleman said several factors contributed to the murder charges.``This kid killed four other kids in one act, which occurred after he had stolen two cars that night,'' Coleman said. ``He actually stole one and it broke down and then he went down the street and stole another.''Felony murder is defined as causing a death that occurs during actions that were clearly dangerous to human life while a felony is being committed.Robert Pelton, a longtime Houston criminal defense attorney, said Davis could receive 40 years in jail for each death if he is convicted as a juvenile. If prosecutors were successful in convicting him as an adult, he could be sentenced to life in prison.Arbona said crossing gates and flashing red warning lights are scheduled to be added to the crossing within about four months.
One thing I have missed since moving from Texas- colorful names for lawyers and politicians.
"Racehorse" Haynes. Got to love it. Who down there remembers Jake Pickle or Barefoot Saunders. Jesse James was state treasurer for years. Dolph was a odd one, too.
Dan
"The stolen vehicle didn't contribute to the to the crash collision and the deaths." Of course it didn't. The idiot who stole it and was speeding along the road late at night caused the crash collision and the deaths.
"... unmarked, unlighted crossing ..." If said idiot was speeding in an attempt to "catch some air" with the stolen vehicle, then he obviously knew that the crossing was there.
"... a train parked there for 34 minutes." Did the idiot wait for 34 minutes before trying to speed under the train? It doesn't matter how long the train was sitting at the crossing. Even if had only been 34 seconds, the train was at the crossing when the idiot crashed into it. Trains do get stopped for various reasons, sometimes with cars blocking a crossing. That is why there are warning signs and crossbucks at grade crossings, to warn drivers to that possibility.
To imply that the railroad is at fault in this accident is entirely unjustified. I am certain that if the engineer, conductor, or anyone else at the railroad could have looked into the future to see that this idiot would be trying to catch air in a stolen vehicle with five other young teenagers in it right at that particular date and time, they would have not had that train there.
But if you have to hold the railroad at fault for having the train at the crossing, then we should shut down the railroads. And while you are at it, you should also ban all large trucks from public roads and highways, since they are also very deadly to drive into at high speeds. And also remove any trees, signs, buildings, bridge abutments, etc. that will also threaten those who could collide with them.
The cause of the collision and the deaths of the four passengers was the irresponible behavior and string of bad decisions of Bobby Davis.
If everybody is thinking alike, then nobody is really thinking.
http://photobucket.com/tandarailroad/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.